Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
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:9967] 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I move  
That the order of the day for the Committee stage of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill be postponed until the first members’ day after 1 March 2004 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Referral to Health Committee 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I move  
That the order of the day for the Committee stage of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill be discharged and the bill be referred to the Health Committee 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 15 October. 
Part 2 Amendments to Part II of principal Act ( 
continued 
)  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I move  
That the Chairman report progress and ask for leave to sit again 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That request is out of order. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Why is it out of order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That request must be done on a call and not on a point of order. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Mr Chairperson I sought advice from advisers from the Clerk’s Office about the way to proceed and was advised that I could do this by way of a point of order the moment you assumed the Chair. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 To move to report progress is to take a call in the Committee stage. Indeed Mr Chairman you may have noticed that the senior Government whip was already seeking a call which was why Mr Dunne called for a point of order—to get precedence. If he had been merely seeking a call to move a motion which is the normal procedure for reporting progress Mr Benson-Pope would have had the priority call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. That clearly explains the position. As I said before a motion to report progress must be done on a call. It was done on a point of order. I have dealt with the matter. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You will recall that when this matter was last before the Committee I raised with you both formally and informally the fact that my colleague Mr Alexander had been seeking a call all evening. You had been retaining a very strict record of parties getting the call you had been punctilious in ensuring that every party got a number of calls in proportion to its strength and you acknowledged to me at that time that Mr Alexander was—if one likes—one call short and that he would get a call before Part 2 was put. Mr Chairperson I seek your indulgence to uphold the commitment you gave to me when we last considered this matter—that is that before you accept a closure motion whether it be now or later in the debate you will give Mr Alexander the opportunity to make a speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is quite right. Calls were being sought by others. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am delighted to be able to take a call in this debate because for me the issue of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill comes down to those of us in this Parliament who truly believe in the right of individuals to make choices compared with those of us who believe that the Government can dictate what we do in our own lives. 
I would much rather go to a restaurant that was smoke-free. I do not like cigarette smoke. I prefer not to be around it. But I would prefer by far to be able to make that choice myself; to be able to look around see that a restaurant has a sign up saying it is completely smoke-free and say: “Wow I quite like the idea of that. It’ll get my business.” But on the other side of the political spectrum in this House are those who say: “No we know what’s best for individuals. We are going to be dogmatic and have an across-the-party vote.” I know that a number of members in the Labour Party think this bill is nonsense but will Labour let the whip off and let there be a free vote? No it will not. 
So we come down to something that I think has some real substance to it. I want to hammer home this point of choice. I refer to the Returned Services Association. In my own case most of the old diggers in the Howick Returned Services Association have for many years told me they are Labour voters they support the workers and they vote Labour. That is all right; that is OK. I say to them that that is their choice that I have just come along to have a chat and that is fine. If members went to the Howick Returned Services Association tonight they would not hear them saying that any more. They have had a gutsful of this Government. 
Those old diggers were sent off to fight in a war the Government provided them with tobacco and they got hooked on it. They are addicted to it. That Returned Services Association club has done everything it possibly can to fix the polluted air in its club. It has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on an air management system that rips the air out from the bar areas and the restaurants and flicks it up through the filtering systems. I have seen it happen. One can light a cigarette and see the smoke just go whoosh and it is gone. Someone a couple of feet away does not get any of that smoke. The association has also set aside a part that is guaranteed to be smoke-free. It has also set aside a restaurant area as smoke-free. 
The association has surveyed its members; it has asked its own members. Members should remember that that club is not a public institution. It is not like a restaurant. It is a members-only club. It has asked its members what they want. If I recall properly 96 percent want the choice to smoke 
to remain. That is why I have moved an amendment in my name to section 12 in clause 6B. All that my amendment does is exempt the Howick Returned Services Association. I know that a lot of other members in this Parliament have gone for such an exemption for their own Returned Services Association clubs. 
But I want someone from the Labour Party to tell me why an institution that is a club should come under this provision. 
A person cannot just walk into that club off the street; he or she has to be a member or to be signed in by a member. It is a person’s choice to go to that club because of his or her membership. No one is compelled to go there. It is not like sitting on a bus or in an aeroplane and having to breathe somebody else’s air with smoke in it. A person chooses to go to a Returned Services Association club. Those people fought for their country. They were hooked on tobacco by the Government itself. Now what are we telling those old diggers? [ 
Interruption 
] No Jill Pettis is telling them she knows best. I can tell the Committee that not a single member of the Howick Returned Services Association thinks Jill Pettis knows best about anything but she says she does. 
All that I say to the Labour Party is that if it truly believed this legislation had merit it would take the whip off. Some of its own members are quietly sneaking around the lobby saying it is just a disgrace. This is the old centrist attitude of “We’ll take control of people’s lives. We’ll determine what they do.” There are a number of Labour members—I will not embarrass them by naming them but some of them are here today—who would simply love to have the freedom to vote against the bill. Ross Robertson the member for Manukau East whose electorate comes right up to the Howick Returned Services Association is always there telling its members he is their friend. They like him because a lot of them are Labour voters. Well I do not know whether Ross Robertson will get many invites back unless he does the decent thing and supports my amendment. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I am glad to finally get a call. I sat here for hours on end and never got the chance to take a call. A lot of the other members spoke once twice or three times. This is the first chance I have had to actually get up and say something. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member will please make his contribution. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I ask the question of who will be liable for the loss of revenue to the businesses adversely affected. We are talking about individuals up and down the country who employ thousands upon thousands of Kiwis and who have put their money into an enterprise a hospitality venue and now some do-gooder Government spokesperson will come along and tell them what they can and cannot do in their comfort of their own investments. It makes absolutely no sense. Yet at the same time the State-funded prison system allows those at Her Majesty’s pleasure to smoke. Taxpayers are paying for that—apparently what is good for the goose is not good for the gander—but people who want to pay for their own hospitality venues are denied that right. How on earth does that make any sense? If the Government is going to disallow people from making decisions in their own investments it should at least have the gumption to apply the rule right across the board and disallow smoking in all prisons yet the State will not do that because it is in the too-hard basket. 
Who will be liable for the loss of choice to the proprietors of the various hospitality venues when the numbers of people going to them go down? Will the State be liable for that as a direct result of its interference in what should be a micromanaged business decision taken by the people who actually run the businesses? The Government will not make up the shortfall. It will not even give them a tax cut on the money that they earn despite the huge amounts of money that it is raking in from them and stealing from their pockets. Taking away their choice and their revenue is another nail in the coffin of the hospitality industry. 
Who will be liable for the loss of choice to the customers in choosing the businesses they wish to frequent? There are people who want to go into certain bars and have a drink have a chat to their mates have a cigar or a cigarette and the Government is taking away their choice. It is ironic is it not? What sense does it make that those who want this bill to pass will be exercising their choice to vote with the result that those affected by that choice will be deprived of their own choice by this legislation? There is an irony there that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 
It is often true that the people who pass these sorts of bills are the very people who do not have to live with the consequences of the decisions that they impose on others. It makes no sense for the Government to come along and impose something else on those people who have built up their businesses and who have sometimes scrimped and saved and borrowed money from the bank to get their businesses to a certain level of success. That makes no sense whatsoever. I would have a little more respect for the members who are pushing this legislation through if they were in the hospitality industry and would be directly affected but—guess what—they are not. They are immune to that because they are here in Parliament earning taxpayers’ money not opening their own businesses and being a part of the hospitality industry thus suffering the effects of the decisions that they have made. 
We have made appeals using scientific evidence to show that ventilation systems can and do work but Labour is not interested in science when it has its own ideology and prejudices to ram through. Again that makes little sense. There is no common sense here at all. The Government will not listen to reason or to the evidence that science can provide that there is a perfectly reasonable common-sense answer to the problem of air quality. We have made appeals using common sense to show how nonsensical are the health reasons advanced by the health zealots the health Nazis of Labour. 
Something that happens in the rural areas—which is not something that I subscribe to—is that parents will go into the pub and take out a packet of crisps to the kids in the car who will be waiting while the dinner gets ready or whatever. Now what will happen is that those parents instead of smoking in the pub will come out join their children in the car and smoke in front of them. That is exactly what will happen. The Government will not stop smokers from smoking. All it will do is shift the problem and take it somewhere else. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 
Why does the Government not go after people who smoke in homes where there are children who have no choice at all? Why does it not go after that? Instead what the Government is doing is taking its health zealotry to the people who want to choose to go into— 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We have had 38 speakers and there have been eight closure motions. I will take one last speaker. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 Here is a Government that has no respect whatsoever for private property because that is what a restaurant is. That is what the Cuba Bar is. It is private property. No one has to go into it. If a person sets foot into a cigar bar that person is likely to know that cigars will be smoked there. No one is holding a gun to that person’s head and telling him or her to go and smoke a cigar. What will happen under this Helen Clark Government is that a person will go into the cigar bar have a wee brandy buy a beautiful Cuban cigar and then walk out on to Parnell Road in the cold to smoke it. That is what Helen Clark wants. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The “Heleban” are in charge. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is the “Heleban” for smokers. I do not understand it. How come under this legislation one can still smoke in Parnell Road? Members should imagine it. People will be going along on the footpath. It used to be that all the smokers were in the cigar bar. Now people will not be able to get past because they are all out there puffing away. Where is the freedom in that? They will have to stand out in the cold smoking away and according to the “Heleban” it will be suddenly be dangerous to be on Parnell Road. What is wrong with people choosing to go into the Cuba Bar or into the Returned Services Association for a puff? It is because the “Heleban” does not like it. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The Greens want us to walk. We’re going to walk down pathways. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The Greens do not mind if someone lights up a joint. They are happy about that because they say it is safe but people are not allowed to sit in the cigar bar and have a cigar. 
Here is another thing. Where is the logic according to the “Heleban” in allowing people to still smoke in their own houses? People visit us in our own houses. As I understand the “Heleban” we can sit at home and light up not just once but several times. We can sit at home having dinner and smoking. 
Marc Alexander 
: What about State houses? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No one would not be able to smoke in a State house. I am sure the “Heleban” would apply to State houses because they belong to the Government. It will have all the people in State houses smoking outside. God forbid if this Government lasts another year— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Brent Catchpole 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Before the dinner break you indicated that that would be the last call. I would like to point out that I have not had a call on this part at all and I have been calling for the last 2 days on it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for that. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Before the dinner break we were discussing the mad effects of the “Heleban” and how we understand it will now apply to State houses. I am looking at new section 10 in clause 6B which will apply to ships. People will not be allowed to smoke on a ship that is sailing in coastal waters unless it is a foreign ship. So people on a foreign ship can sail around New Zealand puffing away on pipes to their hearts’ content as long as it is not a New Zealand ship. Why is the law not applied in the same way to everyone including foreigners in New Zealand? I know why it is not. Foreigners would think that that was the maddest thing they had ever heard of. Someone sitting in the captain’s mess puffing on a pipe would have to put the pipe out when the boat crossed into New Zealand waters because the “Heleban” police might chopper in in a night-time raid and discover foreigners on a boat puffing on pipes. So foreigners have had to be excluded. 
Everyone here except for Craig McNair is old enough to remember the radio pirate ship  
Hauraki 
. We can all remember it. Well I have a cunning plan to make money. We are going to have in Auckland the pirate ship “ 
Cuba Bar 
”. That is what we will do and we will put that ship along and pile it up with all the people who would like to smoke a cigar with their friends in comfort. They will be able to smoke their pipes on the pirate ship “ 
Cuba Bar 
”. I invite people to come on board. We will steam out 13 miles give the proverbial fingers to the “Heleban” lie out there and smoke to our hearts’ content. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have put in a substantial number of amendments and I really would appreciate a call to explain the amendments I have lodged. There are some 20 pages of them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for making that plea. We have been debating this part for a long long time—with some 40 speakers—and I have decided that I am going to— 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is this a new point of order? 
