edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6431. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: How does he reconcile his statement that agriculture will be exempt from emissions charges with his proposal to tax farmers more than $8 million? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 Very easily. Under the Government’s climate change policy there will be no charges on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions for at least the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. In exchange for that exemption the sector will be levied to fund research into the reduction of its emissions. 
Hon David Carter 
: Does the Minister therefore disagree with his own Minister of Finance who described levies as “back-door taxes”; and why will he not just be upfront with farmers and say that they are the ones who will pay for his Government ratifying the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The farming community is being invited—in fact required—to fund research into reducing emissions of methane. One of the reasons for that is that all the greenhouse gas emissions arising from the agricultural sector are being entirely covered by the Government. Another reason is that the research we hope may well improve food conversion efficiency in our animals which would be to the benefit of farmers. If the member has not got that yet he has wasted a mighty fine opportunity. 
David Parker 
: Will any research into agricultural greenhouse gas emissions be funded by the Government? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes. The Government will continue its current level of funding for this research which totals almost $5 million a year. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Could the Minister explain why this Government will tax New Zealand farmers just so that it looks good on the world stage when no other Southern Hemisphere neighbour or competitor is prepared to impose such a dopey tax on its farmers? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The cost of this is in the order of 8c per sheep per year. Tell me what is so outrageous about that? 
Keith Locke 
: How much of the $8 million of research money referred to will be spent on improving the productive efficiency of farmers and how much of it will be spent on improving biological processes and farming systems to reduce emissions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not sure that I am able to differentiate between the two but can I just say that if we can reduce methane emissions then we improve or run the risk of improving the food-conversion efficiency of the animal. So it is as they say a win-win. 
Hon David Carter 
: Could the Minister please answer my previous question which was whether the Minister agrees or disagrees with his own Minister of Finance who described levies as “back-door taxes”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If the member feels more comfortable about this being called a tax as opposed to a levy as opposed to a charge then that is fine by me.
Benson-Pope David: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Benson-Pope David: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17745. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 It would be useful if I made some comments I think both in respect of the misinformation the Committee has just heard and in relation to some of the comments made last night. I will begin by addressing the issue of the genesis of this—I think—very sensible and very progressive settlement. It is most important that I quote for the benefit of the Committee from the Wai 953 report. It states: “He”—Doug Kidd—“thought that the Treasury had wanted to bring aquaculture into the quota management system but he”—Doug Kidd—“had personally forbidden Treasury officials from mentioning the matter during discussions on the deed of settlement since it would confuse an already complex set of negotiations.” So for members of the National Party to stand here and say that that matter has been dealt with is typical of the sort of claptrap we hear repeatedly from that party. I thank New Zealand First United Future and the Greens for supporting a really sensible pathway forward. Like the industry and like local government this Government is concerned about good outcomes and making progress and not about wheeling out the same old boring racist nonsense as that Opposition party constantly does. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member cannot insinuate that a member or a party is racist. I ask the member to stand and withdraw that remark. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6640] 
10.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: How much has been collected in petrol tax and road user charges since February 2002 and how does this compare with the previous sixteen months to February 2002? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The figures I will refer to are for 15 months because the figures for June are not yet in. I am advised that since February 2002 approximately $1.4 billion was collected from petrol taxes compared to approximately $1.2 billion in the previous 15 months. I am also advised that since February 2002 approximately $817 million was collected from road-user charges compared to approximately $721 million for the previous 15 months. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that answer is it the Government’s intention to reduce or remove the 4.7c per litre petrol tax imposed on motorists in February last year when it promised it would be in existence for only 16 months? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No because we never said any such thing. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: How does the Minister reconcile Labour’s pledge-card promise of no extra taxes with work that he has going on in his ministry to impose a new petrol tax of up to 10c a litre? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Easily because we said there would be no rise in income tax for those earning under $60000. 
Dave Hereora 
: What has the increase in funding since February 2002 been used for? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am advised that since February 2002 the extra funding has gone to improve the transport infrastructure including an extra $94 million for road construction; $30 million for regional developments such as logging roads and an extra $36 million for passenger transport. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Which New Zealanders will benefit from the extra funding spent since the moving-forward package? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: All New Zealanders.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:625;Page:19757] 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the first readings of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill the Rail Network Bill and the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) and the passing through their remaining stages of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill the Gambling Amendment Bill the Fiordland Marine Management Bill the Railways Bill the Architects Bill the Charities Bill the Public Records Bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and any bills into which those bills may be divided.  
