edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13720] 
9.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to make information communications technology more available to teachers? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Enormous steps. This year’s Budget allocated an additional $12 million so that around 7000 primary teachers can benefit from an extension to the Laptops for Teachers scheme. Already more than 17000 principals and intermediate and secondary teachers have received laptops through the scheme. I will make it clear through my newsletters; as schools receive their laptops that the National Party voted against this scheme. 
Helen Duncan 
: What feedback has the Minister received on the success of the Laptops for Teachers scheme? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Feedback from teachers who already have laptops through the scheme has been really positive. They report significant improvements in teaching use of technology and they are also helping them in terms of easing teaching loads. Laptops give teachers access to state-of-the-art resources and they can considerably improve their teaching practice.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8486] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 128 in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to subclauses (5) (7) and (8) of clause 84 be agreed to.
Baldock Larry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Baldock Larry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17182] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 The longer this debate goes on the more ridiculous it is becoming. I agree with the member who spoke before me who said that New Zealanders understand Crown ownership. The point he has missed is that the majority of submitters did not like the concept of Crown ownership. They wanted public domain. 
Throughout this debate I have heard the Rt Hon Winston Peters announce on a number of occasions that this legislation is not about people going to the beach. We have heard again and again that this legislation will not affect anybody’s right to go to the beach. Now at the end of the debate we have heard the last two speakers from New Zealand First say that when people go to the beach this summer they can thank New Zealand First for it. I ask who is spreading half-truths around the country. Who is creating problems in the way that this debate has been handled? 
I understand that the Labour members are enjoying their time this afternoon sitting here and watching the National Party members stumble through this debate and that they are tempted to allow it to continue. But I would like to remind them that that would be at the expense of the New Zealand taxpayers and I urge someone on that side of the Chamber to please move a closure motion because this debate has gone on long enough.
Yates Dianne: Voting — Correction; Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Yates Dianne: Voting — Correction; Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:625;Page:20142] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As chair of the Government Administration Committee the committee that looked at this legislation I want to thank the 225 persons who made written submissions. I also want to thank the 5700 people who sent in form submissions and the 40 people who submitted before the committee. 
This legislation is about the integrity of New Zealand passports and New Zealand citizenship and I want to place it on record that the committee did look long and hard at the issues involved especially those people who came on to the committee for that purpose and because of their interests: the Hon Matt Robson Peter Brown Craig McNair at times and Keith Locke. 
I also want to read out a short part of the report on the refusal to issue passports on the grounds of national security. The committee did look at that and the report states: Most of us however are satisfied that new section 4A as inserted by clause 23"—and other amendments—"will ensure that the Minister cannot deprive New Zealanders of their travel documentation on spurious grounds." We considered that issue very carefully. We looked at the danger to the security of New Zealand and the decision was not taken lightly. 
"
Vote: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11572] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Robertson H V Ross: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3319] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I inform the House that the Green Party intends to share its 10-minute slot. The first call will go to the honourable member Sue Bradford.
Hereora Dave: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13288] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Catchpole Brent: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11985] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There appears to be some wording missing from New Zealand First’s minority report and I am just wondering how we can resolve that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I cannot help the member. This matter should have been raised when the bill was reported back which was a long long time ago. The member cannot take that matter any further at this stage.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21648] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16184] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is no debate on the schedules. I have in front of me an amendment in the name of the honourable Dr Wayne Mapp. It is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 and it is to omit schedule 1. It is out of order but the member was obviously signalling his intention to vote against the schedule standing part. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to schedule 1 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (c) of schedule 1A before the words “cleaning services” the words “caregiving services”.
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:614;Page:10376] 
8.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to  
Steve Chadwick (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: Under the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill will employees be able to smoke in company cars; if so under what conditions? 
STEVE CHADWICK (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: 
 Not generally. However if all users of the vehicle agree and if the vehicle is not generally accessible to the public then smoking may be permitted. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Who will police smoking in company cars and who has to pay the fines if anyone is ever caught? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: I do not think that smoke-protection officers will be snooping around company cars. They have better work to do under the provisions of the legislation. 
Pita Paraone 
: How will non-smoking in rental cars be enforced? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: Just as I have answered in the previous question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Like any member answering a question the member in charge of the bill has to address the question that is asked. To say that the bill has enforcement powers and that the officers charged with that enforcement will not enforce those provisions surely cannot be an acceptable answer. That is making a complete mockery of what we will be doing in Parliament this afternoon which is passing legislation that provides for smoke police and gives them wide-ranging powers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the sort of thing the member can raise in the third reading.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19038] 
5.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister with responsibility for Urban Affairs 
: What steps has the Government taken to improve the quality of urban planning and urban design? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister with responsibility for Urban Affairs) 
: 
 There have been four steps. First this Prime Minister and Government established the urban affairs portfolio. Second I convened an advisory group on the best way forward resulting in the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol. Third the Ministry for the Environment took the protocol to central and local government and the private sector gaining 80 signatures. Fourth yesterday we launched the protocol to an enthusiastic audience receiving royal backing in the process. 
