edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Pettis Jill: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12332] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 This is a good bill that has had considerable debate in the House during this urgency process. The important principle underpinning this bill is that of artistic freedom. The bill will absolutely ensure that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra can operate without ministerial direction in all artistic matters. We are incredibly fortunate in New Zealand with the calibre and quality of the Symphony Orchestra.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — South Africa—Portfolio Committee on Finance National Parliament of the Republic of South Africa 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — South Africa—Portfolio Committee on Finance National Parliament of the Republic of South Africa 
[Volume:626;Page:21243] 
Madam SPEAKER 
:I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Portfolio Committee on Finance from the National Parliament of the Republic of South Africa led by Dr Robert Davies MP are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Mark Ron: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4588] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have taken your advice and read Standing Order 139 which states that if the Speaker accepts a closure motion the question is put on the closure and decided without amendment or debate. Can I ask you Mr Chairperson to consider that many of the rulings given by Chairs and Speakers in the House are based on convention. One of the simple principles that determines how Committee stages are run is that the debate be allowed to continue in a timely manner and in a manner that allows the debate to be adequately aired. 
In the past Speakers and Chairs have deliberately not allowed the debate to be seen to be rammed through. They have exhausted the time available to ensure that all members have been given adequate opportunity to debate the clauses and the parts in a meaningful way. Can I once again ask you to consider that in future deliberations. We have had a very short Committee stage debate on Part 2. I would hate to think and maybe this is something that could be reflected on by yourself and Mr Speaker that we have now set a precedent by which future Governments that appoint Chairs and Speakers might seek to truncate Oppositions’ ability to debate bills. 
In the time that I have been a Government whip and an Opposition whip we have gone out of our way to ensure that the conventions are adhered to because their implications are great. I now see a debate that has been truncated and I suggest that the implications of that in terms of convention are quite serious indeed.
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15851] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Power Simon: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Power Simon: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18382] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. I could be wrong on this but my understanding of the Standing Orders is that matters containing messages are not to be displayed on the tops of desks in the House. I would ask that the matter be removed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes that will be removed thank you.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4232] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to.
Hawkins George: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hawkins George: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8454] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Gambling Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
Tisch Lindsay: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13468] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the eleventh call in this debate to be split between New Zealand First and National with National having the first call. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not.
Hunt Jonathan: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13235] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This matter is not entirely without precedent but I agree with the member that it is unusual and I thank him for his point of order. There is no delay in the reporting back. Select committees have 6 months to report back and that deadline has not expired. All I can say is that leave was sought no one objected and leave has been granted. We cannot go back from there.
Paraone Pita: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20199] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Part 1 of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill is one of the more important parts of the bill. It lists the acknowledgments and apology by the Crown to Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. Part of its importance is that it acknowledges the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi—I will just leave it there—and it also acknowledges the confiscations made by the Crown of those lands belonging to Ngati Tuwharetoa. 
I pick up on a comment made by the speaker from United Future who talked about the erosion of traditional structures. During the debate on the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill we heard about an example of traditional structures being broken down and that process was actually supported by United Future. So while on the one hand it is all very well to say that the Crown should not be contributing to the erosion of traditional structures on the other hand neither should this House be doing so. [ 
Interruption 
] Even if it is a deliberate choice by iwi as mentioned by that member it should be a decision only of the iwi concerned. It should not be made by this House or by any other outside group or organisation. That is why it is important to ensure that we do not contribute to the erosion of the traditional structures of Maori; it should be left up to them to make that decision. 
I also make the point that Part 3 “Settlement of historical claims and miscellaneous matters” talks about the settlement being final. New Zealand First supports that but we do not support the premise that in the process of dealing with this particular historical claim we are not contributing to any future contemporary claims that people might want to make. I suggest that there should be some opportunity for that sort of claim to be made in the future. Although we might pat ourselves on the back that this is a historical claim that will have its finality in the passing of this bill there is no assurance that we will not see contemporary claims in the future. 
