edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8037] 
9.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What innovative high-tech industry developments has the coalition Government been involved with in the Waikato region recently? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Among a number of innovative Waikato businesses that Government agencies have been working with one particular high-tech development firm is Pacific Aerospace Corporation. Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand—now New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—along with Investment New Zealand and Technology New Zealand have all been working closely with Pacific Aerospace Corporation New Zealand’s only aircraft manufacturer. They have been supporting its manufacturing and overseas marketing development as well as the international certification of the new aircraft the PAC750LX which is able to lift large payloads and can operate from small landing strips. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What is the significance of this company? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Pacific Aerospace Corporation is a successor of a New Zealand pioneer topdressing company established by Ozzie James in 1954 and exports fully built aircraft as well as aircraft componentry. The company manufactured the Fletcher topdresser an icon of New Zealand agriculture. It is now exporting to Singapore Thailand Australia and the United States and is planning export activity in Europe and Africa. This new aircraft is a world leader in its class. It will be an ambassador for New Zealand innovation around the world. The company expects by the end of 2004 to have earned $25 million extra in export income and by 2005 a further $30 million with extra sales increasing year on year. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Do the innovative high-tech developments include a tax or levy on the emissions of dairy cows—Waikato’s main income earner—and where were the Labour members for Hamilton when the “flatulence tax” was being debated in Garden Place last Friday? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think that for New Zealand to make a contribution to the problem of global warming is extraordinarily innovative and very responsible.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8965] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make two points. First of all I had the permission of the Grimsdells to speak and refer the case to the House. Secondly I have in my hand a comment from Mr Grimsdell that since the satisfactory heart ultrasound scan there has been silence. The scan was taken some time ago and they are waiting for an operation.
Gosche Mark: General Debate 
Gosche Mark: General Debate 
[Volume:623;Page:18495] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I want to start my contribution to this debate by offering my condolences to the Opposition whip. What a job that person was given! How would one like to have that job? National’s caucus members will not even sit together in the Koru lounge. The leader is in one corner and the other members are over there and will they speak to each other? No. How would one like to try to manage that lot in Parliament when they will not even speak to each other in the Koru Club? The poor member who was demoted to National’s front bench to be the whip has a horrific job. All the National members will be asking why Don Brash still had his job because if someone disagrees with the leader of the National Party and that person is a woman then she is out the door quick smart but if one is Don Brash and one disagrees with oneself then one is still the leader. Once Don Brash said that National would do away with 4 weeks’ annual leave and then he disagreed with himself and said that it would keep it. National was going to give tax cuts to the rich and then Don said no they would be given to low and medium income earners. So he disagreed with himself but he still kept his job. I do not understand that nor does Georgina te Heuheu nor does Lynda Scott and nor does Katherine Rich. 
The powers of observation of Dr Brash are legend. This is what he said when he was asked about his dealings with the women within his caucus: “Oh yes there are a number of reasons why Lynda Scott is leaving. Georgina is certainly a woman and Katherine is as well.” What powers of observation that man has; they are astounding. Don Brash said that he thought he could work with women and the National Party then went to work. For 2 weeks its members hunted high and low around New Zealand to find a woman who could testify to that but they could not so they went to Switzerland. Now we have a woman in Switzerland who will testify to the fact that Don Brash can work with women. 
 We on the Government side of the House can just sit and laugh and ask what sort of advice that man is getting and what sort of political leader National has. We really feel for poor old Simon Power. He has a terrible job. National is split into factions within the factions. There is the Gerry faction the Don faction the Bill faction and the other fella O’Connell is a faction all on his own. Members fight each other within those factions; that is the state of the National Party. 
We want to reward some of the National members. We think that Murray McCully should be given a life membership of the Labour Party. He should be kept on by the National Party even after he is dead because who else would let his or her leader sit with this line-up: Brian Tamaki on one side and Tame Iti on the other? What a nightmare! We say to Murray McCully that he should keep up the good work. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Robertson H V Ross: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14146] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker I wish to advise honourable members that the Green Party has decided to share its time. Therefore the member will get a bell at 4 minutes to signify 1 minute of speaking time remains.
