edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Turner Judy: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Procedure 
Turner Judy: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:620;Page:15844] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 Yes he is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member wants those votes to be recorded as Noes. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6902] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 80 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15718] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Yates Dianne: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8087] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hughes Darren: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11363] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Gallagher Martin: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5567] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12964] 
3.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the success of Kiwibank? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have seen a number of reports on the outstanding success of Kiwibank. Yesterday Kiwibank opened its 300th branch in south Auckland. Over a quarter of a million Kiwis choose to bank with Kiwibank amongst them some of the most prominent citizens in this country and it is now the largest retail banking network in New Zealand. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Are there any risks to the future of Kiwibank? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As long as I am alive there are not. Kiwibank is flourishing in the face of competition from very much larger funded Australian-owned banks. The only risk I can espy is a very small one—the possibility of a change of Government—since the Leader of the Opposition has said that he would sell Kiwibank and leave us without a nationwide New Zealand - owned bank. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he confirm that Kiwibank’s latest 6-month loss of $1.5 million would have been considerably worse if it were not propped up to the tune of $35 million by revenue from New Zealand Post’s bill payments and red ticket sales and how does he explain the inclusion of revenue from the bill paying service and the red ticket sales service which have nothing to do with banking being put on the books of Kiwibank? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I cannot confirm that despite the fact that that question came originally from Mr Key. What I can confirm is that Kiwibank is actually on target to make a profit next financial year and will make—[ 
Interruption 
] That indeed was the year that was the target for first making a profit when Kiwibank was set up and it will make a profit next financial year. We will continue to put New Zealand first when it comes to the banking system. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: The Minister has identified the successes of Kiwibank since it was introduced by Jim Anderton in 2000 as per his proposal to Cabinet. What other risks does the Minister see to Kiwibank’s services other than the ones he has identified? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is certainly true that Kiwibank provides services for New Zealanders who do not have large wealth and incomes but I think another threat is the kind of attitude expressed by Mr John Key when he said that the people who bank with Kiwibank have the poorest most unprofitable worst accounts. That kind of social condescension is the sort of thing we should not be accepting as the view of our only nationwide New Zealand - owned bank. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a select committee transcript in which Mr Knowles the chief executive of Kiwibank makes it clear that without the extra agency income Kiwibank’s losses would have been considerably worse. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that transcript. Is there any objection? There is.
Clark Helen: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Clark Helen: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11860] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Speaker’s ruling 17/6 states: “It is out of order for a member to suggest that the Speaker is defending the Government—such a statement must be withdrawn unreservedly;”. In the course of the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s speech he said in relation to me that I preferred to be here where I have a member of my own party in the Chair. That to me without question was a statement that the Chair was biased. The Chair then asked Dr Smith to withdraw and apologise as the Speaker’s ruling precedent suggests that he should and should do so unreservedly. He eventually rose withdrew and apologised and then as he sat down called out to the Chair: “Aren’t you still a member of the Labour Party?” thus compounding the offence of alleging that the Chair was biased. I put it that the Chair behaved quite properly in then asking him to leave the Chamber—it was at that point that the Opposition objected and asked for you to be recalled—and I suggest that her ruling should be upheld.
Barker Rick: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Barker Rick: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6316] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Visitors — Canada—Speaker of the House of Commons 
Visitors — Canada—Speaker of the House of Commons 
[Volume:627;Page:22163] 
Tuesday 2 August 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Canada—Speaker of the House of Commons 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Peter Milliken MP Speaker of the House of Commons Canada is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
The House will also wish to welcome members of his delegation who are present in the gallery.
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11281] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of Sue Kedgley to section 112U(2) in clause 4 be agreed to.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11636] 
8.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What is the Government doing to provide opportunities for New Zealand students to study internationally? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 The Minister of Education and I are today announcing a European Union - New Zealand exchange pilot programme. A consortium of New Zealand and European universities will work together to develop a joint postgraduate study programme for students from New Zealand and European Union countries. This will provide a unique opportunity for New Zealand tertiary education institutions and masters level students to participate in an international exchange programme. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Of what value or cost is this programme to New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The programme will build on existing courses offered in both New Zealand and European Union universities and will enable New Zealand students to extend their knowledge by taking postgraduate studies in a university within the union. Both New Zealand and European students will return home after their studies thereby giving us students who have experience in Europe and European students who have a good knowledge of New Zealand. The programme is jointly funded by the Tertiary Education Commission and the European Commission. Proposals are now being sought and I intend to announce those results on 16 July.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
[Volume:617;Page:12681] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 9 to Minister 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 343 relating to an answer I gave to a supplementary question this afternoon. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is this a correction? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes that is all. Is the member happy? In answering Brent Catchpole’s supplementary question: “Is Housing New Zealand Corporation building new housing stock or is it simply buying housing stock from the private sector” I said: “Since 1999 the Government has built 4000 new houses and it is currently in the process of building another 4000 new houses.” I need to break down that second figure of 4000. Up to the end of April 2004 the Housing New Zealand Corporation had added a net 4083 houses to the State house portfolio of which 940 were new builds 1666 were acquired from the Auckland City Council and the rest were a mixture of purchases and leases. The 4000 to be added will also be a mixture of new builds purchases and leases.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12994] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) the following new paragraph: 
(aa)incapacitating criminals and thereby preventing reoffending; and.
