edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11942] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11938] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Part 2 includes debate on the schedule.
Vote: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11938] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11937] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11937] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 147 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 1 be agreed to.
Mackey Moana: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11937] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Guy Nathan: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11936] 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chaiperson. Standing Order 137(3) talks about the closure motion. This is a very contentious bill particularly with regard to the costs involved for rural New Zealand and a lot of National members would still like to seek the call. They still have some valuable contributions to make to the debate and I ask that you consider that please.
Hartley Ann: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11936] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I can assure the member Nathan Guy that I will certainly take that into account as per Standing Orders and in light of the speeches we have had.
Hughes Darren: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11936] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Fenton Darien: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11935] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Wilson Margaret: Voting — Correction 
Wilson Margaret: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:642;Page:11920] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Last Thursday when the House was considering the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill the result of the vote on the question that the bill be now read a second time was incorrectly announced as Ayes 71 Noes 49. The correct result is Ayes 70 Noes 50.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:642;Page:11920] 
Voting 
Correction 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Last Thursday when the House was considering the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill the result of the vote on the question that the bill be now read a second time was incorrectly announced as Ayes 71 Noes 49. The correct result is Ayes 70 Noes 50.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:11912] 
7.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What changes has the Government made to transport policy over the past 18 months to meet the transport challenges of the future? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Many but to name just a few: the hypothecation of all petrol tax providing a revenue guarantee to the National Land Transport Programme and a cost guarantee to the 5-year State highway construction plan which we are extending to a 6-year commitment; developing a long-term inter-modal transport strategy covering roading shipping rail public transport walking and cycling; and implementing a new funding and planning structure for the transport sector to provide more strategic guidance simplify the planning cycle and reduce planning churn. 
Sue Moroney 
: What reports has she seen supporting these Labour policies? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen John Key’s first transport speech which he delivered last weekend. I was flattered at Mr Key’s endorsement of all the initiatives I have just mentioned. National has come to the Labour Party on roading. I have to say it is a pretty sorry state of affairs when a political party has to copy other parties’ policies and it is no wonder that Mr Key has become known as “Mr Me Too”. 
Sue Moroney 
: What investment has the Government made into roading? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Oh there is a lot of interest up here Madam Speaker. If you can get them quiet I will be able to give them the answer. [ 
Interruption 
] Come on Gerry cheer up—you had a bad caucus. Cheer up Gerry. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. As I said this chipping across the Chamber does not help question time in terms of all members being able to hear each other speak. Would the Minister please respond. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I was asked what investment the Government has made into roading. Central government investment in roading has doubled from $850 million in 1999 to an allocation of $1.7 billion in 2007-08. Just over half this money is spent on new roads like Harbour Link Dowse to Petone the northern busway the Mt Roskill extension and the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 yet Mr Key says there has been an artificial cap on building new roads and we need to move out of maintenance mode. Well I have to say that it was the National Party that was in maintenance mode and it was a pretty sorry maintenance mode at that. I feel that someone is feeding Mr Key a load of manure. He obviously cannot see what is happening around him when he drives from the airport to his home in Paratai Drive.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:11906] 
3.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports on prudent levels of Government debt? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes I have seen a report from Standard and Poor’s that says that this Government’s fiscal management has made New Zealand one of the best prepared nations for facing the challenge of an ageing population. I have also seen reports from bank economists highlighting the importance of our strong fiscal position in counterbalancing the large current account deficit a symptom of our poor savings record that KiwiSaver is designed to address—and the number of people signed up has now passed 150000. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister received any reports suggesting an alternative strategy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes contrary to this kind of strategy I have seen a report suggesting that we should be borrowing to spend more on roads although no doubt the borrowing will be used for a wide range of other purposes. Not only does this ignore the massive increases in spending on road-building under this Government but also it is inflationary and it will reduce our capacity to deal with upcoming fiscal challenges. And of course although it is espoused by Mr John Key it contradicts the constant calls for fiscal tightening by Bill English. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister received any reports on how to best structure borrowing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I think Mr Key might be wont to say: “That depends on how you define borrowing.” I have seen a report suggesting that we do not have to call it borrowing if we get the money from overseas. Given that this report comes from the same National MP who has recently lobbied for the prohibition of water I hope that Mr Key has not been paying her too much attention. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that his Budget documents as released today show that he had planned a billion dollars in personal tax cuts but had to abandon them because he could not contain ministerial bids for spending and as a result we had the biggest spending Budget ever? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm that the issue was raised in the early discussion of the Budget. Of course rather than cut back on social services and rather than stimulate inflation the Government did not proceed which shows that the reason for not proceeding had nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with good economic management. Mr English is now saying that the Government should have run a looser fiscal policy.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:11906] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table an email dated 28 February outlining some allegations against Mr East and Mr Harry Hawthorn from the Department of Corrections. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:11906] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table the judgment of Judge Coral Shaw in the case of the Department of Corrections and RakaiTawhiwhirangi. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:643;Page:12838] 
Business of the House 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We will proceed to elect a temporary Chair for the Committee. Do I have a nomination? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I would like to nominate Mr Burton to be the temporary Chair. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that. Mr Mark Burton thank you.
