edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Copeland Gordon: Charities Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Charities Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12121] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I believe that these measures will greatly benefit the sector. Firstly they will enable Government to look to a more generous regime in respect of tax rates for donations and imputation credits. Secondly they will increase public confidence in the bona fides of individual organisations. For example charities involved in street collections and similar will do so on the basis that their registered number is prominently displayed. That together with tax breaks will motivate New Zealanders to be more generous in the support they give to charities. 
Charities are the most efficient organisations on the face of the planet. Typically they involve highly motivated people at both board and operational level many of whom work for sacrificial salaries. They have an ethos that puts the needs of human beings at the centre of all they do. They can deal with sensitive issues such as hunger poverty and family breakdown in a compassionate and caring way which is impossible in the culture of a Government bureaucracy—and they do it far more cheaply. I think all of us would quickly decide that we would rather deal with the Salvation Army the Red Cross or the Society of St Vincent de Paul than with the Ministry of Social Development or the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. Research indicates that $1 of social service delivered through a charity would cost the Government as much as $2 were it to be delivered even assuming that a similar level of quality could be attained through a bureaucracy. 
The establishment of a Charities Commission will herald a new and exciting day for the charitable sector. When the commission has been established United Future will seek a substantial and significant increase in the level of tax rebates for donations given to charities by either individuals or corporations. That would bring New Zealand more into line with comparable generous regimes in the USA the UK and elsewhere. 
I shall give an illustration of that. A couple of years ago an expatriate Kiwi living in New York made a donation of $1 million to the Victoria University Foundation. He was able to deduct the entire amount of that gift—$1 million—from his US tax liabilities. Had he made that donation from New Zealand his rebate on that $1 million would have been only $1890. That illustrates the enormous gap between New Zealand and other countries. 
That step would boost the income of charities by at least $60 million per annum but would cost the Government just $20 million and it would encourage an enormous boost in the nation’s social services.
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18735] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is quite right. There was an agreement on clauses 7 8 9 and 10. Members can put in as many amendments to the preamble as they wish—from zero to many hundreds if they want to. There is no limit on that.
Power Simon: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21654] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Ayes are? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Ayes are 60; the Noes are 49. 
SIMON POWER 
: Yes. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question will be put. 
SIMON POWER 
: With a majority of 60—out of 120? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order. 
SIMON POWER 
: Well it is a fair question. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is not a fair question. It is not a point of order; the member knows that.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19531] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I sympathise with the position in which Mr Dail Jones finds himself in respect of the 84-year-old but in fact he rose in this House and said: “On behalf of the Rt Hon Winston Peters I ask the following question”. The conflict of interest runs back to Mr Peters who is in a position where he is in conflict with the courts. The courts have made an award against him of $3000 in a civil case. He has been told to pay it and he has not. It does not appear to me that it is appropriate then for an MP to get up in this House and start casting aspersions on the courts when it appears that he actually has a conflict as to why he is asking it. It may well be that he will try to take the question in a different direction but it would seem to me that it is extremely unwise for a member of Parliament who has had an award made by the courts against him and has failed to pay that award then to get up and start talking about conflicts of interest by the judges.
Hartley Ann: Budget Debate 
Hartley Ann: Budget Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13726] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next member the senior Government whip’s interjections were excessive in the last speech. I did not want to interrupt the member’s speech but I would just warn you that they were excessive. 
Simon Power 
: Why did you not warn her in question time? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet; there should be silence.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:621;Page:16593] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the third reading of the Care of Children Bill and to the second readings of the Transport Legislation Bill the Electoral Matters Bill and the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. On Thursday it is intended that the sitting of the House will commence at 4 p.m. with a motion in relation to the entombment of an Unknown New Zealand Warrior. There will be no oral questions on that day.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12997] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to:  
to insert in proposed new paragraph (ab) of subclause (1) after the word “matters” the words “and as is appropriate in the opinion of the Minister”.