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19715] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Maybe you could invite Dr Smith to confirm whether he did it. I am sitting opposite him. I heard him call out to Sue Kedgley: “Just table it.” He quite audibly interrupted her during the point of order. You could ask him the question. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to Ms Kedgley that I am on my feet. I say to members that we are going from the sublime to the ridiculous and I will now caution members. Dr Smith has his first yellow card. He is a good sportsman so he knows what that means in association football.
Dyson Ruth: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5568] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Okeroa Mahara: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Okeroa Mahara: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21569] 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6991] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11396. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 4 be agreed to.Ayes109New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Noes11Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2.Part 4 agreed to.
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11390. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes109New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Noes11Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2.Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11390. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes13Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11389. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes13Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to omit the Subpart 5 heading and clause 25A be agreed to.
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11389. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes13Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11389. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes13Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to omit Example 2 from clause 15(5) be agreed to.
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11389. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes13Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to omit “or a clean transport route” from clause 15(5) be agreed to.
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11388. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes14Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland; Field.Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11388. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes14Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland; Field.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 15(2) be agreed to.
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11388. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes14Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland; Field.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 15(1) be agreed to.
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11379. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes109New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Noes9Green Party 6; Māori Party 3.Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11379. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes6Green Party 6.Noes112New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11378. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes10Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.Noes109New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 4 to omit a definition be agreed to.
Worth Richard: Wills Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWorth Richard: Wills Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): I seek leave to table a speech that has been described by third parties as outstanding delivered to the Australasian Law Reform Commission.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Debate interrupted.
Barker Rick: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBarker Rick: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11402. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): I say to Mr Roy that the second sentence I uttered was that at the appropriate time I intended to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.
Roy Eric: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11402. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I may well have missed it but according to Standing Order 284 the Minister should indicate which select committee the bill is going to. I did not hear whether he said that.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I believe that he did.
Worth Richard: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWorth Richard: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11397. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): So often one is put off by a heading like “Miscellaneous” and that is what Part 5 is headed. I would just like to explore an angle that probably has not been sufficiently considered by the Committee and until a few moments ago I had not fully reflected on its significance either. It stems from clause 78. The Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard has opened the bill to look at this. Clause 78 is headed “Application of Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 and Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989” and the key part is in subclause (1): “An Order in Council made under section 6 or 7 is a regulation for the purposes of the Regulations (Disallowance) Act”.Now I am reasonably sure that the Minister has no comprehension of the significance of that. So let me tell him what it is. If one goes to the Standing Orders of Parliament one finds in Standing Order 3 a definition of regulation: “regulation means a regulation within the meaning of the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989”. I sense that the Minister may be on the trail but not quite there. So I draw his attention to this. These Orders in Council are made under clauses 6 or 7. If he turns back and looks at those clauses he will see that those are the very clauses where declarations of major events are made.What does all this mean in legal terms? Well it is something quite simple actually. What it means is that the Regulations Review Committee will have a jurisdiction to determine whether what the Governor-General asserts is a major event is or is not a major event. That is a hugely extended jurisdiction that this legislation confers. It is actually quite unusual. The jurisdiction is not only in respect of clause 6 but also in connection with clause 7 which is about major event emblems and words. So we have this very interesting situation. Let us say that the America’s Cup is declared by the Governor-General to be a major event. The Regulations Review Committee will have the jurisdiction to say “not so”. That will open up these provisions that are to be found around Standing Orders 314 and 315 where the Regulations Review Committee which comprises eminent respected and competent people will be looking to see whether there are Standing Orders grounds that are breached by what the Governor-General and his advisers have done. So I just offer a view for those who follow me in the future that when one comes to provisions headed “Miscellaneous such as Part 5 little jewels are often tucked away and this is one such jewel.