Ryall Tony: Personal Explanations — Question No. 4 to Minister 17 February 
Ryall Tony: Personal Explanations — Question No. 4 to Minister 17 February 
[Volume:623;Page:18805] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 In question No 4 on 17 February I inadvertently misquoted the Minister of Police from 8 February and I apologise for that.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:614;Page:10369] 
11.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: How does Government support of New Zealand film-making benefit our regions? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 International productions such as  
The Lord of the Rings 
 and  
The Last Samurai 
 bring considerable economic and tourism benefits to New Zealand’s regions. However local films supported by the New Zealand Film Commission and the Film Production Fund such as  
Whale Rider 
  
The Locals 
 and  
Perfect Strangers 
 also have a significant positive effect on our regions including the West Coast Waikato and the Gisborne area. 
Moana Mackey 
: What specific examples can she give of regional benefits from these Film Commission and Film Production Fund – supported films? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
:  
Perfect Strangers 
 which was filmed on the West Coast of the South Island created significant employment opportunities increased the skill base in film making facilitated fund-raising for community groups and has increased the profile of the West Coast.  
The Locals 
 filmed in the Waikato brought economic injections into local business and saw the inclusion of Waikato bands in the film soundtrack. The international success of  
Whale Rider 
 including its most recent British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) children’s award for best feature film has resulted in increased focus on tourism to New Zealand in general and to the Whangara area in particular. 
Judy Turner 
: How can she claim that the Government’s support of New Zealand film-making produces any benefits for the regions at all given that Treasury figures indicate that the effect of recently introduced tax incentives for medium to large film projects could actually produce a net loss to our economy of up to $5 million as well as cause skills shortages and wage rises for the local industry? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Treasury would say that. However the evidence of the benefits is available all around New Zealand and in the more than 500 jobs for example for New Zealanders produced by  
The Lord of the Rings 
 series.
Prebble Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17078] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I think Mr Brownlee actually makes a very good point and of course this bill in terms of its Supplementary Order Paper is really a new bill. There is a solution of course and that is for the Chair to allow more speeches. I have to say now that Mr Brownlee has raised the point that Dr Muriel Newman has been in the Chamber all evening as well. She also has a point of view to make and has not had an opportunity to speak. Of course there is one solution that is quite obvious and it would be a very parliamentary one—that this debate be allowed to continue and not cut off by the Government.
Peck Mark: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Peck Mark: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8693] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Peters Jim: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Peters Jim: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18917] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I am pleased on behalf of New Zealand First to rise in support of this bill. It may seem that those who heard New Zealand First in regard to the committee’s discussions may in turn be surprised. But one of the reasons for our support of this bill is that it is a modern bill. It puts the Treaty of Waitangi in its place exactly without any reference so far as I am able to ascertain to the so-called principles of the treaty. It is for that very interesting reason plus the fact that there is no mention of separate hapu. That issue was of contention with us in the previous debate. We are very pleased to stand and support this bill particularly when we acknowledge as we have done in the past the longstanding wish of Ngati Awa to be here at this time and at this place particularly those negotiators including Professor Mead who in my youth I realised was an outstanding teacher. I am very pleased that I am able to pass on to him and others our regard for this bill. So briefly this is a modern bill. It recognises what New Zealand First has long believed. The treaty has a real place in our history in practice but this bill does not embellish it with the unproven undefined and therefore unwanted “principles” in our legislation.
McNair Craig: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
McNair Craig: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3925] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 Just before I was interrupted on Thursday evening at 6 o’clock I was talking about the bill confirming the annual income tax rates for 2002-03. I just wanted to touch briefly on the point that New Zealand First wants to think out of the box a little bit as far as taxation is concerned. We want a new tax rate on increased export net profit. We want to reduce the rate to 20 percent. For example if company A has net income from exporting of $10 million this year and if it achieves $12 million next year then the tax rate on the additional $2 million would be 20 percent. New Zealand First if it were in a position to do so would put the appropriate machinery and legislation in place to ensure that the system was honest and was kept honest. Within 5 years we would plan to put all exports on the same footing of 20 percent. I just wanted to touch on that issue considering that part of this bill includes the tax rates for 2002-03. 
