edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:18] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “1 November 2010” and substitute “25 January 2011”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:18] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “26 January 2011”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:17] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “27 January 2011”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:17] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “28 January 2011”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:17] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “29 January 2011”.
Mallard Trevor:  
Mallard Trevor:  
[Volume:654;Page:16] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think that is a particularly interesting question. I think it is one on which it would be good to recall the Speaker to get his opinion on it. I think in my view you do not have that discretion but if there is doubt in the Committee—and it has been indicated by the junior Government whip that there is doubt about your discretion to do that—I think that getting the Speaker back to give a considered ruling would be useful to the Committee. If the Government is in agreement I am happy to give leave for the Speaker to be recalled.
Tremain Chris:  
Tremain Chris:  
[Volume:654;Page:16] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Addressing the issue of the Chair’s discretion to take a party vote given the trend towards party voting over the last number of hours I wonder whether we are at a point in time when the Chair’s discretion could be used to not take a party vote given that it is quite clear the order in which the voting will take place and how the votes will end up. I put it to you that I believe it is no longer necessary to take party votes.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:16] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:16] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “31 January 2011”.
Tremain Chris:  
Tremain Chris:  
[Volume:654;Page:16] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 My understanding of Speakers’ rulings is that it is actually at the discretion of the Chairperson as to whether he or she takes a party vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You are right; it is. I offered a party vote to the Labour Party and you accepted it. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 February 2011”.
Mallard Trevor:  
Mallard Trevor:  
[Volume:654;Page:15] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is just a question of order. I think it is our role to call for a party vote. I think it is your responsibility to indicate the result. It is up to us to call for a party vote rather than you.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:15] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next is amendment five to clause 4(6) in the name of the Hon George Hawkins. Those of that opinion will say Aye the contrary will say No. Party vote called for? I will ask the Clerk to conduct a party vote.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:15] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6)“1 November 2010” and substitute “1 March 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:15] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 April 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:15] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 May 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:14] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The date specified in subclauses (3) (4) and (5) of clause 4 is very closely linked with the purpose provision in clause 3(7)(a). The Committee when considering clause 3 voted against a range of different dates on which to establish a unitary authority. Any proposal therefore to change the date to one that has already been negatived is out of order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 June 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:14] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “preliminary matters” and substitute “background purposes interpretation and related matters”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:14] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “This section is by way of explanation only and does not limit or affect the other provisions of this Act.”
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:14] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “2 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:13] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “3 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:13] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “4 November 2010”.
Mallard Trevor:  
Mallard Trevor:  
[Volume:654;Page:12] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought you were going to rule. There is no question of a member purporting to be any other member in the House. I think you should have disciplined the member for making that comment as part of his point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings around the use of another language particularly te reo are that the member who uses the language is the sole judge of accuracy. That is the rule in Speakers’ rulings. We will move on. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “7 November 2010”.
Quinn Paul:  
Quinn Paul:  
[Volume:654;Page:12] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There is a longstanding tradition as I understand it that when people use language they should use it properly. The current use of the Maori language by the member currently purporting to be the whip is prostituting the language in my view. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That may well be that member’s view but the Chair has no experience in these matters and I rely on members to do their best in these things.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:12] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:12] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “8 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:11] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “9 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:11] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “10 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:11] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “11 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:11] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “12 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:10] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “13 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:10] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “14 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:10] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “15 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:10] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “16 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:9] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “17 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:9] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “18 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:9] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “19 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:9] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “20 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:8] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “21 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:8] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “22 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:8] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “23 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:8] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “24 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:7] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “25 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:7] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “26 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:7] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “27 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:7] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “28 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:6] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “29 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:6] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) the words “1 November 2010” and substitute “30 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:5] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “5 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:5] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “6 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:4] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “7 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:4] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “8 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:4] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “9 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:4] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “10 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:3] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “13 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:3] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “14 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:2] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “15 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:2] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “16 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:2] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “17 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:2] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “18 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:1] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “19 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:1] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “20 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:1] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “21 December 2010”.
Cunliffe David:  
Cunliffe David:  
[Volume:654;Page:1] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It appears the Minister has fallen asleep in the chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “22 December 2010”.
Mallard Trevor: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4618] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition will be supporting the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. I think there is no choice but to do that. It is the third time we have done this. We had interim legislation in October 2006 which expired in 2007. Late in 2007 the expiry date was extended and the legislation will expire on 30 June this year. This bill again pushes that date out while another review occurs. 
