edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:10951] 
6.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What action has been taken to prepare New Zealand in the event of avian influenza arriving? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Order in Council adding avian flu to the schedule of notifiable human diseases was signed on Monday and comes into effect today. The ministry has established a small response team which could rapidly be expanded if necessary and is maintaining regular contact with international and other Government agencies to closely monitor this flu. 
Dianne Yates 
: Why has the Government taken this measure now when we do not have any cases of avian flu present in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Although worldwide there are still no confirmed cases of human-to-human transmission of H5N1 it is prudent to be prepared for that possibility as well as being prepared for the possibility of someone becoming infected through contact with poultry in one of the affected countries and then travelling to New Zealand. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: How does this Government plan to change its response to an overseas-sourced viral epidemic in light of its very slow reaction in 2003 to the severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) epidemic? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Only one person in New Zealand thought there was a slow reaction in New Zealand to Sars and it was that member. She was widely criticised by the medical profession for the comments she made. New Zealand was very well prepared indeed having undertaken a pandemic exercise the year before. I congratulate all our doctors and nurses who immediately swung into action in preparation for an outbreak of Sars in New Zealand—as well as border control Air New Zealand and other airlines who worked well together to ensure that we did not have any confirmed cases of Sars. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Will she be recommending that the Government adopt precautionary measures that other countries such as the European Union have already taken to prevent the bird flu from arriving here in the first place such as banning the import of poultry products from countries that are badly affected by the bird flu—in particular high-risk unsterilised chicken feathers down and skins; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In New Zealand we are ensuring that there is no importation of poultry or birds for consumption by humans. Importations are already subject to sterilisation and this flu cannot survive high levels of sterilisation. The advice I have received is that there is minimal risk in terms of any product from birds we are bringing in from around the world.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11644] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Bill read a second time.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5595] 
1. DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that 15 to 19-year-olds are in education training or employment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 Yesterday the Prime Minister and I announced a $56 million package of new initiatives. The centrepiece of this education and training leaving-age package was $23.6 million to expand the very successful Gateway programme to 12000 secondary students by the year 2007. Other elements include more apprenticeships targeted career planning assistance follow-up support for young trainees and regionalised programmes for youth. 
Dave Hereora 
: What response has he seen to the education and training leaving-age package? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Industry Training Federation has strongly supported the expansion of Modern Apprenticeships and Gateway. The New Zealand University Students Association has welcomed allowances for under-18-year-olds who have completed school. The package as a whole was described as—and I might quote the Mayor of Christchurch—“bloody brilliant”. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Given that the Minister has managed to increase vocational training by only an average of 7000 to 8000 places per annum in the last 3½ years and his plan is to expand it on average by 25000 places per annum in the next 2 years how is he possibly going to find an additional 100000 places per annum to meet the 2007 target? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This package combined with the earlier one of $85 million put into industry training is intended to take us through to 150000 trainees by 2005. Of course between now and then there are other Budgets that can be used to help to drive it further.
Carter Chris: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Carter Chris: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9874] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Dr Hutchison raised the question of whether the legislation provides for coverage throughout New Zealand. I assure the member that section 29 of the Act already provides for disqualification throughout New Zealand. Dr Hutchison also asked why councils should have discretion over whether they can order a probationary owner to undergo dog education. Not every circumstance is the same so councils have the discretion to do that. They can choose to order that on a case by case basis and I think that is a very sensible approach.
Hunt Jonathan: Obituaries — Rt Hon Frank O’Flynn 
Hunt Jonathan: Obituaries — Rt Hon Frank O’Flynn 
[Volume:612;Page:9299] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 17 October 2003 of the Rt Hon Francis Duncan O’Flynn QC who represented the electorate of Kapiti from 1972 to 1975 and that of Island Bay from 1978 to 1987. He was Minister of State Minister of Defence Minister in charge of War Pensions Minister in charge of Rehabilitation Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Associate Minister of Overseas Trade and Marketing from 1984 to 1987. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with his wife Sylvia and the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Goff Phil: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17887. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16156] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5514] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I speak in support of Dr Smith who has made a contribution in this bill understands the issues and is our spokesman on this issue. If you were to give the call to one other member in the Opposition I would seek that that person could concede to Dr Smith so Dr Smith could speak in that member’s place. I do not know whether it is possible to do that but maybe the Clerk can assist us in this matter. I think it would be only fair in the normal course of events that if a call was given to myself I could concede. Would I have to seek leave; is that what you are telling me? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I have to seek leave. If leave were denied would that mean that I took the call? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Because the Standing Orders are as they are it means that the maximum number of calls any one member can have on this part is four. I am in the hands of the Committee when that decision is made so it is really up to members to seek the will of the Committee. I cannot overrule the desire of the Committee or its will. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Then I seek leave that if a call is given to a member of the National team who wishes to concede that call to Dr Smith this Committee approve that action. I seek leave along those lines. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9976] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raised a point of order concerning that decision on the grounds that earlier in the process of putting the questions the Chairperson accepted an amendment from Mr Worth relating to cigar bars. There are very few cigar bars in New Zealand—and there will be even fewer after this measure is passed—and the Chairperson commented that it was essentially a generic resolution whereas the amendments he ruled out of order were specific. The counter to this is that because there is a very limited number of cigar bars the application of the phrase is particularly limited. There appeared to be an inconsistency in allowing that amendment to be put—which was not questioned by the Committee—and then ruling out a large number of amendments. I have a latent suspicion that they were ruled out more because of the inconvenience and time it would take to deal with them all individually than because of any substantive argument. 