Another issue that is quite a hot topic and quite controversial is the reforming of the rules relating to the taxation of Maori organisations. I was a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee along with my leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters which heard the evidence and along with the member opposite Mr Rodney Hide— 
Rodney Hide 
: I remember that member’s questions very well—very insightful. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: That is good. He was on the committee with me along with others. I remember hearing the evidence and deliberating on the bill. New Zealand First is concerned that one section of the New Zealand community is receiving an advantage over other groups. We expressed a minority view in the report back because of our concern. It is our intention in the Committee stage to put an amendment that all sections of the New Zealand community that are able to take advantage of the proposal relating to basic rates of tax at 19.5 percent should be treated in the same way. In the meantime we cannot support the bill because of its unfair and race-based system and we will be abstaining from the vote on the second reading. I reiterate that New Zealand First wants to treat all New Zealanders equally and we are preparing an amendment to give effect to this view.
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:6316] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 100 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Noes 17 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13293] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 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; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation Tonga 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation Tonga 
[Volume:613;Page:9837] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from Tonga led by the Minister of Finance is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
McNair Craig: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
McNair Craig: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3801] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 Before we were interrupted at the end of the sitting at nearly 10 p.m. last night I was talking about looking over at the Minister in the chair at the time the Hon Steve Maharey and wondering what the Hon John Tamihere was thinking at that point. I still wonder what he is thinking while he sits in his office in Bowen House as this bill goes through the Committee. I wonder whether he is thinking about making certain comments about this bill and whether they will be similar to those quoted in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 24 February. The article I am referring to stated: “Junior minister Mr John Tamihere will today apologise to Cabinet colleague Steve Maharey after he publicly accused him of”—very unparliamentary statement—“about the welfare system.” I wonder whether the Hon John Tamihere is thinking the same thing about this Television New Zealand Bill. I also wonder— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Come to the bill. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: The senior Government whip can try to be the big bully that he is but I am getting to Part 3 of the bill. I want to bring out some of what is written there.  
As reported back from the Commerce Committee the bill states that statements of intent will have to include in addition to the usual matters qualitative and quantitative performance measures for measuring performance against the charter and a statement of how the public will be involved in measuring performance against the charter. How will those measures be qualitative? How will they be quantitative? Who will measure what is qualitative and quantitative? Will Helen Clark measure that by the standard of her world view and so on? Will the senior Government whip measure that? I certainly hope not but will he measure what is qualitative and what is quantitative? Everybody has different points of view. I know that I would probably measure that quite differently from how it would be measured by the senior Government whip by Nandor Tanczos and some other people in this Committee by Helen Clark and probably by the Minister the Hon Steve Maharey. On behalf of New Zealand First I ask the Committee what measures are in place to really back up what this bill states—that is to really back up the performance measures in terms of what is qualitative and what is quantitative.  
I go back to the provisions of the bill that talk about featuring programming that contributes towards intellectual scientific cultural spiritual and ethical development that reflects the diverse beliefs of New Zealanders that promotes and informs and so on. I say we all have different views on different things in different parts of life. For example when my New Zealand First colleague Dail Jones put in an amendment regarding programming of a family nature that would support the family and the development of family life in New Zealand our views were obviously quite different from those of the Labour Government.
Dunne Peter: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7810] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to make a brief contribution and spell out three reasons that we are not supporting the third reading of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill. The first is that this measure was originally introduced as a way of dealing with the particular circumstances concerning Harry Duynhoven. We were concerned that the scope of the bill particularly in Part 1 took it far beyond Mr Duynhoven’s situation and I moved an amendment at the Committee stage to limit its application to the period expiring 6 August 2003. That amendment was not accepted by the Committee and therefore changed the basis of our previous support for the bill. 