Peachey Allan: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeachey Allan: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11396. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): Thank you Madam Chair—Hon Trevor Mallard: You’ll have trouble being relevant on this.ALLAN PEACHEY: Oh the Minister should watch this. I can handle this. [Interruption] I was going to say that I will take a very short and final call on this bill and speak to Part 5 but if I am going to be taunted and aggravated by the other side I might choose to speak for 15 minutes on it.Part 5 under the glorious title of “Miscellaneous” covers clauses 76 to 80. It deals with emblems and words protected under other Acts and necessary amendments to the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981. It also contains provisions for the making of regulations to make the legislation work. I am bound to say—Darren Hughes: Read it again.ALLAN PEACHEY: If the junior Labour whip would like to take a call he will have the opportunity after I have finished speaking. I do have to say that it is somewhat of a challenge even for myself to hold the attention of the gallery let alone members opposite—not to mention those watching on television and listening to the radio—on what really is just a very very practical catch-all to draw this legislation to a close.But I do want to conclude my comments since the challenge on the other side to continue has not been that great by saying that what we have in the five parts that we have been debating and progressively passing tonight is the pulling together of a largenumber of interests ambitions and efforts of a large number of voluntary people business interests sporting organisations and the Government to create legislation that is not only workable but will give New Zealand the opportunity to host the Rugby World Cup 2011.I will make just one last comment while listening to the squawking from the other side—and it has taken them a while to come alive; they normally get into me a bit earlier than they have done. Every New Zealander will be taking a lot of reassurance from the knowledge that come 2011 the Minister who will be acting under this legislation will be a Minister representing a National Government.
Locke Keith: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLocke Keith: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11395. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KEITH LOCKE (Green): I do thank the select committee for putting in the amendment that both Dr Worth and Maryan Street have mentioned which makes sure that a police officer accompanies an enforcement officer when a search warrant is executed. That is a good step forward but it does not get away from subclauses (a) and (b) of clause 39 which relate largely to the action of enforcement officers immediately around the event. They have powers to cover over things and seize things without any police officer being present if the place is part of a clean zone or outside a clean zone.When the place is outside a clean zone presumably the bill means that without a police officer by the enforcement officer’s side the officer will be able to cover over a sign or whatever along a declared clean transport route up to 5 kilometres away and will be able to seize something from a person if that person is trading from his or her lawn across the road from the clean zone as covered in another clause.That can actually be for quite a long period too because the protection period—and this has not really come out in the debate yet—is not just for the day of the event. Under clause 8 it can be for up to 30 days after the completion or termination of the major event. So one can imagine a situation where for instance Air New Zealand could have an advert 4.5 kilometres away and the enforcement officer without a police officer present could cover over that advert up to 30 days after the event if say Emirates Airline is the major sponsor as it is at the current World Cup. Similarly Lemon and Paeroa ads could be covered over if Coca-Cola were the major sponsor as it is at the coming World Cup in France or if a Canterbury clothing manufacturer has a “Buy Kiwi Made” ad that ad could be covered over because Adidas is the official sponsor at this coming World Cup and maybe at the following one. Heineken is the official sponsor at the World Cup in France; Steinlager might be advertising 4.5 kilometres out and that ad could be covered over by an enforcement officer.That could happen under this bill and I do not think we need to go to that extent to achieve what most of us want to achieve—a successful tournament for the 2011 Rugby World Cup and other major international events.
Peachey Allan: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeachey Allan: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11392. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): Again I would like to take just a brief call on Part 4 because I do not imagine there will be too much division in the Committee over this. The first comment I want to make is that—and again if I seem to be straying a little bit in relevance Madam Chair I ask for your patience—frequently members of Parliament moving around the country will hear any number of people telling us how useless we are what a non-job we have and that sort of thing—Hon Trevor Mallard: They don’t do that to me!ALLAN PEACHEY: I mean those members over there not me. Every so often they throw a name up at us. Let us not be specific about that but often one finds oneself in the position of actually being able to say: “Now wait a minute their name may not always be in the newspapers and they may not be getting kicked out of the House periodically—all that sort of thing—but the work they are doing down in the engine room in their select committees is very very sound.” I think there are a couple of examples in Part 4 of work that was done in the select committee where—Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes Maryan Street is great isn’t she?ALLAN PEACHEY: I say to the Minister that I suspect that the National members probably had somewhat more influence on deciding the shape of these amendments. Both of these amendments—subclause (1A) in clause 65 and clause 51A—reflect very much our point of view and they temper the harsher intentions of the bill in its original form.I think it is very important to realise that when something like this is being enforced and there is a requirement for a police officer to be involved as there is in clause 65(1A) New Zealanders by their nature are much more likely to accept that enforcement and to acknowledge that that is an appropriate action that should be taken. For that reason alone it is good that the work of the select committee has just tempered the harshness of this. I do not believe that New Zealanders want this Parliament to be giving a range of enforcement officials greater power. Where that power is necessary tobe given—and I do not question that in this case it is—it is important I think that it be tempered in the way provided for in clause 65(1A).