Okeroa Mahara: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Okeroa Mahara: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9749] 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Benson-Pope David: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7622] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15913] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
New Zealand National 1; United Future 7. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 1; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 in the name of Judy Turner to add new subclauses (4) and (5) to clause 6 be agreed to.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7218] 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that “Ownership of the foreshore and seabed has long been considered to lie with the Crown …”; if so will her Government legislate to ensure that the Crown has exclusive title to the seabed and foreshore? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Prime Minister stands by her statement. The Government is working on a statutory framework that ensures that private exclusive titles are not created over what has always been considered the public domain. Customary rights are provided for in that framework. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the framework is going to prevent private exclusive title is it going to establish public Government-owned exclusive title or not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member will have to wait to see the proposals as they emerge. I think he will be surprised by the creativity that has been applied to the problem. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that Maori have simply asserted their customary title as the exercise of their rangatiratanga which is distinctly different from a private exclusive Pakeha model of title; and what is the Government doing to allay the scaremongering tactics pursued by other political parties and provide information on the differences between private exclusive Pakeha title and Maori customary title to the New Zealand public who desperately need to hear this? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There has certainly been a great deal of talking at cross-purposes on the issue as the member’s question implies. A Government caucus committee is working on the issue. When a more full proposal is ready we propose to consult on that with other political parties with Maori with local government with recreational interests and with others. 
Rodney Hide 
: When the Minister of Finance said that negotiations with Maori over customary rights to the foreshore and seabed were on track for a win-win solution what was in the Minister’s mind that Maori might win and non-Maori might win out of those negotiations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I understand that what was in the Minister of Finance’s mind is that traditional access rights of all New Zealanders to the seabed and foreshore would be asserted and preserved and that the right of Maori to apply for recognition of Maori customary rights through the Maori Land Court would also be preserved. 
Hon Bill English 
: To relieve public concern why does the Government not tidy up its mess by simply stating that the Government will bring in legislation that will confirm or state that the Crown owns the seabed and the foreshore? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Even if we did that it would not prevent the assertion of Maori customary rights.
Carter John: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:12416] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 We have to take the leave relating to Government notice of motion No. 2 when the House is resumed. We can take leave for the wide-ranging debate now.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17286] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments 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. 
Amendments agreed to.
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — Mohammed Saidi 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — Mohammed Saidi 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9207. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table documentation supporting my speech during the general debate today 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Debate resumed.
Franks Stephen: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Franks Stephen: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12890] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. What are you asking for? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Minister’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 205 to schedule 1. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: So have we passed the possibility of debate on the schedules entirely then? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There is no debate on the schedules. It is part of each part. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Thank you.
Hartley Ann: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9659] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will just remind members again about silence during points of order. It is usual to allow members to respond to the previous speaker. They should be brief; it is not a licence to stray. The member did mention the title. I remind members again that this is the title debate. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: That is why I read it out twice. I could find nothing in the title about skateboards nothing about ships nothing about any of the things the previous speaker mentioned. That is why this bill is aptly titled. It is about the management of land transport in this country—something that this Government and this Minister of Transport know about and something that this bill actually delivers on. 
I would be terribly embarrassed if I were a new Leader of the Opposition to get up and filibuster on a title. The Leader of the Opposition said last week that he would not engage in that sort of silly behaviour. That is promise No. 4 that he has broken already. How embarrassing is that? I tell Mr McCully to look after his new man. He should have let Mr Brownlee make that stupid speech because he is good at it. Mr Brownlee will make a fine speech on the title in the next couple of minutes. He will raise all that stupid stuff too. The members on that side of the Chamber do not have any good ideas about land transport management. Over here we know all about it. Land transport management is what this bill is all about and that is why the title is a very good one.
Cunliffe David: Sittings of the House 
Cunliffe David: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:624;Page:19676] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister for Communications) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to continue sitting so that the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill may be completed and at the completion of the bill for the House to then rise so that members can participate in the State dinner for the President of Indonesia.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19202] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Minors’ Contracts Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street   
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly   
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch (P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown   
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth   
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Scott   
Bill read a third time.