This motion is moved to allow for additional sitting hours this week to consider legislation the Government would like to see passed before the adjournment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Swain Paul: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Swain Paul: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9656] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Land Transport Management Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
Pettis Jill: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Pettis Jill: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17894. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Carter John: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4942] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are actually debating clauses 1 to 41 and the schedules. I thought we had just agreed on a wide-ranging debate over all the parts and the schedules.
Baldock Larry: Points of Order — Presentation of Petitions 
Baldock Larry: Points of Order — Presentation of Petitions 
[Volume:620;Page:15527] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a petition presented to me today by the students of Middleton Grange School requesting a review of the cap on their student numbers so that parents may have further choice in Christchurch. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is seeking leave because the petition is not in accordance with the Standing Orders. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Robertson H V Ross: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13483] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Sue Bradford. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The ACT party has been seeking the call. We had one call with the Hon Richard Prebble. We have sought the call while you have given three calls to National two to New Zealand First one to United Future and now one to the Green Party. Is there a reason for that?
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17822. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Taxation (Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2004-05) Bill 
 pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 288 
.
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10182] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22319] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 32 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 1 be agreed to.
Hutchison Paul: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9526] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 The Committee stage gives us the opportunity to ask the Minister to explain why with such sensitive legislation as this—when 4 years ago there was clearly cross-party cooperation and collaboration—he has brought the bill in under urgency and also changed some aspects of the care of people affected. It is important that the Minister stands and gives an adequate explanation. 
As I said earlier this bill involves a particularly vulnerable cross-section of New Zealanders. It is absolutely important to get it right. There is no doubt that the judiciary has supported these changes. In fact I note that just recently the  
Dominion Post  
pointed out comments made by one of the judges who very much welcomes that finally something has been done that will save witnesses and juries from the unnecessary anguish of having to consider in detail awful events about which there is no contest on the issue of insanity. He goes on to point out once more that the major decisions were made in 1999 and 2000. 
 There is absolutely no excuse for the Labour Government letting this bill lie for the last 2 to 3 years and now suddenly bringing it in under urgency. As my colleague Dr Lynda Scott was just saying there is an area of considerable concern in the explanatory note to the Supplementary Order Paper. It points out that instead of the mandatory remand provision the Supplementary Order Paper will give the courts the option of remanding such persons on bail. However in deciding whether to grant bail the need to protect the public is the paramount consideration. A fair amount of discretion is being given to the courts in a situation that not only might endanger the public but also might endanger the individual. 
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists has said that at least two formal psychiatric opinions are needed in terms of assessing. In fact I believe that the bill does not allow for that as being compulsory. It is optional. The other assessor may be a psychologist or other similar health assessor. However clearly this bill allows for a variety of discretions to occur. We now find that on a Supplementary Order Paper brought in under urgency by this Labour Government a substantial change is being made and a substantial concern raised in terms of saying on the one hand that paramount consideration is given to the safety of the public—that is absolutely vital—but on the other hand that the court has the discretion to decide whether someone remains on bail. That is clearly something we hope the Minister will also take a call on. I can see the Minister nodding. I hope he will carefully explain why there has been such a delay in this important bill and also why he has not continued to foster the cross-party support that was enjoyed by all members of the Health Committee some 4 years ago.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16464] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 85 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9903] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments as amended agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8279] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 103 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to add new paragraph (d) to clause 3 is out of order. It is inconsistent with the previous amendment that was agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8859] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
:  
Well it is because of the confusion that we have had over the vote. We understand at the National end of the Chamber what the votes are and what we are voting on but my colleague Gerry Eckhoff might not have appreciated that the vote was for the title. By buying him some time I am giving him the opportunity if he wants it to reconsider ACT’s position before the vote is actually announced. At that stage it may be too late.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:8923] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Question agreed to.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17430] 