I note the strong support of the Leader of the House now for the legislation. It reminds me somewhat of the comments of my former colleague Steve Maharey. He made some comments while in Opposition as I remember it. He said: “That’s one of the things you say in Opposition.” I note that Anne Tolley when in Opposition said this legislation was a rort and was an absolute disgrace to democracy in New Zealand. Now she is voting for it. The Leader of the House said it was Mugabe-style legislation and it was utterly disgraceful. Now he is not only voting for it—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh it is all right now because the National Government is promoting it not the Labour Party. I can understand from the comments I made earlier that sometimes people’s perspectives change when they go from one side of the House to the other. But I think the National Government now understands the necessity for this legislation although I am not sure whether it needed to continue it for this period of time. If Government members had got on with the job in the way they said they would do had the reviews done and had the proper legislation introduced this bill would not be necessary. 
But I can accept that the National members have had one or two more important things than this bill on their minds over recent months. Hopefully now that that time has passed they will be able to focus on this issue and get it sorted out. 
Bill read a third time.
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4618] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a third time 
. For the reasons that have been outlined in speeches previously it is essential that this bill is passed before 1 July 2009. 
This is a short bill that provides an interim definition of the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” for the purposes of clarifying the principal duties of the Parliamentary Service. The bill provides a very similar interim definition to that set out in the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Act 2007 which expires on 1 July 2009. Generally speaking the bill maintains the legislative framework that has been in place since that legislation was passed in 2006 and preserves the conventions observed by members before that time which was that the parliamentary publicity entitlement should not be used for electioneering. As I have said this has been a convention for many years; it was provided for formally in the 2006 legislation. 
The bill also enables the Parliamentary Service to do its job and avoids creating an environment of uncertainty for officials where the review of electoral finance law is in progress. I think it is worthwhile to remind the House of the history of the interim definition. The Auditor-General made some comments that were publicly discussed post the 2005 general election. Parliament itself has largely accepted the Auditor-General’s position and reached the conclusion that the definition provided in the previous Act was a good one. The definition may not survive through the review that is in progress at the moment but Mr Deputy Speaker you will be aware that all parliamentarians are very very conscious of how the public purse is spent in the pursuit of their particular responsibilities as representatives. This bill largely protects those who are supporting parliamentarians and puts some bounds around that expenditure. 
I look forward to the passing of this legislation today. National will be supporting it.
Douglas Roger: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Douglas Roger: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4638] 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 It has been over 35 years since I was Minister of Broadcasting and I was very pleased to give it a bit of a shake up at that time. I only regret that the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill does not do the same. I suspect I take a slightly or maybe a substantially different stance on this bill from anyone else in the House. 
The Radio New Zealand charter tells us that the public radio company’s purpose is to serve the public interest. The fact is that every radio station in New Zealand serves the public interest; if they do not they simply do not survive. The flaw in Radio New Zealand National is not the inadequacy or otherwise of the charter; it is its structure as Radio New Zealand National is a monopoly. It is not a monopoly in that consumers do not have choices over the radio station they want to listen to; rather it has a monopoly of Government funding for radio. Despite the fact that Radio New Zealand National is able to transmit without ads it still does not rank alongside other market participants. This suggests one of two things about the money it receives. First there is a large element of waste; it is very hard to charge for services that the Government is giving away free yet others run commercial operations successfully. This suggests that a lot of money the Government ploughs into Radio New Zealand National is wasted; perhaps it is the thinly veiled leftism that turns so many New Zealanders off. Second there is a lack of consumer sovereignty. Consumer sovereignty results in resources being moved to the highest-value users. If consumers buy more TVs than cars then capital will move from car production to TV production. But when a Government pours money into Radio New Zealand National at the exclusion of all others consumer sovereignty fails to align the capital resources and other resources correctly. 
Although ACT will vote for this legislation the bill fails to do one thing that will deal with these problems; that is make the funds contestable and I believe that should happen. If other radio stations or for example community groups were able to bid for the right to Government funding by demonstrating the kinds of programmes they sought to offer and the nature of the public interest they would serve then the money could achieve a lot more than it does at the moment. But if we continue to funnel it into one organisation then we will see the waste continue and increase. Only competition enables consumers to choose and provide a disincentive for waste. Until the Government begins to move in this direction the monopolies whether they be health education welfare or radio will continue to fail.
Vote: ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4628] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill be read a second time. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 13 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
[Volume:655;Page:4594] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to come in especially in the circumstances of the last couple of days— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member is not going to transgress too is he? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —but members generally when they have made out-of-order comments like that have been required to withdraw and apologise. There was no requirement placed on the member Phil Heatley then. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: It is up to the Speaker to exercise his judgment about that and I have severely admonished the member. He is on a warning.