Woolerton R Doug: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9612] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take just a short call. I want to address some of the concerns of those people who think there should be no regulation at all of anything—least of all exporting markets. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: That’s it! 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Mr Gerrard Eckhoff is happy to be guilty of that. It is not right no matter which way we look at it. The great majority observes quality standards observes undertakings that are not necessarily imposed on them by this House. It is not right that they are taken advantage of by the few people who do not agree with the majority who do not go along with the majority view and who seek to get an advantage from the majority yet pay nothing. The majority of producers have come to Parliament asking for this legislation. 
It is also said along with that that these sorts of regulations often stifle enterprise. They stop people from doing things that are experimental that are entrepreneurial that change industries and that forge future relationships and markets. That is taken care of in this bill because there is the ability to have one’s case reviewed or to call the Horticulture Export Authority to account for that very reason. We must not stifle entrepreneurial activity we must not stifle experimentation and we must not stifle those who seek to do things in different ways. Just because a bill or an industry seeks the very very best and seeks to impose quality standards does not mean to say that those entrepreneurial activities are lessened or in any way damaged. 
I thought I would rise and point that out for those who may have nothing better to do than to listen to this Committee. I point out to them that those considerations have been taken into account and nothing in this bill will stifle the entrepreneurial pioneering spirit of good hard-working New Zealanders.
[Volume:619;Page:15077] 
The trials did give us a very good idea of how we could regulate this particular crop at this time. We worked through what sort of regulatory framework we would have. The proposed regulations that we have will control where hemp is grown what seed cultivars can be grown what THC testing is required what records are required to be kept reporting requirements security requirements for seeds and plants provision for destruction or requirement for harvest and audit and inspection. So a lot of work has been going into what those regulations will be. I think one of the important things was to draw up the regulations and then go out and consult with the industry as to whether it thought the regulations were workable. The industry was very cooperative in working on the regulations and they are planned to be in place by 1 January 2005.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17730] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Points of Order — References to Matters Awaiting Judicial Decision Question No. 2 to Minister 20 November 
Points of Order — References to Matters Awaiting Judicial Decision Question No. 2 to Minister 20 November 
[Volume:614;Page:10271] 
Points of Order 
References to Matters Awaiting Judicial Decision 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A question that we took to the Clerk’s Office this morning was dismissed as being outside the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders referred to in this case were Standing Orders 112 and 113. We accept that those Standing Orders are fairly clear. Therefore we would like some guidance from you about how we can raise in the House matters that have come into the public arena and are of concern but that have no material bearing on the outcome of a case whatsoever. It seems a little unfair to us that the media are able to speculate about what is meant by a statement made by a judge—or for that matter by a prosecuting police officer—but that we are not able to pursue in Parliament the information that lies behind that statement. If it is just an issue of reference being made to a case in a question then we would appreciate knowing that. But we are most concerned that our opportunities to find out more about circumstances that have nothing to do with the actions of the person being prosecuted or frankly with the outcome of the case are being cut off in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that point of order. He has done so in a responsible way. I will have a look at that and come back to him with a ruling. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 20 November 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On the last sitting day of the last sitting week I asked a question of the Minister of Health about whether she had seen any reports on widening the window of eligibility for breast screening tests. In her answer she outlined that she had had reports illustrating the effect of widening the eligibility of women for tests from the age of 64 to that of 70 years. I accept that the Minister made a genuine mistake. I understand that she has had reports about the importance of widening that window from the age of 50 years down to 40 years and I think that she has inadvertently misled the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me say that that is up to the Minister; it is nothing to do with me. The Minister if she wants to make a statement can most certainly do so or the member can take other action. But it is not up to me to intervene in this area.
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 Supreme Court Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Bill read a second time.
Benson-Pope David: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10761] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
.
Turei Metiria: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7811] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will support the third reading of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill. The Greens are committed to changing ineffective unworkable and unjust laws be they cannabis prohibition repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act or as in this case the suspension of section 55(1)(b) and (c) of the Electoral Act. We consider every piece of legislation that comes before us on its merits and in a rational and consistent manner. That is why we agree that this bill should be broadly based and cover all current MPs during the whole of this parliamentary term. We do not support legislation that concerns specific individuals only. We believe that where a deficiency in the law has been discovered it should be remedied for everyone not just for some. 