I also took a second point of order in response to a comment from the Chairperson when he referred—I do not have the precise words in front of me but I think they were from the page 849 of  
Erskine May 
 he referred to—to categories of bodies that cannot be included in this legislation which are individuals public corporations and one other. My submission was that these institutions did not come within that ambit at which point Mr Carter—who may well want to take a call—then took up the cudgels and raised another very valid point in respect of this matter.
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9883] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 4 be agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4932] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I concur with the previous speaker. National will be supporting this bill and has done right through. It is important legislation. We will commemorate Anzac Day in a couple of weeks’ time and recognise the servicemen and women who have fought around the world. We owe them a debt of gratitude. If we look around the walls of this House we see plaques commemorating the great battles that have been fought on the world scene—the Atlantic Crete El Alamein and behind us here I see North Africa. If we look further up the Chamber we see plaques commemorating the First World War battles. I cannot read them all from here but we have Egypt Gallipoli and the Somme. Around the walls of this debating chamber we acknowledge and recognise the sacrifices that have been made. 
This bill is important because it recognises that veterans have not been fairly treated. The bill makes some logical changes by moving responsibilities for veterans pensions to the Office of Veterans Affairs. That was acknowledged by Rodney Hide who made very strong points with which we concur as we concur with the comments made by Bill Gudgeon. When someone has had the experience of serving New Zealand in the theatre of war we appreciate that contribution. 
The bill recognises that military personnel are dealing with smaller skirmishes today. The skirmishes of the past—Vietnam Korea and the First and Second World Wars—have long gone. Today we have servicemen and women who are in more of a supervisory role with the United Nations. Today these skirmishes are much smaller so the numbers involved in the military are fewer than in earlier years. 
This bill will allow our servicemen and women to access war pensions. The entitlement has been mentioned. There will be two types of war pension—the disability pension and when veterans reach the age of 65 they will be able to choose the superannuation scheme or to remain with the war pension scheme. As a previous National speaker has said there is no recognition between superannuation and the war pension scheme. There may be an opportunity in the future to provide a recognition that these people have fought for New Zealand and for the freedoms that we enjoy and that there should be recognition that they be paid more; not just the same as a superannuitant. So that is the current position and I am not advocating today that this bill does not go far enough. There will be opportunities in the future and that is one of the things we would certainly like to see happen. 
This bill is supported by Parliament and it is pleasing to see that all parties are supporting it. We owe a debt of gratitude to those people who have put their lives on the line for our freedoms and we will be acknowledging that on Anzac Day in a couple of weeks’ time. I believe that this bill is a move in the right direction and National has great pleasure in supporting it. 
Bill read a third time.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20228] 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: How many 111 calls were referred to so-called “ghost units” in the past year? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised that the number of 111 calls that the police receive per year is approximately 495000. Many of those are not emergencies. The police have always recorded some incident reports for intelligence purposes rather than for immediate response. The police do not specifically record the number of 111 calls dealt with in that way. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that the superintendent in charge of the Northern Communications Centre has confirmed that 61000 calls in the last year were referred to so-called “ghost squads” and how many of those reports would have been dealt with by police officers had the police actually had the staff they need? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Those incidents that the police refer to are seen as ones where there is no need to make an immediate response. Those incidents do not form part of the crime stats and they never have. In the days of paper-based systems such incidents would never have found their way into the crime stats either. In other words the police gather intelligence for the purpose of resolving crimes overall. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Have police Intel units made a difference to policing in New Zealand? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes. Police Intel units have contributed to the overall crime reduction of 8.2 percent in the past year the lowest rate for more than 20 years. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement that the police have all the staff they need and can he advise the House of the total staffing of his “ghost squads”? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: First of all I want to say that there are no “ghost squads” in the New Zealand Police. We have intelligence units and that is completely different. I am satisfied that the police are very well resourced under this Government and that we have more police than we ever had in the past.