We also note that there is some reference to the principles of the treaty outlined in clauses 7(2)(c) 7(3)(f) and 9(2) and translated into English in clauses 8(2)(c) 8(3)(f) and 10(2). I understand that amendments are set out on a Supplementary Order Paper to provide that those references be omitted but I restate the position of New Zealand First: if we perceive that the use of the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” affects the operational and functional purpose of the bill then we will certainly support its omission. But I believe and New Zealand First certainly believes that the inclusion of those words in Part 1 does not affect the operational or functional purpose of the bill.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3849] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House it is the Government’s intention to complete the passing of the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) the second reading of the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill and the second reading of the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2). The Government also intends to make progress on the Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Racing Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Benson-Pope David: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9701] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Scott Lynda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Scott Lynda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:10151] 
12.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How do women in rural areas and remote districts access mammography services to screen for breast cancer? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
When the programme was established in 1998 it was decided to provide the service through a mobile unit. The number of units has since been increased to six to correspond with each lead provider and the geographic area they cover. The mobile units generally visit on a 2-year cycle. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why does the mobile mammography screening unit on the West Coast of the South Island otherwise known as the “boob bus” accept only patients aged 50 to 64 who can receive free screening; and why will it not accept younger or older women who are quite willing to pay for a mammogram to protect themselves against dying from breast cancer? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: For the same reason that applied when it was established. It was established for those women within the screening programme. When it was decided that the unit would be mobile and go into the districts it was decided that the bus was for those women the programme was targeted at. That has not changed. 
Dave Hereora 
: What improvements have there been in the provision of rural health services? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not have all day but this Government is committed to improving access in rural health. For example we have had rural nurse training scholarships a boost to rural nurse training a new recruitment scheme for rural health-care a roster for rural doctors remote allowances for doctors—to name but a few. I have to tell the House they are working. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise we have had our allocation of supplementary questions. I am appealing to your discretion to allow me one more—this is an important issue—or I will seek leave of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not me who gives the discretion; it is the House. Is there any objection to a further question from Mr Brown? There is. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: In light of the new evidence that shows that we will save lives if screening is extended to women 40 to 50 and above the cut-off age of 65 will West Coast women still have to travel across the Southern Alps to Christchurch to get a mammogram instead of being able to use the mobile clinic at Grey Hospital which is lying idle half the time? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The issue of extension of the breast-screening programme is already being looked at. An announcement will be made about that in due course. However I need to tell the member that the West Coast is probably a little luckier than other areas—the mobile service goes there once a year. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is an issue that causes us in New Zealand First quite some concern. I wonder whether the Minister could clarify that answer a little bit. Is the screening programme likely to be enlarged at both ends? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a good try but it is really seeking another supplementary.
Goff Phil: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Goff Phil: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20021] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) that it take the bill part by part.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4536] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call Question No. 5 Dr Lynda Scott has advised me that she has a slight rewording which I have looked at. I would like her to indicate what the rewording is and I will then take the leave of the House that she is allowed to ask the question accordingly.
Carter Chris: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Carter Chris: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14118] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 We heard a lot of rhetoric from Dr Nick Smith the MP from Nelson—of course much of it was nonsense and simply distorted the realities of what this legislation stands for and represents. For example he posed the question—and I guess it must have been rhetorical—about why we should not allow councils to set their own fines. Actually he should know that the law does not provide the ability to do that at all. The Ministry of Justice is looking at that process but at the moment the law as it stands provides for a set fine a threshold and that is it. 
When I surveyed local governments in New Zealand a year ago asking them whether they thought that current dog legislation was adequate to deal with public safety the overwhelming response I got from the 76 councils that deal with this issue was that it was not; that the fines are too low. I listened. I fixed it up. 
Dr Nick Smith also asked why we have compulsory microchipping. Mr Jim Peters explained it very well. Another thing was revealed when I surveyed councils about what records they kept about dog attacks. What I discovered is that some kept records and some did not. There was no consistent record-keeping anywhere in the country. There was no ability for a council to track a dangerous dog. If somebody from Whangarei has a dangerous dog up there that is a menace and attacks people and it moves with its owner to Manukau City or wherever the local council has no way of tapping in and finding out what the record and history of that dog is. I can hear one or two members in the Opposition sniggering away. Having a child's face ripped off by a dog in a park is not something to snigger about. 
That has been a very draconian change to the dog legislation in New Zealand to deal with that very issue—the issue of public safety. It was a very comprehensive change; right from the microchipping issue to entry and seizure provisions to dealing with fines to banning certain breeds. It was a very big piece of legislation. There were some technical issues that had to be sorted through—issues that revealed themselves as councils put this law into practice. 
