edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Imputations in Respect of Persons Outside HouseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Imputations in Respect of Persons Outside House[Sitting date: 05 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13311. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Points of OrderQuestions for Oral Answer—Imputations in Respect of Persons Outside HouseTE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kia oratātou. I just wanted to check with you about a matter that actually happened yesterday and I accept that it should have been raised at the time. However additional knowledge has come to pass since then. Yesterday in question time Clare Curran raised a number of questions in respect of the appointment of the chief executive officer of theMāori Television board. The question was to the Prime Minister I think and it talked about the confidence of the Prime Minister in the board in respect of the appointment of a chief executive officer.During question time she put into the public arena by way of Parliament a number of pieces of information about MrPaora Maxwell and his former employment so at the time I assumed that an appointment had been made but I have since found that that is not the case and that there has been no appointment to the position. The statements that she has now put into the public arena may well influence the appointment of a chief executive officer to theMāori Television Service so in this point of order I ask what guidance there might be bearing in mind that the ramifications of that information being in the public arena may well influence the outcome of an appointment of a chief executive officer and whether there are any consequences—such as an apology perhaps—from Ms Curran for putting it into the public arena bearing in mind that that may well jeopardise future employment for that particular person.Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe there is anything that I can do as Speaker in that that question was raised yesterday. It was in fact a question to the Minister of Finance as a shareholding Minister. The questions were in order; the answers were in order. The ramifications of those questions and answers are now something that must be dealt with byMāori Television perhaps but I do not believe that there is anything that this House can do to assist. If the member believes that there was any deliberate misleading there is certainly an avenue available to him and if he is unsure of that remedy he is welcome to talk to me after question time.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the normal avenue for misleading has now passed but I think that if Mr Maxwell feels that there have been any inaccuracies he has the ability to seek a correction.Mr SPEAKER: That is certainly true and that is available to Mr Maxwell if he so thinks.
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 04 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13240. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to theMinister of Finance: Does he have confidence in the board of Māori Television?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes.Clare Curran: Does he believe the chair of the Māori Television board has properly managed any potential conflicts of interest in the process of hiring a new chief executive?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would expect consistent with the behaviour of all Crown boards that members of that board have followed appropriate processes for dealing with conflicts of interest.Clare Curran: Is he aware that the chair and board were offered a briefing by the Chief Executive Officer of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) KevinKenrick the former employer ofPaora Maxwell in regard to Mr Maxwell’s employment history at TVNZ and does he find it strange that that offer was not accepted given Mr Maxwell exited TVNZ under a confidential agreement?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would expect that that board having been appointed to run the Māori Television Service will conduct whatever process it is going through appropriately.Clare Curran: Would it be satisfactory as shareholding Minister having a chief executive officer of Māori Television who left TVNZ under a cloud of financial and staff mismanagement?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is the responsibility of the board of Māori Television to decide on who its chief executive might be. That is what it is appointed to do and it would not be my intention consistent with the behaviour of all shareholding Ministers under any Government to tell it who to recruit for chief executive.
Draft transcript - Wednesday 13 November 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Wednesday 13 November 2013
Draft transcript - Tuesday 12 November 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Tuesday 12 November 2013
Draft transcript - Thursday 14 November 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Thursday 14 November 2013
Roy Eric: Sittings of the HouseText is subject to correctionRoy Eric: Sittings of the House[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14529. Text is subject to correction.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: As Government order of the day No. 4 is for the House to go into Committee and we have passed the time of reporting it only behoves me to declare that the House will stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 12 November 2013. May you all have a good weekend.
Sittings of the HouseText is subject to correctionSittings of the House[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14529. Text is subject to correction.]Sittings of the HouseMr DEPUTY SPEAKER: As Government order of the day No. 4 is for the House to go into Committee and we have passed the time of reporting it only behoves me to declare that the House will stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 12 November 2013. May you all have a good weekend.