Mallard Trevor: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11391. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): This is a relatively simple part of the bill and I am sure there will not be any objection to it. When I was in Opposition I took part in the original work that amended the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 by way of I think two statutes amendment bills. There was unanimity that these emblems should be protected at the time. I think at the time it was a little bit of a rort to put them in with flags names and emblems because they were designed for things that were not effectively privately owned in the way that the Olympic and Commonwealth symbols are. I see no reason why the Committee should not just tick this and move on.
Hartley Ann: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHartley Ann: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11390. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The debate on this part clauses 26 to 32 includes debate on the schedule.
Mallard Trevor: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11389. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): I notice that there has been a pattern to the voting and the amendments to clauses 18 19 and 21 are all on the same issue. I ask for the leave of the Committee for those three questions to be put as one.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clauses 18 19 and 21 be agreed to.
Peachey Allan: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeachey Allan: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11387. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): I commend my colleague Dr Worth for the analytical legal mind that he brings to the issue of scalping. Everything he said is of course quite correct and I endorse it. But I am a little surprised at the line the Green Party is running. I want to bring a little bit of passion to the subject. It is my view that millions of New Zealanders love their sport; they love it passionately; it brings purpose direction and enjoyment to their lives. Those New Zealanders would see any suggestion at all of scalping as a most un - New Zealand type of thing to do. There is one thing about scalping that we need to be very very clear about. One can only scalp tickets if one can secure access—through good luck good fortune using the system one’s mates or whatever it is—to more tickets than one needs for one’s use. The more tickets that fall into the hands of the sorts of individuals who do not plan to use them for themselves the more difficult it is for the millions of New Zealanders—those people with the passion and the love for sport—to get their hands on those tickets.I will make one other comment about that also with a degree of passion. It does not matter whether it is Rugby World Cup 2011 the Commonwealth Games or an age-grade world championship; I ask members to remember that a lot of the work to make it happen will have been done by volunteers: ordinary men and women who love their sport and who have a concept of service to their community. We have a responsibility to see that those people are not insulted by those who would take unfair commercial advantage of their efforts which is what scalping amounts to.As my colleague Dr Worth said scalping is now widely unaccepted in many countries of the world. It is unaccepted for the reason that I mentioned before when I said that it is a most un - New Zealand thing to do: it is an ungenerous act it is a selfish act and it is actually an act that demonstrates qualities and attributes that we do not associate with the great New Zealand commitment to serving the community servingone’s sport and serving the activity that one loves. Frankly to me any defence of scalping is an insult to that type of New Zealander.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 15 be agreed to.
Officer Presiding: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour PartyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeOfficer Presiding: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Jill Pettis): Communication can be made in a variety of ways around here. Madam Speaker has indicated that she will do that.
Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour PartyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11369. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Points of OrderSignage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour PartyNATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is my understanding that at the Business Committee this week it was ruled that the red boxes that Labour Party members have on their benches need to be with the member or taken with the member when that member moves. I look across the Housenow and I raise the point with you Madam Speaker that there are three of these silly red boxes on the other side of the Chamber but only one member is sitting there.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): I say to you Madam Temporary Speaker that Madam Speaker did rule on this today. She indicated that members would be informed of the Business Committee’s ruling in the appropriate way and after that it would be enforced. If the member had been listening at the time and if he had been awake at the time—I know it is unusual in the afternoon for the member—he would have heard that.The TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Jill Pettis): When Madam Speaker was in the Chair during question time she said precisely that. She will be reporting to the Business Committee at the first available opportunity as to the ongoing action regarding the presentation of boxes in the House.Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): The only point I would make is that the boxes actually belong to the junior whip and he attends the Business Committee so he can hardly claim ignorance of this matter.The TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Jill Pettis): Communication can be made in a variety of ways around here. Madam Speaker has indicated that she will do that.
Mapp Wayne: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour PartyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMapp Wayne: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): The only point I would make is that the boxes actually belong to the junior whip and he attends the Business Committee so he can hardly claim ignorance of this matter.