Mr Dunne and others have argued that the bill should apply to Mr Duynhoven only and that it should apply retrospectively only not until the next election. The primary reason seems to be that other MPs who may have been affected by section 55 are hiding behind Mr Duynhoven’s courage. We do not believe that United Future’s desire to smoke out other MPs is a good enough reason to undermine the basic principle that the law is ineffective and unjust and should be suspended so that the policy behind it can be properly and thoroughly debated. In our view it is a matter for each MP’s own conscience if he or she will benefit but is not open about it. 
There is also the major issue of retrospectivity. We are not completely opposed to retrospective legislation and assess our position on that on a case-by-case basis. We accept that retrospective legislation that confers a benefit or a right is not on its face objectionable though we would certainly not give a blanket assent to such legislation. We have considered this bill very carefully and because we consider section 55(1)(b) and (c) to be unjust and unworkable we think that retrospective legislation is appropriate in this case. 
We have not yet heard any compelling argument at all as to why an MP should not be able to pursue a dual citizenship while an MP. The discussion has been based solely on the presumption that taking on a second citizenship is inherently treasonous. The debate has raged as though by simply being a dual citizen an MP has renounced his or her commitment to this nation and its people. That is fundamentally untrue and smacks of old-time paranoia and old-time xenophobia. 
The Greens take a consistent and rational analysis to the efficacy of the laws in this country which is based on what is just appropriate and right. That is why as I said we work for the review of cannabis laws and section 59 of the Crimes Act. We support this bill as amending one wrong and unjust law on a spectrum of wrong and unjust laws.
Yates Dianne: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
Yates Dianne: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16831] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the order of the day for the third reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill be discharged and the bill be recommitted for consideration of an amendment to clause 61A(9)(e) in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Shirley Ken: Sittings of the House 
Shirley Ken: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:619;Page:14655] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have a parallel but different concern; it is with the way the Order Paper is being managed. I notice that time and time again this House rises early for dinner breaks and consistently rises early on members’ night yet the Government still goes into urgency and even when it takes an urgency motion it still wants to rise early. There seems to be something going awry with the compilation of the Order Paper and the flow of matters of business to this House and I think all members are concerned because it is happening too frequently. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That matter is entirely up to the House.
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9691] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4598] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
Noes 17 
Amendments agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
[Volume:625;Page:20521] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The clarification I would like is to make sure that the member is not asking for those to be additional questions on the next sitting day because he did not make that clear. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for those specific questions to be deferred to the next sitting day. Is that right?
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:613;Page:10220] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will give the member my assistance and I promise him I will have a look at the matter and give him a fuller ruling. Under Standing Order 365(1)(a) names of persons are not to be used in a question unless they are strictly necessary and can be authenticated. No authentication with regard to the person named by the member has been received but I will have another look at the issue as he has asked me to do.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7353] 
9.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What is the total cost to date to the New Zealand taxpayer of suspected terrorist Ahmed Zaoui being in New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I cannot give exact costs nor confirm details of any particular case. However I am advised that the average daily cost for a maximum security prisoner is $165 which would amount to $38775. I cannot confirm any matters relating to refugee status claims under the Immigration Act. Generally speaking legal aid is available in such cases with an average cost of $2286 for a first-level defended hearing plus $2460 for an appeal. In addition there would be a cost associated with the hearing and the appeal to the New Zealand Immigration Service of an estimated $16305 making the total cost close to $60000. The member will be aware that in certain circumstances the cost of custody may be recuperated from the airline that brought to New Zealand someone who was not granted a permit at the border. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has the Minister seen media reports today regarding the detention of Mr Zaoui in which the Minister the general manager of the Immigration Service and the spokesman for the service all quite separately describe an internal memorandum on Mr Zaoui as “flippant” and can she explain to the House that remarkable coincidence? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I know for a fact that Mr Smith discussed this matter with the general manager when the general manager raised it. It is certainly Mr Smith’s view of the matter that his comments were indeed flippant. As I have said to the House on several occasions there was no agreement to lie and no such agreement could exist.