PANSY WONG 
: Yes. I seek leave to have a 4-minute call to speak on this part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are still taking the vote on a split vote basis are we not? For example it could be 12 against and one in favour. I am just making sure. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes but on the closure motion they are all cast one way. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor to clause 6(2) be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment to clause 6A in the name of Larry Baldock is ruled out of order because it is outside the scope of the bill. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I raise it now because I suspect we will have a number of similar incidents during the time we vote on these amendments. As you indicated there are a myriad number. Although members will be keeping track of them on the Supplementary Order Papers they have in front of them it might be useful particularly if you are about to rule an amendment out of order if you indicate to the Committee the broad tenor of the amendment so that members who are desperately trying to follow where we are at can be better informed. I happen to be familiar with the tenor of Mr Baldock’s amendment but I am not sure that every member will be. Therefore members will be a little at odds to wonder what the ruling is. So I suggest it would be helpful if you were to indicate without going into huge detail just what the amendments are about before we have to make decisions on them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. I thank the member for that. In respect of the amendment we are dealing with I tell members that it relates to private areas and the bill and the principal Act are concerned with smoking in public places only. Therein lies the conflict and I rule that amendment out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 123 in the name of Peter Brown to section 10(2) in clause 6B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 95 in the name of Richard Worth to new section 12(1) in clause 6B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to new section 12(1) in clause 6B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to new section 12(2) in clause 6B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: A great number of amendments have been handed in. There are very large numbers of such amendments in the names of Katherine Rich the Hon David Carter John Carter the Hon Maurice Williamson Simon Power Lindsay Tisch and Pansy Wong. They are amendments to clause 6B: to add a new subsection (4) to section 12 and to add subsection (4) to section 13. I have had the opportunity to look at these amendments over quite a number of days and those amendments seek to exempt certain premises from the provisions of the bill. There are also amendments in the name of Richard Worth to insert a new clause 7AA and those amendments are to exempt other premises. All of these amendments are out of order as they are in the nature of private legislation and are not admissible as amendments to a public bill. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I must say that I anticipated your ruling. I think indeed that some in Parliament may have done so. Given the fact that you are ruling all of them out of order and that there are a whole number of them—I think that in total they probably amount to the hundreds rather than the tens—I wonder whether the House might consider having just one vote on them as a whole. I will seek leave for that to happen so that at least we can vote “Yes” or “No” on them. Even though you have ruled them out of order the Committee could nevertheless give itself leave to vote on them one way or another. I seek leave accordingly to put them all as one vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I make no comment when leave is sought. Leave has been sought to do that. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to question your ruling but if I heard you correctly you are ruling all of these amendments out because they seek to exempt premises or categories of premise from coverage under this legislation. Yet a little earlier in this round of voting you did allow amendments moved by Mr Worth that exempted cigar bars. It seems to me that there is a potential inconsistency in allowing us to vote on that amendment which given the relatively low number of cigar bars in New Zealand is highly specific and then not allowing the Committee to vote on the amendments you have just alluded to which are equally specific. The difference is that those amendments name particular premises but Mr Worth’s amendment while it might appear to be generic was actually highly specific given that there are only about two or three cigar bars in New Zealand. So we have a potential inconsistency here in that it was perfectly proper in your judgment for the Committee to vote on an amendment that because it was generic in form although specific in substance did not breach that sort of specificity rule yet now you are going to rule out a whole series of amendments that specifically exempt premises. I think there is an inconsistency there that needs to be addressed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. One could say that the amendment in the name of Richard Worth was just put in there to test you but it was not. It was a generic amendment. We have passed that stage and we have voted on it. In looking at all the amendments I have just ruled out of order I mentioned that the bill is a public bill and it contains matters of public policy that affect the general law. The vehicle for an exception to the public law is a private bill and exceptions could be for example for an individual a statutory company or a private corporation. Exceptions of this nature cannot be accomplished by an amendment to a public bill. They can be achieved only by means of a private bill. That is the reason I am ruling them out of order. I would like now to move on to the amendments we have at hand. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. If I heard you correctly you talked about an individual a statutory company or one other public institution—I forget the precise terminology. None of those organisations come into that category so I would be grateful if you could indicate to the Committee what the source of your ruling is by reference to a Standing Order or a Speaker’s ruling or some other authoritative text. It appears that the amendments you are ruling out are being ruled out because they seek to exempt particular premises yet the categories of premise you outlined do not cover those types of organisation. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Indeed if you follow the logic of that the premises we are talking about are public places. The very reason why they are in business is that they expect people to come in as part of the service they provide. They are not private in that sense at all as a home might be. They are places where the public congregate and that is the reason why we have this bill before us. Some people believe that some of the substances used there are harmful and they are trying to stop the public from being harmed by them. So by that very logic one cannot say that we could exclude them on the basis that they are private or that there is some other description for them. They are public places and therefore by your very ruling we now have a contradiction. The fact is that these are public places. If this is a bill that affects public places then you would have to rule that the amendments are in order. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 You have ruled very clearly and quite unequivocally on two occasions. That ruling has being relitigated and challenged by the previous two speakers. I move  
That the Speaker be recalled 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
:I thank the member for that. I was going to explain matters further but that stops that. I would be very happy for the Speaker to return. 
Motion agreed to and House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr Speaker you have been recalled to hear and adjudicate on the matter I was dealing with in Committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you. Would you please explain the circumstances. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: On Part 2 of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill which we have been debating there have been several hundred amendments of a particular nature. These amendments came from many members. They were to section 12 in clause 6B to add a new subsection (4) and to section 13 in clause 6B to add a new subsection (4). All the amendments sought to exempt certain premises from the provisions of the bill. It was my judgment that the amendments were out of order because they were in the nature of private legislation and not admissible as amendments to a public bill. With some explanations I so ruled and the authority for it is on page 849 of  
Erskine May 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you very much. Does anyone wish to contribute to the debate? 
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. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I brought the Chairperson’s attention to his comment that the amendments being private was one reason why they were ruled out. Like Mr Dunne I cannot remember the exact wording as I do not have the book in front of me but you have Mr Speaker. I made what I thought was the very valid point that these places are by their very nature public places. Hotels call themselves public bars and people gather there to celebrate associate partake or do whatever it is that they might wish to do in those public places. It is not right to say that they are private. They might be privately owned but they certainly are not private in the sense that they are private homes or that the public are not allowed to be involved in them. By their very nature that is their purpose and that is the reason why we are dealing with public issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members for the very interesting points that have been raised. There are four types of bills as prescribed by Standing Order 249. There is a distinction between members’ bills which deal with matters of public policy and private bills which are for the benefit of a person or a body of persons. These rules about the contents of bills are reflected in Speakers’ rulings 79/4 and 79/5 and prevent matters that should be in private bills from being introduced into public bills by way of amendment. Amendments to exempt individual establishments or establishments that are part of a particular association from the general law are clearly matters for the particular interest or benefit of a person or body of persons. They should therefore be promoted in a private bill by that person or body of persons—see Standing Order 249(1)(d). They cannot be introduced into a member’s bill or a Government bill by way of amendment. Katherine Rich’s amendments for example all relate to particular establishments owned leased or operated by someone. If the owner leaseholder or operator wishes exemption from the general law it is for him or her to promote private legislation. 
Referring to the argument raised by the Hon Peter Dunne to which I listened with a lot of interest a generic amendment relating to cigar bars is in quite a different position. Even though it has only limited application because there are few such bars it is drafted generally and is permissible. I declare the House in Committee once again for consideration of this matter. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 2 Amendments to Part II of principal Act ( 
continued 
)  
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to new section 13(1) in clause 6B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to new section 13(3) in clause 6B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to new section 13A(1) in clause 6B be agreed to. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to new section 13A(3) in clause 6B be agreed to. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to new section 13B(1) in clause 6B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to new section 13B(3) in clause 6B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 6C be agreed to. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendments not agreed to.Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor to clause 7 be agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 119 in the name of Sue Kedgley to omit new section 17(10) in clause 7 be agreed to. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 119 in the name of Sue Kedgley to omit new section 17A(5) in clause 7 be agreed to. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 119 in the name of Sue Kedgley to omit new sections 17B to 17D in clause 7 be agreed to. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Other amendments 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to refer you to a ruling made by Mr Speaker on 17 September 2003 when we were having a previous discussion about this bill. At the time we were some way into the debate on Part 2. You may recall that on that occasion Mr Speaker was recalled to the House over a number of issues including the way in which the bill had been drafted which is not relevant to this point of order and the nature of the debate that was to be held. Mr Speaker ruled and I quote from his ruling that “there must be a very full and wide-ranging debate.” which related to Part 2. When we discussed this bill again at our last encounter with it I raised a similar point of order. I sought an assurance both from you I think as Chair and from the Speaker that that wide-ranging debate would mean we would have a fairly lengthy debate which turned out to be the case. At that time there appeared to be some confusion because I thought that the Speaker had said the debate should be wide-ranging on Part 2 only and if you check back over the record you will find that Mr Speaker when asked to clarify that point made it clear that given the nature of this bill he felt there should be a wide-ranging debate on each of its parts. 
We are now about to embark on the debate on Part 3 which contains a number of quite significant aspects relating to the changes before us. I am simply seeking your assurance that just as you allowed about 40 calls on Part 2—I am not trying to put a figure into your head—you will be equally prescient and fair in terms of the allocation of the call as we debate Part 3. It might appear on the face of it to be a smaller part than the one we have just dealt with but it does include a number of significant clauses. In fact I have some amendments and I am sure other members do as well that we will need to tease out quite carefully. I am just seeking your assurance that the Speaker’s ruling that was given last time—affecting both parts of the bill that remained at that time—will apply to the now one remaining part and that there will be as full a debate as is possible. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. I ask the member to clarify whether he said the Speaker’s ruling was from 17 September 2002. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: 17 September 2003. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I was not able to recall one from as far back as 2002. I intend to follow the ruling. Part 3 is a large and important part and it does insert a new part into the bill. I intend to allow wide-ranging debate. We will see how we go. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I want to share with the public the fact that this bill does not prohibit the smoking or selling of cigarettes. The way the bill is drafted makes very interesting reading. I wonder how many retailers know that there is a very specific and detailed requirement about the signage they have to have if they sell tobacco. I really would appreciate the member in the chair Steve Chadwick taking a call to explain the signage specification. Section 23A(1)(h) in clause 8A states that the signage has to be displayed at each point of sale and that the words “Smoking Kills” has to be printed in black. I wonder why it does not have to be painted in red to remind people that it is the red Labour Party that intends to dictate to people in every walk of life how they should behave and breathe. 
Anyway the words have to be printed in black and within a black rectangular border that is no wider than an upper case letter “i”. But it also states in paragraph (h)(iii) that those words have to be in the typeface known as Helvetica. I would like the member to take a call and explain to me what that typeface is. What if the retailers fail to express their signage in a Helvetica typeface? Subparagraph (iv) states that it also has to be “in roman font and upper case and lower case letters as it is set out above; and (v) the word ‘Kills’ has to be centred below the word ‘Smoking’; ”. This is ridiculous. If we believe that smoking is bad for people why does that member not go upfront and have a referendum on banning smoking instead of making the lives of retailers hell but continuing to make the selling of cigarettes legal? 