Urgent Debates Declined — Reviews—Targeted Policies and Programmes: Education Sector 
Urgent Debates Declined — Reviews—Targeted Policies and Programmes: Education Sector 
[Volume:627;Page:21970] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Reviews—Targeted Policies and Programmes: Education Sector 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Dr Don Brash seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the release by the Government on 23 June of its review of targeted policies and programmes. I have also received a letter from the Hon Bill English seeking to debate a report released by the State Services Commission on 18 July on an education sector review. 
These are particular cases of recent occurrence that involve ministerial responsibility but I am not persuaded that either requires the immediate attention of the House for an urgent debate today. In the case of the release of a report the circumstances must be exceptional in order to justify an urgent debate—see Speaker’s ruling 155/6—as they must be in any case but it is also the case that the House is about to embark on the estimates debate which is a relevant consideration for the Speaker in deciding whether to accept an application as per Speaker’s ruling 155/2. The applications are therefore declined. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider what “exceptional circumstances” might mean. The review of targeted policies and programmes was released by the Government at 4 o’clock in the afternoon on the last sitting day of the House before a 4-week adjournment. There was absolutely no chance that there would be questions on subsequent days through the questioning process. This is the first time the House has had any opportunity to discuss that review. I ask you what “exceptional” means. If it is a protection the Government can use under cover of a forthcoming recess to dump something it does not want discussed then I think that takes away some of the rights of the House. 
Accordingly I seek leave for the House to have an urgent debate on the review of targeted policies and programmes which was released by the Government late last month. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to have an urgent debate. Is there any objection? Yes there is.
Parker David: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Parker David: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21599] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 It will take less than 30 seconds to show the illogicality of the previous speaker’s statements. He criticised amendments to the bill that would have imposed preconditions on eventually permitted sales to overseas parties as being improper but he backs the total prohibition of the same sales. New Zealand First backs the total prohibition of sales of rural land to foreigners yet it opposes the imposition of conditions relating to access. The two positions are irreconcilable. That took 30 seconds. I support the bill.
Hughes Darren: Securities Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Securities Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18051] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call in the first reading which will refer the Securities Legislation Bill to the Commerce Committee. It is an omnibus bill that amends the Securities Act the Securities Markets Act and the Takeovers Act as well as the Takeovers Code so I am quite comfortable with that.
Tisch Lindsay: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17949] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I note that there was a hesitation on the part of the junior whip in casting two votes on behalf of the Progressives. He was unsure whether he was casting or had the authority to cast votes in favour so I seek clarification with regard to that. There was a hesitation and I see that he is on the phone at the moment. Maybe that matter can be clarified.
Speaker’s Statements — Ringing of the Bell 
Speaker’s Statements — Ringing of the Bell 
[Volume:611;Page:8315] 
Wednesday 3 September 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Ringing of the Bell 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members there was trouble with the bells earlier today. It is hoped that this antiquated system will soon be replaced. It is about 50 years old but I am assured it will be all right for the next day or two.
Vote: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12202] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18529] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just looking for some consistency on a matter unrelated to the substantive issue raised. When Mr Alexander was on his feet raising his original point of order he was interjected on by a member of the Labour back bench. I did not see whom it was. All we on the Opposition side of the House are asking for is a consistency in ruling on those interjections made at about the time the questions are asked in the gap and then when they are answered.
Brownlee Gerry: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8991] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Firstly the Standing Orders are relatively clear and give guidance not only to members of Parliament but also presumably to presiding officers. The Standing Orders suggest that members from a party should be called in order of their seniority. I noticed that that has not been observed this afternoon but I have been quiet about that. Secondly I point out that a number of people have been seeking the call for a long period of time. While I do not in any way dispute the seniority of the Rt Hon Winston Peters I suggest that in fairness to those members who have contributed to the debate and put time into this legislation this afternoon they should be given a slot a little sooner than someone who has just turned up in the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The call has been given correctly to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I ask him to please begin his speech.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20975] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 14 be agreed to.
Worth Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8813] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I support what Mr Prebble has said. But I would add two further points. The first is that this issue has substantially arisen because of the determination of the Chair in the Committee stage to try to close down this debate. If there had been a free-ranging debate that had perhaps a greater degree of liberality the point would not have arisen. The second point is that there was a clear ruling by the Business Committee which perhaps has now an element of ambiguity with the element of hindsight that the debate be part by part. It is that ruling that has given it seems to me the supporting basis for Mr Prebble’s argument. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did the member say “the Business Committee”? 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Well I may be wrong on that. It may have been a decision of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was. The Business Committee has no relevance. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Yes it may have been a decision of the House and I am wrong in that regard. But the substantive point remains that this was to be a part by part debate and that is what gives strength to Mr Prebble’s argument.