Officer Presiding: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour PartyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeOfficer Presiding: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Jill Pettis): When Madam Speaker was in the Chair during question time she said precisely that. She will be reporting to the Business Committee at the first available opportunity as to the ongoing action regarding the presentation of boxes in the House.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour PartyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): I say to you Madam Temporary Speaker that Madam Speaker did rule on this today. She indicated that members would be informed of the Business Committee’s ruling in the appropriate way and after that it would be enforced. If the member had been listening at the time and if he had been awake at the time—I know it is unusual in the afternoon for the member—he would have heard that.
Guy Nathan: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour PartyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGuy Nathan: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11369. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is my understanding that at the Business Committee this week it was ruled that the red boxes that Labour Party members have on their benches need to be with the member or taken with the member when that member moves. I look across the Housenow and I raise the point with you Madam Speaker that there are three of these silly red boxes on the other side of the Chamber but only one member is sitting there.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11354. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11. JILL PETTIS (Labour) to theMinister of Corrections: What steps is the Government taking to restrict the use of cellphones in prisons?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): Today the Department of Corrections has signed a formal agreement that provides the department with the ability to block the use of cellphones in prisons. The deal is a world first. Technology solutions will roll out nationwide starting within 6 weeks at Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison. Between 20 and 30 available technologies have been tested and we now have a range of solutions that can be implemented across the prison system.Jill Pettis: What other measures have been introduced to prevent cellphones from getting into prisons?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am glad that question was asked. Preventing cellphones and other contraband items from entering prisons and apprehending those who do attempt to smuggle them in have been amongst my highest priorities. I am about to introduce amendments to the Corrections Act that will boost search powers and stiffen penalties for anyone who is foolish enough to bring communications devices drugs or weapons into prisons. We already have intelligence-gathering systems in each and every prison. We have doubled the number of drug-dog teams. We have 17 kilometres of new security fencing around our prisons. We have shifted towards a single point of entry at all our prison sites. We are moving on this international challenge.Simon Power: Will this new technology work at Mount Eden Prison?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The Department of Corrections will be working with the telecommunications companies to ensure that cellphone jamming technology will be used as long as it does not interfere with legitimate cellphone users. It is possible to use it at Mount Eden Prison I am told and the Department of Corrections will work with the companies to ensure that that can happen.Ron Mark: Does the Minister not agree with New Zealand First’s view that part of the problem we have with cellphone usage in prisons and the smuggling of them into prisons has been the “wet bus ticket” approach that has been taken towards inmates who have been found to be in possession of cellphones; if he does agree that past approaches have been of the “wet bus ticket” types—that is no extra sentencing; no extra prison term—what will he do about that in the future?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We are moving to amend the Corrections Act to ensure that anyone who is in possession of a cellphone on a cell site without full authorisation will be prosecuted be that person a staff member a visitor or a prisoner and that such a prisoner will receive an extended prison term if he or she is prosecuted.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour PartyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11353. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My real reason for raising that point of order was the assurance that unattended boxes would be removed from the House.Madam SPEAKER: It would be very helpful if the member would make his point of order clearly instead of trying to score points. As with all rules members have to beinformed of that through their caucus and after the break the rule will be strictly enforced.Question time resumed.
Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour PartyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11353. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Points of OrderSignage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour PartyGERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will recall yesterday that the Business Committee indicated that the use of the boxes with the Labour Party display on them was permissible in the short term. I refer you to the Speaker’s ruling on visual aids on page 53. There is a ruling here that basically makes it very clear that such a visual aid cannot obscure a member from the view of the Speaker. I notice looking down at the back of the House that there is a member Ms Mackey who is completely invisible because of the box in front of her.Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows that is not a valid point of order. The member knows that that matter has already been dealt with.GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My real reason for raising that point of order was the assurance that unattended boxes would be removed from the House.Madam SPEAKER: It would be very helpful if the member would make his point of order clearly instead of trying to score points. As with all rules members have to beinformed of that through their caucus and after the break the rule will be strictly enforced.Question time resumed.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour PartyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11353. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will recall yesterday that the Business Committee indicated that the use of the boxes with the Labour Party display on them was permissible in the short term. I refer you to the Speaker’s ruling on visual aids on page 53. There is a ruling here that basically makes it very clear that such a visual aid cannot obscure a member from the view of the Speaker. I notice looking down at the back of the House that there is a member Ms Mackey who is completely invisible because of the box in front of her.Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows that is not a valid point of order. The member knows that that matter has already been dealt with.