This is a Government that listens. We engage with animal control officers. We engage with local government to see how effective the new law is. There are indeed a number of changes that need to be made to the law—most of them very minor and some of them a little bit more significant. They are all designed to make the law work better in order to keep the public safer.
Field Taito Phillip: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21895] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Kedgley Sue: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19722] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
referred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee
Copeland Gordon: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21188] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 In rising to speak I hope Stephen Franks is not about to go because I was thinking I might ask him a question to which he may—or may not—be able to provide me with an answer. All the clauses in this fairly short bill provide for the bringing in of Promina as the new parent company of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Most of the wording is around that—related companies the fact that Promina is incorporated outside of New Zealand which was some new wording brought in by the select committee and so on. 
But what really puzzles me—and I mentioned this in my second reading speech—is that the select committee in its report back to the House says that there is a general rule against trustees taking profit from their administration of a trust and that approval to allow this should remain in Parliament’s hands. So the implication is that by this bill Parliament is making a decision to allow Promina Group Ltd to take a profit from the administration of the trust through New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. I would like to ask somebody who was on the select committee or maybe the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard to take a call to reassure Parliament that the intention of this Act is not to allow Promina to take a profit but to allow transactions to occur between New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. If they are the same thing then I would appreciate an explanation of that point because to me a transaction although it may include a profit would not necessarily mean that Promina would profit from the activities of these trusts. 
I guess that related to that if it is taking out a profit how did the select committee assure itself that the profits would be fair and reasonable and would not be to the detriment of the beneficiaries of the various trusts? 
Preamble and clauses 1 to 4 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Carter David: Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17791. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that I referred to. It is the Gardiner and Parata report dated 20 May 2002. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Turner Judy: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Classification of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine) Order 2003—Approval 
Turner Judy: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Classification of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine) Order 2003—Approval 
[Volume:615;Page:11489] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to take a brief call in support of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine) Order 2003. While this motion has moved at some pace through the parliamentary process and has not had the luxury of a time frame that allowed for thorough public consultation it is heartening to see that when matters of urgent public-good arise we provide the leadership for which we have been elected in order to avoid delays. Let us be honest: we are talking about delays that could realistically cost lives. 
While classification is only one strategy for dealing with the precursor chemicals so vital for the manufacture of methamphetamines it is the common-sense first step. Despite the fact that there have been seasons of the year when I have relied on products containing pseudoephedrine for my own health needs I have sympathy for those calling for a total ban on products containing the precursor ingredients. The P epidemic is of such concern and is having such a devastating effect on our young people that a ban seems attractive. However a more moderate approach is certainly worth a try and United Future is pleased to support it. I am unsure whether the suggestion of restricting the product to the status of a prescription medicine would effect much good. It would perhaps serve only to increase the cost to genuine consumers. Perhaps our greatest hope lies in the fact that the Ministry of Health is currently evaluating new applications of pharmacy-only medicines containing phenylephrine. Those products apparently have a similar risk profile and similar effectiveness. 
So the benefits of the classification order are clear. It will increase powers given to the Customs Service to curb the illegal importation and distribution of the drugs. I agree with Ms Fitzsimons that that is where the real battlefield is to be won on this matter. There will be an increase in penalties with the hope that that will provide a genuine deterrent. It will mean that for those with genuine conditions access to the products is not hampered at this stage and by increasing legislative controls the aim is to limit accessibility for those who wish to use these products as precursor substances. 
United Future believes that this is a responsible next move in the war against P and we will work cooperatively with any group seeking to eradicate its production and use.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15454] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I move on to question No. 6 I want to say that I have referred to the Clerk and to the Cabinet list and I should inform members who raised the issue that Rick Barker is the full Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector. It is not a delegation at all. He is the full Minister. [ 
Interruption 
] We all make mistakes and the only person who can interject now is one who never makes one. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: OK. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is right! I thought it would be Winston; nevertheless Winston apart that applies to everybody else.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22216] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Treaty Negotiations be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 26 
New Zealand National 25; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 21 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8. 