The second issue I want to raise follows on in less flamboyant language from the point made by Mr Prebble. We now have a situation in which there will be a spectre of suspicion over a number of members in the House because of the deeply held fear that there are many other members who are hiding behind Mr Duynhoven in this particular instance. Unfortunately the debate has not clarified that position one iota. In fact because the debate has not clarified it it has added to that sense of suspicion and concern amongst the public. 
The third point is a plea to all members of Parliament because the bill that we are it seems about to pass now contains an open invitation to everybody within the next 2 years to do all they can to acquire foreign citizenships nationalities or appointments—you name it—and have the full protection of the law. All members of Parliament should reflect very carefully upon that because the gaze of public scrutiny will be upon all of us to see who is brazen and foolish enough to take up the opportunities that this legislation inflicts upon us. The irony will be that as we pass this bill we are putting in place the mechanism for a much tighter standard in future. The pressure as I think Mr Prebble suggested some time ago will be to restrict the eligibility further so that no one who holds dual citizenship can be a candidate for the New Zealand Parliament. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I thought the member had but— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: He must have meant that. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Whether he said it or not the point is that the pressure for us to tighten the law in that regard will become much stronger as a result of this measure. So there is an irony involved here. On the one hand it seeks to protect the circumstances of Mr Duynhoven and on the other it creates a much wider situation that will produce an outcome that I believe will see us adopting much tighter rules in the future. I do not think that that is what anyone intended and I think this will turn out to be something Parliament will regret in the future. It is a matter of great regret to me that we have created this anomaly through the way in which this bill was drafted.
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — Scampi Fishery—Allegations 
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — Scampi Fishery—Allegations 
[Volume:618;Page:13961] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Allegations were made against me during my absence from New Zealand last week. Those allegations are baseless and ridiculous and I immediately instructed my legal counsel to take action seeking damages and costs from those organisations and individuals who promulgated those allegations. Accordingly papers were lodged in the High Court in Auckland today seeking damages and costs from Television New Zealand Radio New Zealand Yvonne Dossetter Ken Shirley MP and David Carter MP. Those who would publish or repeat such allegations either do not know me or know nothing of what I have achieved in my political career. My only other comment is to say: 
Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something nothing; 
’Twas mine ’tis his and has been slave to thousands;  
But he that filches from me my good name 
Robs me of that which not enriches him 
And makes me poor indeed.
Brown Peter: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18639] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I admit that I took my time about seeking the call but I waited for Marc Alexander to speak because I know he has a particular interest in this bill and has followed this legislation very closely. You said that I had not sought the call at all. That is not true. I was on my feet when Dianne Yates moved the closure motion and again when Jill Pettis moved the closure motion but I did not get the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry Mr Brown that I did not see you but there is another part to the bill and I will certainly take into consideration the submission you have made. There are a number of amendments to be voted on. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (1) by omitting proposed new section 3(1A)(a) and (b) of the principal Act and substituting the following new paragraphs (b) and (c): 
(b)the publication is or contains 1 or more visual images of a person who is or appears to be under 18 years of age engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities; or 
(c)a representation of the sexual parts of a person of that kind for primarily sexual purposes.
King Annette: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
King Annette: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7369] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I stand to support this bill. Having just listened to the member who has resumed his seat I realise that National members speak out of both sides of their mouths. On one hand they are always talking about wanting to keep down the costs of bureaucracy but when a bill gives us the ability to get rid of things like technical redundancies they are opposed to it. National cannot have it both ways. The senior Labour whip said in his speech that the public would be pleased with this bill and he is right. This bill saves money for long-suffering taxpayers by reducing unnecessary payments for technical redundancies which occur when a person gets a payout when moving from one Government department to another. This is a good bill and I am glad it is making progress through this House.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9186. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I have allowed more snap debates this year than I think in any other year. But that is because I regarded the applications as deserving ones. I said that this report relates to part 1 of a three-part review. Although the report has material of obvious interest to members and they may wish to take parliamentary opportunities to debate it I do not consider the report requires the House to hold an urgent debate on it today. That is why I declined the application.