8.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What is being done to ease congestion on Auckland’s motorways? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 A lot—for example tomorrow I will open stage one of a project to improve the city’s central motorway junction worth $56 million. Stage two a $140 million - project is already well under way and should be finished within 2 years. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: How does expenditure on Auckland’s State highways compare with that in previous years? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: By next year annual funding of State highways in Auckland will have nearly doubled since the change of Government and annual expenditure on public transport will have trebled with Transfund spending in Auckland being comfortably over $1 million a day. The dismal years of neglect under the flip-flop gridlock National Party are now long gone. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Given that public-private partnerships were one of the most vaunted aspects of the Land Transport Management Act enacted over a year ago can this Minister detail to the House just one example of a roading project that has been funded and/or owned and/or operated by the private sector? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I cannot but we are open for business. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Why does the Government not ease Auckland’s motorway congestion by allowing Whenuapai airport to be a second commercial airport in Auckland; or is the Government delaying on that because it is putting the interests of its own airline a major objector to the airport ahead of the interests of the thousands of Aucklanders who are stuck on the motorways every day? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Current land transport analysis would suggest that the use of Whenuapai airport would neither help nor hinder land transport across the isthmus. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that school walking buses and school travel plans are more cost effective than large motorways as a means of reducing car trips—and therefore congestion—in Auckland; if so what steps is he taking to promote them in the rest of the country? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I cannot reflect on cost effectiveness given that motorways do not reduce car trips; they induce them. But I can say that school walking buses are an extremely effective way of reducing congestion and they give school children a bit of physical education in a personally secure environment.
Vote: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
Vote: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
[Volume:614;Page:10780] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be amended by omitting the words “Tuesday 10 February 2004” and substituting the words “Thursday 18 December 2003 for the purpose of debating Government decisions relating to the seabed and foreshore. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Motion to adjourn House and sitting days agreed to. 
"
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16489] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That new schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
New schedule 2 agreed to.
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8740] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have not seen the police report but my witness claims that the phone call was made whilst he was being processed which is at variance with the statement that you saw the police at a later date. One is an example of something happening coeval with the event and the other is your claim to the House that you saw the police at a later date. Both statements cannot be true. I am not doubting your word but I would like to see the police report nevertheless. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Asking for a police report is not a matter of order. It has nothing to do with my chairing of this House.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9076] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 92 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 21 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8. 
Schedule agreed to.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17083] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to insert new clause 43AA after the amendment to insert new clause 43A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
43AARights are inalienable 
No person has the capacity to alienate or cancel any interest in an ancestral connection order customary rights order or territorial customary rights.
Cullen Michael: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21667] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am very grateful for the chance to say a few words on this bill. 
Hon David Carter 
: There won’t be many. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There could be quite a lot. We have plenty of time. I am staying in Wellington this evening so I am not worried. First of all I profoundly disagree with the comments made by my Green colleague Mr Locke and his approach on these matters. Fundamentally I think Mr Locke is quite— 
Hon David Carter 
: Your colleague? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would refer to Mr David Carter as my parliamentary colleague. One’s “colleague” does not necessarily mean ownership in any sense. Indeed one wants to disown them in some sense. 
I think Mr Locke’s problem as on a number of matters is simply that the world has passed him by. He has not caught up with the change in reality since the 1960s. We are no longer in support of freedom-fighting guerrillas in Third World countries against awful oppression. We face quite different kinds of threats which are well organised financially sophisticated and able to route their activities even through countries such as New Zealand and that is why we have to be part of the intelligence networks and others that deal with them. 
Let me say that I am still sufficiently old-fashioned and liberal also to defend the right of Mr Locke to express those views and to differ profoundly from what Mr Tisch said. Mr Tisch said essentially that if anybody disagreed with supporting this bill he or she had no right to be within this Parliament. I just have to say gently to Mr Tisch that one of the ironies of democracy is that we do have to end up defending the right of people to say things even if they could potentially threaten democracy on occasions if they were to be taken too seriously. I think Mr Locke unwittingly signs up sometimes to views that provide some kind of threat in that respect but I have no doubt at all of his own commitment to democratic principles within our society. Much more important I have no doubt at all of our responsibility to uphold his right to express those views within this Parliament because undoubtedly there are people outside this House who are concerned about some of the measures that we now need to take in order to protect ourselves against movements that are within the international arena.