Dave Hereora 
: What response has there been to the development of the Urban Design Protocol? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: There has been a very positive response as demonstrated by the 80 signatories from all sectors involved with urban planning. As Prince Charles noted yesterday putting urbanism and the environment together along with adopting the protocol places New Zealand at the forefront of global best practice. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Is the Minister aware that urban planners and urban designers are driving up the cost of sections and therefore homes to an almost unaffordable level right through New Zealand by limiting the amount of land available for subdivision under the Resource Management Act; and what does she propose to do to ensure a supply of sections and land is available to New Zealanders right throughout this country? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The point I would like to make to my colleague across the Chamber is that the ministry is not actually responsible for land availability. He should take into consideration that if we continue to build and extend quarter acre sections then we will have the cost of waste water stormwater phones and electricity lines. 
Dave Hereora 
: What difference does the Minister expect the Urban Design Protocol to make? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The 80 signatories to the protocol have committed themselves to take specific actions aimed at quality urban design. Those outcomes will be evaluated and reported on by the Ministry for the Environment every 2 years. In other words the signatories have agreed to be accountable to New Zealanders for creating better urban environments. Over time that will improve the quality of life for 87 percent minus one of New Zealanders who live in urban areas.
Chadwick Steve: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20629] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. It is obvious that tonight in the House I am surrounded by lawyers of some repute who have come flocking down because this bill has really got them going. These provisions as I have heard others in the debate tonight mention could have been in a Statutes Amendment Bill or an omnibus bill but they happen to be in the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill. I was amazed to hear learned lawyers in the House tonight say that it is not important to have decisions of courts published. 
Judith Collins 
: Don’t misrepresent us. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: I am not implying that the previous speaker said that but it has been mentioned in the House tonight. This bill is very important as it includes the Supreme Court findings in those that are to be published in a set of reports from the law courts. That is a very important fact and I support this bill going to the select committee.
Pettis Jill: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17483] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pettis Jill: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10682] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I always love it when we have debates in this House about industrial relations because they show how far removed the National Party is from reality. National members should get out and see the real world during their 4 or 5 weeks’ holiday—and they will vote against that bill as well. Last night in the debate on the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill which we are going to go onto again in a moment Simon Power who spoke just before was actually advocating paying striking workers. It just goes to show how removed National members are from reality out there in the real workplace. They are only ever used to being the masters in master-servant relationships. They would not have a clue what it is like in a role reversal. This is a very good bill. It is good for vulnerable workers. Let us get on and do the best we can for them and get it passed quickly.
Carter John: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Carter John: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11851] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. As the Prime Minister is here in the chair I just wonder whether rather than being specific and taking time going through each report we just say we are doing all the Prime Minister’s areas then members can speak I am sure— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am not reading them all out; I am reading out only the ones members wish to speak to as indicated. The whips have indicated which ones. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No one took the call but I wonder whether it is sensible to do that then members can take a call as they want. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. Is there a call? There is a call.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Donna Awatere Huata 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Donna Awatere Huata 
[Volume:613;Page:9837] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. I should have said fourth.
Goudie Sandra: Forests Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Forests Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12618] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 Such are the extraordinary activities of this Government that way back in 1999 its members actually voted against this bill yet here they are promoting it through the House. Is that not absolutely extraordinary? We had the Hon Mr Sutton calling my colleagues Nick Smith and David Carter “twerps” as they spoke in support of this bill and in support of the sustainable management of logging so I find it extraordinary that the Labour members are now supporting the passage of this bill through the House. I have to take issue with Gordon Copeland with regard to supporting his friend’s exemption for a woodchip product. It looked pretty much like woodchip to me yet he has an exemption so he is OK. Here we are having a ban on the export of chips justified by the Greens. They are saying that there is no market for that product so the ban is OK. Well that is an absolute nonsense. We should let the market decide if that is the case. We do not need the ban. The honourable Gordon Copeland—well not even honourable— 
Darren Hughes 
: All members are honourable. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Absolutely—and United Future may like to rethink their position and support National in trying to ensure that the export ban is removed. Everybody else would therefore have the same level playing field that is enjoyed by that member’s friend Mr John Brosnahan in his export of product. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17769. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2A as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 2A as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 319 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 3 be agreed to.