Peck Mark: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Peck Mark: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8701] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15193] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13164] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 6; 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 Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “This Act is the Corrections Act 2002” and substitute the words “This Act is the Corrections (Correctional Unions Employment Regulation and Other Matters) Act”.
Benson-Pope David: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9587] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 160 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Heather Roy to clause 23 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:19739] 
5.  
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What new criminal offences will be created to deal with the problem of voyeuristic filming? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill introduced today makes it a criminal offence to make publish or possess voyeuristic material of intimate situations such as those in changing sheds or toilets where people would reasonably expect to be private and to do so without their knowledge or consent. That is intended to protect people’s privacy in an age when technology such as cellphone cameras and the Internet make it all too easy to record and widely distribute voyeuristic images. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: How will this legislation help to protect people against the growing trend and increased ability by voyeurs to invade people’s privacy in that way? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Criminalising such behaviour enables the police to use their powers including those of search and seizure to take action against voyeurs and seek convictions against them. The penalties including imprisonment and reparations are designed to have a deterrent effect as well as to provide compensation to the victims for the harm done to them.
Copeland Gordon: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13087] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 The Hon John Carter of the National Party and you Mr Assistant Speaker in your very clear ruling are quite right to say that this bill—the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill does in fact link to the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. Would it not be a great thing if indeed the Foreshore and Seabed Bill did refer to the concept of “public domain”. I think it would relieve a lot of the uncertainty that John Carter spoke about if we just had those two simple words “public domain” back in the bill. 
Why have those two words been taken out of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill? We all know the reason do we not? Three members of the Labour Party could not make up their minds. Then two of them finally did make up their minds to vote against the Government and it had to turn to New Zealand First. New Zealand First with its chest puffed out breathlessly informed the nation that “public domain” was an American republicanism concept. Well ha ha! Let us tell that to the people of Auckland who well know about the Auckland Domain and try to tell it to one Gordon Copeland Member of Parliament born in Mapua ex - 3-mile specialist who used to run his races on the Mapua and Motueka domains both of which have been there since time immemorial. So much for the nebulous ridiculous reason given by New Zealand First for dropping those words! I hope they find their way back into the bill. 
Coming now to the issue at hand in terms of this particular bill I would like to say that United Future will vote in favour of its passage through the House. However I say to Wellington City councillors that they should proceed wisely and certainly they should consider the original intent of the 1879 Act that the proceeds from the sale or the lease of the reclaimed land should possibly be applied to the reduction of debt on the city especially if the land is sold. If it is sold the city will be realising a capital asset. Therefore ideally the proceeds should be used as a general principle for the reduction of the city’s liabilities. 
I express the hope that the councillors especially in this election year will consider that matter carefully because just like in a business or a family selling some of the family jewels—and this land is a jewel of the city—-and frittering away the proceeds on somebody’s expenditure wish list normally turns out to be a mistake and a costly mistake at that. So I tell the people of Wellington that if they want to get their rates down then when they select their new councillors this year they should vote for prudent people—and next year they should vote for United Future because we will take GST off rates and leave just for once some extra cash in the pockets of every Wellington residential ratepayer. I think that all the people of Wellington would welcome that change. We support the bill.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21200] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish to rule on this matter. This is question time. It is not a time for matters of general debate. No one actually knows the right or the wrong of the matter that was raised. Of course it is entitled to be raised in question time; it was raised and answers were given. Mr Hide was asked to leave the Chamber because he raised not a point of order but a point of privilege and when he was asked by the Chair to follow the Standing Orders and the correct process declined to do so.
New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:611;Page:8691] 
New Organisms and Other Matters Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for the Environment 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Burton Mark: Sittings of the House 
Burton Mark: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:618;Page:14198] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House at its rising to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 27 July 2004. That is in keeping with discussions I personally have had with representatives of all parties and with the whips earlier on.
Tizard Judith: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6502] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
:  
I assure the Committee that section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act does exist. I have already asked the Clerk to take the matter up with the firm doing the annotation because members must obviously have correct legislation available to them. Section 75A was inserted as from 1 April 2002 by section 337(1) of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001. It is absolutely clear that that provision relates to the levy payable and I would happily provide evidence to the member that it clearly exists.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
[Volume:614;Page:10724] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Further to that the Attorney-General in her answers today also said that there would be an announcement tomorrow. I accept that that may give weight to Speaker’s ruling 134/5 but that ruling states: “A case … must have arisen before the House meets to qualify for a debate.” This issue has most certainly arisen. The Government has told the House today and on many other occasions that it has conducted 11 hui around the country to discuss exactly this issue. Today there has been the prevention of the tabling of minutes with a group of Maori members particularly set up for this purpose. I think it is a hard call in the circumstances to say on what may be the most important constitutional issue for decades that this House cannot express a view prior to the Government making an announcement.