Simich Clem: Business of the House 
Simich Clem: Business of the House 
[Volume:643;Page:12838] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that. Mr Mark Burton thank you.
Barker Rick: Business of the House 
Barker Rick: Business of the House 
[Volume:643;Page:12838] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I would like to nominate Mr Burton to be the temporary Chair.
Simich Clem: Business of the House 
Simich Clem: Business of the House 
[Volume:643;Page:12838] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We will proceed to elect a temporary Chair for the Committee. Do I have a nomination?
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12833] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12833] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 72 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a first time.
Dyson Ruth: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12833] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Transport 
: I move  
That the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
that the committee report by 25 March 2008 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 194(a) and 195(1)(b) and (c).
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12819] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 3 agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12814] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson H V Ross: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12808] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the Hon Murray McCully I wish to advise members that a Standing Orders review was done in 2003. A result of the review was that the point was made that when debating the preliminary clauses at the end of considering a bill in Committee members should have some latitude to summarise and make concluding remarks about the issues they have raised during the Committee’s consideration of the bill. So although it is a wide-ranging debate it has to be related to the issues that have been raised during the course of the debate in the Committee stage.
Yates Dianne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12806] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the member opposite Wayne Mapp for his contribution. I point out that we have been discussing respect for the rule of law and members’ commitment to the rule of law and I do honour what members have said in this debate. The select committee was concerned that we achieve in the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill a balance between protecting New Zealand citizens protecting the rights of New Zealand citizens and freedom of speech freedom of association and that we have democratic transparency within this bill. The committee did listen to submissions and very very seriously took into account what members said and what submitters said. 
I am also aware that in this debate members have sometimes oversimplified the arguments and have made assumptions about other people and other parties that are not always correct. As I have said we tend to oversimplify. We have mixed up some genuine concerns with a desire to whip up concerns about things that are not in the bill. Things have been said about matters that are not contained within this legislation. 
I thank the select committee for the balanced approach that it took and for the changes that were made to the bill. I am satisfied that the committee members put their best minds to it and did the best job available. Once again I thank the members of the committee.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12804] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12804] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 157 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to insert new clauses 46A and 46B and their headings be agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12804] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Yates Dianne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12802] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I just point out that Part 2 with the schedules attached is a very technical part of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill—it is just a very small part of it. The changes that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee made were to clause 13 and clause 5 in Part 1 where we made changes relating to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. The actual changes to the wording of the bill were made in Part 1 which we have already discussed. I thank the select committee members and those who made submissions on this matter. We have cleared up very clearly that the legislation would not affect protest against ships that are transporting nuclear waste through the Tasman Sea and so on. That matter has been clarified as has the definition of a nuclear facility. Those definitions are actually in Part 1.
Robertson H V Ross: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12801] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The debate on this part includes schedule 5.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12801] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12801] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New 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 amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 157 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12800] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New 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 158 in the name of Keith Locke to omit clause 39 and substitute new clause 39 be agreed to.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12800] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New 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 158 in the name of Keith Locke to omit clause 21 be agreed to.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12800] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New 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 158 in the name of Keith Locke to omit clause 20 be agreed to.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12799] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New 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 158 in the name of Keith Locke to omit clause 12 be agreed to.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12800] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New 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 158 in the name of Keith Locke to insert new clauses 16A and 16B be agreed to.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12799] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New 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 158 in the name of Keith Locke to omit clause 7 be agreed to.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12799] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New 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 158 in the name of Keith Locke to omit clause 6 be agreed to.
Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12795] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I think it would be wrong to end this debate now. As you said when points of order were raised previously people like myself would have the right to reply; I also have not fully had time to motivate my Supplementary Order Paper; and also the Maori Party has had two speakers. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has called a point of order. It is the Chair’s decision. Is the member calling? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes Madam Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: OK Keith Locke.