Urgent Debates Declined — Police—Former Commissioner National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship 
Urgent Debates Declined — Police—Former Commissioner National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship 
[Volume:625;Page:20370] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Police—Former Commissioner 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received four letters seeking debates under Standing Order 373. A letter from Rodney Hide seeks to debate the Prime Minister’s actions relating to Peter Doone. The Prime Minister’s actions occurred over 5 years ago but this application results from the release of statements of evidence concerning the recent defamation action. I am not persuaded that the release of the statements overcomes the requirement that for an urgent debate the matter be a particular case of recent occurrence. That is not to say that with an existing situation there may not be a new development of sufficient importance to justify a debate—see Speaker’s ruling 153/5. But that is not the case here. In these circumstances I cannot accept this application. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Jim Peters seeks to debate “the failures that have crippled the NCEA scholarship system”. The way in which the member has raised this matter does not constitute a particular case of recent occurrence and his application is also declined. 
I have also received letters from the Hon Bill English seeking to debate the release of a report concerning the introduction of the New Zealand Scholarship qualification and from the Hon Ken Shirley about a Government decision to dissolve Te Wananga o Aotearoa. With regard to the latter I would point out that the Government has indicated that it has begun the statutory process of dissolving the wananga’s council rather than the wananga itself. Nevertheless I accept that with both applications there is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and I would have been inclined to allow a debate on either. Standing Order 375 states that there may be only one such debate on the same day and that if more than one matter is raised that would justify a debate the Speaker gives priority to the matter that in the Speaker’s opinion is the most urgent and important. I therefore have to make a judgment as a matter of priority on which of the two applications to accept. Urgent debates on aspects of the New Zealand Scholarship were held on 9 February and 30 March. No urgent debate has been held on events at the wananga. An application on 1 March was declined. In these circumstances it seems to me justifiable to give priority to Mr Shirley’s application as it relates to a matter that has not recently been debated in the House. I therefore call on him to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent importance.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13918] 
5.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What lessons have been learned by the police administration if any from the Alec Waugh incident? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I have been advised by the Office of the Commissioner of Police that it has moved to ensure that there is now clear separation of disciplinary issues from criminal issues. 
Ron Mark 
: What steps is he taking to ensure taxpayers do not again see millions of dollars squandered on lawyers courts and administrative costs—not to mention thousands of lost police man-hours—in defending incompetent police administrators who through their own stupidity created this entire debacle? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the police have learnt a lesson from what happened way back in the 1990s when there was a different Government in power. 
Martin Gallagher 
: When exactly did Alec Waugh resign and what involvement did the Minister have in the events that led to his resignation? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Alec Waugh resigned in 1998. I had no direct or indirect involvement in those events as I was not the Minister of Police at the time. The Government at the time was a New Zealand First - National coalition. Perhaps the member who asked the original question should ask his own leader who was the Deputy Prime Minister at the time. 
Brian Connell 
: Now that the Minister is the Minister responsible for the police will he accede to Mr Waugh’s lawyer’s request for Mr Waugh to be appointed to a senior metropolitan command and if so to which one; if not does he not agree with Judge Goddard’s findings that Mr Waugh would have achieved the position of Wellington or Christchurch police commander in 1999 had his career not been derailed? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The member obviously does not know that Ministers cannot get themselves involved in the appointment of staff anywhere. I would have thought the Opposition spokesperson on the police would know that. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to table a number of press releases that may well show that the coalition Government had dissolved by that time and the Rt Hon Winston Peters was not the deputy leader of the coalition Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those. Is there any objection? There is. 