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21421] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8953] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want a clarification on your ruling with regard to urgent questions as per Standing Order 374. I appreciate that you have made your ruling. However when Mr Shirley asked for the question to be answered he was referring to the very significant speech given by the American Ambassador today. I have no doubt that the serious questions raised by this speech will be asked by the media in the next few hours and presumably answered by Ministers. I ask you whether your ruling effectively means that although the whole nation can read about it in the papers tomorrow morning Parliament cannot get an answer to the questions until tomorrow afternoon? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Urgent questions have to relate to something that has occurred. Urgent debates can result from something that has occurred. This was the opposite situation.
Ririnui Mita: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Ririnui Mita: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:607;Page:4994] 
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19531] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise a point of order with reference to both Standing Order 165 which is the declaration of pecuniary interest and Standing Order 395(f) relating to potential conflicts of interests of members. Although you may not be able to give a decision today I certainly would like a decision from you in due course. My question is whether a member actually gets out of a potential conflict of interest by passing a question on to a colleague. I raise this in the context of whether it is appropriate for a member to raise parliamentary questions about conflicts of interest of judges when that member has had costs of $3000 awarded against him as the plaintiff in a matter before the High Court and has failed to pay those costs to a defendant. Certainly as of 2 o’clock today those costs have not been paid.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17564] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock  
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy  
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones  
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Copeland  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson (P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa (P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora (P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson (P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to.
Gallagher Martin: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Gallagher Martin: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13018] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17582] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Alexander(P) 
English(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Franks(P) 
Power 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble 
Williamson(P) 
Brown (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington  
McNair 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart (P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Perry (P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Jones 
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker 
Ewen-Street  
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Mackey M 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C(P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui 
Donald(P) 
Hughes 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9588] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12592] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Report adopted.
Peters Winston: Motions — Jewish Graves and Chapel Wellington—Vandalism 
Peters Winston: Motions — Jewish Graves and Chapel Wellington—Vandalism 
[Volume:619;Page:14716] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I endorse the motion and the sentiments expressed by the previous speakers. The Jewish people have made and continue to make a very positive contribution to our society. Many of course were born here and some have come from places far away. They have their faith and their culture which they quietly observe and they in New Zealand are not people who set out to impose their beliefs on others but rather people who quietly play a positive role in our society. They have earned our respect and their dead are entitled to be respected and allowed to rest peacefully. That of course should be the case with all people who live in this country. The dead in particular are entitled to rest peacefully and not to have their graves desecrated. To those who would import such sentiments of racial prejudice against others our message is very simple: “Go back home where you came from.”
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8613] 
6.  
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What progress is the Government making towards implementing remediation and instituting clear management programmes for all high-risk contaminated sites? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 This week Cabinet agreed to give all regional councils access to an expanded Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund to investigate and clean up contaminated land in their areas. This is a significant step towards removing the unwanted legacy of contaminated sites by 2015 which is one of our key environmental election pledges. 
Jill Pettis 
: Which sites in particular will get priority for the $9 million worth of funding in the extended Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Contaminated sites can pose a severe risk to human health and to the environment. Therefore we will give priority to those sites that present the highest risk to people’s health and their environment and where landowners do not have the financial resources to undertake the work themselves. We will work in partnership with regional councils district councils and landowners who have the local knowledge and technical expertise to investigate and remediate the contaminated sites of concern. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does she agree that all New Zealanders have a right to know whether they are living near or on a contaminated site and what progress has been achieved in developing a public register of all contaminated sites in New Zealand? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Regional councils have made some progress—not 100 percent progress—towards establishing a list of contaminated sites in their own areas and the fund we have set up is an incentive for them to complete that list and have it accessible and on record.
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18721] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 7; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Mark Ron: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5362] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to draw it to your attention that at the time when the Hon. Roger Sowry was taking his point of order the senior Government whip was in conversation on his cellphone in the House. That is a total breach of the Standing Orders and once again it shows his contempt for this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I were to rule out everybody who was on a phone at any time in this House it would involve a lot of people but I just say that I deplore that practice and whenever it is raised I will rule against the person so concerned. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Rule it out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled it out—right now.