Ogilvy Bernie: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Ogilvy Bernie: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8853] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I support the title clause of the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. In my view this title properly reflects what the bill is all about. As others have said it implements the recommendations of the royal commission for strengthening the already robust safety mechanisms regulating the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. 
The phrase “New Organisms” in the title serves to illustrate something very fundamental about genetically modified organisms that is usually lost in all the emotive rhetoric that surrounds—or shall I say obscures—the GM debate. It illustrates that a genetically modified organism is nothing more and nothing less than a new organism in exactly the same way that an exotic species that already exists overseas is classified as a new organism when it is imported and released into the New Zealand environment. In other words a genetically modified organism is not “Frankenfood” it is not a contaminant and it is not by definition some sort of soup organism designed by evil multinationals to wreak havoc on our environment. A genetically modified organism is a new organism—just like any other exotic species. As such its release is effectively a biosecurity issue that given the right regulatory regime can be managed by the Environmental Risk Management Authority on a case by case basis. In respect of that the title is particularly apt for a bill that strengthens the safety regulations governing the release of genetically modified organisms. 
It is also interesting to note that a large number of lobby groups and political operators remain opposed to this new organisms legislation because much has been made in New Zealand of the need for a knowledge economy and for innovation in business—and for very good reason. It is only through the application of knowledge and innovative techniques to economic activity that New Zealand can hope to move forward and prosper in this world. Yet when it comes to technology such as genetic science that is particularly relevant to New Zealand’s main strength which is land-based industries such as agriculture we have a very vocal lobby of people who want to stop it dead in its tracks just because it is something new—as stated in the title. 
People could call for more longitudinal or other studies on almost anything to ensure beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was 100 percent safe but—as “corngate” has demonstrated—it is impossible to prove a negative. One thing is sure: if a 100 percent certainty threshold was applied to everything nothing new would ever be developed. The title clause of the bill is perfectly apt and it has United Future’s support.
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4792] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
Noes 69 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 5 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause 141(c) by omitting the words “section 22(d)” and substituting the words “sections 22(d) to (e) and 23(ab)”.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6272] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 102 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:611;Page:8691] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Peck Mark: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Peck Mark: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7080] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I support the bill.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Parliamentarians for Global Action—26th Annual Forum 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Parliamentarians for Global Action—26th Annual Forum 
[Volume:622;Page:17421] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that participants in the Parliamentarians for Global Action’s 26th Annual Forum and Consultative Assembly on the International Criminal Court and the Rule of Law are within the precincts of this Chamber. There are over 130 members of Parliament from 60 countries attending and I am sure that members would wish they be welcomed.
Franks Stephen: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12873] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I have just a very brief comment about the two amendments. When I first saw the United Future amendment I thought it would be sufficient. I believe that it was probably done even more quickly than mine was—and indeed mine was done quickly—to address the same sorts of concerns that I had by restricting or prohibiting publication without express consent. I think the difficulties are essentially practical. The United Future amendment states “express consent” which would require anyone who is publishing at any time to go back and get that consent. However the commission will not be sitting shortly after it reports so there will not be someone to get the express consent from. I do not think United Future intended that there be a prohibition on publication forever afterwards. So although I support the sentiment in the amendment and I think it nearly got there I cannot vote for it. Like my amendment United Future’s amendment may not have the most felicitous drafting. In that case I think there would be an unintended gag which we should not legislate for. 
Also there is a gap in the second limb of the United Future amendment in relation to books pamphlets and oral statements. That might flow from having picked up a precedent. It would leave us open to the accusation that Parliament had allowed loopholes that perhaps we should have foreseen. So for that reason while I support the United Future amendment in sentiment I urge the alternative approach be adopted of leaving it to the commission but obliging the commission to assure the authority it will give the highest priority to confidentiality. That is a better way of achieving in practice the objective that I hope this Committee will adopt.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Iraq—Draft United Nations Resolution 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Iraq—Draft United Nations Resolution 
[Volume:606;Page:3785] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the New Zealand Government’s alleged decision not to support the American-British draft UN resolution. I have examined the media reports on this matter provided by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister is quoted as saying it is not that New Zealand would not support the resolution but that New Zealand could not vote on it because New Zealand does not have a seat on the Security Council. She then goes on to say that all diplomatic means should be used to resolve the crisis. These statements were made during the course of yesterday morning. They could have given grounds for an urgent debate but they would have had to be raised yesterday. In these circumstances there is no particular case of recent occurrence that can justify an urgent debate today. However as I have indicated to the Business Committee provided a suitable matter involving the New Zealand Government’s responsibility arises over the situation in Iraq an application is likely to be successful at some point.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20196] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the preamble as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Preamble as amended agreed to.