Ron Mark 
: What confidence can we have in assistant commissioner Jon White’s ability to properly discharge his responsibilities for counter-terrorism given that he has now been shown to have been totally incapable of handling a simple human resources issue in relation to Alec Waugh and what performance review if any will assistant commissioner White now be facing? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Matters of staffing and the positions that individual police officers hold are for the decision of the commissioner. I have not discussed this matter with him because I do not get involved in such matters. I must tell the member that the coalition dissolved on 26 August 1998 after Alec Waugh had been to court.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
[Volume:612;Page:9250] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I too do not want to be pedantic. I accept absolutely the assurance given by the Government whip but that was not actually the assurance that I asked him for. The assurance that I asked him for was based on what is actually in the newspaper and it states: “The trio were advised to buy bottles of wine for Speaker of the House Jonathan Hunt”—I will not go into the next bit because it is abusive—“… and Mr Benson-Pope—to compensate them for the hassle the stunt caused them.” In fact Mr Benson-Pope did not answer that question and would he just give us an assurance that they were not given that advice.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9974] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to question your ruling but if I heard you correctly you are ruling all of these amendments out because they seek to exempt premises or categories of premise from coverage under this legislation. Yet a little earlier in this round of voting you did allow amendments moved by Mr Worth that exempted cigar bars. It seems to me that there is a potential inconsistency in allowing us to vote on that amendment which given the relatively low number of cigar bars in New Zealand is highly specific and then not allowing the Committee to vote on the amendments you have just alluded to which are equally specific. The difference is that those amendments name particular premises but Mr Worth’s amendment while it might appear to be generic was actually highly specific given that there are only about two or three cigar bars in New Zealand. So we have a potential inconsistency here in that it was perfectly proper in your judgment for the Committee to vote on an amendment that because it was generic in form although specific in substance did not breach that sort of specificity rule yet now you are going to rule out a whole series of amendments that specifically exempt premises. I think there is an inconsistency there that needs to be addressed.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19134] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barnett  
Fairbrother(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher  
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei  
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa  
Ward(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hobbs  
Pettis(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donald(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
King  
Roy(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Teller: 
Duynhoven(P) 
Locke(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Hughes  
Noes 45 
Adams(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Turia(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry   
Turner(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Wang(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters W (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Power(P) 
Worth(P) 
Brown(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Scott   
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison   
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Jones   
Smith M 
Collins(P) 
Mark   
Smith N (P) 
Connell(P) 
McNair(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Copeland(P) 
Newman(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Tisch   
Clause 1 agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — First Reading 
Yates Dianne: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6520] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I wish to support this bill which is designed to combat property crime.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20065] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 89 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 351 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19086] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13026] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
71BTV 
That every prisoner who has access to television will be restricted to educational programmes up to 1 hour per day.
Hunt Jonathan: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hunt Jonathan: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17184] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call on Dr Cullen to move the third reading motion I advise members that I will put the questions on both bills separately at the end.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8950] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 149 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to section 124G(1)(a) in clause 48 be agreed to.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17419] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11685] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Yates Dianne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15838] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I think the only thing worse than that speech on this bill was the speech by Dr Brash. Both speakers Dr Mapp and Dr Brash have shown a complete lack of understanding of the history of New Zealand. Both have shown us— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: David Bennett has got this lady. She’s gone. 
DIANNE YATES 
: That member can have his turn to speak in a minute. Both those members have shown us that they have not read the bill. Both of them are going on about something called the bad old days without realising that they are now living in the good modern present day. I support this bill and I say to Dr Mapp that he has forgotten what it is like to be an 18-year-old who is going for his or her first job and trying to negotiate a salary. There are many people who have forgotten about the realities of employment; they have been here in the House for too long. They have been with the rich and the powerful for too long and do not understand what it is to go for a job to negotiate a salary and to work as an ordinary human being who is trying to make a living in this world.
Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Minister's Answer 
Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Minister's Answer 
[Volume:618;Page:13757] 
Points of Order 
Questions for Oral Answer—Minister's Answer 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you recall I asked a question of Mr Swain last week and he promised to give me an answer. It is now Tuesday and I am wondering whether he is able to do that now since he undertook in front of the House to do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is for the member and the Minister to work out for themselves. It does not come into part of this House’s operation.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8439] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members on Thursday a demonstration was held in Parliament grounds. During the course of that demonstration Shane Ardern drove a tractor some way up the steps of Parliament. He eventually stopped and retreated when challenged by a senior member of the security staff. 
Later that day I met with Mr Ardern and expressed my strong displeasure at his actions. I indicated that I expected an apology from him and that the Parliamentary Service would be sending him the bill for the cost of cleaning up the debris left by the tractor. Subsequently Mr Ardern sent me the following letter: “As discussed with you earlier today I write to apologise for my actions during the farmer protest march to Parliament in driving a tractor onto the lower section of the Parliamentary steps. No offence was intended and I regret any inconvenience that was caused.” 
I indicated to Mr Ardern that the question of a possible prosecution for any offences committed by his driving of the tractor in the way that he did was a matter that was solely in the hands of the police. I have not influenced and do not intend to influence their decision on this in any way. 
New Zealand’s Parliament is the most accessible and open in the developed world. I am sure we all hope that it can remain that way.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3631] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 Noting that the Government saw fit to hold a press conference late last week advertising changes to the Resource Management Act that would allow numerous projects of national interest to progress under a different regime can the Leader of the House give us some indication of when that legislation may get to the House so that it becomes a reality rather than just a vague hope for the future?