Vote Treaty Negotiations agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:627;Page:22040] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am sorry to interrupt question time but I may have to leave before we have finished given the way the time is going. Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee yesterday and to further discussions particularly with the Hon Richard Prebble I seek leave for the Hon Richard Prebble to make a valedictory statement at 5 p.m. tomorrow and for other members to make valedictory statements immediately after question time on Tuesday 2 August apart from Helen Duncan who is to make a valedictory statement later that sitting day at a time agreed with the Speaker. All valedictory statements are to be up to 15 minutes in duration.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:615;Page:11433] 
12.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What changes have been made to bring first-home ownership within reach of more New Zealanders through the Government’s Mortgage Insurance Guarantee scheme? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The Government’s first-home purchase assistance through the mortgage insurance scheme has proved to be very popular. Changes just approved to the eligibility criteria mean that no-deposit mortgages can now be approved for homes valued at $150000—up from $100000—and the income threshold for one or two people in the same household has been increased from $50000 to $55000. That will bring homeownership into the reach of even more New Zealanders on a modest income. 
Georgina Beyer 
: How many families have benefited from the mortgage insurance scheme so far? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The scheme delivered by Kiwibank has already seen 320 loans approved under the original criteria. The new criteria provide no-deposit finance on loans up to $150000 for households earning up to $55000 per annum; that will ensure that more families can benefit. The 2-year pilot is expected to help 1800 families to achieve homeownership and a decision will be made towards the end of the trial to extend or adapt the scheme. 
John Key 
: The National Bank’s doing it. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am pleased to hear from the member opposite that the National Bank is helping in that way as well. 
Sue Bradford 
: Has the Minister given any consideration to further measures to bring homeownership within the reach of more New Zealanders such as supporting my member’s bill to reintroduce a form of the old family benefit which would open up the possibility of low-income families capitalising on the child benefit to help them into their first homes—as used to happen? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Besides the mortgage insurance scheme the Government also runs the rural development loan application process which also puts people into their own homes. Yes the Government is considering other policies that will meet what has been an enormous demand for options to be able to buy a house through the mortgage insurance scheme policy but we have not considered the introduction of that member’s policy. 
Paul Adams 
: Does the Minister agree that one change the Government could make to bring first home ownership within reach of more New Zealanders would be to remove GST from rates as it is after all a tax on a tax; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No the Government has not considered that.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19685] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave for 2½ hours of members’ time to be set down for Wednesday 13 April to make up for the time that was stolen from members by the actions of the Leader of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9246. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I made a mistake a little earlier when I took an earlier point of order. I listed four people who I believed had taken second calls. I was in error and I have been told that I should correct that at the earliest possible opportunity. I said Lynda Scott Peter Dunne Heather Roy Katherine Rich but there was one other and I think it was David Carter.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order —  
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order —  
[Volume:620;Page:16081] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that matter which was a point of order. I refer members to my  
Rules for Admission to the Chamber Lobbies and Galleries of the House of Representatives During Sittings of the House  
which state that while the House is sitting the following strangers may be admitted to it: staff servicing members of Parliament in order to leave messages or papers for a member or to receive instructions from a member; and personnel required to carry out technical functions etc. I will have a look at the particular issue the member raised and report back to him.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13768] 
8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What discussions has he had if any with the Minister of Health regarding the number of drug-resistant tuberculosis cases found in New Zealand and has she given him the number of cases brought in by immigrants infected overseas? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I have had discussions with the Minister of Health regarding the number of drug-resistant TB cases found in New Zealand. I am informed that 16 cases of multidrug-resistant TB have been diagnosed in New Zealand since 1995. Of those cases I am advised that 15 were contracted outside New Zealand and one was contracted on shore from a close family member who was already infected. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister concerned about the incidence of this deadly multidrug-resistant tuberculosis known as MDRTB—the number of cases of which have doubled since 1995—and that most cases are brought in by immigrants infected overseas when in fact the provisions of our law would prevent that from happening? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I am concerned about that and that is why the Government has toughened up the screening programme. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Immigration Service website state that generally an application is declined if a person has active TB or is taking TB drugs when this deadly infectious disease known as MDRTB is 100 times more expensive than normal TB to treat with no guarantee of a cure and New Zealand’s Institute of Environmental Science and Research describes it as “a horrible horrible disease to treat”; and why has the Government not done something to ensure we have blocks in place to prevent it from happening in our country? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: For a start as I said to the member before advanced screening is being done now. The reality is that it is a deadly disease—there is no question about that—but it is not incurable. There are ways of resolving it; it just takes more time. The reality is that people will not get entry into New Zealand if they are diagnosed as having TB. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What is the Government doing to protect New Zealanders from catching TB from people entering this country under our immigration rules? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: TB screening for quota refugees who are all from high-incidence countries was introduced during the 2002-03 year. The new TB-screening rules already apply to all student applications received on or after 1 April 2004. That means that all students who come from a high-incidence country and who intend to be in New Zealand for more than 6 months must be cleared before entry. From November this year that requirement will be extended to visitors and workers from high-incidence countries as well.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19521] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The member asked for some guidance. Could I suggest that he tuck his shirt in and get a haircut. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is an abuse of a point of order. Speakers in the past as I understand it have on only two previous occasions refused to transfer questions to another Minister. The member might be referred for guidance on this to Speaker’s ruling 130/1 which sets out the grounds on which that can be done.