Gudgeon Bill: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Gudgeon Bill: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16453] 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill going to a select committee. NgatiTuwharetoa Bay of Plenty are also known as NgatiTuwharetoa ki Kawerau. 
As the word “principle” seems to find its way into legislation can anyone please explain what principle this claim comes under? I understand that I have a very brief moment to speak on this bill but let me remind members of what a historical figure said: “Ko te waka hei hoehoengamo koutou imuriiahau ko te ture. Ma te ture ano te ture e aki.” which means “The canoe that you must paddle when I am gone is that of the law. Only the law can be pitched against the law.” 
I also add that I disagree with the spokesperson from National when he quoted that NgatiTuwharetoa is under the auspices of Ngati Awa. Let us really be clear at this moment that Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau is just as it is and Ngati Awa is Ngati Awa; otherwise NgatiTuwharetoa ki Kawerau would never have been able to make the claim they have made in respect of the numbers of people— 
Stephen Franks 
: What do you think Georgina? 
BILL GUDGEON 
: Georgina te HeuHeu agrees because she is NgatiTuwharetoa. I say to members that we of New Zealand First acknowledge Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau and we also remind those who may have a different view in terms of the tribal areas that if it was not for the understanding of the tribal areas the people who are now sitting in the gallery would not be here today. They have been mandated by their people to speak on behalf of this bill. New Zealand First is of the thought that we need to get it through as quickly as possible so that Ngati Tuwharetoa can get on with what it should be doing and so that its people can benefit from hopefully the right and good decisions that those people who administer the claim will make. Kia ora tatou katoa.
Coddington Deborah: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Coddington Deborah: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14611] 
12.  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she agree with her Minister of Youth Affairs that “the pendulum of political correctness had swung too far”; if so what if anything does she intend to do about it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Absolutely. My concern is that political incorrectness has become the political correctness of the right. I am happy to give numerous examples starting with Ms Coddington wanting Ministers to veto what can be shown at art exhibitions. 
Deborah Coddington 
: In light of her answer does she think that spending $126000 for a rainbow desk in the Ministry of Social Development to “liaise with gay lesbian transgender bisexual fa’afafine takatapui and intersexed communities” is political correctness gone too far; if not what is going too far? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course those people make up our community. Indeed they may make up as many as 5 percent—some estimate 10 percent of the community—so one would expect their needs to be taken into account in policy making. I can name numerous instances of the new political incorrectness becoming political correctness. For example the member’s colleague Ken Shirley telling people last week what films they should be watching. 
Heather Roy 
: Under Labour Party policy can we expect a similar desk at the Ministry of Social Development for the red-blooded heterosexual males whom the Minister of Youth Affairs himself claims to support? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Presumably as red-blooded heterosexual males make up about 95 percent of the male population one could consider their needs are probably already well catered for in policy. However I am certainly concerned with the new political correctness when people start saying that they have been told in recent years that a lot of New Zealanders of European descent find the term “Pakeha” offensive so it cannot be used. That of course was Dr Brash who was so sensitive on that occasion. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When the Prime Minister gave the red hot-blooded heterosexual male John Tamihere permission to deliver his speech what did she think he meant when he said: “There are a number of attitudes prevalent in our society that are in fact highly dangerous to our well-being.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure he would have been referring to the propensity of right-wing parties to tell people how to live their lives what movies to see what art exhibitions to go to and all the rest of it.
Paraone Pita: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Paraone Pita: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10009] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to seek some clarification in terms of the sequence of when the Supplementary Order Papers were lodged and when they should come before the Committee for consideration. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Amendments in the name of the Minister or the member in charge of a bill always come first. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 106 in the name of Richard Worth to new section 23A in clause 8A be agreed to.