Hunt Jonathan: Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Hunt Jonathan: Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:17191] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I remind the member to speak in the third person. I was being addressed for most of that debate.
Ward Mike: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Ward Mike: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22220] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The appropriation for Vote Environment totals about $57 million which is quite a lot of money. The total amount across all ministries is something like a billion-plus dollars—2 percent of the vote. That is a lot too. One could ask whether it is enough. In fact real savings could be made. There are things we could be doing to look after the environment. We certainly do not look after it—not in the way we might—and those things would cost a lot less than what we are doing. In respect of waste New Zealanders still throw away about 10 million kilograms every day. Between 1981 and 2001 the population of this country grew by 19 percent but the amount of stuff we threw away increased by over 100 percent. New Zealanders throw out something like 10 million kilograms of waste every day. My grandchildren’s inheritance goes into those holes in the ground. 
I do not want to talk about recycling. We have done a good job in terms of getting people to think about the stuff they are throwing away. We have a good waste strategy; it just needs to have some more teeth. But we have to move on from recycling to persuading people not to take home stuff that they will throw away in short order. We import extraordinary amounts of stuff. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time for this debate has expired. 
MIKE WARD 
: I seek leave to continue. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry. The member cannot seek leave because this is a set-time debate. 
MIKE WARD 
: I seek leave to continue. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is seeking leave to complete his speech. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.
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:4233] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended 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. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21826] 
6.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What recent developments if any have occurred in relation to State housing? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 On Monday the Prime Minister and I launched a book called  
We Call it Home 
:  
A History of State Housing in New Zealand 
 which documents over one century the importance of public investment in the provision of housing for low-income New Zealanders. That is why this Government has reintroduced income-related rents which benefit 57000 households; provided funding for up to 9000 new State homes; funded modernisation of housing community renewal energy efficiency Healthy Housing and rural housing programmes; and provided funding for partnerships with community organisations to build more houses. 
Georgina Beyer 
: How does the Government’s approach contrast with other approaches that he is aware of? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It appears that others have not learnt the lessons of history that this book relates: the market does not always meet the needs of low-income people. Housing policy in the 1990s was a simple-minded aping of the market as 13000 houses were sold and tenants were left with market rents which helped drive one in three children into poverty by the 1990s mid-point. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What would be the result if an alternative market-based housing system were introduced that ignored the lessons of history as set out in this book? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No one should make any mistake: if a future Government were to abolish income-related rents we would see a crisis in housing for low-income New Zealanders and a dramatic rise in child poverty. We know this because those policies were introduced in the 1990s by the then National Government and National would do it again to pay for its tax cuts.
Baldock Larry: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9883] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thought we began voting on the amendments to the amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes. I will put the question again because there appears to be some confusion. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to the amendments to clauses 14 and 15 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in his name be agreed to: 
to omit new section 33E(1)(a)(ii) set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 167; and 
to omit new section 36A(3) and substitute the following subsections: 
(3)Subsection (2) is complied with by the owner— 
(a)making the dog available in accordance with the reasonable instructions of the territorial authority for verification that it has been implanted with a functioning microchip transponder of the prescribed type and in the prescribed manner; or 
(b)providing to the territorial authority a certificate issued by a registered veterinary surgeon certifying— 
(i)that the dog is or has been implanted with a functioning microchip transponder of the prescribed type and in the prescribed manner; or 
(ii)that for the reasons that are specified in the certificate the dog will not be in a fit condition to be implanted with a functioning microchip transponder of the prescribed type and in the prescribed manner before a date specified in the certificate. 
(3A)If a certificate under subsection (3)(b)(ii) is produced to the territorial authority the owner must produce to the territorial authority within 1 month after the date specified in the certificate a further certificate specified under subsection (3)(b)(i).
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11656] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5299] 
4.  