Robertson Grant: Insolvency Practitioners Bill — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionRobertson Grant: Insolvency Practitioners Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14527. Text is subject to correction.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I am going to take just a very brief call on the Insolvency Practitioners Bill to echo the comments made by my colleague Clare Curran firstly to make the point that there has been very slow and sluggish progress from the Government in terms of putting this bill through its stages. As David Clendon has just said the Commerce Committee did a very good job with the bill and the Government could have got on and passed this significantly more quickly than it has and it is unfortunate that it did not.More broadly on the substance of the bill we do support the initiatives to tidy up issues in the insolvency area. Nobody likes to see the kinds of dodgy practices that have bedevilled the finance industry in recent times particularly regarding people whose life-savings have gone down the gurgler as a result of the actions of people who do behave outside the law. Anything we can do to improve practice in that area and ensure that people know that their finances are secure is something that we should all support. I also commend the bill to the House.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Insolvency Practitioners Bill — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionBakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Insolvency Practitioners Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14527. Text is subject to correction.]KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I will take a short call on the Insolvency Practitioners Bill another piece of legislation that is helping the business community’s confidence. It is the intention of the Government to progress this bill as soon as possible. I commend this bill to the House.
Young Jonathan: Insolvency Practitioners Bill — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionYoung Jonathan: Insolvency Practitioners Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14524. Text is subject to correction.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): The Insolvency Practitioners Bill has been through the Commerce Committee and is now here in its second reading and I am very pleased to stand and speak on it. Insolvency practitioners are very important to our world of commerce especially when a company hits the skids and things turn belly up. It is important that we have qualified competent trustworthy people of integrity who are going to work with that company and with the creditors to ensure that everything that can be recovered is recovered especially for the sake of the creditors who have money or stock or whatever owed to them by the company that gets into difficulty. In spite of their important role insolvency practitioners are presently not required to be licensed or registered by a regulatory body nor are they required to meet minimum qualifications and we see this as something that needs to be changed.We know of course that the National-led Government has been focusing on boosting growth creating jobs building our economy and bringing confidence back into the area of commerce and capital markets. It is important that we have the right regulation and good-quality regulation for these particular areas. It is important in this area that when companies become insolvent when they get into trouble and they need to bring in an insolvency practitioner—a liquidator—this person is somebody who meets the standard. They should work in the interests not of the debtors company directors shareholders or themselves but of the creditors whom insolvency laws exist to serve so they can recover as much money as possible.I want to just briefly touch on a couple of areas that the Commerce Committee looked at. One of them is around the appointment of family members. You would think that this is a very strange thing but it has happened in the past that a family member is appointed as the liquidator. That seems to be such an apparent conflict of interest that we have put in this bill an amendment that would disqualify from appointment as a liquidator a relative of a person who has been a shareholder director promoter auditor or receiver of the company or a related company within the 2 years immediately before the commencement of a liquidation. The term “relative” would cover family members as defined by section 2 of the principal Act the Companies Act including in-laws and siblings. A similar amendment in the Receiverships Act would impose the same restrictions on receivers. There are other things of course in the bill that the Commerce Committee and members here today will speak on but I think I have just touched on the points that I would like to today. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionVote: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14523. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a second time.
Upston Louise: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionUpston Louise: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14523. Text is subject to correction.]LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): The member Sue Moroney who has just resumed her seat has clearly misunderstood the clear intent of this piece of legislation the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill because she talked about the potential for 3000 people to be removed from their houses. Well the fact of the matter is that these are State houses which are funded by taxpayers. It is the Government it is this side of the House that is tackling the real issue of making sure that the people who are the most vulnerable in our community have the right-sized house in the right place and in the right condition which is more than members on that side of the House ever did. I am proud to support this bill.