Unlike the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues Judith Tizard I took the trouble to ring up restaurants and bars in the fantastic Auckland Central area. They are diverse and exciting places. I got a sample of 50 bar and restaurant owners who would like to be exempt from this legislation including our very own Cigar Lounge Bar of the Stars Rose and Crown Tavern the Corner Bar and The Elbow Room Auckland Central. I am reading out these names so that when the good people from other parts of New Zealand visit Auckland Central they will know there is a wide choice of fantastic restaurants and bars there. They include: Starks; The Oval; Safari Lounge; Beaches; Verona Café; Harlequin Bar and Café; Hobson’s Lounge Bar; Suede in Symonds Street; QF Tavern; Kenny’s Bar and Grill; Spice Bar; Tabac; Occidental Belgian Beer Cafe; Float; Tavern; O’Neil’s Point Irish Pub; The Muddy Farmer; The Playhouse; Bubble; Lenin Restaurant and Bar; O’Carolls Irish Bar; Sponge Restaurant; The Paddington; Bar De Baz; Queens Head Tavern; Creole Bar and Brasserie; Mr Luckies Cafe; No. 17 Albert Street; Lime at Ponsonby; Pickle; Plum; 24 Seven Bar; Kings Arms Tavern; Allpress Espresso; Quay Sports Bar; Danny Doolan’s; Euro; Green Room; Shed 5; PogMahones; Chicane; Platform 54; the Viaduct Grill; Pasha; and The Drake. 
That is a sample of just 50 restaurants and bars in Auckland Central. When I talked with their owners they said they could make very sensible decisions themselves. They said they knew that their patrons would perhaps not like to be exposed to smoke during their meal so they have separate smoking and non-smoking areas. Usually the patrons of those establishments are very understanding. I do not understand why the member in the chair and the minority Labour Government are hell-bent on not allowing those good responsible people to have a choice about whether their patrons can smoke in their establishments. Certainly they are entrepreneurs who understand that for their business to prosper they can carry out only those practices that are welcome to and popular with their patrons. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 Part 3 has within it another Part 2A which is an interesting way of constructing this bill. It is entitled “Powers of enforcement officers”. Those enforcement officers are allowed to go on to the premises of places where there is a restriction on smoking. I would like to point out that a lot of Returned Services Association members are very upset with this bill. When they went to war and into battle they were given cigarettes to calm them down. Those fighting men were addicted not from their own choice but because they were told to smoke. Now we are turning round and trying to tell them to stop smoking or they will not be able to go and visit their old friends in Returned Services Association clubs. 
 I have talked to Returned Services Association members around the country. Last Saturday I was at the Armistice Day celebrations in Papakura and went back to the Papakura Returned Services Association and talked to members. It became clear that the associations did not want to be singled out as exemptions on their own. They wanted to be recognised with other clubs to have the choice of whether to have smoking in their establishments. With these powers of enforcement the association is now forced to open its rooms to the enforcement officers who will make sure there is no smoking in their clubs. 
New section 30AA in clause 9 refers to supplying tobacco products or herbal smoking. I wonder whether the Greens are particularly keen on that one. I think they would like to see herbal smoking a lot broader— 
Rodney Hide 
: They want to make it compulsory! 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Compulsory now—well there we go! The reference to herbal smoking is an issue that the Greens would be very very upset about and I am surprised they are supporting this bill which wants to have smoking banned in bars clubs and public places because that means they will not be able to partake of their herbal medicines. Herbal products for smoking are banned and the supply is also restricted so they would need to be careful. 
This bill is nothing more than an abuse of the workers. They no longer have the choice. We have considerable restrictions in Part 3 with the supply of tobacco—restrictions on what people can smoke and where they can partake of smoking. I find it disappointing that all clubs which include the Returned Services Association were not given the choice to decide themselves whether they would allow their members to smoke. Clubs have to open up their premises to any enforcement officer who wants to walk in off the street to check whether they have set aside a small room out the back and whether when it is a freezing-cold night their members have snuck in a back room to smoke indoors. That is a hardship particularly on members of the clubs. After all they are club members and these clubs want to have the option to decide for themselves whether they will be smoking or non-smoking. It is disappointing that this Government does not care about those people particularly those from the Returned Services Association who went to war and fought for this country. Now they are being told that they are not allowed to make that choice themselves. I think that it is despicable on the part of this Government to enforce a restriction on those men and women who went to war and fought for this country. It is a despicable way to treat those members. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I call the next member I point out that I did say that a fairly wide-ranging debate would be acceptable—wide-ranging in so far as members might seek to explain what they are discussing in terms of what is in Part 3. But let us not range too wide because we have covered most of those issues in the earlier parts. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call to draw us back to Part 3 and the specifics of it. Many of these elements were discussed during the debate on Part 1. But Part 3 is really about compliant product display and signage—that is really all it is. I must admit on this rather quick call that we ourselves on the Health Committee did reach a point of a lot of confusion about compliant product display. I can assure that member over there–who is a little confused obviously; I hope I can help him—that we worked with the industry on this. The Ministry of Health withdrew from the select committee and worked with the industry and that is why we have this rather interesting figure of 100 packets for sale. The industry worked very well with officials to reach agreement on product display and the amendments that we have here are a reflection of the working through of those issues with the industry and the officials at the Ministry of Health. So I hope that that helps those members draw back to the Part 3 debate and the specifics of it. We did cover those other wide-ranging issues at the beginning of the debate. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to speak to the amendment that I am moving to Part 3 to insert a new clause 11A relating to minimum air-quality standards which are one of the key issues surrounding this bill. If members believe the argument advanced by the sponsor of the bill Steve Chadwick in a very simple phrase it is to say that no such things as minimum air-quality standards can possibly be established. She says it is simply too hard to do that. We can put men on the moon and can make all sorts of other scientific breakthroughs in medicine and other areas but according to her we cannot define an air-quality standard. Members should just put those comments to one side and think about the member who has just resumed her seat as being the promoter of those comments when I tell them the  
British Medical Journal 
 of 13 August 2003 has just reported a massive study regarding environmental tobacco smoke which is second-hand smoke. The article states that the actual risks associated with it are minimal and there would appear to be no rational reason why ventilation cannot be approved for use in the hospitality industry. The report states that small-business persons have been persecuted by their Governments for long enough. 
I just want to reflect on that. It is merely the  
British Medical Journal  
stating that and it merely quotes a study undertaken at the University of Glamorgan. There have been other studies undertaken by other reputable international institutions. In our own country the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research undertook a study which the chairperson of the Health Committee now seeks to discredit. Members will recall that she was asked in the House this afternoon about the basis of the evidence she has to discredit the report of the institute let alone to discredit the  
British Medical Journal 
 the University of Glamorgan a whole raft of companies and the vice-president of Firestone International Associates in the United States. They have all talked about the ability and capability of air-quality standards in terms of ensuring the air is filtered and provides a clean environment. That is all rejected by the sponsor of this bill who when asked for her evidence this afternoon had this to say to the House: “I stand by my original comment.” She gave no evidence—no facts—and it was utter prejudice. When the Committee heard her speak a moment or two ago I am sure the comments made by my colleague Gordon Copeland during the general debate this afternoon about political correctness took on a fresh and very relevant air. 
We have here a concerted effort on the part of those behind this bill to deny every fact available in favour of their predetermined prejudice. And their expert so-called is the Ministry of Health. The officials are there in that ministry to tell one about disease illness and health policy. They have now become by their own claim experts on ventilation engineering and all sorts of other issues well beyond their ken. Yet because those officials share the same prejudices as the members who support this bill they are now held up to be the experts. The  
British Medical Journal 
 study can go to hell and likewise the University of Glamorgan. Every other reputable organisation in this country and around the world that has upheld the notion of clean air - quality standards is dismissed and no reason is given for that. They are dismissed simply because upholding that goes against not the prevailing wisdom but the prevailing politically correct prejudice. 
 What I really resent about this debate is the utter absence of the real facts being revealed. This bill is not about the health of workers. Nor is it about protecting unborn children or about all the other arguments that have been raised as to why this prohibition has to be put on. This is about an agenda which those who promote it simply know they could not achieve if they were open about it. They want to stop every smoker in New Zealand from smoking. They know that is impossible to achieve and they know they dare not do it by an upfront prohibition because Dr Cullen would lose several hundred million dollars in excise duty. So they come around by stealth deny the evidence and seek to put in place half-baked measures that will be ignored—and properly so because they are unenforceable. Then when we ask the promoter of this bill to refute the international evidence she says the health department advises her and that she stands by her original answer and has nothing to add to it—as though that gives that member credibility in this field. 
This measure is an outrage and it will make us an international laughing stock. I will have great pleasure when the public around the world laugh and sneer at New Zealand in saying whom the instigators of this measure were. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 Here we have the sharp end of the “Heleban”. I turn to section 41A inserted by clause 12 relating to the powers of the enforcement officers. Those of us who were lucky enough went to the Returned Services Association last Sunday. We heard from the men who fought against the Nazis and lost their comrades while fighting against the Nazis. Now what do we discover? The “Heleban” under Steve Chadwick and Helen Clark has the power to enter the Returned Services Association—I am reading exactly from section 41A—and to bring at any time a video camera or a device to sample the air. I am not kidding. 
In fact under this legislation the enforcement officers will have to power to stop someone in his or her company car. That person may be driving along in the back of wherever on a lonely road at night and it may be raining. If person is a smoker he or she is not allowed to light up. 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: Nonsense. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I know it is nonsense. That is why I cannot understand why Phillip Field is voting for it. Under this bill if it comes in a person will have to stop the car stand out in the rain and smoke. Why? Because under section 41A the “health Nazis” can pull up that person. Phillip Field is right; this bill is nonsense. Those “Heleban” officers can parachute in like the SAS on to a ship if it is within 13 miles of the shore. 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member can scream all he likes but when he refers to members by name I would appreciate it if he used my correct name. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is right. I thank the member for that. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: This is a disgusting bill. A ship may be 12 miles off shore and the “Heleban” can parachute in its “health Nazis” who may see that the captain is in the mess having a pint. That is what this bill is about. If someone who is sitting at home gets burgled and calls the police no one comes because this Government has run the police down. But if someone lights up the enforcement officers will be there. Mark my words the “Heleban” will be there and they will be kicking the doors down. 
I take members to section 23A in clause 8A “Compliant product display”. This Government says it is reducing red tape. Do members know that more than two tobacco cartons of the same kind are not allowed to be exposed for sale at any point of sale? The “Nazis” will kick the door down and the “Heleban” police will come in. If they discover my God that there are three cartons on display someone will be fined thousands and thousands of dollars. This bill states in section 23A(1)(h) that there has to be a sign stating: “ ‘Smoking Kills’ printed in black—(i) within a black rectangular border that is no wider than an upper case letter ‘i’ in the point size used for the words; and (ii) on a white background within that border; and (iii) in the typeface known as Helvetica; and (iv) in roman font and upper case and lower case letters as it is set out above; and (v) with the word ‘Kills’ centred below the word ‘Smoking’; and (vi) in type that is clear and legible of normal weight …”. The sign must be one square metre in size or otherwise Helen Clark’s “health Nazis” will kick down the door drag the person off to court and fine him or her thousands of dollars. 
I am pleased that “Georgie Beyer” is going to take a call to try to explain this rubbish to her local workingmen’s club and to the Returned Services Association and I say good luck to her. 
Georgina Beyer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I have not finished. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I have called a point of order. 
Georgina Beyer 
: I would like a ruling from you about the term “health Nazis” which the member Rodney Hide has used on several occasions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I take the point. It is a matter of taste. We will have a look at that just to see whether a ruling has been made on that specific issue. If it is not used in relation to members or parties then I do not think it has been ruled on. I do not need any assistance. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is quite clear that what I am saying is that they are “health Nazis” and they are working for Helen Clark. It is her legislation it is Steve Chadwick’s legislation and it is Georgina Beyer’s legislation. Who are they working for? This Government. 