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What reports has he received on local music content on commercial radio stations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 New figures that we released today from the New Zealand Music Performance Committee show that Kiwi music made up 15.36 percent of the playlist in the first quarter of this year. That is 2 percent ahead of the figure for the same period in 2002 and ahead of last year’s overall average. It is very good news coming in New Zealand Music Month. All this month New Zealand will be promoted through a variety of means and I certainly applaud that. 
Darren Hughes 
: How will the Government make sure that those targets are maintained? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: New Zealand music is an $11 million industry in New Zealand at this time or about 9 percent of a market of $200 million or so. The Government wants to see that grow through such initiatives provided by New Zealand On Air and the Music Commission. We believe that domestic success will lead to our having a share of the multibillion-dollar international music market. I tell members of the House that today 30 New Zealand bands are successfully touring on the international market.
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14856] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14766] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Membership 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Membership 
[Volume:607;Page:4405] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Rod Donald to be a member of the Commerce Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill but without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3881] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Television New Zealand Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 67 
Noes 47 
Bill read a third time. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Pettis Jill: Third Readings 
Pettis Jill: Third Readings 
[Volume:607;Page:4317] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I support this legislation.
Barker Rick: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16627] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for consideration 
referred to Finance and Expenditure Committee 
 that the committee present its final report on or before 16 December 2004 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House except during questions for oral answer during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).
Authority to Administer Oath 
Authority to Administer Oath 
[Volume:624;Page:18953] 
Authority to Administer Oath 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I take this opportunity to inform the House that I have received the following commission from Her Excellency the Governor-General authorising me to administer the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to be taken or made by members of the House. 
The authorisation reads— 
Pursuant to section 11 of the Constitution Act 1986 I The Honourable Dame Silvia Cartwright Governor-General of New Zealand hereby authorise you the Honourable Margaret Anne Wilson Speaker of the House of Representatives to administer to members of Parliament the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen required to be taken or made by every such member before that member shall be permitted to sit or vote in the House of Representatives. 
Helen Clark Prime Minister 
Authorised Silvia Cartwright Governor-General 3 March 2005
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Membership 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Membership 
[Volume:611;Page:8740] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Sue Kedgley to be a member of the Government Administration Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Building Bill but without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Vote: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4578] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 57 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers  
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers  
[Volume:615;Page:11005] 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Can she explain her Associate Minister of Immigration’s comments on the  
Holmes 
 show last Wednesday night “with over 3000 cases each year … I will treat these ones very fairly as well” and at what cost are these cases to the taxpayer? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Since September 2002 I have delegated my discretionary decision-making powers on individual cases to the Associate Minister who receives many requests to reconsider all nature of decisions made by the New Zealand Immigration Service. The only cost that would arise from a decision of the Associate Minister to intervene would be if the individual was already in New Zealand and became eligible to access services that he or she would not otherwise be eligible for. This would occur in very few cases. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What is her department’s criteria for allowing those who come here originally on visitor work student or limited purpose visas to eventually be given residency after applying on shore and will the same criteria apply to those revealed by Nelson’s planned “sanctuary day” for illegal immigrants to come forward and the three car loads found by routine traffic stops over 2 days in the Western Bay of Plenty last week? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As the member is well aware the rules of the Immigration Act require that a person is on a valid permit when he or she makes an application for another permit. If a person is not on a valid permit then under section 35A he or she can be put on a temporary permit in order to lodge an application for a permit. That is the purpose of the “sanctuary day”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the Minister’s answer on 2 May 2003 is she saying in relation to the 8359 onshore applications made as at 30 April 2003 that those people will be allowed to stay provided that they are married working have no criminal convictions and are fitting well into the community as one would assume from Immigration Service media adviser Brett Solvander’s comments; if that is the case is it little wonder that New Zealand’s immigration laws are a joke overseas and that anyone wanting to come here illegally knows how to wangle the system? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The rules enable people to transfer from one form of permit to another so that somebody who comes here as a visitor as a student or as a temporary worker is able to lodge an application for residence. The residence application will be determined according to normal policy. I do make the point that this was the case when that member was the Deputy Prime Minister.