Sabin Mike: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionSabin Mike: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14521. Text is subject to correction.]MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): It is very hard to follow such a commanding performance from my Social Services Committee colleague Dr Rajen Prasad but I will not trifle with the House as much as he did and waste the time of this very very important place of parliamentary business. But I will recognise the work of the Hon Nick Smith and the work of a National Government which actually is prepared to tackle the issues.There are lots of protestations and there are lots of hand-wringing over a glass of chardonnay or two from those in this House who are quick to throw stones but not that quick to bring solutions forward. This situation with housing—in particular in areas like Auckland—has been in the making for some significant amount of time. But the difference between this National Government this National Party and the Labour Party and the opposing parties the parties that oppose this legislation the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill is that we act. We act in a measure that brings a suite of opportunities to the fore. There is no one single solution to the crisis—if we can call it that—that is confronting the community.When push comes to shove what the New Zealand public have recognised—try as those members might to manufacture a crisis and to jump up and down like Turkey Lurkey saying that the sky is falling down—and what they find when they look at the polls is that not much has actually changed since the 2011 election. Not much has changed at all. The reason for that is that Kiwis have woken up to the difference between do-ey and hui. There is a whole lot of talk and not a lot of walk coming from the Opposition.So I commend the work that has been done by the Minister. I also want to acknowledge all select committee members. Although we did not necessarily agree we worked through this legislation. It is a good piece of legislation. It is a good step and a good measure amongst many that this National Government is bringing in to deal with this problem.
Ngaro Alfred: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionNgaro Alfred: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14518. Text is subject to correction.]ALFRED NGARO (National): You know when Opposition members are still in Halloween mode because they are getting out there with their bogeyman masks trying to scare ordinary Kiwis with their trick-or-treat speeches. Here is a little bit of the truth that they might like to hear especially Mr Phil Twyford who is a great member of the Lyndon Baines Johnson fan club. I am sure that people will know about that.Let us get to the point. Here is the point. There is just one point I want to make. The member Denis O’Rourke has just read his speech—and that is the tragedy when peoplewho have not been a part of the select committee and all the deliberation just read their speeches. The issue is about this: the third sector—the third sector. We have the Housing Shareholders’ Advisory Group led by Dr Alan Jackson. But guess what? Here are some other members you might like to know of: Diane Robertson from the Auckland City Mission Major Campbell Roberts from the Salvation Army Brian Donnelly from the New Zealand Housing Foundation and Paul White from iwi development. Here is what they said. In 2010 they had a report. They had 16 recommendations. One of them was about the importance of ensuring that they had a third sector that met the needs of the social sector market. That is what they said—that is what they said. These are recommendations that have come from them. They said that there is no one silver bullet or magic bullet that will solve the problems. New Zealand must come up to international standards. That is the reason why they made the recommendations. There is the third sector the housing sector which truly can make a difference to the sector as well. Here is why it is really important.The second thing members opposite did was talk about income-related rents. Annette King talked about the 61000 State house tenants and yes there are 4800 who pay market rents. But do we know the number of people who are on a priority listing—those who come to our constituency offices those who see us with absolute need? The number is 3851. So tell me this. If you are concerned about the needs of those who are most in need why would you not want to provide for them? For those who can they should. That is what this review is doing. That is what this Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill is doing. This is a bill that is absolutely meeting their needs. It has consulted and it has engaged with those who absolutely know.We support this bill. We support this bill because it is a good bill which the Minister of Housing has put forward. I recommend this bill to the House.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14507. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 1 agreed to.
Lees-Galloway Iain: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionLees-Galloway Iain: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14506. Text is subject to correction.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Junior Whip—Labour): Speaking very briefly further to that—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Speaking very briefly Iain Lees-Galloway.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The letter does indicate which clauses of the bill the Speaker believed were policy matters but ultimately it is over to you Mr Chairperson to rule which matters are conscience votes and which are not. I simply put it to you that when we come to the commencement clause it ought to be a personal vote for the reasons I have already outlined.