Swain Paul: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Swain Paul: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12795] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mark Ron: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12793] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Given the controversy before I seek leave to table a statement from Mr Hone Harawira: “If they tried this up north we’d be out with guns.” 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Yates Dianne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12785] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I wish to speak in the Committee stage of this bill. I wish to thank the previous speaker Te Ururoa Flavell for his comments but point out that those comments are not necessarily based on what is in the bill but on some of the fears that people may have about the bill which were expressed when people made their submissions. The select committee considered those very carefully and as the member who has just resumed his seat finally pointed out in his conclusion we looked very carefully at the balance between protecting the rights of New Zealanders and protecting New Zealanders’ safety and freedoms. It is often a very very fine line. 
There has been discussion about the United Nations and New Zealand’s adopting of United Nations principles and lists. We remind people once again that New Zealand was very much involved in the formation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 
I point out also that comments were made by Mr Keith Locke about New Zealanders being involved in giving money to organisations like the African National Congress. That was discussed at the select committee and the member was part of that discussion. We were assured by officials as well that the bill would not hinder that type of donation. So I think that as we listen to people’s fears we have to be careful about what the bill actually contains. 
I would make another point in terms of Dr Mapp’s comment about the extension of national designations. The commentary on the bill on which the select committee voted and agreed states: “While recommending that those clauses of the bill regarding the extension of designations for non-United Nations-list terrorist entities should be enacted largely as proposed we recognise the concern raised in a number of submissions about the concentration of responsibility in a single individual”. But the committee also said it realised that: “initial decisions to designate involve judgements about national security that are more properly made by the Executive than the High Court.” Then the committee said unanimously: “However to ensure transparency we recommend that clause 21 should include in section 35 of the Act a requirement that after making an order of a new designation under subsections (2) or (3) the Prime Minister must report to the Intelligence and Security Committee on the proposed renewal.” The select committee as a whole agreed that the executive should properly make that decision. I just want to point out as we go through the Committee stage of this bill that it was a unanimous decision of the select committee.
Tanczos Nandor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Tanczos Nandor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:643;Page:12775] 
11.  
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does he agree with Environment Waikato’s Dr Peter Singleton that the issues of dairying and water quality are “urgent and critical” and the only hope of change is “through regulation … that they take on board the environmental cost of their business”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes certainly in respect of the first quote. This issue is one that is deep and complex; it goes to the heart of the economy and also our identity as New Zealanders. I look forward to working with members on it. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister believe that there are any limits to the extent to which dairy farming can continue to expand; if so how will the Government ensure that dairy-farming expansion keeps within those limits? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Clearly there are some limits to the expansion. I think the tools to make sure those limits are enforced and effective are something to be worked on across the House. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister concerned that “think big” irrigation projects such as Central Plains Water and the Waitaki River Hunter Downs project will push dairy-farming expansion beyond sustainable limits especially as current levels of expansion and intensification mean that even with best-practice farming methods our waterways will continue to deteriorate? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not yet know the details of those particular expansions. Clearly there is a lot of responsibility on the consenting agencies for them and having in place a proper plan of action will be important to give guidance especially going forward. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister agree that it is time that farmers began to pay the environmental cost of their businesses and is it not simply subsidising unsustainable expansion of dairy farming to exempt those farmers from paying for their greenhouse gas emissions for the huge quantities of water that they use for irrigation and for their contamination of our common waterways by effluent and other runoff? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The method of regulation is I think what the discussion is to be about going forward. Clearly there is acceptance by the industries involved that individuals should pay more of the cost of their activities. I think that is something that is not limited to farmers.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:643;Page:12774] 
9.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: What reports has he received on measures to reform the real estate industry? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have received a number of reports seeking reform of the real estate industry. That is why today I have announced decisions to totally overhaul the industry with new consumer protection measures and an independent complaints body. I note Sue Chetwin chief executive officer of the Consumers Institute of New Zealand said today on radio in response to the announcement: “An independent body looking at complaints about real estate agents is long overdue. We think the compensation for consumers is fantastic and we’ve never really had that before. The public access to decisions in the disciplining and censuring of real estate agents is really good news for consumers as well.” 