Sutton Jim: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Sutton Jim: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9502] 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Wine Bill be now read a third time 
. This is a good bill initiated at the request of the industry. It cleans up the mess left by the previous National Government a regime under which a few rogue winemakers were emboldened to misrepresent the contents of their bottles thereby endangering the reputation and future of an entire industry. 
This bill will ensure that the excellent international reputation of New Zealand export wine is maintained. It will ensure that consumers of our products both locally and internationally are totally confident that what they are drinking is not only safe but is what they want to consume. The bill strikes a good regulatory balance—not so heavy as to stifle innovation yet not so light that confidence in New Zealand wine is diminished. 
The industry has expanded rapidly and now brings in $281 million in export earnings. The Labour Government recognises the importance of this sector for New Zealand’s prosperity. The industry faces a worldwide glut in wine and the New Zealand grape wine industry is forecasting significant growth in the volume of wine produced here. Such competition only increases the industry’s need for strong legislation to facilitate exports. The Government has provided the platform for industry growth. It does not tell winemakers how to make wine but simply ensures they have the base on which to grow exports. 
The bill makes consultation a central focus which is one of the objectives of clause 3. This will require the regulator and the wine industry to work together for win-win outcomes under the Act. This in turn should help ensure that the bill better facilitates the industry’s continued ability to compete on the international stage. 
I appreciate that it will take winemakers time to become familiar with what the bill does and how it works. This is one reason why the bill provides for transition periods and during those times and thereafter requires the regulator to consult winemakers and their industry bodies about regulation of the industry. I note that many of the elements that will make up wine standards management plans are already in industry codes of practice. These will require only minor modification to fit within the new regulatory framework. 
This bill deserves the support of the House as it delivers appropriate legislation to govern the making and export of wine. The Government has delivered what the wine industry sought from it. I commend the bill to the House.
Paraone Pita: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Paraone Pita: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19620] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I also rise to take a short call. I do so on behalf of New Zealand First—and I remind the House again that it is the only non-aligned political party in this House—to speak to the first reading of the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. 
The purpose of this bill—to New Zealand First anyway—appears to be laudable and appears to give protection to the itemised objects in the bill. We in New Zealand First believe that given the opportunity submissions from the public will identify concerns they have regarding this bill. 
The collection of artefacts taonga and other objects has gone on for decades and there are a number of prized public and private collections most of which have been available for public viewing at some stage. But although I talk about artefacts and taonga I do not believe that cultural heritage is or should be confined to movable or portable artefacts. In this regard I talk about the land in which we have the privilege of living. 
Collectors and other legitimate purchasers may feel constrained by this bill because it appears to limit their ability to trade freely both nationally and internationally. The bill has a further impact in that New Zealanders could become subject to the impact of laws made in other countries with regard to particular objects. The sovereignty enjoyed by New Zealanders becomes a matter of question and also a matter of the rights of property and title. 
One of the changes proposed in the bill concerns the amendments to sections 11 and 12 of the principal Act proposed in clauses 15 and 16 of the bill with regard to the substitution of the words “taonga tuturu” for the word “artifact” and of the words “nga taonga tuturu” for the word “artifacts”. It is interesting to note that in clause 6 “Interpretation” the words “taonga tuturu” are not defined although references are made to them in clauses 15 18 and 22 where those clauses substitute them for the word “artifact”. However the words “nga taonga tuturu” are defined to mean “two or more taonga tuturu” and I wonder whether the Minister might consider putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper to include the words “taonga tuturu” in the interpretation clause. 
I should point out that according to the Williams dictionary “tuturu” means “fixed or permanent” and “taonga” means “property or highly valued”. It can also mean “treasure”. While talking of taonga tuturu it is interesting to query whether this bill will be any more effective than the legislation that has seen the continued sale of land here in New Zealand to overseas interests. 