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
[Volume:620;Page:15945] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 If the member is making an offer I would be very pleased to meet with him and follow it up. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not have any remarks made like that. The member will stand up withdraw and apologise. He is very lucky to stay in the House.
Peters Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16395] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question was addressed to the Minister of Internal Affairs whose department’s statement of intent this year had specific provision for policy advice and information on local government issues. I am wondering why that has been changed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member reads the Standing Orders he will see it is the Government’s call to do that. Would he now ask the question.
Simich Clem: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Simich Clem: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10180] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes there is indeed another amendment that is part of the member’s original amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 5(6) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraphs (a) and (f).
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14183] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 20 be agreed to.
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9372] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 200G of the principal Act by inserting the following new subsection: 
(4)Nothing in this Part affects or restricts the installation monitoring maintenance or removal of a tracking device with the informed consent of the owner or lawful occupier or user of the premises or thing in or on which the tracking device is installed.
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15187] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Power Simon: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21579] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you for your ruling. I do think that it would be worth the Speaker clarifying the difference between Standing Orders 365 and 120. I concur with my friend from United Future on that point and I thank you Mr Chairperson for your guidance on it. But that still leaves us in a difficult position and I think we owe it to the Committee to determine now what status is to be accorded the amendments we have just spent 25 minutes voting on.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15930] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to.
Catchpole Brent: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8498] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 Part 3 bill sets up the Gambling Commission—[ 
Interruption 
] Did Jill Pettis have something that she wanted to contribute? 
Jill Pettis 
: I’m not talking to you Mr Catchpole. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Part 3 sets up the Gambling Commission and dissolves the Casino Control Authority. It has quite an extensive number of clauses that set out what the Gambling Commission is supposed to do and one of those things is to grant casino licences. I certainly hope that the wording is such that the commission will be limited to only the renewal of licences because otherwise that contradicts clause 8 in Supplementary Order Paper 132 which states strictly that there will be no more casinos. 
Another area I would like to look at is Internet gambling. That is an area that the world has access to and if New Zealand wants to be part of that then we should look at ways of limiting the accounts that are set up with Internet gambling. It is quite easy to set up an account and we would have to make sure that there is an age restriction as there is with other forms of gambling within this bill. The age restriction would be very hard to police because Internet gambling involves ticking a series of boxes so that is an area that would really need to have close scrutiny. The next issue is to limit the account in terms of the amount that may be gambled in any one period because if the account is allowed to run free then gambling problems start to generate and there is no way to control that. Caps on accounts were operated successfully in Australia before the Federal Government clamped down on Internet gambling so it would be worth looking at the issue of account caps and time limits. We could go and look at the Australian examples to see how they were working because they were working well before the Government closed them down. 
Internet gambling is an area that does need a lot of close scrutiny and work. It can work and it can certainly generate taxation income for the Government in this country. I am sure that this Government would love to have those further taxes coming in rather than have people here operating Internet accounts off shore and have all the profits and the capital go off shore. I suggest that the Government should take a closer look at the caps on the accounts and at the way they operate.
Points of Order — Agent Orange—Health Committee Report Doha Declaration—Motion 
Points of Order — Agent Orange—Health Committee Report Doha Declaration—Motion 
[Volume:622;Page:17667] 
Points of Order 
Agent Orange—Health Committee Report 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I note that the papers presented included the Government’s response to the Health Committee’s report on its inquiry into Agent Orange. We understand that today is the last opportunity for question time. It would be helpful if through you the Prime Minister could perhaps provide to the House her response to this report particularly for those veterans who have been damaged by Agent Orange because we will not have an opportunity to put any questions on it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Doha Declaration—Motion 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to move members’ notice of motion No 2 in my name on the Doha declaration as a non-debatable non-controversial motion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course? There is.
Peck Mark: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Peck Mark: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6805] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9738] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5158] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 76 
Noes 40 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9 Progressive 2. 
National 26; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.
Robertson H V Ross: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20990] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment in the name of Dail Jones to omit clause 52 is ruled out of order because it is the same as the previous amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 52(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) and substitute the following paragraph: 
(b)must be transferred to Victim Support.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8484] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 128 in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 82 be agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3655] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill as was stated when our Minister introduced the bill just a short while ago. This bill is related to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has also closely examined the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions. I am pleased that this bill is progressing through the House and I support it.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:623;Page:18496] 
Business of the House 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That private and local order of the day No. 1 for the second reading of the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill be postponed until after private and local order of the day No. 2 for the second reading of Te Runanga O Ngati Awa Bill. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9678] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17101] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 57 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1).