Mallard Trevor: Gambling Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Gambling Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18114] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 343 with regard to my speech impediment. In 1969 as a schoolchild I suffered a relatively serious accident that resulted in four teeth and a large part of my upper jaw and nose being removed. As a result I have a speech impediment. It is something I do not mind at all.
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21558] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 87 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 26 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 7; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18826] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer members to Speaker’s 
ruling 
61/5 given by Speaker Kidd which states that it is highly disorderly to interject when votes are being taken. It can actually be seen as intimidation and could ultimately lead to a breach of privilege as outlined in Standing Order 85(1). I ask for silence whilst votes are being taken.
Prebble Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16974] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Having broken up the debate it seems to me to be an appropriate time to raise this matter which I want to do very early with the Chair. As I mentioned in my own contribution I have never seen a Government introduce what is actually a completely new bill with no explanatory note as this Government has done and then put it into urgency. I want to suggest to you and have it discussed with the other Chairpersons that the appropriate response from the chairmanship to such a ruling is to allow proper and adequate debate.  
I also draw it to your attention Madam Chairperson that on this bill there was no clause by clause analysis by the select committee. Again when I was first a member of Parliament we would have taken this bill clause by clause which would probably have taken a couple of weeks. All I am saying to you Madam Chair is that I notice that the Committee has not even managed to get past proposed new clause 2A because we do not have an explanatory note and I hope that adequate time will be given. Following the usual rules I will get one contribution on one clause—and I was actually criticised because I had not got on to talking about clause 3. I am happy to give the Committee my views on clause 3 but I can do so only if the Chair takes that into account when the inevitable closure motions come. I just raise this matter now so that you can consider it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member for his contribution. I assure him that this has been discussed and that there will be plenty of time for debate.
Peters Jim: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Jim: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14133] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to raise the matter in Part 6 that I mentioned in the second reading debate—namely that on the Table lies my amendment regarding new clause 63AA which covers lump-sum contributions. Again I apologise to the Local Government and Environment Committee for not being there at the time that matter was raised because the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill was also being debated at the same time or rather was being looked at in another area of the House. 
The issue is one that is well known to rural councils. Although the submission came from the Marlborough District Council a number of rural councils all of a like mind gave support to it. I want to quickly run through them: the Far North District Council Nelson City Council Kaikoura District Council Whangarei District Council Grey District Council Thames-Coromandel District Council Kawerau District Council Tasman District Council Selwyn District Council and Central Hawke’s Bay District Council all supported this change. Because I was not present during the committee discussions I know no reason why this well-supported submission was not given further understanding as it ought to have been. 
The Rating Powers Act of 1988 contained a very prescriptive regime that allowed for lump-sum contributions that the council could offer in two ways—namely for a particular works situation or towards the capital cost of those works. The other way was to refinance an existing loan. However the Act of 1988 was largely repealed in 2002 and in the repeal of the Act although the specific issues of flexibility and lump-sum contributions were part of the select committee discussions the actual end result was the inability to work through lump sums. 