New Zealand First will support this bill going to the Government Administration Committee in order for submissions to be made by the people of New Zealand and in the hope that the bill will return to this House in a more robust state and with more substance than its present language seems to imply.
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6864] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 47G the following subsection: 
(3)In the event that no action is taken against any party the investigation of which the Commission required the supply of information or documents under this section then the Commission will reimburse the supplier of the information or documents for the reasonable costs of providing the required information or documentation.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14049] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Robertson H V Ross: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17731] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Of course that is up to the Committee. The member must— 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Seek leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a matter for the member himself to decide.
Vote: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11575] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Dunne Peter: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12353] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call because I know the Committee is keen to make progress on this measure. The United Future members will be voting in favour of the Minister’s amendments to clause 14 regarding Easter Sunday wine sales and also relating to the issues he raised in relation to Chinese cooking wines. 
I want to speak briefly to my own proposed amendment to clause 14 which makes some changes to section 37 of the principal Act regarding off-licence sales at clubs. The best way I can illustrate what I am seeking to do is by an example. I see my friend the Minister of Labour is standing in the lobby and I will just use “Swainy” as an example. If I were to go to the Johnsonville Club with “Swainy” who was a member of the Petone club we could both consume alcohol on site with our meal. But when we were going back to “Swainy’s” house to watch the rugby if I decided we should buy some supplies to take with us I could buy off-licence from the club but “Swainy” could not even though he is a member of a reciprocal club. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The member will use the member’s proper name. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am referring to a mythical colleague. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. I refer the member to Speaker’s rulings 26/7 and 26/8. A member’s proper name is to be used. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I accept your ruling. I would simply say that the Minister and I have been friends for years longer than I care to remember and I hope this does not alter that greatly. 
The point I am making is simply that my amendment extends a provision that currently relates to on-site consumption to the off-licence situation. It is simply a logical move and I would commend it to the attention of members of the Committee. It does not actually change the situation very significantly because of the reciprocity issue that is at the heart of the club movement. I think that is probably the only explanation I should give. I suspect I now need to go and talk to the Minister of Labour but I do hope that members will support the amendment when it comes up later on.
Vote: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9433] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 157 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel as amended be agreed to. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 129 in the name of Murray Smith to insert clause 41B be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 65 be agreed to: 
to amend clause 65 by inserting the following new subclause: 
(1A)The Minister must take into account in considering any draft code for approval: 
(a)the need to ensure that the requirements of the code are not so onerous as to act as a barrier to persons of modest means gaining access to accommodation in retirement villages; and 
(b)the need to ensure that the code is sufficiently flexible to permit the operation of villages with a range of pricing structures and a range of services and facilities offered to residents.
Carter John: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Carter John: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19712] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I seek leave to table Standing Order 3 “Definitions”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 3. Is there any objection? There is. Members need to be counselled that they are close to bringing themselves and the House into total and justified disrepute. [ 
Interruption 
] I have ruled on the matter of last night.
Burton Mark: State Sector Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Burton Mark: State Sector Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7288] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 I rise just to help the member and perhaps it will save some time in terms of the issue he has raised if I say the bill does not force employees in any situation to transfer. They have the right to reject any offer of employment and compulsory transfer is not involved. If the member makes sure he reads Supplementary Order Paper 107 which is on the Table— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but we are talking about the title only. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am addressing the proposed change of title that the member raised and the underlying cause for it and giving him some reassurance in that regard.
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13515] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 79 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 28 
New Zealand National 21; ACT New Zealand 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7631] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson H V Ross: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9024] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that the Speaker be recalled. The Ayes have it. The Speaker will be recalled. 
House resumed.
Swain Paul: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Swain Paul: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9678] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Part 2 contains quite a lot of meat. It deals with a number of substantive issues and involves a lot to do with tolling and public-private partnerships. I know that members want to talk about a number of other clauses but I suspect that there will be some outrageous outlandish and hurtful criticisms particularly from the National Party about these provisions. 