I say to you Mr Chairman that the Returned Services Association fought against this overweening Government telling what we believe to be a free people what to do when to do it and how to live. I say that this is a disgraceful bill. It is typical of this Government that it has paid lobbyists to turn up and lobby MPs. It is typical of this Government that it has tried to shut down debate. It is typical of this Government that it would not let members of Parliament call it like it is—“health Nazis”. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I intend to confine my remarks to Part 3 of the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill although I think the words “Enhanced Protection” have been stripped from the legislation. I know that what I say tonight would have the support of Action on Smoking and Health representatives if they were present in the Chamber. I want to speak to my amendment which is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 106. It makes changes to a provision that has been the subject of earlier comment: clause 8A which inserts new section 23A relating to compliant product displays. The short point is that without my amendment being passed two paragraphs in the bill as presently drafted limit to 100 the number of tobacco packages to be displayed and limit to 40 the number of tobacco cartons to be displayed. The commercial result of that restriction will be that retailers will not display cigars. The displays will be limited to cigarettes and cigarillos. 
I do not accept the health arguments that lie behind this bill but for the purposes of what I now say that is irrelevant. This bill is not about restricting legitimate commercial activity. For as long as it remains lawful to sell tobacco and related herbal products provisions like that should not find their way into the legislation. The bill proposes that retailers will not need to meet the display limitation in respect of cigars which in any event are carried by non-tobacconists in limited numbers only. I have explained briefly the context in which my Supplementary Order Paper 106 finds its place. The result of the bill as drafted—and I ask the member responsible for the bill Steve Chadwick to reflect carefully on this proposition—is that a grossly anti-competitive outcome arises. That is because the permissible number of packages on display will be far less than the number of different packages that are available on the market. The outcome will be that retailers will be forced to deny display opportunities to many slower-selling brands and that is quite contrary to the principles of the Commerce Act. The consequence will be that only the major brands will be on display thereby depriving minor brands of the opportunity to compete against them. 
It is a sadness for me that issues like this should be the subject of a conscience vote—and for some parties they are. However in the case of the present minority Government while this may be in some nominal sense a conscience vote the reality is very very different indeed. The reality is that this will be a directed vote with clear guidance and riding orders being given to Labour Party members to vote this legislation through. That is why I say to the member in the chair Steve Chadwick who has current charge of this bill that careful consideration should be given to the merit of Supplementary Order Paper 106. I am uncertain whether she is a cigar or cigarillo smoker; she may very well be. But even if she does not smoke them I would think that it should lie within her heart to give consideration to the undoubted merit of the amendment. 
The cigar market in New Zealand is less than 0.2 percent of the total tobacco market and the product has no appeal to children. In fact it is smoked by few adults. Yet that legal product—and I am talking of cigars—will simply disappear from display shelves because even the small amount of display space cigars require will be allocated to fast-selling brands of cigarettes. If this amendment is passed a minuscule amount of permitted display space will enable those few adults who choose to smoke the occasional cigar to be aware of the different and competing products available to them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank that member for a model contribution in terms of speaking to the relevant part. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not want to delay other speakers but I wish to raise a point of order that is occasioned largely by the speech that you have just been so complimentary about. I would have been equally complimentary about it. The point of order is that the member raised some very valid technical points. I notice that there are no officials actually present to offer advice to the sponsor of the bill or the Associate Minister who I saw was around here a moment or two ago on matters of this nature. I wonder how we can therefore seriously give consideration to matters such as Mr Worth has posed—and Mr Hide—relating to various technical provisions of the Act if the sponsor of the bill has no professional advice to back her up—or does she simply know it all? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that issue. That matter is of course entirely up to the member in the chair Steve Chadwick but I thank the member raising it. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to speak in relation to my Supplementary Order Paper 92 which affects section 23A(1)(h) in clause 8A. It refers to the use of the Maori language as part of the warning signage to be added to smoking products. In proposing this Supplementary Order Paper I do so in the knowledge that firstly Maori is one of two official languages in this country and secondly smoking affects a lot of my relatives and indeed those in the Maori community. It seems to me that if this bill is to come into law then it is only appropriate that the warnings should be indicated in both English and Maori. The words that I would like to have added are: “Ka mate koe i te kai hikareti”. I notice that the interpreter has come back into the Chamber and is among the officials who could help with this bill. 
The reason I support this Supplementary Order Paper is not because I myself am a Maori but because it is important that we convey to a community that is a large consumer of tobacco products the dangers to one’s health of smoking. With regard to the poor status of Maori health much of it can be attributed to smoking. I take on board the comments made by speakers who have stood before me and I agree in principle with what they have said. I think it is important that we append this warning in Maori. I know that a subsequent Supplementary Order Paper may go a little bit further than my one but I certainly seek the support of the sponsor of this bill for my Supplementary Order Paper. If we are able to do that then at least we will fulfil our social obligations not only to one part of our community but also to New Zealand. 
I know that a lot of the returned servicemen whom people have alluded to tonight are Maori. This issue probably affects them more than a lot of the younger generation. Those Maori soldiers who went to war during the Second World War were fluent Maori speakers and their first language was Maori. Those who are still alive and still smoke would appreciate that while they would probably have ignored the message they would have appreciated having their language appended to such products. 
Rodney Hide 
: What differences will it make? 
PITA PARAONE 
: Perhaps they may get a clearer understanding of the effects of smoking on their health. The hope is that that is the difference it would make. 
Rodney Hide 
: If they read it in Maori will it make a difference? 
PITA PARAONE 
: They will not only read it Maori but have a better understanding of the effects of smoking on their health. That is the point. That is what the warning is all about—to communicate to those who decide to smoke the effects that smoking will have on their health. Kia ora. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt the previous speaker but we did not have an interpretation of what the Maori tag on the relevant packet means and it may well influence the way I vote in respect of any amendment that may be forthcoming. I ask that a translation be given in accordance with the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is free to give his own translation if he so wishes. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I am quite happy for the interpreter to interpret. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Smoking will damage your health 
.] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 Speaking to clause 8A I would like the member in the chair to take a call to explain to us what would happen in the case of a duty-free shop. If I go through the enforcement regulations that the Government will be putting on to retailers—breaching their property rights—I can see nothing that relates to a duty-free shop. We all go into duty-free shops and we see stand after stand of cigarettes and alcohol—all those terrible things that this Government wants to save and protect us from. The bill does not exclude duty-free shops at all. They will be caught. Duty-free shops will not be able to have any “tobacco product exposed for sale … visible from outside the place;”. What is “the place”? Is “the place” the whole airport terminal or is it the actual area where duty-free goods are being sold or is it the international terminal? What is it? It is not explained in the bill. That will just lead to endless court cases and case law and to the courts trying to interpret what the Government has written really badly. 
If one moves further down the clause one sees that unless the place of business is a tobacconist shop not more than 100 tobacco packages are allowed to be exposed for sale at any point of sale and not more than 40 tobacco cartons can be exposed for sale at any point of sale. Who will compensate the supermarkets for the huge expense they will be put to when this legislation comes into force? Who will compensate them for this Government breaching their property rights and forcing them to change all their stands so that they comply with this stupid inane legislation which will not do anything to protect people’s health or to lift the health of this country? If this Government were really serious about doing that it would ban smoking and cigarettes altogether. Instead something like 17 part-time smoke police or enforcement officers or whatever they are will be trying to enforce legislation that is totally unenforceable. Who pays the rent of these businesses? Who pays the wages the resource consents the rates? It is not this Government. Owners pay them because the businesses are their property. So what right does the State have to go in and enforce all this legislation and all these little rules on them? 
The Hon Peter Dunne talked about this Government being an expert on ventilation. It is also an expert on signwriting it seems. I cannot believe that grown-ups actually drafted this law. Will people be running around with little em rulers checking that the signwriting complies with the law? What will happen to businesses if they do not comply? What will happen if the rectangular border of a sign is “wider than an upper case letter ‘i’ in the point size used for the words;”? The word “Kills” has to be centred below the word “Smoking”. Would the Minister please explain to this Committee what on earth that does for public health? It does nothing for public health. It is just about control compliance costs and forcing the Government’s nanny-knows-best bossy-boots philosophy on all the small retailers around the country. 
If the Government wants to enforce those laws the onus to obey them should be put on the people who break them. If the age for people to be able to buy cigarettes is 18 why force the penalties on to the retailers? Why not put the responsibility on to the people who break the law by buying cigarettes? Why is the Government putting all the penalties on to the retailers? 
I can see that the member in the chair is not taking any notice. Obviously she does not care about duty-free shops and places because they are not mentioned in the bill. Are they exempt or will they have to comply? If they do have to comply how on earth will they do that? 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 It never ceases to amaze me what foresight some of our forefathers had. New Zealand was called Aotearoa the Land of the Long White Cloud. Once this law passes that is what it will be—the land of the long white cloud. All the smokers will be outside and one will be able to see the smoke. Maybe as a tourism promotion a cloud of smoke will be hanging over New Zealand so that people clearly recognise our fine land when they come here in their planes. 
Let us look at the purposes of the bill in clause 3. One is “to prevent the detrimental effect of other people’s smoking on the health of people in workplaces”. I would question the motive behind the bill. If smoking is really so bad for people why do we not just ban cigarettes? But no we could not do that because look at the tax take on cigarettes. How could we possibly ban cigarettes? No this legislation is more anti-business. This legislation loads up small-business people the very heart of New Zealand business with extra rules. [ 
Interruption 
] I am speaking on clause 3 on the purpose of this bill in relation to the workplace. 
Let us take a situation where a small business has only one room where traditionally the employees have gone to have their break. It used to be called the smoko room. Now what will it be? Will it be a smoko room or a non-smoko room? What I have found with bureaucratic legislation that affects small-business owners is that if I decide my workplace is a smoking workplace all of a sudden my non-smoking employees will have me up for discrimination because they are non-smokers. If I make the workplace non-smoking then of course the other employees will have me up for discrimination because they are smokers. Really a business cannot win on these sorts of things and that is a real problem. 
Other purposes are “(b) to prevent young people who are being taught or cared for in registered schools or early childhood centres from being influenced by seeing other people smoke there; and (c) to prevent the detrimental effect of other people’s smoking on the health of young people who are being taught or cared for in registered schools or early childhood centres.” What about other places? Do we not care about young people there? Do we not care about young people in the home? Is not that what we are really concerned about? The trouble is we want to legislate for what we think is right but of course that never works. If we try to protect a little child who is learning to walk if we put a little cradle around that child so that he or she never falls over that child will never walk properly. A person has to make decisions for himself or herself. 
Business in New Zealand well knows that any business runs on supply and demand. If a restaurant is a smoking restaurant— [ 
Interruption 
] I am talking about the places referred to in clause 3. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Part 3 deals with the sale of products. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: It does deal with the sale of products. If a restaurant permits smoking and all of a sudden customers do not go to that restaurant because they would rather go to a restaurant that does not permit smoking then soon the owner will wake up and decide that his or her restaurant will become non-smoking. We do not need legislation continually coming in that dictates where we will eat or smoke. Thank you Mr Chairperson and seeing as I have been pulled up so many times I shall sit down. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I do intend to stick to a very specific provision within Part 3—that is section 23A(1)(h) in new clause 8A. Given that the person sponsoring the bill has not seen fit to bring in officials I assume she will be able to answer the details of this particular issue when I raise it. 
I think there is an inconsistency in this bill that almost renders it void. It is to do with typeface and it is to do with the difference between different fonts. I have to say a number of members will not know about serif fonts and sans serif fonts. For those who do not know—and I am sure the member sponsoring the bill does know—a serif is a little wee twirl on the edge of a letter. In relation to a capital T if it is just a nice straight vertical line with a cross across the top it is a sans serif font—a square block. 