Robertson H V Ross: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14506. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have been advised that they are not policy provisions and I have the Speaker’s ruling in front of me that went to the party whips.
Lees-Galloway Iain: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionLees-Galloway Iain: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14506. Text is subject to correction.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could you direct us to the Speaker’s ruling that deems clauses 1 and 2 to be not a conscience matter?
Robertson H V Ross: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14506. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Well I am not sure I need that because we are actually on the title clause and the only conscience matters were issues covered in clauses 6 8 9 10 and 11 in Part 2 of the bill. Given the Speaker’s ruling and that clauses 1 and 2 are not policy provisions I am prepared to rule that this be a party vote.
Lees-Galloway Iain: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionLees-Galloway Iain: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14506. Text is subject to correction.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The commencement clause is essentially the clause that allows the Act to be brought into force. Therefore the vote on the commencement clause is essentially a judgment on the bill as a whole. The bill as a whole has been deemed a conscience vote so when members vote on the commencement clause they are expressing their view on the bill as a whole. Therefore the commencement clause should be a personal vote.
Robertson H V Ross: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14506. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question now is that clause 1 stand part. All those in favour please say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it—a party vote is called for. The Clerk will please conduct a party vote.Iain Lees-Galloway: No a personal vote’s been called for.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No we cannot have a personal vote on this. I am going by the Speaker’s ruling. He has decided that provisions that directly and significantly affect the ability to gamble should be treated as conscience issues. Clause 1 and clause 2 are not policy provisions. Therefore there will be party votes.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14505. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionBakshi Kanwaljit Singh: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14505. Text is subject to correction.]KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I moveThat the question be now put.
Robertson H V Ross: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14504. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am going to recognise the honourable member Denise Roche and I am doing so because she has sought the call several times.
Young Jonathan: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionYoung Jonathan: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14504. Text is subject to correction.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I moveThat the question be now put.
Robertson H V Ross: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14503. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Philip Goff.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14498. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat schedule 3 be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Schedule 3 agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14498. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Schedule 2 agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14498. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Schedule 1 agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14498. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Well I am advised that the votes on the parts already include the schedules and therefore we are dealing purely with a procedural motion. So the question is that schedule 1 stand part.
Turei Metiria: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTurei Metiria: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14497. Text is subject to correction.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would ask you to consider that given there were personal votes on clauses 6 and 7 because they did concern gambling and the Gambling Act or at least the concessions that removed it and now the schedules in relation to clauses 6 and 7 also specifically identify increased gambling opportunities that are related directly to the Gambling Act therefore schedule 1 and the vote on it ought to be also a personal vote it being the specific content concerning gambling concessions on which there has traditionally been a personal vote in the New Zealand Parliament.
Robertson H V Ross: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14497. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): If I might inform the Committee that during the course of debates the schedules are part of those debates. I would just like to put this into the record for the Committee. The schedules to the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill provide extracts from the agreement between Skycity and the Crown that is implemented by this bill. The extracts contain the specific requirements that have already been agreed upon by the parties. These requirements are given statutory force of law by clauses 6 and 7 of the bill in the context of existing gambling law. Personal votes were held last night on amendments relating to clauses 6 and 7 and to Part 2 standing part. The conscience issues have therefore already been addressed. The schedules do not create legal rights or obligations in their own right. The votes on the schedules simply confirm the extracts of the contracts standing part for the purposes of clauses 6 and 7. Therefore the schedules do not by themselves directly and significantly affect the ability to gamble.
Turei Metiria: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTurei Metiria: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14497. Text is subject to correction.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to seek clarification on what the procedural motion is that we are voting on. Is it for the debate to occur—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No.METIRIA TUREI: —or is it for the vote to be held on schedule 1? The reason why I ask this is that these schedules—schedule 1 for example—set out the text for the regulatory concessions which have a direct connection to gambling because they are the concessions that remove Skycity from the Gambling Act. So I am not sure whether we will have another opportunity to vote on schedule 1 and the content of schedule 1. I guess that is what I am asking.