Heatley Phil: General Debate 
Heatley Phil: General Debate 
[Volume:655;Page:4594] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to disturb the member’s speech but I point out that during the term of this Government that member got a job. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member is trifling with the Chair. Points of order are not debating points; they are about a process of order.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:4586] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have deliberately waited to the end of question time to raise this point of order because I think there is an opportunity for a correction in the House. You indicated that at the beginning of our lives as parliamentarians members had only one supplementary question for questions for oral answers. I have gone to the records and on two days 22 and 23 November found examples of up to six supplementary questions on questions for oral answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: During the 1980s? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In 1984. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It must have changed around then. I thank the honourable member for his advice. There was certainly a period in my time in this House when supplementary questions were very limited. It is a more recent development that many supplementary questions can be asked.
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:4585] 
12.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why did he lose confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I refer the member to the response to question No. 12 on Tuesday 16 June. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: What information if any did the Prime Minister’s office seek and receive that led him to the view that he did not have confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I have said on numerous occasions in this House I am not going to go into those specifics because I do not believe it is in the public interest to do so. But I am satisfied that Dr Richard Worth met the test of no longer enjoyed my confidence. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Has the Prime Minister sought the telephone records of his former Minister of Internal Affairs in order to investigate whether taxpayer-funded telephones were improperly used to arrange meetings for favours or to make harassing calls or texts; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member made some allegations and assumptions in his question. I think he should be careful not to do so. But I can say that yes my office has sought and received a copy of Dr Worth’s mobile phone records. Of course the member will be well aware that phone records do not provide any evidence as to what calls and texts were for or about. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did the Prime Minister receive those mobile phone records before or after he lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: After. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I advise the honourable member that his party’s question have all been taken up.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:4585] 
11.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What feedback has he received from key interest groups on the ministry’s report highlighting low levels of compliance with timelines under the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 There has been a reaction of relief from many of the key sectors that finally after a decade of results getting worse and worse there is a Government that takes seriously the issue of efficient processing of resource consents. I note particularly the reaction from the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development which said it had been highlighting the issue for years and is pleased that the cost to businesses and jobs is finally being recognised. I have seen the reactions from Federated Farmers which said the matter had been a concern for it for a very very long time and from Business New Zealand which said that hundreds if not thousands of jobs have been lost by inefficient and slow processing of resource consents. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Has the Minister acknowledged the good work done by the 25 councils that have achieved an over 90 percent compliance rate? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have. I have written specifically to those 25 councils which I commend for the work of their staff in efficiently processing consents. It shows that if those 25 councils can do it then so too can the other 60. That is why we should commend those councils that are doing well in this area. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Has the Minister had any response from the non-compliant councils; if so what has been their response? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have been encouraged by the response from many of the councils with a poor performance record. Many of them have acknowledged that it is not good enough and that they are taking steps to correct it. A few councils have been in denial. Some have wanted to argue the figures that they themselves provided. But the overwhelming response is one of wanting to work with the Government so that the problem can be fixed.
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:4579] 
7.  
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What recent reports has he seen on net migration to New Zealand? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The latest information from Statistics New Zealand—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like to hear the Minister’s answer as I am sure the House would. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The latest information from Statistics New Zealand shows that in May 2009 net annual inflows of permanent and long-term migrants have reached their highest levels in 2 years driven by strong growth in the last 6 months. In the year to May 2009 there were 11200 more permanent and long-term arrivals than departures—a significant increase on the figure of 4900 a year ago. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What is driving the increase in net migration? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Overall arrivals continue to increase up 5 percent while departures are declining down 3 percent. Arrivals of New Zealand citizens from Australia are up 29 percent compared with last year and arrivals of New Zealand citizens from the UK are up 13 percent. We said in our manifesto that we would retain Kiwis and attract overseas Kiwis home and we are doing it. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Are we reversing the trend of Kiwis leaving these shores for Australia? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Absolutely! Under the previous Labour Government people were leaving New Zealand in droves. The picture is reversing now with departures of New Zealand citizens to Australia down 34 percent compared with a year ago and departures to the UK down 26 percent. Helen Clark and Phil Goff were waving them off. John Key is welcoming them back.
Locke Keith: Motions — Iran—Support for Democratic Process 
Locke Keith: Motions — Iran—Support for Democratic Process 
[Volume:655;Page:4569] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate on the situation in Iran. I have consulted with all of the whips and they are agreeable to this. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the member to move that motion without debate. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I move  
That this House expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who strive for a free and democratic society asks the Iranian Government not to use force against peaceful demonstrators calls for an end to Government restrictions on the media and supports an impartial examination of the recent Iranian election result in the light of widespread concerns. 
Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
[Volume:655;Page:4569] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Once again following agreement reached in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for Chris Tremain to be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission in place of the Hon Nathan Guy pursuant to section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.