 We find an inconsistency. The bill is talking about a typeface known as Helvetica. It is mandated by this bill. I am sure members of the public will want to know about this in the morning; they will all race to their word processors and select the Helvetica font and they will see it is a sans serif font. It is a square very block letter. However section 23A(1)(h)(iv) states “in roman font”. I ask the member sponsoring this bill whether she realises that a roman font is actually a serif font. It has the little curls on the letters. I can see a major inconsistency—which I am sure most members of the Committee can now spot—and I am sure it will cause a serious problem for the bill’s progress. In fact I think it might be worth reporting progress sending the bill back to the select committee and getting in an expert on fonts to make sure that that inconsistency—[ 
Interruption 
] The member laughs but it is not good enough for Parliament to pass a bill that has that sort of inconsistency in it. 
John Carter 
: What do you want? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I want the member sponsoring the bill to take a call and tell us whether she means serif fonts in which case Helvetica is out and we have to scrap that provision or whether she means sans serif fonts in which case Helvetica is in but the roman font is out. There will be people listening tonight who think this issue is trivial but the member has put it in the bill. 
Georgina Beyer 
: No. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Georgina Beyer does not think it is trivial. She thinks it is OK for a bill to tell us exactly what particular character set we have to write the warning in—as if New Zealanders are so stupid that they could not read it if it were in a Times New Roman font or even in an Old English font. Pita Paraone says it should be in Maori. I think that should be optional. If it were in Maori that would be fine by me. 
The member says she does not need officials. She does not have officials here to answer that question. But she has to tell us tonight as the Committee needs to know. There is a total inconsistency between subparagraph (iv) which provides for a roman font and subparagraph (iii) which states that the font must be Helvetica. I think she knows the answer and I am happy to yield if she will take the call and explain that. If she does not it is quite clear to me that the member sponsoring the bill does not know the difference between those fonts. She has got down to that level of minutiae to defining what people have to do in terms of their signage—the size and the font of the characters—which is bizarre in my view and she has done all of that without knowing what a serif font and a sans serif font are about. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Tell us. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Georgina Beyer wants me to tell the Committee. I am happy to take some time on it because it is important. I can see the gallery starting to fill up. Those people who have a font addiction will be gathering around their crystal sets. Those who like a nice square typeface on their “Smoking Kills” warning signs will be outraged that the font will be Times New Roman. I can understand why people would be upset about a roman font. It has the little squiggles and the curls. It can be less clear when someone is standing at a distance. I know that  
The 
Times 
 of London uses it for headings because it captures the attention better but no this member says that Helvetica is the way to go. That is an outrage quite apart from all the other nonsense in this bill such as allowing smoking in prisons and on marae but not allowing it in restaurants. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I want to talk about the— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Diabetes. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: That is right. I want to talk about a provision in Part 3 but before I do so I want to respond to a couple of comments that have been made in this debate to date. The first one I would like to refer to is Peter Dunne’s comment that if we pass this law we will become a laughing stock. I would like to contemplate for a moment whether California has become a laughing stock. As I recall the  
Holmes 
 show interviewed people who said it is fantastic. Is Norway about to become a laughing stock? Is Ireland? Is New York? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but I say to members on the cross benches that under Speaker’s ruling 53/4 they should please note that it is convention not to interject in the cross benches. It muffles the microphone of the person speaking. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I accept your ruling of course but if we are invited by the member to respond to her clearly we must respond. After all this particular part of the Chamber is very well filled by members. It is a shame the other sections of the Chamber are not similarly well filled. It is therefore not surprising that our views will be heard better than others. If she desists from asking us questions we will desist from responding especially when the questions are so stupid. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: A point of order will be heard in silence. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 16/6. I call Rodney Hide. 
Dail Jones 
: I had not finished my point of order Mr Chairperson. You allowed Mr Hide to stand up and start a point of order and now you are having a go at me. 
Rodney Hide 
: I certainly do know those Standing Orders but I make the point that when a member on his or her feet calls out and asks for a response and that response is not provided then that member on his or her feet is perfectly entitled to say that members cannot answer and then use it as part of the rhetoric and propaganda of his or her speech. If the member invited a comment as my learned colleague pointed out it is a bit rich for the Chair to admonish those of us who were responding. If we sit here like little lambs Ms Kedgley might think that we support the wacky ideas she is supporting here tonight. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It had better be a fresh point of order Mr Dunne. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: The speech being made by the member is actually out of order. Given your familiarity with Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders you will be aware that it is not in order for a member during the course of his or her speech to pose it in such a way that it is a series of questions. That is precisely what the member was doing and is what caused the reaction you properly took exception to. I might add that your comment about muffled sound presumably applies to the sponsor of the bill who is sitting to next to you applauding. It must have had the same effect on your microphone as the interjections from the members in this quarter of the Chamber that you took objection to. The issue is about a series of questions being posed during the course of a speech which has long been held to be out of order because it invites disorder by way of response. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled on this point of order Mr Hide. 
Rodney Hide 
: This is absolutely a new one. I have two. The first point of order is that you have been very hard on members who are opposed to this bill being within the confines of Part 3. I would like to know when Ms Kedgley was speaking to Part 3 as you never pulled her up. You were very hard on members on the cross benches because of the muffling effect on the microphone. I note that you have said nothing about the member in the chair beside you chipping in over the microphone which we could hear very clearly. It seems to me that you have to apply the rules consistently in both cases. I make the final point that there has been a series of points of order and you have not ruled on them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr Hide for drawing that to my attention. The problem is that the issue was getting quite noisy. I myself was unable to hear what the honourable member was saying. I also want to rule on the issue of the person sitting beside me interjecting on a live microphone. In Committee members in charge of legislation shall not take an unfair advantage of a live microphone by way of interjection. It is good conduct and common courtesy not to do so and courtesy is contagious. We all prosper if we keep within the spirit of our Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: As I was saying the other place that has similar legislation is New York. There was an article in the  
New Zealand Herald  
by someone who was very sceptical about the legislation there and was determined that he would dislike it. He stated that there was just one problem: it works. Its impact has been magnificent. It has been truly wonderful reclaiming the city from smokers who almost never act considerately. The fact is that the ban works in New York and it will elsewhere. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not know what we have to do to draw your attention to this matter but what on earth has what happens in New York and what someone thinks about New York and this legislation got to do with Part 3? If you are going to allow Sue Kedgley to debate in such a wide-ranging way then that is all right for a third reading speech but not for the Committee stage on Part 3— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Hide. 
Rodney Hide 
: I have not finished. You have consistently pulled us up waved your arms around and disrupted us. You are sitting there and smiling like a cherub because Sue Kedgley is speaking. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I take exception to that. The member will now stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind the member speaking that this is a wide debate but relevant to the part. I accept that she has strayed a little as happened with the previous speaker so would she come back to the party on Part 3. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: The reason I was drawing that example was— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member and it may be a matter of my lapse of concentration but I was not sure whether you ruled on the Hon Peter Dunne’s point about a series of questions. I wonder whether the Hon Peter Dunne was right in his interpretation of Standing Orders and I would not mind some guidance on it. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the words of Mr Prebble I can assist members here. If members refer to Speakers’ ruling 39/6—one made by the eminent Mr Barnard in 1936 the other by Sir Matthew Oram in 1952: “A member may not direct a continuous series of questions during a speech to members on the opposite side of the House.” That was precisely the point I was drawing attention to. Mr Power is quite correct; you did not rule on that. I now invite you to draw to the attention of the member speaking and to every other member the ruling of those two eminent Speakers that a member may not direct a continuous series of questions during a speech to members on the opposite side of the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that any questions should be directed through the Chair. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: As I was saying I made that point because other speeches had said that New Zealand would be a laughing stock. I said that far from being a laughing stock we have been encouraged to follow other nations that have been held up as wonderful examples to us. The arguments of many of those opponents of the bill would stand up were it not for the fact— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is trifling with the Chair. 
Rodney Hide 
: I am not trifling with the Chair. I say to you that if we tried that we would not get away with it. What has this got to do with Part 3? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is replying to some of the criticisms made under Speaker’s ruling 38/1 and I am allowing her a certain amount of time to do that. But she must bring her speech to this part of the bill. 
Dail Jones 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am making a ruling Mr Jones. The member must bring her speech to the point. It is a wide debate but it must be relevant to this part. The member has had enough time to respond to other arguments so would she please now come to the point. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. While you were ruling the member to my left Ms Sue Kedgley called out in an unparliamentary way on your ruling and said it was pathetic. I think I had to withdraw— 
Sue Kedgley 
: I said you were pathetic not the Chair. 
Rodney Hide 
: Well she is now saying that I am pathetic. How many times do we have to explain to this member that when the chairperson is speaking we should not have someone calling out “You’re pathetic!”? I have to say that she was not looking at me; she was looking at you sir. I think she should withdraw and apologise. I was asked to withdraw and apologise just for saying that you were a small cherub. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. If the member made such remarks to the Chair then she should stand withdraw and apologise. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Well I did not so I will not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Sue Kedgley. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I wonder what the next interjection will be— 
Rodney Hide 
: She will get one right now! I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You well know that after being pulled up on a point of order a member taking the call is not allowed to refer to it at all. I would like you to rule accordingly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member had only just started and had been speaking for only about 2 seconds. I am listening very carefully to what she has to say. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am seeking just a bit of clarification on the consistency of rulings from the Chair. Can I draw your attention to an incident that happened in the House yesterday when an honourable colleague of mine Mr Edwin Perry who does such a tremendous job in the Wairarapa was thrown out of the House for interjecting whilst a point of order was being taken and simply saying “Hear! Hear!”. Now we have a member who has admitted—and you yourself have noted—an interjection whilst a point of order was being taken not once not twice but three times. Yet you now consider it acceptable that she should remain in the Chamber. I would hate the Committee and all listeners to gain the impression that the Chair is somewhat biased against New Zealand First so possibly in order to prevent such a perception taking hold we could have consistency in rulings and that member could be invited to leave the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yesterday that ruling was taken with regard to Speaker’s ruling 123/7 which is to do with there being no interjections while questions are taking place. Ms Kedgley had only just risen to her feet and had been speaking for only a matter of seconds when there was another point of order. I am prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt. I take her word as an honourable member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In respect of what you just said the exiting of my colleague Edwin Perry yesterday was not to do with question time. It was to do with a point of order I was taking when seeking that the Minister answer the question. I have never seen such an outrage in my life in Parliament and I have never seen such a unique circumstance in my time in Parliament. My colleague Mr Mark is pointing out the terrible inconsistency where much worse is being done than just the utterance of the words “Hear! Hear!”. That is hardly an interjection; it is actually an expression of support. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I cannot relitigate what was done yesterday and I recognise the situation we are in. I would now like to call the honourable member Sue Kedgley to finish her speech. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Referring once again as I have previously to points that have been made in debate one of the issues I want to speak about is ventilation systems. The Green Party was very attracted by the issue of ventilation systems— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have never seen in my time in Parliament—which is short compared with that of Mr Peters but he may care to back me up—a person on his or her feet so repeatedly defying the Chair. You have said time and time again that it is Part 3 but now we are hearing about ventilation systems for goodness’ sake! This is not a third reading speech; it is Part 3—[ 
Interruption 
] Now she is interrupting me while I am on my feet giving a point of order. I resent the fact that on the four times I have got up to take a point of order you have done nothing. If it were a New Zealand First an ACT or a National MP he or she would not get one chance but as it is a Green MP it is all OK because the Greens are supporting the Government on this bill. I think it is a disgrace— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member but I am on my feet. I ask the honourable member to withdraw and apologise. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I was asking my colleague whether ventilation systems were included in Part 3. If you wish me to withdraw and apologise for that I will. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This part is not about ventilation; it is about signage. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am about to support Sue Kedgley which will be rare and unique. She was responding—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I ask for order during a point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: No because you don’t throw her out when she interjects. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I tell Mr Hide that he now has his first yellow card under Speaker’s ruling—[ 
Interruption 
] Leave the Chamber! 
Rodney Hide 
: Good. It just shows the difference. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just go! 
Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: The point the member raised was in response to comments I made regarding my amendment to insert new clause 11A in Part 3 of the bill. New clause 11A inserts a new section 39A in the principal Act: “Minimum air quality standard”. Much as it pains me to have to do it I am forced to agree with Sue Kedgley that she was commenting on matters contained in that part. While I would profoundly disagree with what she is about to say she does have a right to say it. I think that when you reflect upon the content of the bill and the amendments to this part you will come to the same conclusion and allow her to continue for whatever time remains addressing this particular point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much Mr Dunne. I appreciate your consideration and wise counsel. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I was referring precisely to the comments Peter Dunne had made about ventilation systems. I was referring to the fact that the Green Party had been very attracted by the idea of having air quality standards and that we had several caucus discussions about whether that could work but the truth is it could not. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 3 of this Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill I want to focus particularly on clause 8A. We have already heard from my colleague Maurice Williamson about some of the stupidity in this bill. I have not been involved in this bill right the way through the process but as I look at what is contained in it I find I do not recollect in my 20 years in this place such stupidity going into legislation right down to the size of signs and the number of packages that are allowed to be on shelves. But given that stupidity I ask the member responsible for this bill Steve Chadwick and the Minister a few things in this Committee about what is going on here. 
I am interested that the Government did something very relevant to this legislation back on 16 June 2003 when it signed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Not many New Zealanders know about that but on 16 June the Government signed that convention. If we look at clause 8A and new section 23A(2) we see it provides: “The sign must have at least the lesser of the following areas: (a) 1 square metre: (b) 10% of the area of the display in which the tobacco products are exposed for sale.” The Government has just signed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control so the first question I have for the member responsible for this bill is this: is that measure in this bill consistent with that convention? That is my first question to the member responsible for this bill—and let us face it this bill is just a facade for a Government measure; we all know Helen Clark is behind it. Is that measure in this bill consistent with the convention that the Government signed on 16 June? I suspect it is not because if one looks at something that the Minister who is sitting opposite us in the Chamber said on 7 October then one sees that in fact the convention requires health warning messages to cover no less than 30 percent of the principal display. Why on earth is the Government bringing in legislation that is totally inconsistent with the damned Framework Convention on Tobacco Control? That is my first question. 
But I have a more important question: how much taxpayers’ money has this Government secretly spent on the whole issue of tobacco control which this bill now brings to the surface in New Zealand? I have some questions for Government members in this Parliament and they can answer them. How many meetings in Geneva have Government officials involved in issues relating to Part 3 of this bill been involved in? Would it have been just one two or three meetings in Geneva that were involved in sorting out these dopey rules on tobacco control? I charge that Minister over there to tell the Committee this: was it 31 meetings in Geneva that taxpayers’ money has been spent on—31 meetings in Geneva—to sort out the nonsense of all the detailed control on signs and the size of the warnings concerning tobacco? 
But the situation gets worse. That is just the meetings in Geneva. It is not just the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade which I happen to know a little bit about that has been involved in that nonsense. The Ministry of Health has been involved in it too. Do members know how many times that ministry’s officials have been right across the world to Geneva to play around with the nonsense in Part 3? The member in the chair Steve Chadwick who is responsible for this bill is smiling. The taxpayers may care a little more about this than she does because Ministry of Health officials have flown across the world 11 times since this Government has been in office just to play around with the nonsense in Part 3 of the bill as part of signing the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control—11 times to Geneva but only once to New Delhi. 
I have all the background stuff on that here in the Chamber. The Government has been secretive about that; no one knows about it. The officials have been to sunny Noumea though. As they worked on this stuff they have been to sunny Noumea but only once to New Delhi and they have been to Geneva 11 times for 31 meetings. The time involved is a whole month of our officials’ time—and I can see the Minister looking very embarrassed about that because it is a scandal. I have more to expose about that. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Chairman—[ 
Interruption 
] Am I meant to speak through this? 
Rod Donald 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would just like to acknowledge the group in the gallery that has been performing  
Kia Mau Mana Whenua 
 in Parliament tonight. It is beholden on us to display behaviour in this Chamber that holds this Parliament in high standing and not to demean ourselves. I invite members to consider that we have a group that is here with a message about changing people’s lives and I invite all members to reflect on that. 
PETER BROWN 
: I want to talk principally about Part 2A which I gather is to be inserted into the Smoke-free Environments Act by clause 12 of this bill—in other words the powers of the enforcement officers. We must bear in mind that we are talking largely about places of leisure where people go for a beer and a smoke with whomever they choose to go with. Under this bill an enforcement officer can go in there with a still or video camera or a device for taking samples of air or both. Enforcement officers can inspect those places take photographs at whim and if I am correct—and maybe the member can address this—do not have to produce identification under new section 41A inserted by clause 12. Under new section 41B people have to produce identification to enforcement officers but under new section 41A enforcement officers can go into bars places of leisure or Returned Services Association premises and take photographs samples of the air or whatever photographs or videos they like to take—all without saying who they are or what they are doing. There is no restriction in this bill as far as I can see or understand—and maybe the member will explain this—on passing on photographs that show Mary and Joe or whoever else were together whenever that was to the police or to anybody else who may be interested in those people’s whereabouts. 
I draw that member’s attention to what occurred when Government members were in Opposition and they went berserk when Maurice Williamson wanted to bring in a transponder car system whereby people could be picked up in their cars at any time of day and charged levies. The Labour members then in Opposition went berserk over the privacy implications of that and would not have one single bar of it. I am not advocating that we have such a system; I am just pointing out the hypocrisy that is behind this bill. I hope the member will take a call and explain new section 41A which allows enforcement officers to walk into bars restaurants or anywhere they suspect people are smoking—and it does not even state they have to suspect that as far as I can see—with video or still cameras and to take whatever photographs they are inclined to take. I do not think many New Zealanders know that. I do not think many New Zealanders are aware that that is in this bill and I do not think many of them would agree with that. 
The member Steve Chadwick is sitting there in the chair and looking as though she has all the answers. I look forward to her taking a call and telling me whether I am correct. Can all that occur as I have suggested without an enforcement officer giving any identification? Enforcement officers have to be given identifying information under a duty specified in section 41B but do not have to give identification under section 41A which states that not only can an enforcement officer take cameras into places but he or she can “take photographs or videos with any camera he or she brings with him or her”. I ask the member to explain that to us as she understands it. I know that she does not have the officials with her so she will have to go by what she recalls. 
I hope she does a better job of explaining that than she did when she was asked this afternoon whether she was aware of the scientific evidence that related to changing the quality of air. I will comment briefly on that issue. In shipping we can change the air in a compartment space very rapidly. We could put a fork hoist that fumed like nobody’s business in the hold of a ship measure the air quality and change it. This bill does not even take into account— 
Ron Mark 
: What about sucking all the air out of the Labour caucus room? 
PETER BROWN 
: I have to say that sometimes ours gets a little bit hot too. On a serious note— 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I start by asking the member in the chair Steve Chadwick to clarify the important point that has just been raised by Peter Brown who said that enforcement officers do not have to identify themselves. I want the member to then read section 41E in clause 12 “Offences in respect of enforcement officers” which states that: “Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1000 who—(a) intentionally obstructs hinders or resists an enforcement officer”. If patrons are in a pub having a beer—and I know that a killjoy like the member does not really imagine that sort of circumstance occurring but it does happen in pubs up and down the country as people enjoy a bit of friendship with their mates after a day’s work—and enforcement officers are spying in the bar doing their job by detecting who is lighting up a smoke someone who happens to step in front of that officer is not to know that the person is an enforcement officer. Yet the person who does that is up for a $1000 fine. 
Simon Power 
: They will have a clipboard. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The enforcement officers will have a clipboard. We know they will have a camera; we know they are allowed to have a camera. 
Enforcement officers are allowed to go in to pubs and spy on who is there and who should not be there because that is the sort of law that the member sponsors— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Fear not the enforcement officer will never be seen again! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I guarantee that the enforcement officer who goes into the “Chelty” will not be welcome. We have heard about the “Chelty” that well-known pub in the Manawatu in relation to which we tried to move an exemption today. I understand that while I was away from the Committee this afternoon that exemption was ruled out of order. 
John Carter 
: David Benson-Pope stopped it. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: David Benson-Pope stopped it. I will let everybody know that that member had something to do with the 100 amendments that I tabled being ruled out of order. Those people wanted to have their say. 
David Benson-Pope 
: They were out of order. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The member says that those amendments were out of order. This Committee could have accepted them by leave but David Benson-Pope did not want people to have that occasion. 
I want the member Steve Chadwick to answer the question we have raised. Do enforcement officers have to reveal that they are enforcement officers—yes or no? It is a simple question for Steve Chadwick to answer. She is meant to be sponsoring this bill on behalf of the Rt Hon Helen Clark so let us find out whether enforcement officers have to identify themselves. Otherwise how can it be fair that somebody who steps in front of those people and hinders them from doing their so-called enforcement work is liable for a $1000 fine? Why will the member not take a call and clarify that? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: She won’t. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: She may do so. She cannot be so ashamed about doing Helen Clark’s work that she will not take a call. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: She is. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: She probably is. 
When the member takes a call I want her to clarify for the Committee the issue around fines. I understand that amendments are now being accepted whereby a person who lights up a cigarette anyway in a pub is let off completely scot-free and the operator or licensee is liable to a fine of $4000. That cannot be right can it? I think that is probably what is happening here. Is that happening? I say to Steve Chadwick that members on the Opposition side of the Chamber seem to think that that is the state of affairs. So I think she should rise before the closure motion is taken and make sure that she answers those valuable questions. We are to vote on this legislation and we want to know whether we should be voting for it. I doubt whether we will do so. 
I certainly want to know about the issue of enforcement officers because I think it is fundamentally wrong for those sorts of people to go into places armed with a camera so they can—[ 
Interruption 
] I am not sure whether they will carry a clipboard. Those people will not be highly intelligent; they will not be able to handle a camera and a clipboard. But I want to know whether after those people have spied away and taken photographs there will then be any liability at all on the person who lit up a cigarette. I say to Steve Chadwick that I think it is grossly unfair if she is promoting legislation— 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I think that this is only the second speech I have made in the entire passage of this bill. I have a couple of points. In respect of clean air I know that we have allowed the debate to go a little bit wider than it should have on Part 3. Peter Brown made a comment earlier on. I would like to put on record that people who have advocated that one cannot change the air in a room to a sufficient standard should bear in mind that for decades now we have had armoured vehicles in use in Europe that are nuclear biological and chemical - capable. To protect the crew those vehicles have ventilation systems that are able to filter out all nuclear fallout and the radiation that may be contained in dust. If we can do that with armoured vehicles in combat situations and if we can build tented hospitals and produce sufficient clean air for people to have major surgery then I am sure that we can clear the air in bars. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. All we have to do is to clear the tobacco out of the air. 
I appreciate Mr Donald pointing out the group of young folk visiting the Chamber today because I want them all to understand that Part 3 is probably targeted at those of them who smoke. The member of Parliament in the chair Steve Chadwick is a person who does not believe that young people have the right to go and smoke in a bar with their friends. People like Steve Chadwick have passed other bills that enable young people to drink at the age of 18 but those young people are not to dare to have a cigarette while they are in a bar because the person described in Part 3 as an enforcement officer may be the person standing beside them. 
Those people do not come in uniforms. I would have liked Part 3 to provide for a uniform for these officers—an armband with crossed cigarettes in the form of a Nazi swastika or something like that because that is the type of person they will be. I say to these young people that those officers will be spying on their every little move because it would appear according to the Labour Government—which wants to dictate everything they do in their lives—that young people do not have the brains and the smarts to make up their own minds as to whether they will smoke where they will smoke and when they will smoke. These enforcement officers will be in disguise working undercover in bars in nightclubs checking on all these young people— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: In shorts and bobby socks. 
