edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cosgrove Clayton: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9060] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hughes Darren: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19757] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise in support of the third reading of this bill. In addition to the changes around child support there are two other important areas in which the bill makes changes. Firstly it extends eligibility for the accommodation supplement to residents of retirement villages where increasing numbers of our people are living. Secondly the bill makes important changes for seasonal workers allowing them to nominate either a 52 week or a 26-week earning period. I think that that will assist a lot of people as well. For those two reasons alone I support the third reading of the bill.
Peters Jim: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Peters Jim: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13494] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Tisch raised— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is this a new point of order because we are dealing with one at the moment from the honourable member Lindsay Tisch? Does the member want to speak to this point of order? 
JIM PETERS 
: I want to speak to the same point of order and suggest on behalf of my colleague that we would very strongly urge the Government to consider exactly its use of the veto when its changes are in the same section. We believe this is something that needs to be looked at with greater care.
Turner Judy: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4869] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 United Future would like to draw attention to clause 10 in Part 2 which the Minister has just referred to where the provisional registration timing has been lengthened from 6 years to 8 years. Initially we were concerned with the timing of 6 years then a bit more concerned when it turned to 8 years but we have considered the advice given by the Minister. We understand that the introduction of registration has to be looked at in context. In the 2001 census 46 percent of those who identified themselves as social workers had gained only a school qualification or less. We realise that our current social workers will have to consider either returning to university or starting from scratch if they want voluntarily to become registered social workers. They will need to be given time to do that if they want to continue working while processing their qualifications. Because a large number of women are in social work they will also have the added responsibility of running households. We want to see that life-work balance considered as we give time for people to upskill and register. 
However with the 3-year review built into the bill which falls inside that 8-year timing we suggest that some questions will need to be asked in 3 years’ time—that is what progress have provisionally registered social workers made towards full registration how ready are we within New Zealand for mandatory registration and does the title “social worker” with time need to become a protected term? We would like to see protected within the 3-year review that the term “social worker” can be used only by people who are registered as opposed to at present when the term “social worker” can be used by unregistered people. That is a question that may need to be asked in 3 years’ time as we see what progress has been made by those people who are provisionally registered. 
While it looks as if 8 years is a soft and lenient period in which to gain full registration we consider that we do need to support current social workers. We have to understand that we are now asking more of people who are already overworked and under-resourced and we need to support those people in our request that they become more accountable and competence-based in our social work system. United Future’s concern is with that part of the bill. We support it because it provides grandparenting provisions for people to become registered but we think that in 3 years’ time some hard questions will need to be asked.
Jones Dail: Rail Network Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Rail Network Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19772] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a call pending the return to the House of my colleague Peter Brown from the Business Committee. Perhaps he will be given the opportunity to say a few words shortly because from the sound of things I am sure there would be no objection to New Zealand First having two calls on this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I can tell the member that without rails they would not run. As we know this Rail Network Bill provides for the long-term structure and role of the New Zealand Railways Corporation which has responsibility for owning and operating the national rail network following its purchase by the Crown. As the previous speaker indicated the preceding National Government has a lot to answer for. Now I can resume my seat because the person who knows everything about this bill has come into the House and will be only too pleased to take the next call.
Peters Winston: Budget Debate 
Peters Winston: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:5917] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that member does not alter her words in  
Hansard 
—and she cannot now—and she has misled this House then that is a breach of privilege matter. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member was quite entitled to correct what had been said about her. There is no right to enter into a debate about what the member said. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: But you would agree though that if what she said is not in accord with the  
Hansard  
record then there would be an action somewhere else? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There is no need for me to agree to that. It is hypothetical. I thank the member.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13024] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 54 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 54.
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:17120] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 90 be agreed to: 
to omit from new subsection (4) of section 94B of the principal Act the words “ in the opinion of the consent authority”.