Robertson H V Ross: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14497. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Good afternoon honourable members. The House is in Committee. Kia ora tātou nō reira e te Whare e ngā iwi e ngā reo e ngā hau e whā. Tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa.Hon Shane Jones: Kia ora.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Kei te pai. Honourable members the House is in Committee for further consideration of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. When we were last considering the bill in Committee last evening we had reached a vote on schedule 1.Hon Member: No.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): This is what I have in front of me—is that not correct? The question is that schedule 1 stand part. All those in favour please say Aye to the contrary No. A party vote has been called for. [Interruption] Party vote—a personal vote has been called for? Can I just advise that this one here is just a procedural matter. It is not a substantive vote.
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionHeatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14491. Text is subject to correction.]8.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to theMinister for Social Development: What reports has she received about the number of people receiving benefits?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): I have received a report that shows that at the quarter ending in September the number of people on a working-age benefit has reduced by 16500 people over the last year. To put this in context at the height of the global financial crisis in January 2010 there were more than 347000 people on a benefit. There are now just over 304000.Hon Phil Heatley: What does the report to the Minister show about long-term welfare dependence though?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The investment approach is beginning to tackle the issue of long-term dependence on welfare and it is also one of our Better Public Services targets. The report shows that 87 percent of the people who came off the benefit in the year ended September 2013 had been on a benefit for longer than a year. This is crucial because of course the longer you are on a benefit the more you are likely to become dependent in the long term.Hon Phil Heatley: How is Work and Income better assisting those at risk of long-term welfare dependence?Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have more staff who are able to help more people. To give you an example before the introduction of these welfare reforms they saw an average of about 2000 people per week. They are now working with more like 15000 people per week. That means we can get the support in earlier look at beneficiaries’ barriers to work and of course see outstanding results for New Zealanders.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14476. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes61Adams (P)Dunne (P)Key (P)Simpson (P)Ardern S (P)English (P)King C (P)Smith (P)Auchinvole (P)Finlayson (P)Lee (P)Tisch (P)Bakshi (P)FossLotu-Iiga (P)Tolley (P)Banks (P)Foster-Bell (P)McClay (P)Tremain (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McCully (P)UpstonBennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McKelvie (P)Wagner (P)Bennett P (P)Groser (P)Mitchell (P)Wilkinson (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)Ngaro (P)Williamson (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)O’Connor S (P)Woodhouse (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)Parata (P)YangCalder (P)HeatleyRoss (P)Young (P)Carter (P)Henare (P)Roy (P)Coleman (P)Hutchison (P)Ryall (P)Collins (P)JoyceSabin (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Shanks (P)MacindoeNoes58Ardern J (P)Graham (P)Martin (P)Sio (P)BeaumontHague (P)Mathers (P)StewartBrowningHarawira (P)Moroney (P)Street (P)Clark (P)Hipkins (P)Norman (P)Tirikatene (P)Clendon (P)Horan (P)O’Connor D (P)TureiCosgrove (P)Hughes (P)O’Rourke (P)Turia (P)Cunliffe (P)Huo (P)Parker (P)Twyford (P)Curran (P)Jones (P)Peters (P)Walker (P)Delahunty (P)King A (P)Prasad (P)Wall (P)Dyson (P)Little (P)Prosser (P)Whaitiri (P)Faafoi (P)Logie (P)Robertson GWilliamsFenton (P)Lole-Taylor (P)Robertson R (P)Woods (P)Flavell (P)Mackey (P)RocheGenter (P)Mahuta (P)Sage (P)Teller:Goff (P)MallardShearer (P)Lees-GallowayPart 2 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill and no progress on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill.Report adopted.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14475. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes54Ardern J (P)Graham (P)Mathers (P)StewartBeaumontHague (P)Moroney (P)Street (P)BrowningHarawira (P)Norman (P)Tirikatene (P)Clark (P)Horan (P)O’Connor D (P)TureiClendon (P)Hughes (P)O’Rourke (P)Turia (P)Cosgrove (P)Huo (P)Parker (P)Twyford (P)Cunliffe (P)King A (P)Peters (P)Walker (P)Curran (P)Little (P)Prasad (P)Wall (P)Delahunty (P)Logie (P)Prosser (P)Whaitiri (P)Dyson (P)Lole-Taylor (P)Robertson GWilliamsFaafoi (P)Mackey (P)RocheWoods (P)Flavell (P)Mahuta (P)Sage (P)Genter (P)MallardShearer (P)Teller:Goff (P)Martin (P)Sio (P)Lees-GallowayNoes65Adams (P)English (P)Kaye (P)Shanks (P)Ardern S (P)Fenton (P)Key (P)Simpson (P)Auchinvole (P)Finlayson (P)King C (P)Smith (P)Bakshi (P)FossLee (P)Tisch (P)Banks (P)Foster-Bell (P)Lotu-Iiga (P)Tolley (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McClay (P)Tremain (P)Bennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McCully (P)UpstonBennett P (P)Groser (P)McKelvie (P)Wagner (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)Mitchell (P)Wilkinson (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)Ngaro (P)Williamson (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)O’Connor S (P)Woodhouse (P)Calder (P)HeatleyParata (P)YangCarter (P)Henare (P)Robertson R (P)Young (P)Coleman (P)Hipkins (P)Ross (P)Collins (P)Hutchison (P)Roy (P)Dean (P)Jones (P)Ryall (P)Teller:Dunne (P)JoyceSabin (P)MacindoeAmendment not agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14474. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan; Other: Mallard.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 386 in the name of Denise Roche to insert new clause 10A be agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14474. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes56Ardern J (P)Graham (P)Martin (P)Street (P)BeaumontHague (P)Mathers (P)Tirikatene (P)BrowningHarawira (P)Moroney (P)TureiClark (P)Hipkins (P)Norman (P)Turia (P)Clendon (P)Horan (P)O’Rourke (P)Twyford (P)Cosgrove (P)Hughes (P)Parker (P)Walker (P)Cunliffe (P)Huo (P)Peters (P)Wall (P)Curran (P)Jones (P)Prasad (P)Whaitiri (P)Delahunty (P)King A (P)Prosser (P)WilliamsDyson (P)Little (P)Robertson GWoods (P)Faafoi (P)Logie (P)RocheFenton (P)Lole-Taylor (P)Sage (P)Flavell (P)Mackey (P)Shearer (P)Genter (P)Mahuta (P)Sio (P)Teller:Goff (P)MallardStewartLees-GallowayNoes62Adams (P)Dunne (P)Key (P)Shanks (P)Ardern S (P)English (P)King C (P)Simpson (P)Auchinvole (P)Finlayson (P)Lee (P)Smith (P)Bakshi (P)FossLotu-Iiga (P)Tisch (P)Banks (P)Foster-Bell (P)McClay (P)Tolley (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McCully (P)Tremain (P)Bennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McKelvie (P)UpstonBennett P (P)Groser (P)Mitchell (P)Wagner (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)Ngaro (P)Wilkinson (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)O’Connor D (P)Williamson (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)O’Connor S (P)Woodhouse (P)Calder (P)Heatley (P)Parata (P)YangCarter (P)Henare (P)Ross (P)Young (P)Coleman (P)Hutchison (P)Roy (P)Collins (P)JoyceRyall (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Sabin (P)MacindoeAmendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 in the name of Denise Roche to insert new clause 10A be agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14473. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan; Other: Mallard.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 385 in the name of Metiria Turei to insert new clause 10A be agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14473. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan; Other: Mallard.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 378 in the name of Metiria Turei to insert new clause 10A be agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14473. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes54New Zealand Labour 28 (Ardern J Beaumont Clark Cosgrove Cunliffe Curran Dyson Faafoi Goff Whaitiri Huo King A Lees-Galloway Little Mackey Mahuta Moroney O’Connor D Parker Prasad Robertson G Sio Shearer Street Tirikatene Twyford Wall Woods); Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan; Other: Mallard.Noes65New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 4 (Fenton Hipkins Jones Robertson R); ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 383 in the name of Denise Roche to clause 9 be agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14472. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58Ardern J (P)Graham (P)Martin (P)Sio (P)BeaumontHague (P)Mathers (P)StewartBrowningHarawira (P)Moroney (P)Street (P)Clark (P)HipkinsNorman (P)Tirikatene (P)Clendon (P)Horan (P)O’Connor D (P)TureiCosgrove (P)Hughes (P)O’Rourke (P)Turia (P)Cunliffe (P)Huo (P)Parker (P)Twyford (P)Curran (P)Jones (P)Peters (P)Walker (P)Delahunty (P)King A (P)PrasadWall (P)Dyson (P)Little (P)Prosser (P)Whaitiri (P)Faafoi (P)Logie (P)Robertson GWilliamsFenton (P)Lole-Taylor (P)Robertson R (P)Woods (P)Flavell (P)Mackey (P)RocheGenter (P)Mahuta (P)Sage (P)Teller:Goff (P)MallardShearer (P)Lees-GallowayNoes61Adams (P)Dunne (P)Key (P)Simpson (P)Ardern S (P)English (P)King CSmith (P)Auchinvole (P)Finlayson (P)Lee (P)Tisch (P)Bakshi (P)FossLotu-Iiga (P)Tolley (P)Banks (P)Foster-Bell (P)McClay (P)Tremain (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McCully (P)UpstonBennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McKelvie (P)Wagner (P)Bennett P (P)Groser (P)Mitchell (P)Wilkinson (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)Ngaro (P)Williamson (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)O’Connor S (P)Woodhouse (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)Parata (P)YangCalder (P)Heatley (P)Ross (P)Young (P)Carter (P)Henare (P)Roy (P)Coleman (P)Hutchison (P)Ryall (P)Collins (P)JoyceSabin (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Shanks (P)MacindoeAmendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 382 in the name of Denise Roche to insert new clause 8A be agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14471. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58Ardern J (P)Graham (P)Martin (P)Sio (P)BeaumontHague (P)Mathers (P)StewartBrowningHarawira (P)Moroney (P)Street (P)Clark (P)HipkinsNorman (P)Tirikatene (P)Clendon (P)Horan (P)O’Connor D (P)TureiCosgrove (P)Hughes (P)O’Rourke (P)Turia (P)Cunliffe (P)Huo (P)Parker (P)Twyford (P)Curran (P)Jones (P)Peters (P)Walker (P)Delahunty (P)King A (P)PrasadWall (P)Dyson (P)Little (P)Prosser (P)Whaitiri (P)Faafoi (P)Logie (P)Robertson GWilliamsFenton (P)Lole-Taylor (P)Robertson R (P)Woods (P)Flavell (P)Mackey (P)RocheGenter (P)Mahuta (P)Sage (P)Teller:Goff (P)MallardShearer (P)Lees-GallowayNoes61Adams (P)Dunne (P)Key (P)Simpson (P)Ardern S (P)English (P)King CSmith (P)Auchinvole (P)Finlayson (P)Lee (P)Tisch (P)Bakshi (P)FossLotu-Iiga (P)Tolley (P)Banks (P)Foster-Bell (P)McClay (P)Tremain (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McCully (P)UpstonBennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McKelvieWagner (P)Bennett P (P)Groser (P)Mitchell (P)Wilkinson (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)Ngaro (P)Williamson (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)O’Connor S (P)Woodhouse (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)Parata (P)YangCalder (P)Heatley (P)Ross (P)YoungCarter (P)Henare (P)RoyColeman (P)Hutchison (P)Ryall (P)Collins (P)JoyceSabin (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Shanks (P)MacindoeAmendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 381 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 7 be agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14470. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes57Ardern J (P)Graham (P)Martin (P)StewartBeaumontHague (P)Mathers (P)Street (P)BrowningHarawira (P)Moroney (P)Tirikatene (P)Clark (P)HipkinsNorman (P)TureiClendon (P)Horan (P)O’Connor D (P)Turia (P)Cosgrove (P)Hughes (P)O’Rourke (P)Twyford (P)Cunliffe (P)Huo (P)Peters (P)Walker (P)Curran (P)Jones (P)PrasadWall (P)Delahunty (P)King A (P)Prosser (P)Whaitiri (P)Dyson (P)Little (P)Robertson GWilliamsFaafoi (P)Logie (P)Robertson R (P)Woods (P)Fenton (P)Lole-Taylor (P)RocheFlavell (P)Mackey (P)Sage (P)Genter (P)Mahuta (P)Shearer (P)Teller:Goff (P)MallardSio (P)Lees-GallowayNoes62Adams (P)Dunne (P)Key (P)Shanks (P)Ardern S (P)English (P)King CSimpson (P)Auchinvole (P)Finlayson (P)Lee (P)Smith (P)Bakshi (P)FossLotu-Iiga (P)Tisch (P)Banks (P)Foster-Bell (P)McClay (P)Tolley (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McCully (P)Tremain (P)Bennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McKelvieUpstonBennett P (P)Groser (P)Mitchell (P)Wagner (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)Ngaro (P)Wilkinson (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)O’Connor S (P)Williamson (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)Parata (P)Woodhouse (P)Calder (P)Heatley (P)Parker (P)YangCarter (P)Henare (P)Ross (P)YoungColeman (P)Hutchison (P)Roy (P)Collins (P)JoyceRyall (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Sabin (P)MacindoeAmendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 380 in the name of Metiria Turei to insert new clause 6A be agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14469. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58Ardern J (P)Graham (P)Martin (P)SioBeaumontHague (P)Mathers (P)StewartBrowningHarawira (P)Moroney (P)Street (P)Clark (P)HipkinsNorman (P)Tirikatene (P)Clendon (P)Horan (P)O’Connor D (P)TureiCosgrove (P)Hughes (P)O’Rourke (P)Turia (P)Cunliffe (P)Huo (P)Parker (P)Twyford (P)Curran (P)Jones (P)Peters (P)Walker (P)Delahunty (P)King A (P)PrasadWall (P)Dyson (P)Little (P)Prosser (P)Whaitiri (P)Faafoi (P)Logie (P)Robertson GWilliamsFentonLole-Taylor (P)Robertson R (P)Woods (P)Flavell (P)Mackey (P)RocheGenter (P)Mahuta (P)Sage (P)Teller:Goff (P)MallardShearer (P)Lees-GallowayNoes61Adams (P)Dunne (P)Key (P)Simpson (P)Ardern S (P)English (P)King CSmith (P)Auchinvole (P)FinlaysonLee (P)Tisch (P)Bakshi (P)FossLotu-Iiga (P)Tolley (P)Banks (P)Foster-Bell (P)McClay (P)Tremain (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McCully (P)UpstonBennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McKelvieWagner (P)Bennett P (P)Groser (P)Mitchell (P)Wilkinson (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)Ngaro (P)Williamson (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)O’Connor S (P)Woodhouse (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)Parata (P)YangCalder (P)Heatley (P)Ross (P)YoungCarter (P)Henare (P)Roy (P)Coleman (P)Hutchison (P)Ryall (P)Collins (P)JoyceSabin (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Shanks (P)MacindoeAmendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 379 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 6 be agreed to.