RON MARK 
: Yes we are bit worried about the type of people who will be employed. Perhaps this is an employment opportunity for any young person who wants to be an enforcement officer. Young people may want to go and see Steve Chadwick in Rotorua and ask for a job and then they can spy on their mates. They may even pick up a bounty for doing so. How wonderful! 
It would seem that the Labour Government is more interested that young ladies should not smoke in bars but be put out on to the footpath and made to look like hookers. This is the Government that legalised prostitution. This legislation is going to push young women smokers—who are not prostitutes—out on the streets at night while all their mates are in the bar having a drink enjoying the band and having a great time. All I am saying is that enough people have expressed their concern that a certain group of New Zealanders are being treated so differently and not being allowed to stay in a bar with their friends and smoke. 
This Labour Government does not seem to understand that everybody here is perfectly capable of making a decision for himself or herself. If people go out at night to a bar with their friends to have a quiet drink and if they choose to be with a person who smokes they do not want an enforcement officer to be hanging off their shoulder checking monitoring and watching what they are doing. These enforcement officers will be taking samples of air in a place using any device for that purpose that they bring with them. What device? Are they going to take a big lungful of air rush outside blow it into a bag and run away secretly and test or sample it? Are they going to come in with a big vacuum cleaner and hoover up the air then rush away with a little sealed bag? The bill does not mention whether that device is a scientifically proven credible device. What sort of legislation is that? 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that the question be now put. As many as are of that opinion will say “Aye” of the contrary opinion will say “No”. The Ayes have it. A party vote is called for? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. When this debate commenced I sought the assurance of the Chair who was not yourself that the ruling given by the Speaker on 17 September 2003 that there must be a full and very wide-ranging debate—and I am quoting from his ruling—would be upheld. In seeking that assurance I noted that some 40 calls had been allowed on Part 2 of the bill before the closure motion was accepted. By my recollection the debate on this part began at approximately 20 past 8 which means that at the most some 16 or 17 calls—not 40 calls—have been accepted. It seems to me that under any reasonable assessment of the Speaker’s ruling that there must be a very full and wide-ranging debate just 16 or 17 calls—as opposed to 40 on the previous part—does not meet that description. I accept that this part is more specific but it is not so specific as to warrant the closure being taken so early so I think that the only course of action is that I move  
That the Speaker be recalled. 
Motion agreed to and House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Speaker you have been recalled because there has been a request by the Hon Peter Dunne who is concerned that there were not enough speakers on Part 3. The member did refer me to the previous rulings you gave some time ago. As the Chair I listened to the debates. I had some trouble in getting relevancy on some parts of this legislation and having listened to the debate and accepted 19 speakers I felt it was time that the closure motion be accepted. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I referred at the commencement of the whole proceedings this evening to your comments on 17 September which were reiterated the last time we debated this measure that because of its significance—and I am quoting you from 17 September—there must be a very full and wide-ranging debate. You will be aware that on Part 2 the Chairman allowed some 40 speakers to be heard. When the Committee moved into Part 3 I took a point of order to seek his assurance that the ruling you gave about a very full and wide-ranging debate would be upheld. He gave that assurance. I accept that the Chairperson was a different one from the one presently in the chair. My point of order leading to your recall was that the Chairman—in accepting 19 calls on a part that is more limited but still has some very important measures in it compared with the 40 calls that were accepted on the earlier part—did not seem to me to be upholding your requirement of a very full and wide-ranging debate. Hence my request for you to come back and rule given your original ruling. 
Dail Jones 
: Point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I need no further assistance. The member will please be seated while I am standing or he will leave. I am not having any nonsense on this. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 54/2 which is quite specific. It goes back to 1931 to Speaker Statham and states: “The [chairperson] is the sole judge as to whether or not he ought to sanction the putting of the closure motion and it must be left entirely in his”—or her—“hands. The [chairperson] who has been presiding and has listened to the debate in committee must be the best judge whether the closure ought to be put. I can only express the hope that it will not be applied too harshly.” I listened to the member and I heard the debate over the radio. I heard him say that Part 3 was not as wide as Part 2 and I note that point. I uphold the rule of the Chairperson and that is where the matter ends. 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When the Chairman addressed you a moment ago he raised the question of relevancy. He said that a speaker had been not relevant. I have been here for the entire time during the debate on Part 3 and the only speaker who was not relevant was the speaker supporting the Government Ms Kedgley. The Chairman had to constantly call her in and we had about 20 minutes of points of order because Ms Kedgley was not being relevant. Are those members who are opposed to the bill to be punished by the very fact that a Government-supporting member was the one who was not relevant whereas all the speeches on the Opposition side of the House have been extremely relevant? Mr Lockwood Smith brought in a new concept as did Mr Williamson Mr Brown and Mr Mark. I believe that you have been misled by the Chairperson which is wrong. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution but Mr Robertson gave his reasons for accepting the closure and under the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings I cannot review those. That is the end of the matter. Of course this carries on now that the member has accepted the closure. The closure will be put before the House adjourns this evening. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am the ACT health spokesperson and I sat on the Health Committee hearing this bill. I have been here for over an hour now trying to get the call on Part 3. In fact I was here for the end of Part 2 as well and sought the call then. I have not had one single call tonight on this bill and I think that as ACT’s health spokesperson I should have been given the opportunity to take a call this evening. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to repeat what I said. The Speaker cannot review the reasons for accepting the closure and that is where the matter ends. I declare the House now— 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can the Chairman reassess his decision? My colleague here an ex – school principal has been seeking a call for a long time to talk about the effect of enforcement officers in schools. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that and that is an interesting point. By leave the Committee could do that but that is a matter for the Committee not for me. Mr Robertson gave his reasons for accepting the closure and I cannot review them. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I withdraw my point of order because it was to be the same point that Mr Brown raised. But if I heard you correctly members of the Committee could seek leave for the Chairman to accept additional speakers? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is absolutely correct but once the presiding officer has accepted the closure we proceed from there and we finish the debate this evening. There is no interruption to that. I declare the House in Committee on this bill. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If I do not raise it I think we will have to call you back again. You said that when we go back into Committee a member who feels he has not had the chance to debate the issue fully can seek leave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If it is granted then it carries on. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: But you subsequently said as you went to leave the Chair that we had to proceed with the vote before the option of seeking leave occurred as I understood it. So we need clarification. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Perhaps I was not clear enough when I said it. Leave can be sought but if leave is denied then the original motion stands. I declare the House in Committee again. 
In Committee 
Debate Resumed. 
Part 3 Other amendments ( 
continued 
)  
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I seek leave for certainly myself to take one more call. I have taken a huge interest in this debate from the outset. I was out of Wellington until I returned around 6 o’clock this evening then I sat on a select committee until 9 o’clock. The moment that select committee concluded I rushed to the Chamber to take calls on this particular part. I have had but one call and on that occasion I addressed the issue around enforcement. I have a number of letters before me from people who have written to me expressing concern around packaging particularly with regard to cigar displays. I would like the opportunity of leave from the Committee to speak to that because I think it is an important part of this debate. Certainly whilst I have been here during the Committee stage this evening nobody has had the opportunity to address the important topic of point of sale. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave for my colleague Jim Peters to make a contribution. Mr Peters is an ex-headmaster. Up until I spoke which was only a few moments ago nobody had touched on enforcement officers. Nobody had raised the words even once in the course of this whole debate. My colleague has been seeking the call to talk about the effect of enforcement officers with cameras and videos going into schools. I believe that is a very important point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brown. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee to have one speech on Part 3. I am the ACT health spokesperson. I was on the select committee that heard the submissions and undertook the clause by clause analysis of this bill. I have not had the opportunity to speak on this bill at all this evening. Despite seeking the call at the end of the debate on Part 2 I was not called to speak and despite seeking the call for almost an hour and a half I have not had the opportunity to speak on Part 3 either. I think it is imperative that the health spokesperson for each party has the opportunity to speak. I seek the leave of the Committee to do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We now have ourselves in quite a serious difficulty. Normally the Committee would shut down at 5 to 10; the Committee would close the Speaker would be called back and you would report progress. However there is a Standing Order that states that when the Committee has commenced voting it must conclude the voting before it rises and before you can report progress. What has happened in this case however is that you have accepted the closure motion but we have not started voting. I say to you that therefore we are not in the voting procedure. We do have a question before the Committee but voting has not yet started. It has not been voted on. The voting procedure has not started. None of the amendments or the parts have been voted on. We are merely in a part that asks whether the closure should take place. You have not yet decided that we should now vote on Part 3 because the Committee has not even made a decision as to whether it accepts the closure. Therefore we have actually gone past the appropriate time for you to lift the House. It seems to me that procedurally you should now tell the Committee that the House is now adjourned and you should report progress to the Speaker. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is my recollection that I called that the question be now put I said: “All those in favour say ‘Aye’.” and the Government side said “Aye” then I said: “All those against say ‘No’.” and those on the other side said “No”. Just as that was done Mr Peter Dunne took a point of order. So I actually did put the question. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There are two points that I would like to raise. First of all my recollection of the events is exactly as you have just recalled. But I would also like to add the fact that the Speaker in ruling on this matter on his recall made it quite clear how this process was to proceed. In my view the previous speakers have been trifling with the Chair. We have had five requests for leave declined. I move  
That the Speaker be further recalled to clarify this matter 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The closure was actually accepted which means I do have to carry on and take the vote. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think I can be of assistance. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well I hope so. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Your account of events is not correct. You certainly attempted to put the vote. There was a lot of interruption. I was calling for a point of order from the moment Mr Hughes moved the closure motion. I called for a point of order several times. You were not looking in my direction because of the general uproar. You then noticed me right at the end of the process but before you had declared the vote and you called me for the point of order that led to the Speaker being recalled. So the two points I make are that firstly I had been seeking a point of order before you even put the motion and secondly you acknowledged that and called me before you had declared the result. Therefore the process had not commenced. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Dunne. I again say that it is my recollection that I asked and Government members said “Yes” and members on this side said “No” and in-between that I heard your 
point of order. Because there was such an uproar it was difficult for me to hear as well. I have a different recollection of the situation. The chief Government whip has asked that the Speaker be recalled. The question now is that the Speaker be recalled. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
Motion agreed to and House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Speaker there seems to be some concern over the acceptance of the closure motion. It is my recollection that I put the question that the question be now put I turned to the Government side and members said “Yes” and I turned to the Opposition and members said “No”. There was quite an uproar while this was going on and it was difficult to hear. I did eventually hear the Hon Peter Dunne take a point of order. I then took the point of order straight away. There the matter rests but there is some disagreement on how that happened. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear one comment. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 My clear recollection is that Mr Hughes moved that the closure take place. There was uproar because a number of members particularly on this side of the Committee—I think I counted about 12 or 14 members—were seeking the call. I immediately saw what was likely to happen and sought to call very loudly for a point of order. I did so several times. The Chairman commenced but did not complete the vote before he heard me then called me to speak. That led to your recall where you ruled that had the motion been put and carried we would have to proceed with the vote. My point is that the vote had not been completed no result had been declared and there had been no request for a party vote or anything of that order. Therefore the vote was not completed. Therefore when the Committee got to five to 10 this evening and certainly now at two minutes past 10 the business is not complete and it is appropriate for the House to be lifted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the honourable member to Standing Order 51 which deals with this matter absolutely precisely. The chairperson did accept the closure motion and commenced to put the question. It does not matter how far he got; under Standing Order 51 the time to report progress is deferred until the closure is determined and any consequential questions are determined. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 3 Other amendments ( 
continued 
)  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I would like to seek leave to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I say that humbly and sincerely as National’s science and associate health spokesperson. During the moments of confusion that Mr Chairman you have described I observed that the members in front of me in their enthusiasm to talk on this very important debate actually made it difficult for you to see that I was seeking a call. I had not done so during this part of the debate. I have had very strong views in favour of this very important bill. I believe that there has been considerable excess of emotion in respect of the views on this bill. Perhaps partly because of that individuals such as myself who hold a strong view about this bill have been prevented from having the opportunity to speak. The Hon Peter Dunne pointed out that Part 2 had 40 speakers but this part has had only 19 speakers. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that under Standing Order 84(3) points of order are to be terse and to the point. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak and I seek leave to do so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
I would just like to point out that over the last two sitting days I have been present during the debate on this bill and have received only one call. I therefore seek leave to have a further call on this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In this entire debate I have had the privilege of just one call. I went to the trouble though of obtaining a lot of material under the Official Information Act about what the Government had been up to. I indicated to the Committee after that call that I had information that would be quite revealing to the public about what had been going on and was in fact verging on the scandalous. The perception evolves that Government members sought to close down the debate so that I could not do that. That is a very unfortunate flavour to be left. I have official documentation here that I think the Committee deserves to hear about and I seek leave to have a further call. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been out of the Chamber but listening to a succession of points of orders that are out of order. When one seeks leave one seeks leave. One does not give a speech either before or after the seeking of leave. The seeking of leave is done precisely—that is “I seek leave to take a speech.” One’s history marital relationships and various other things are irrelevant to the matter of seeking leave. A very formal procedure is adopted in this House that has been used for many generations. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much. I just say to members that members may seek leave but leave has been denied on a number of occasions already this evening. I remind members that constantly raising points of order can itself be seen as being disorderly. When a matter has been the subject of a decision of the Committee that situation stands. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not seeking leave to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It had better be something different because I have already ruled. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Yes it is a completely fresh point of order Mr Chairperson. I submit that the entire procedure from the time of the acceptance by you of the closure motion is out of order. I cite as my authority Speaker’s ruling 53/6 from 1931 and I want to quote it to you with particular reference to Mr Hughes: “The closure must be moved by a member rising in the member’s place pursuant to the Standing Orders.” Mr Hughes was not sitting in his place at the time that he moved the closure motion. He was therefore completely contrary to that Speaker’s ruling. It should not have been accepted. The procedure from that point on is entirely out of order and the Committee should have lifted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. There has already been a ruling on this. A number of rulings outline that a member may sit in any block of seats that are held by that particular party. I now intend to put the vote. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This book— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled on the issue. 