I have a very simple not very complex amendment for members to look at that meets the need of a number of councils and that historically has been a method that rural councils in particular have used to allow lump-sum contributions. The system is calculated to be equitable and is fair on those who pay a lump sum up front and on those who pay charge by charge. Again because I was not at the select committee I am at some pains to understand why this very sensible amendment was not given further thought. I commend this amendment to the Committee. New Zealand First supports this amendment. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 227 in the name of Jim Peters to insert new clause 63AA be agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Voting — Correction 
Hunt Jonathan: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:616;Page:12125] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to amend that. Is there any objection? There is not. The voting lists will be amended accordingly. I restate the result of the voting: the Ayes are 84 the Noes are 36.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed—Media Briefing by Government 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed—Media Briefing by Government 
[Volume:616;Page:12366] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may say that but I refer him to Speaker’s ruling 115/4 which is one of my rulings: “While it is eminently good practice for Ministers to make important policy announcements in the House it is not by any means a convention in New Zealand.”
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7329] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to.
Hawkins George: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hawkins George: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9671] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
English Bill: Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
English Bill: Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8519] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to reinforce the concern that my colleague Richard Prebble has drawn to your attention. One of the difficulties here has been a failure on your part to explain your actions in respect of members of Parliament who find themselves in one way or another at odds with the law. You were offered an opportunity when Harry Duynhoven was in that situation to explain your actions to the Parliament. You failed to do so. Mr Prebble has offered you that same opportunity in respect of the Standing Order that he believes may not have been complied with. I want to reinforce the point and take it further by requesting you to explain in both those cases the reasons for the actions you took or for your lack of action. In the case of Harry Duynhoven the concern of Parliament was the lack of action; in the case of Shane Ardern as my colleague Roger Sowry pointed out yesterday it was what we might call “most unbridled enthusiasm” on your part to take action and make public statements. We believe that Parliament is owed an explanation. It is critical to the credibility of the Speaker’s office that Parliament knows why you have acted as you have so that it can make a judgment on the credibility of those actions.
Gallagher Martin: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Gallagher Martin: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9236. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11084] 
4.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: How is the Government supporting innovative initiatives by tertiary education organisations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 In December the Tertiary Education Commission announced it was investing up to $20 million for nine projects from its Innovation and Development Fund and those contracts are now being signed. The Innovation and Development Fund aims to lift the capacity of tertiary organisations so that they can take on new roles consistent with the tertiary education strategy. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What sorts of initiatives will the funding support? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We give three examples: funding for the nationwide roll-out of Manukau Institute of Technology’s project to better align secondary schools with polytechnics; a centre for designers and manufacturers to research and develop new ideas in collaboration with students based at the Wellington Institute of Technology and a project to support industry training organisations in taking a leadership role in identifying and addressing the skill needs of their industries. 
Hon Bill English 
: What did the Minister mean when he said in a letter of 11 November 2003: “The Government considers that the treaty relationship with Maori is central to the tertiary education reforms.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Consistent with section 181(b) of the Education Act 1989 which was passed in 1990 and was in place for 9 years during the National Government it is the duty of councils of institutions to acknowledge the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In the context of that letter I was also— 
Hon Bill English 
: What did you mean? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am finishing and I would like the member to just be quiet for a little while. What I was doing in the letter was reminding people of that and reminding them that the tertiary education strategy has identified that Pacific Island and Maori populations are very young and we want to see them as a central part of the policy brought into tertiary institutions retained and gaining qualifications.
Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12652] 
Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill 
Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
Debate resumed from 24 March. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is that the House take note of the report. Just before I put the vote I understand that there has been a request to have leave taken for a split party vote to occur. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. The question is that the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to. Those in favour say Aye to the contrary No. Neither side has it. I shall ask the Clerk to call each party to declare its numbers. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 17; New Zealand National 17; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand National 10; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Question not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill do proceed. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 18; New Zealand National 17; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand National 10; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Bill discharged.
Prebble Richard: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Prebble Richard: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:11018] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought of raising this point of order and stopping the Minister’s speech. Perhaps you might say that I should have done it then but I am raising this under Speaker’s ruling 48/5 which states that temperate and decorous language should be used with regard to persons outside of Parliament. I cannot raise this matter in debate because all our time is used up but I think it was wrong for the Deputy Prime Minister to say in the House that a person outside the House Mr Gibbs is in favour of privilege. I happen to know Mr Gibbs very well and he is a distinguished New Zealand businessman. Yes it is true that he wrote a health report for the last Labour Government but if the Deputy Prime Minister looks at that report again I think he will see that nowhere does it advocate privilege. I know that Mr Gibbs is on record many times as saying that he is personally very strongly opposed to privilege. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is neither intemperate nor indecorous and it certainly is not outside the Standing Orders.
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12328] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.