Visitors — Malaysia—House of Representatives Special Select Committee to  Amend the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code Australia—Members of Australian Political Exchange 
Visitors — Malaysia—House of Representatives Special Select Committee to  Amend the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code Australia—Members of Australian Political Exchange 
[Volume:623;Page:18789] 
Tuesday 1 March 2005 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Malaysia—House of Representatives Special Select Committee to  Amend the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Special Select Committee to Amend the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code from the House of Representatives Malaysia are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Australia—Members of Australian Political Exchange 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in informing members that members of the Australian Political Exchange led by Ms Catherine King MP Federal Member for Ballarat are present in the gallery and I am sure that members would wish that they also be welcomed.
Ryall Tony: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
Ryall Tony: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7084] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I want to speak against the title of this bill simply because I do not think the title reflects the content of the bill. I say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven that if he wants the Opposition to be cooperative in relation to the provisions of this bill he should not go around insulting members who have taken the time to go through it given that the Government has taken over 4 years to bring Supplementary Order Paper 84 to this Committee to fix amendments in this bill that should have been fixed earlier on. If the Minister looks at the  
Hansard 
 record of when this bill was introduced he will see that the promoting Minister Mr Goff railed against the previous Government for not having done something about the home invasion issue in its 9 years in office. In October 1999 Mr Goff said that this would be priority legislation for the Labour Government and here we are with the bill having taken 4 years to get into the Committee. 
Judith Collins was absolutely right when she said at the beginning of her speech that the title does not reflect what is in the bill. This bill would more correctly be called the “Crimes Amendment (To Cover up Ministerial Laziness) Bill”. That is the point that Judith Collins made. If that Minister thinks he will have cooperation from the Opposition to get this bill through Parliament more speedily then he should be more respectful of members who have made an effort to identify the failings of this Government which has taken 4 years to fix amendments in this bill that refer to repealed amendments. That is a sloppy performance by the Minister. We do not want to see the Minister in the chair behave as he did in the previous call.
Benson-Pope David: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4589] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I will deal briefly first of all with one of the points raised by Mr Mark towards the end of his comments. The whole issue of urgency and any agreement about questions in the coming week was discussed by the Business Committee today. It was not informal or in any way unrecorded. The whip of that party was a party to those decisions and they will be recorded in due course. 
However having corrected Mr Mark on that issue it has nothing to do with the issue under discussion which in my view is the third occasion that the member has attempted to relitigate a ruling by the Chair. That is clearly a gross breach of the Standing Orders. He referred in a previous comment to the degree of contention surrounding this issue. The vote including the way his party voted on the previous motion shows that there is very little contention around this issue and I think his point verges on the extremely frivolous.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4204] 
12.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Why did the New Zealand Qualifications Authority advise all principals and all heads of departments in a circular dated 7 March 2003 of a “study to evaluate the feasibility of schools assessing some NCEA level one external standards” when the Cabinet decision on NCEA required at least 50 percent external assessment? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 That is a question that I asked as well although without the Cabinet reference which is not strictly correct and not in such parliamentary language. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can this Government possibly contemplate dumping more National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) assessment on schools when it has not provided a single dollar to schools for the extra costs when it has doubled and in some cases trebled the cost to parents and when the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has had a huge increase in taxpayer funding for the NCEA and is that not a classic example of the Government taking the money and expecting the schools to do the work? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No and that is why the advice was withdrawn by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority within a few days of it being issued because it had not been and would not have been authorised by the chief executive the board or myself. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister advise whether he has indicated that there will be a review of the NCEA? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes but not until we have completed implementation this year and next. 
Deborah Coddington 
: What is it exactly about an exam set and marked internally by a school that makes it external? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is a very good question and if one looks at the circular it does not make sense and that is why it was withdrawn. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can employers parents students and this Parliament have any confidence in the New Zealand Qualifications Authority when it puts out a memo one moment and withdraws it the next given that this is the fifth document put out by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority on NCEA that turns out to be wrong? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s record recently up until this point has been a lot better than it had been in the past. This is a glitch it is wrong and there are probably a number of public servants who are not very happy as a result of their errors. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the memo that was sent to all schools and all heads of department in respect of this issue of the NCEA. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that memo. Is there any objection? There is.