Swain Paul: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Swain Paul: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:16212] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move that the— 
Opposition Member 
: Holidays Amendment Bill! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No no. It is not the Holidays Amendment Bill. That has to be read a third time. I move  
that the Holidays Bill be now read a third time 
. [ 
Interruption 
] No no. Which committee? I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Education and Science Committee—
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
[Volume:611;Page:8603] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House on Tuesday and Thursday priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill and the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order —  
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order —  
[Volume:620;Page:16082] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Ministers are entitled to have advisers on their bills. It depends on whether he is the Minister’s adviser. I have said that I will consult with the Minister. [ 
Interruption 
] I will not have that nonsense at all. I now warn members that the next member who goes on like that will go out. That is out of order and grossly disorderly. Mr Prebble has called a point of order. He will be heard.
Anderton Jim: Motions — Crop and Food Research—Air Accident 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Anderton Jim: Motions — Crop and Food Research—Air Accident 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6039. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 We join also with the House and the Minister in expressing our deep regret and sorrow on this occasion. There is no doubt that the crash of this aircraft at 7.15 on Friday 6 June was quite simply a genuine tragedy. Despite the increasing sophistication of our communications systems and the growth of our population New Zealand fundamentally remains a very small country made up of small communities of interest and relatively small regional populations. So the death of significant numbers of people—on this occasion from one Crown research institute in particular—sends shock waves through our communities of interest and particularly through the Canterbury community. It is both a strength and weakness of New Zealand that such a loss is personal to so many in our country and in particular we think of those at Crop and Food Research. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of the victims on this sad occasion. 
Motion agreed to. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18732] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I just wish to clarify. There is no mention as Mr Paraone has said in the Maori text of a particular date. I suspect I am right in saying that the amendment is supposed to do that. But although it amends the text to include the year it does not include the date. So we are still left with the situation whereby the text in Maori is not the same as the text in English. That incidentally was my point last night. It could have been cleared up some hours ago but some people in this Chamber are just too clever for their own good.
Hartley Ann: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hartley Ann: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16348] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I think the matter has been fairly dealt with and certainly we need to move on. A ruling has been given.
Vote: Securities Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Securities Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18053] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Peters Winston: Business Statement 
Peters Winston: Business Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3849] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I ask the Leader of the House what the Government’s intentions are in respect of the passage of the Maori Television Service Bill which has been long-time promised but on which there seems to be no progress whatsoever.
Roy Heather: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Roy Heather: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:624;Page:19221] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I bring to your attention the great difficulties that some of us are having in getting answers to written questions from the Minister of Health within the time frame of 7 days required under the Standing Orders. I now have 14 written questions for which answers are long overdue. Some of those answers relating to waiting lists—and I know that that information is available—are a mere 6 weeks overdue but some of the questions go back almost a year and despite constant correspondence between my office and that of the Minister of Health the answers are still not forthcoming. The Minister makes frequent statements about being open and transparent but in fact she is the opposite. I ask your guidance Madam Speaker as to how we can get answers to written questions that have been submitted in the proper way. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member sends me a list of those questions then I will look into it immediately.
Robertson H V Ross: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12209] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I advise the member that the honourable Minister advised the Committee that he was waiting for an amendment that had been agreed to between himself and the member Peter Brown regarding the definition of “company security officer”. Because the first vote has already been taken the honourable member now has to seek leave for it to be voted on and he has just done that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert after the definition of  
company 
 the following definition: 
Company security officer  
means the person designated by the company to— 
(a)ensure that— 
(i)a ship security assessment is carried out; and 
(ii)a ship security plan is developed submitted for approval implemented and maintained; and 
(b)liaise with port facility security officers and the ship security officer. 
Amendment agreed to.
Worth Richard: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6535] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have been privileged to hear a witty and fascinating speech albeit of short duration. I seek the indulgence of the House that the speaker be permitted to continue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot seek leave on behalf of anybody else and that is not a matter for a point of order.
Vote: Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Vote: Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5735] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
Noes 7 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a third time.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
[Volume:606;Page:3767] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Keith Locke to be a member of the Law and Order Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) 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.
Chadwick Steve: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17364] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Sowry Roger: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15733] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 Part 3 is a relatively narrow part which amends the Commerce Act. I want to bring attention to what I think is a very serious issue. I will do it quickly now; I know that we will have to deal with this part again when the Committee resumes sometime next sitting day. 