PETER BROWN 
: This is a new point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Continuing points of order— 
PETER BROWN 
: It is a new point of order. Throughout this evening you or other members have referred to this book and Standing Orders to the letter. Now when the Hon Peter Dunne has pointed out a clause are we seeing some sort of flexibility? I am asking you to rule to the letter and if not I am asking for the Speaker to come back. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will do that Mr Brown. I would like to refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 7/1: “Within the areas allocated to each party group or caucus in the Chamber the allocation of particular seats to individual members by practice of the House is left to the party leaders and whips and the Speaker does not intervene.” That means that members may sit in any seats that are allocated to that particular party. I refer members now to Speaker’s ruling 17/3. Members are free to raise points of order but where things start to get out of order and members are asked to desist it can lead to disorder and members can be asked to leave the Chamber. We have had a number of points of order on this issue already. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I respectfully say that Speaker’s ruling 7/1 does not relieve Speaker’s ruling 53/6 of the responsibilities. It simply states that a member can sit anywhere but Speaker’s ruling 53/6 states that when a member wants to move the closure motion that member has to be in his or her correct seat. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer Mr Brown to Speaker’s ruling 17/3. The member is persistently challenging the Chair which makes it a highly disorderly situation. He should also refer to Standing Order 85(1). He has his first yellow card. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a fresh point of order that is utterly unrelated to what has gone before and it arises out of the Speaker’s ruling with particular reference to Standing Order 51. It is a complex point and I will pause while you look for the Standing Order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Worth. I refer members to Standing Order 139 and also Speaker’s ruling 54/2. Standing Order 139 states: “If the Speaker accepts a closure motion a question is put on the closure and decided without amendment or debate.” The question now is that the question be now put. As many as are of that opinion will say “Aye” and to the contrary will say “No”. A party vote called for? 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I will ask that the Speaker be recalled if you are not prepared to listen to my point of order. It is neither frivolous nor vexatious. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: In that case I will listen to the member’s point of order. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: It is founded on Standing Order 51 which the Speaker gave a ruling on. The point as most tersely stated as I can put it is that it is not possible to complete the Committee stage this evening. The reason is stated in Standing Order 51 which the Speaker drew our attention to: “Whenever at the time for the Speaker or the chairperson to interrupt business a question is being put to the House or a vote is in progress or the closure is carried”—which is the relevant part—“the interruption of business is deferred until the question (in the case of the closure the main question)”—which is the part I am emphasising—“is determined.” The only remaining business that the Committee can transact tonight is whether Part 3 shall stand part. The consequence of that—and I am seeking that the Speaker be recalled if you do not agree with this proposition because I believe it to be correct and I do not offer it in any but a sincere and determined manner—is that the Committee stage cannot be concluded tonight with the consequence that the farthest point to which we can get is a vote on whether Part 3 stands part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The vote was in progress. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The point the member was making was a different one. It is an interesting point but it is drawing an extraordinarily long bow and one that is likely to remove his own kneecap when he starts to think about it as it comes back again. Standing Order 51 states that once we have begun the process of voting whether the closure motion or subsequently we have to continue until the main vote is decided. 
Hon David Carter 
: No. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. The interruption of business is deferred until the question—in the case of the closure the main question—is determined. The reason it says that is because all amendments have to be put before the main question is determined. After the closure vote is determined—if the Committee agrees on the vote for closure—then the amendments are put then the main vote is put and once the main vote is put the Committee is adjourned the Chair of the Committee reports progress and the Speaker declares the House adjourned until tomorrow. [ 
Interruption 
] We cannot have two members standing at once. Mr Worth should sit down. I have the floor. So Mr Chairperson the facts of this case are very simple. If the member had been here slightly longer he would know that this procedure has been followed many many times where a closure motion is put before a normal time for business to be interrupted—whether that be 6 o’clock or 10 o’clock at night or indeed 1 o’clock when the House is under urgency. Voting then proceeds; it proceeds through to the amendments before the Committee of the whole House at that point then on to the main vote. At that point business is interrupted as normally provided for in the Standing Orders. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 What Dr Cullen has not bothered to answer is the primary question that I put which was to assert that the main question was whether Part 3 should stand part. He has not answered that. He has been glib in his response—and abusive. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The question that was put was that the question be now put. The main question that that referred to was that Part 3 stand part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I want to make a ruling on this matter. The vote on the closure was in progress. The Committee must continue and decide that vote. The vote was a closure. After it is determined the remaining votes on Part 3 must be decided and then the Committee reports. The question now is that Part 3 stand part. As many of that opinion will say “Aye” the contrary “No”— 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You know that I have been seeking a point of order so deliberately to pretend you did not see me is totally unacceptable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member please get to his point of order. 
RON MARK 
: I seek that you make this a personal vote because given the time now—17 minutes past 10—and the propensity for certain members to leave the Chamber dead on the dot of 10 o’clock I do not believe in any way shape or form that the Government whip would have any idea about how many votes he has got right now. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This is not a conscience issue; it is not a personal vote. The question will be put. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This whole matter began over the timing of a closure. I want to ask you to advise the Committee why if we commenced the vote at about a quarter to 10 when this process got underway and if the vote is already therefore ongoing in the sense that we have started it so we cannot stop until we finish it you are now proceeding to put the vote again. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There has been a lot of going backwards and forwards and I did it to try to clear matters up. I want to reiterate for the member— 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: In now putting it again you are accepting that it was not put in the first place—which is the problem we have got into. Either we put it and it has been disposed of and we are about to commence voting on the amendments or at 20 past 10 or thereabouts we have not put it in which case the Committee rises. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I tell the member that the vote had not been completed; it was in progress. I want to read this again. The ruling is that the vote on the closure was in progress. The Committee must continue and decide that vote. The vote was a closure. After it is determined the remaining votes on Part 3 must be decided and then the Committee reports. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just confirm that the vote was 61 in favour and 56 opposed which means a differential of only 3 votes would have had a large impact. Given the closeness of the vote it is my view that the absence of one or two members from the Chamber because of the timing of and the confusion about the vote would have had a very serious impact on the passage of the bill. Therefore after looking at the Standing Orders pertaining to personal votes I seek that you call a personal vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The vote was 61 to 56. That is quite clear and we have already had a number of votes like that this evening. I repeat that this is not a conscience issue; it is a party vote. 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You cannot rule that this is not a conscience issue when it is a conscience issue. As far as the Opposition side of the Chamber is concerned this is a conscience vote. How can you say it is not a conscience vote when we regard it as being one? The Labour members have been drilled into having the vote as a Government vote and that is a different matter. But you are taking part in the debate if you start to make that ruling and I believe you are not supposed to do that. It is not up to you to decide whether a matter is a conscience vote; that is for the members of Parliament to decide on. We in New Zealand First regard this as a conscience vote. You are entering into the debate which you should not be doing. You should be here on the benches if you want to do that type of thing. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has made his point. There is a wide margin. The vote is 61 to 56. It has been that way and we have had votes like that before. There was no need for a personal vote and I have ruled against it. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 119 in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert new clause 7C be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; Green Party 9. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment to new section 23A(3) in clause 8A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 120 and the amendment to insert new section 23A(1A) in clause 8A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 134 in the name of Steve Chadwick and the following amendment to new section 23A(1)(h) be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new section 23A(1)(h) of the principal Act and substitute the following paragraph: 
(h)there is displayed at each point of sale where tobacco products are exposed for sale a rectangular sign with its longer sides horizontal and its shorter sides vertical and the message ‘SMOKING KILLS Ka mate koeitekaihikareti’ printed in black across it— 
(i)within a black rectangular border that is no wider than an upper case letter ‘i’ in the point size used for the words ‘SMOKING KILLS’; and 
(ii)on a white background within that border; and 
(iii)in the type face known as Helvetica; and 
(iv)in roman font; and 
(v)with the words ‘SMOKING KILLS’ printed centred in upper case letters in one line; and 
(vi)with the words ‘Ka mate koeitekaihikareti’ printed centred in upper case and lower case letters (as it is printed in this subparagraph) in one line— 
(A)beneath the words ‘SMOKING KILLS’; and 
(B)in a point size such that its risers are two-thirds the height of the words ‘SMOKING KILLS’; and 
(vii)in a type that is clear and legible of normal weight and of such a point size that the words ‘Ka mate koeitekaihikareti’ do not touch the vertical elements of the border but as nearly as possible take up the full width of the sign between them. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next amendment which is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor is to clause 8 and it is out of order because Ms Chadwick’s amendments have been agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor to new section 23A(1) in clause 8A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; United Future 8; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment in the name of Pita Paraone to clause 8A is ruled out of order because Ms Chadwick’s amendments have been agreed to. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I did not hear why the amendment was ruled out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is inconsistent with previous decisions given that the honourable member Steve Chadwick’s amendments were agreed to. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to seek some clarification in terms of the sequence of when the Supplementary Order Papers were lodged and when they should come before the Committee for consideration. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Amendments in the name of the Minister or the member in charge of a bill always come first. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 106 in the name of Richard Worth to new section 23A in clause 8A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor to omit new section 23A(4) in clause 8A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor to section 36 in clause 10 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 119 in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert new clause 10A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3 Green Party 9. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata . 
New clause 10A agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor to clause 11(1A) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3 New Zealand First 1 Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor to clause 11(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to insert new clause 11A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3 Green Party 9. 
New clause 11A not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Procedure 
The bill was reported with amendment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Report adopted.