Dave Hereora 
: What are the main changes the Minister announced today? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The reforms announced today will deliver on the Government’s promise to bring accountability and transparency to the real estate sector by removing regulatory functions from the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand creating an independent real estate agents authority and a disciplinary tribunal to oversee licensing complaints and disciplinary and enforcement processes and provide information for consumers. These bodies will have wide-ranging investigative powers and will be able to order a wide range of penalties and remedies including the suspension and cancellation of licenses and the ability to render heavy fines and award compensation. In essence these reforms will restore the confidence of consumers and support good honest real estate professionals.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:643;Page:12773] 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What are his key objectives as Minister of Health over the next 12 months? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 To listen carefully and to work with the whole sector to continue the improvements in health and disability support services for all New Zealanders. I will work for accessible affordable high-quality and secure health-care for all Kiwis. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What areas of weakness in the health system will he concentrate on fixing? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I will among other things do my best to ensure that the National Party’s promise to lift controls on general practitioners’ fees will never come to pass. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is he aware of the Cancer Society’s view that the Cancer Control Council does a very good job of monitoring the progress that has occurred but that “we don’t have the people equipment and medicines to treat it”; if so what are his objectives in that important area? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As the member will be aware I am still getting to know the various aspects of the sector but what I am convinced of is that a good disease-management practice such as cancer control will continue to form an important part of our health strategy. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What changes does he expect to make to the priorities set out to district health boards around the country? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Minister’s priorities for 2007 were released relatively recently and the district health board sector can have confidence that they remain in place. My priorities are to listen to read widely and to meet as many as possible of the stakeholders that matter in the sector. I will be refining my views as time progresses. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How long will the thousands of New Zealanders who are on hospital waiting lists or languishing in hospital emergency departments have to wait until this new Minister actually decides he will do something for those patients? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: A lot less time than they would do if that member’s raggle-taggle bunch were in Government because it would “rely upon competitive pressures to solve all the problems of the health system”. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: In telling the House that he does not intend to change the priorities the Government has set and that the Government is doing a great job in his words is the Minister saying he is not going to bring any new ideas or fresh directions to health which would make him nothing short of a caretaker Minister for the next 12 months? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am committed to listening to the sector and I suggest the member listen to the answers given to earlier supplementary questions.
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:643;Page:12772] 
7.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: Which items on the Inland Revenue Department tax policy work programme over the last 2 years are direct results from United Future’s confidence and supply agreement? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 A major provision of that confidence and supply agreement was to have a comprehensive business tax review to ensure the system gives New Zealand businesses better incentives for productivity gains and improved competitiveness. As a result of that review the company tax rate has been cut from 33 percent to 30 percent the tax rate on widely held savings vehicles has been cut to 30 percent a tax credit for research and development is being introduced and a tax exemption for the active income of overseas companies controlled by New Zealanders is being introduced. A new tax regime for charities is also being introduced which will remove the current donation threshold meaning that all donations to charity will be tax deductible up to the level of a person’s taxable income. A discussion paper setting out how an income-splitting system for couples with dependent children might work will be released in April next year. 
Judy Turner 
: Has the Inland Revenue Department’s work programme on these matters finished? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: No; in fact as a result of the  
Business Tax Review 
 document which foreshadowed any consequential adjustments to personal taxes work is commencing on looking at how personal taxes might be adjusted in the light of that and other developments. A discussion paper on payroll-giving to charities is due to be released later this month. Work is also under way on making it possible to claim tax relief on non-monetary donations to charities. 
Judy Turner 
: With regard to income splitting what would the benefits be to a single-income household earning $60000 a year? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I just happen to have that figure with me. In fact a single-income household earning $60000 a year would benefit to the tune of approximately $123 a fortnight were income splitting to be introduced. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister received any reports from the charitable sector about the likely impact of the removal of the donation threshold? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Yes I have. In fact those reports are extremely positive. A number of charities are reporting that they have been advised by significant donors of major donations to be made after 1 April next year. These are donations that would not otherwise have been made but are being made principally as a result of the tax concession that is being introduced. That is good news all round and a very positive outcome from this policy.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Sub Judice Rule—Comments Made Outside House 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Sub Judice Rule—Comments Made Outside House 
[Volume:643;Page:12761] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I refer the member to a ruling I gave on 16 October of this year clarifying the sub judice rule in this House where the Speaker’s jurisdiction is appropriate—not outside the House.
Points of Order — Sub Judice Rule—Comments Made Outside House 
Points of Order — Sub Judice Rule—Comments Made Outside House 
[Volume:643;Page:12761] 
Points of Order 
Sub Judice Rule—Comments Made Outside House 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could clarify some of the protocols around members of Parliament commenting on legal cases because there has been some concern in the community about the Prime Minister’s comments last week that those arrested in the recent raids had “at the very least … illicitly used firearms constructed Molotov cocktails and trained themselves in how to use napalm …”. Those comments were made in relation to charges that have not been spelt out in any detail yet and the evidence for which has not been heard in a public court. I wonder whether there are any protocols. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I refer the member to a ruling I gave on 16 October of this year clarifying the sub judice rule in this House where the Speaker’s jurisdiction is appropriate—not outside the House.