Subsection (3) of new section 57CA inserted by clause 30B refers to the Commerce Commission and states: “The Commerce Commission must if asked by the Energy Commission to do so reconsider an existing authorisation or undertaking and to the extent that the Commission considers it necessary or desirable to do so”. What we have is the Commerce Commission having to dance to the Energy Commission’s tune. 
If we look at an earlier part of the bill we see that that commission is able to be directed by the Minister. So let us go through the food chain. The Minister can direct the commission about something to do with lines company charging or the regulatory environment or the environment those companies function under. The commission then toddles off to the Commerce Commission and the Commerce Commission is required to have a look at it. We have in this country an independent Commerce Commission—or we have had until this bill is passed. Now we are to have a Commerce Commission that is being brought into political question by its dancing to somebody else’s tune. 
Not only that but the Minister is further muddying the waters by proposing to have some commissioners who are joint commerce commissioners and energy commissioners. So they will be answering to the Minister one moment then sitting on a case supposedly independently the next. Imagine if in the Air New Zealand - Qantas debacle that went through the Commerce Commission the Minister could have gone to the transport authority and said he wanted it to do A B and C and to make sure the Commerce Commission looked at A B and C and the transport authority could then have toddled off to the Commerce Commission and said it wanted it to have a look at this and this and the Commerce Commission was obliged to look at this and this because the Minister had directed it to do so and there was cross-accreditation of commissioners. 
Progress reported.
Beyer Georgina: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19536] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It is a privilege to speak to the second reading of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill. I remind the member who has just resumed her seat that her party had 9 long years in Government to make some changes in this regard if it had so desired. At least this Government has taken some action. The member’s whingeing is quite intolerable and unnecessary. I repeat that National had 9 years to do something about the issue. At least we have addressed it. 
There are two other important points about this bill. Firstly it is expected that from 1 July 2005 several hundred retirement village residents will qualify for an accommodation supplement of $37 to $54 a week on average. Secondly the bill will reduce disincentives for people to undertake seasonal work by enabling applicants like seasonal workers to elect either a 52-week or a 26-week income assessment period for the calculation of their stand-down period. Soon 4500 people a year will benefit from a reduction in the length of their initial stand-down. 
I support this bill and hope it progresses quickly through the House.
Tabling of Documents — Jim Peron 
Tabling of Documents — Jim Peron 
[Volume:625;Page:20037] 
Tabling of Documents 
Jim Peron 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the following documents. One is an article from the  
Sunday Star-Times  
dated 3 April 2005 in which Jim Peron states that he is being crucified over the interpretation of opinions that he expressed 20 years ago and no longer holds. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two articles written by Jim Peron entitled “The Claptrap Over Child Porn” parts 1 and 2 written in May 2003. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a series of pictures of naked boys retrieved from Jim Peron’s Auckland bookstore Aristotle’s Books just 3 weeks ago. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17543] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Hunt Jonathan: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:609;Page:6636] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I expelled Mr Hide because he started out by saying: “I do want to challenge your ruling …”. That is automatically out of order in this House. I try to be fair to everyone. When I count up the number of points of order that are raised—and I am happy to do that over the weekend—and announce the result to members they will find that the vast majority of points of order are raised by Opposition members. That is to be expected but most of them are political points; they are not points of order.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:621;Page:16865] 
Thursday 11 November 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 4 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Transport Legislation Bill the Foreshore and Seabed Bill and if time allows the Electoral Matters Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I have just one question to the Leader of the House. Is it the intention of the Government to include the Electoral Matters Bill in the urgency motion? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I have not mentioned an urgency motion but if as I fully expect the Supplementary Order Paper on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill is ready in time there will be urgency on that bill. The urgency would not include the Electoral Matters Bill.
Cullen Michael: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations 
Cullen Michael: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations 
[Volume:619;Page:14594] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I presume that the other course of action being referred to is to take a charge of a breach of privilege. I think that shows again the common misunderstanding opposite that members may make an assertion that is incorrect only if they are not telling the truth. A member may well make an assertion that is incorrect and wrong in fact without intending to mislead the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: However I have been asked to give leave and it is in the members’ hands not mine. Does anybody object? There is objection.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — European Union—Commissioner for Trade 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — European Union—Commissioner for Trade 
[Volume:620;Page:15449] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that His Excellency Mr Pascal Lamy the European Union Commissioner for Trade is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16147] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That 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 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 31(aa) in clause 10 be agreed to.