Never before in my life have I seen something as unbelievable as the National Party’s minority report which states that National is concerned the Minister has to ensure that a feasible untolled alternative road is available to road users when there is a tolling arrangement. This concern is unheard of internationally. In fact virtually every tolling arrangement in any country requires a feasible alternative. Anyone going to Europe knows that. This minority report was done by the old demoted spokesperson on transport. I know that the new modern spokesperson will probably want to take a careful look at it and possibly rethink his views. 
This part is about tolling new infrastructure not existing infrastructure. There are lots of conditions around it and decisions that have to be made after comments from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that there should be some ability for the Minister to give some initial indication a project will proceed. That has now been built into the bill. 
Public-private partnerships are very important for New Zealand. They have been very very successfully operated in other parts of the world. Before I hear all the comments that they will not work the particular clauses in this legislation are based on the Melbourne link where lease arrangements are used to attract public-private finance in order to get a project built. 
There are some very very good clauses in this part. It is the meat of the bill and I commend it to the Committee.
Vote: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7887] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Chadwick Steve: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8095] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Choudhary Ashraf: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8597] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. I had the opportunity to sit in the Education and Science Committee which considered this bill and first of all I would like to pay my tribute to Brian Donnelly the chairman who very ably chaired it. We had very good and very wide discussions all over the country and I am delighted at the way he chaired those meetings. Although I do not necessarily agree with a lot of New Zealand First policies I certainly do have a lot of respect for Mr Donnelly. 
I do disagree with those who find fault with the process we have gone through. I have had the opportunity to travel quite widely around the world and I have heard the discussions in the US and Europe about GE. I believe that through the royal commission and now this bill we in this country have probably had more wide-ranging discussions on this issue than anywhere that I am aware of. 
This bill is about streamlining the approval process for the introduction of conditional release of genetically modified organisms in this country. Plant breeding—breeding new crops and seeds—is nothing new. We have been involved in developing plants and commercial breeding for many years. Also we have been using tissue culture and embryo culture technologies for many years. Now we have come to genetic and molecular engineering and I believe that this technology will be very useful for our country. I fully support this bill.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15605] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 260 in the name of MetiriaTurei to clause 50 be agreed to.
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:16090] 
5.  
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to ensure that there is an adequate supply of appropriately qualified early childhood teachers? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Over the next 4 years $41.4 million will be invested in a scholarships scheme to give assistance to people from low-income backgrounds to train to be early childhood teachers. Our Government is committed to getting more and more young children into affordable accessible and top-quality early childhood education. Getting properly qualified teachers is an incredibly important part of that. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Why is the Government moving to increase the number of qualified and registered early childhood teachers? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Quality early childhood education is a vital foundation for future learning and success in later life. It is obvious looking around that too few people have had it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is the Minister insisting that the Ministry of Education close down the Kawhia Early Childhood Learning Centre when it has a qualified teacher who happens to have a primary school degree rather than an early childhood education qualification; and why is he going to the High Court to try to get it shut? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there are three points. I am advised that Kawhia has received considerable assistance from the Ministry of Education including solutions to the licensing issue and has turned them down. My second point is that Kawhia has gone to the High Court not the ministry. If the member cannot tell the direction on that it is no wonder he is failing badly.
Tizard Judith: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tizard Judith: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7597] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I rise to support this excellent bill and to congratulate the Minister on introducing it. The bill will put in place the necessary measures to support the Government’s well-established climate change and energy policies. It will provide a basis for a national coordination of controls on greenhouse gas emissions and make sure the effects of climate change are flagged for the attention of everyone working with the Resource Management Act. The bill will provide national leadership and clarity of roles and also a reduction in costs for administration compliance and participation related to energy and climate change matters. I commend this bill to the House.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:608;Page:5241] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill and the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3).
Dyson Ruth: General Debate 
Dyson Ruth: General Debate 
[Volume:627;Page:22065] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the earlier interchange Ken Shirley accused me of lying. I take gross offence at that and ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I heard that myself and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. To say that a member is lying is absolutely out of order.