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Sub Judice Rule—Comments Made Outside House 
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Sub Judice Rule—Comments Made Outside House 
[Volume:643;Page:12761] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could clarify some of the protocols around members of Parliament commenting on legal cases because there has been some concern in the community about the Prime Minister’s comments last week that those arrested in the recent raids had “at the very least … illicitly used firearms constructed Molotov cocktails and trained themselves in how to use napalm …”. Those comments were made in relation to charges that have not been spelt out in any detail yet and the evidence for which has not been heard in a public court. I wonder whether there are any protocols.
Mallard Trevor: Personal Explanations — Lobbies—Incident 
Mallard Trevor: Personal Explanations — Lobbies—Incident 
[Volume:643;Page:12761] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 On Wednesday 24 October I was involved in a physical fight in the lobby. My involvement was inappropriate especially for a member of Parliament. I apologise to you Madam Speaker and to the House.
Personal Explanations — Lobbies—Incident 
Personal Explanations — Lobbies—Incident 
[Volume:643;Page:12761] 
Tuesday 6 November 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Personal Explanations 
Lobbies—Incident 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 On Wednesday 24 October I was involved in a physical fight in the lobby. My involvement was inappropriate especially for a member of Parliament. I apologise to you Madam Speaker and to the House.
Vote: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13352] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 12 
New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Arrangements) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Arrangements) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13342] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Mackey Moana: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Arrangements) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Arrangements) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13342] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to take a call on this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.
Hughes Darren: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Arrangements) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Arrangements) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13334] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that shows that under the Labour-led Government the New Zealand economy has grown faster than the OECD average. 
Document not tabled.
Bradford Sue: Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13313] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I will take just a very brief call to confirm that the Green Party will also be supporting this Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill. As Mr Gosche has been saying the Stanley Street tennis courts have been an institution in Auckland throughout my lifetime and I am sure long before that. I too regret the loss of the rugby league grounds there. Even I have attended matches there—and concerts—and it is a great pity that the grounds have gone. But I have just a few queries about this bill which I hope have been answered. The first is around what the attitude of NgatiWhatua might be to what is being proposed here. I have not been able to get any definitive answer on that at this stage so the Green Party will be watching closely what happens during the select committee process to see whether there are any concerns from NgatiWhatua whose rohe of course this is. 
The second concern I still have is around this private investor. I can understand the tennis association wanting the support of a private investor to help develop the facility given the millions of dollars involved. I just hope that in doing that the investor does not create activity or buildings that in some way infringe on the public space of the domain or any other public space around there. As a lot of people will be aware there are cases of developers going through boundaries or creating activities that do intrude excessively into public space and I would hate to see that happen in any way in this case given that it is of course part of and adjacent to the domain. 
It sounds as though the third concern is shared by Mr Gosche and that is the total lack of information or consultation that came to the Green Party on this. If there was any information that came to the Green Party I am unaware of it. Auckland City Council seems to be unaware that all parties in this Parliament not just the major parties need to be informed about bills like this. We would certainly have liked to have more information about the background to the bill and that is why at this stage I am quite happy to say that the Green Party will support it going through to the select committee but we will be watching what happens there just in case there are issues coming through of which we are not aware. I would suggest to Auckland City Council that perhaps it keeps remembering that there are a number of parties in this Parliament not just two.
Mallard Trevor: Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13311] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You did of course call Mark Gosche and you cannot withdraw the call once you have given it to him. He was the only member calling at the time. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. New Zealand First is quite happy for Mark Gosche to take our spot.
Bradford Sue: Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13311] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sorry but the reason I did not take the call then was that I thought New Zealand First was going first which is the normal order. I do wish to seek the call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I think the member should take her speech because as I said there is one for each party.
Hartley Ann: Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hartley Ann: Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13311] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I would say to members that there are just six calls on this debate one for each party and one in reply and if the parties are to take their calls then they need to take them at the time.
Guy Nathan: Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Guy Nathan: Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13311] 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have been around and talked to some of the minor parties and my understanding from the discussions I have had with them is that they are to be speaking to this reading. I suggest that they should seek the call if that is to happen. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Well I have indicated to members that there are just six speeches and that if the parties are to take their speeches then they need to take them.