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 question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 241 in the name of the Hon John Tamihere to Part 4 be agreed to.
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:20879] 
7.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: Is food made with the unapproved genetically modified and insecticide-containing Bt10 corn on sale in New Zealand; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 As I have advised the member in a series of responses to her recent questions for written answer food derived from unapproved GM varieties may not be legally sold in New Zealand. A recent survey by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority found no unapproved GM food or ingredient being sold in New Zealand. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Can she confirm that Bt corn has never been approved and therefore is illegal in our food supply and has the Food Safety Authority ever conducted any tests to establish whether this illegal genetically engineered corn is or has been in our food supply or instituted a recall of corn products; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Bt10 corn is not allowed to be sold in New Zealand. It is not legal for it to be sold in New Zealand. It has not been approved for sale in New Zealand. As I said in my primary answer the Food Safety Authority recently conducted a survey and found no unapproved GM food or ingredient being sold. That includes Bt10. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I specifically asked whether any tests had been conducted. I would appreciate it if the Minister would answer my question. I did not ask about surveys; I asked whether any tests had been conducted. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I cannot inform the member as to whether a test had been undertaken. However any test can be undertaken should there be a view that the product is in New Zealand. There is no reason to believe that it is and therefore as far as I know there has not been a test but I will find out for the member. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How would the Food Safety Authority know whether it was in our food supply without undertaking any testing and why when other countries like Japan and those in the European Union require all shipments of corn from the United States to be tested or certified to ensure that they do not contain the illegal Bt corn is New Zealand not doing the same thing and testing all imported corn from the United States to ensure that it does not contain the illegal unapproved corn? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because a very small amount of Bt10 corn was grown in the United States—0.01 percent—and it was this unapproved Bt10 variety which was never intended for commercial production. That variety was either destroyed or put in quarantine for destruction. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why do other countries such as Japan and countries in Europe take this issue seriously but our Government does not and why given that the Government instituted a major recall of unapproved genetically engineered Starlink corn in the year 2000 is it doing nothing about this unapproved Bt10 corn—not instituting a recall and basically turning a blind eye to it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because there is no evidence that it is in New Zealand; what would we recall?
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4781] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 96 
Noes 21 
Amendments agreed to and Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Beyer Georgina: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15203] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Power Simon: General Debate 
Power Simon: General Debate 
[Volume:620;Page:15481] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is quite right but Standing Order 112 relates to the effect of Standing Order 111. In other words if discretion is or is not exercised in respect of Standing Order 111 is when the ruling that Mr Speaker Hunt made today about whether Standing Order 112 applies comes into effect. But the question that I think Mr Mark was asking was whether the discretion under Standing Order 111 was exercised thereby allowing Standing Order 112 to be applied if you follow my logic.
Benson-Pope David: Families Commission Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Families Commission Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5625] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Government in support of this bill.
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:17124] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Adams Paul: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Adams Paul: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16045] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on Part 2 but I will first address Lockwood Smith’s comments. He made a statement that employers hate this Government. Well I speak to a lot of employers out there and to be honest they do not hate this Government. Their businesses are going very well and the economy is ticking over so I think it is very bland to come here and make the statement that many employers hate this Government. They may be concerned with some aspect of the legislation but to come out and say that they hate the Government is I think a mistruth. 
I come back to Part 2. United Future will support this bill because let us be honest each party—whether it is Labour National or whatever—has a voter or client base. From the centralist position that United Future intends to steer down we can listen to Labour’s concerns and begin to understand some of the reasons why it cannot amend this legislation at this time to the degree we would like. Likewise National has to stand against some of those things because of its voter base. Our position is right in the centre and we will— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: What are they? 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I would ask Mr Sowry the question: does this amendment improve the Holidays Act that was passed last year or not? 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: No it doesn’t. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: Well the member is obviously not talking to anybody in the business community so everything else he said in his speech must be an absolute waste of time. If he was talking to them he was not listening to them. 
Part 2 allows the employer to check whether his employee is genuinely sick. I do not think that anybody in the House would disagree with that. We know because of human nature that employees are not always honest. So if there seems to be a pattern to the days an employee takes off the employer can now have the opportunity to ask for and expect to get a medical certificate. I think that is very good. 
The other thing that concerns me about a lot of the speeches I have heard in the Chamber with regard to this legislation is that anyone would tend to think that this was the bill bringing in relevant daily pay. Well this is not the bill that brings in relevant daily pay. The legislation that was passed in 2003 brought in relevant daily pay and United Future voted against that legislation. In fact if members went back to  
Hansard 
 they would see that United Future brought up many aspects during that debate that are very relevant to what we are dealing with today. But United Future has a backbone and is big enough to recognise that when improvements are made it should accept them and move forward. So United Future will support this legislation and is proud to do so.
Parker David: Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13103] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 My call will be a very short one. I just want to record what the last member said. The suggestion that if poor people got a family benefit they would not spend it in the interests of their children— 
Heather Roy 
: I said some poor families. 
DAVID PARKER 
: The member implied that proportionately rich people in receipt of the family benefit had the interests of their children at heart while poor people did not. I suggest that when poor people go down to Countdown and try to buy good food to put in the stomachs of their children they are even more aware of budget constraints. Those pressures are far more real for poor people than for wealthy people. I do not think that that comment reflects well on either that member or her party. It was a terrible thing to imply.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13741] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
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:6302] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Noes 90 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 9(1)(a)(i) be agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9229. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. The member had withdrawn and apologised and she was called. She may continue her speech. She has 30 seconds to go. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: We do need to get this into perspective. We do need to realise that there is a deliberate effort to filibuster this bill and that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders strongly support the bill. Frankly they are appalled by the efforts to undermine a piece of public health legislation that many doctors have said will do more to improve the health of New Zealanders than any other single piece of legislation in this Parliament.
Carter John: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Carter John: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9415] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I have not had a chance to discuss this matter with the other parties at all and they may well object. However while I know that some parties have different issues and one or two are not in support of the bill I wonder whether it would be helpful to the Committee to have just one wide-ranging debate in the Committee stage and I seek leave accordingly. If parties do not agree obviously they can oppose it. However I seek leave.
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:619;Page:14929] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Following discussions with the Minister of Health and the Leader of the House which I am grateful for I seek leave for question No. 7 today to be deferred until tomorrow and treated as an extra question then so that it can be answered by the Minister of Health to whom it was originally directed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It will be so done and it will be put at No. 13. [ 
Interruption 
] That interjection involves me. I actually supported Bay of Plenty winning it—and I am an Aucklander!
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20155] 
7.  
TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: What processes are taken into account to recognise the status use or significance of land acquired under the Public Works Act 1981? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 The due process of law is used under the Public Works Act of 1981 and in the case of Maori land some additional requirements apply under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1993. 
Tariana Turia 
: Is it appropriate for Transit New Zealand to be threatening and humiliating a humble family over a period of 6 or more years in seeking it to dispose of a family homestead on Maori freehold land for the purpose of widening State Highway 2 in Tauranga? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Threatening and humiliating behaviour is not tolerable and the member would be welcome to raise the issue with me. Indeed she could have raised it in the primary question—I would have had a decent answer for her. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister concerned that the Public Works Act has been used by Transit New Zealand and its predecessors to acquire thousands of hectares of land against the owners’ will and to hold it for decades and does the Government have any plans to limit the time for which Transit can hold land that has been compulsorily acquired but not used? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answer to the first part of the question is no I do not have any concerns; that is why we have a Public Works Act. But I do think that an issue raises its head from time to time when land is held for many decades in some cases and not put to use. I think there does need to be a better process for returning that land to the original owner. 
Tariana Turia 
: How would the Minister address the statement that the whanau must be no better or worse off and take into account that this is the only family land that this family has left—or is this just another land confiscation that tangata whenua must accept from this Government? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not have any idea what sort of land the member refers to because she has given me no notice of it. If it is fee simple land then it will be treated through the Public Works Act. If it is multiple-owned land then it will also require a process laid out in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1993 the decision under which is I believe appealable to the Maori Land Court.
Smith Murray: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Smith Murray: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17449] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I suggest that there is a big difference between accusing a person of being homophobic or whatever and suggesting that this bill is something other than what it purports to be. One addresses a person in the Chamber; a member of Parliament. That is clearly wrong. One that addresses this bill as being something else altogether has nothing to do with the people who are involved in it. It is a valid criticism of the bill.
Carter John: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Carter John: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12487] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 In our caucus it is a $100 fine. Could he pay a cheque to each of the parties perhaps? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Carter.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7142] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is another one of those questions that have been subject to a transfer today. I ask you to consider a couple of points related to Speaker’s ruling 115/6 which refers specifically to the Minister considering a transfer actually having a duty to do so. This question was set down originally for Tariana Turia and we understand that it has been transferred to another Minister. The question relates specifically to the placement of a staff officer in her office. The question would be this—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not have any interjection on a point of order and I will not warn the member again. I make that ruling and everyone adheres to it. I am sorry Mr Brownlee. Please continue. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The question arises that if the staff member has been placed there as we are told to advise the Minister on Maori social service delivery and we find when we are asking a question specifically about that that the question is transferred because presumably the Minister receiving the transfer is better capable of answering it the question would arise then when can we effectively ever ask the Hon Tariana Turia questions that relate to the delivery of Maori social services. It is a simple question. Shannon Pakura is in her office to give her that advice but when it comes to asking her questions about issues she is being advised on we have had that question transferred. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Under Speaker’s ruling 115/5 I cannot second-guess the Government’s allocation of the ministerial responsibility. That is up to the Government. Please ask the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order simply was that the Speaker’s ruling clearly states that Ministers must act responsibly. It cannot be considered a responsible act for a Minister to say: “I have the adviser in my office this is my delegation but I’m transferring it to another Minister because I don’t know how to answer it.” The question arises—as my question asks—what the adviser is there for? The second point I made is that under Speaker’s ruling 116/1 as Richard Prebble has already said it is your role to decide whether an abuse of the parliamentary question process is being inflicted on Parliament by the transfer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No because the public servant involved is an officer of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. There is responsibility there and that is where the question is going to. 
Katherine Rich 
: I seek leave to hold this question over to the next sitting day when the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment is in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member seeks leave. Is there any objection? Please ask the question.
Adams Paul: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Adams Paul: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6911] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: I rise to support this third reading of the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) which aims to strengthen the Fair Trading Act by making amendments to enforcement and procedural provisions and in particular creating a new additional penalty regime for pyramid-selling schemes based on the commercial gain from the scheme. United Future sees this legislation as technical in nature and believes that it has been largely non-controversial. 
The bill amends the Fair Trading Act to provide that the criminal limitation period runs for 3 years from the date that a breach is discovered or ought reasonably to have been discovered. This has been done because in some markets such as building investment products insurance and long-term guarantees consumers or the Commerce Commission are unlikely to discover a breach until well after 3 years from the date that the breach occurs. Specifically the bill has doubled the existing maximum fines under the Act which are currently $30000 for an individual and $100000 for a company to $60000 for an individual and $200000 for a company. 
The bill amends the definition of pyramid-selling schemes in the Act to take into account newer types of schemes. These may involve participants buying or selling an investment opportunity and using an agent who is provided by the scheme operators to recruit other participants on their behalf instead of trying to recruit new participants themselves. It also extends the Commerce Commission’s search powers so that the commission may obtain a warrant to search for evidence to demonstrate the nature and extent of a breach of the Act revenue obtained through offending or other matters material to the seriousness of the breach. This will assist the commission in gathering evidence for courts to consider in sentencing. In particular it will help implement the commercial gain penalty for pyramid-selling schemes. 
Also introduced is a new power that will allow the Commerce Commission to issue notices requiring people to supply information or documents. This power would give the commission more flexibility and is most likely to be used when the commission seeks information from witnesses who are not hostile. United Future is happy to support this legislation.
Cunliffe David: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
Cunliffe David: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9281] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I would like to record my support for this bill. I think transparency is important. I think the bill will build the trust of the public in this institution and in the members of this Parliament. I urge the House to pass it without delay.