Volume 654 Week 12 - Wednesday 13 May 2009(continued on Thursday 14 May 2009 part 2) 
Volume 654 Week 12 - Wednesday 13 May 2009(continued on Thursday 14 May 2009 part 2) 
[Volume:654;Page:1] 
Wednesday 13 May 2009 
( 
continued on Thursday 14 May 2009 part 2 
) 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It appears the Minister has fallen asleep in the chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “22 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “21 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “20 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “19 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “18 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “17 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “16 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “15 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “14 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “13 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “12 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “11 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “10 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “9 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “8 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “7 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “6 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “5 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “4 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “3 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “2 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) the words “1 November 2010” and substitute “30 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “29 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “28 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “27 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “26 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “25 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “24 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “23 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “22 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “21 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “20 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “19 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “18 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “17 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “16 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “15 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “14 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “13 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “12 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “11 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “10 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “9 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “8 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There is a longstanding tradition as I understand it that when people use language they should use it properly. The current use of the Maori language by the member currently purporting to be the whip is prostituting the language in my view. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That may well be that member’s view but the Chair has no experience in these matters and I rely on members to do their best in these things. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought you were going to rule. There is no question of a member purporting to be any other member in the House. I think you should have disciplined the member for making that comment as part of his point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings around the use of another language particularly te reo are that the member who uses the language is the sole judge of accuracy. That is the rule in Speakers’ rulings. We will move on. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “7 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “6 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The 93rd amendment to Part 1 clause 3 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins. Members of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Noes have it. Party vote called for. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not sure a party vote was called for at that stage. I think you were asking whether there was a call for a party vote and I am not sure that there has been. Before you move to it I think you probably have to wait to see if anyone is calling for a party vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: What I have been doing when there is opposition is that I have probably truncated the process a little bit. The member is perhaps going to indicate that he may not be calling for one—I will observe. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “5 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “4 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “3 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “2 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “This section is by way of explanation only and does not limit or affect the other provisions of this Act.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “preliminary matters” and substitute “background purposes interpretation and related matters”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The date specified in subclauses (3) (4) and (5) of clause 4 is very closely linked with the purpose provision in clause 3(7)(a). The Committee when considering clause 3 voted against a range of different dates on which to establish a unitary authority. Any proposal therefore to change the date to one that has already been negatived is out of order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 June 2010”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 May 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 April 2010”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6)“1 November 2010” and substitute “1 March 2010”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next is amendment five to clause 4(6) in the name of the Hon George Hawkins. Those of that opinion will say Aye the contrary will say No. Party vote called for? I will ask the Clerk to conduct a party vote. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is just a question of order. I think it is our role to call for a party vote. I think it is your responsibility to indicate the result. It is up to us to call for a party vote rather than you. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 My understanding of Speakers’ rulings is that it is actually at the discretion of the Chairperson as to whether he or she takes a party vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You are right; it is. I offered a party vote to the Labour Party and you accepted it. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 February 2011”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “31 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Addressing the issue of the Chair’s discretion to take a party vote given the trend towards party voting over the last number of hours I wonder whether we are at a point in time when the Chair’s discretion could be used to not take a party vote given that it is quite clear the order in which the voting will take place and how the votes will end up. I put it to you that I believe it is no longer necessary to take party votes. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think that is a particularly interesting question. I think it is one on which it would be good to recall the Speaker to get his opinion on it. I think in my view you do not have that discretion but if there is doubt in the Committee—and it has been indicated by the junior Government whip that there is doubt about your discretion to do that—I think that getting the Speaker back to give a considered ruling would be useful to the Committee. If the Government is in agreement I am happy to give leave for the Speaker to be recalled. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I am more than comfortable to take the Chairman’s ruling on this matter without recalling the Speaker. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am seeking some advice at this stage. Where a vote has been put and a party has voted either for or against I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 67/4 which states: “When the Speaker declares the result on the voices that unless challenged is final and may not be disputed. The right to challenge does not lie with those whom the Speaker has declared to be the majority. The right to challenge the result lies with the minority who believes that the decision of the House would be different if it were tested by a vote.” That is why in my interpretation I have asked whether there was a call for a party vote. I did so out of courtesy. It is not out of order to ask that question but obviously the member does not believe I should be asking whether a party vote is required. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. With respect I think that was not quite the point that Chris Tremain was making. I think he was trying to ask the Committee whether votes could be taken more or less as read rather than having party votes each time. I think that is an interesting approach to democracy but it is a view that I do not share. I am one of the old-fashioned types who think it probably would be better for this Parliament and better for colleagues and parties if we voted properly through the lobbies. I can see that time has moved on on that particular issue. But I think the right to a vote and the right to call for a party vote is something that is well established. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You have made your point. I will not in future ask whether a party vote is called for. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “30 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “29 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “28 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “27 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “26 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “1 November 2010” and substitute “25 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) 1 November 2010” and substitute “24 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “23 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “22 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “21 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “20 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “19 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “17 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I overlooked an amendment here earlier which I will now put. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “ 1 November 2010” and substitute “ 18 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “16 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I think I can anticipate what the member is going to say. When votes are being cast there is silence. Two members spoke during the vote. It is not on. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “15 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “14 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “13 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “12 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “11 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and insert “10 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I note that there was a little bit of confusion around the Labour vote on that occasion. I have on one previous vote voted “e wha tekau ma tahi e whakaae ana” and I just want to make sure that that was correctly recorded at the time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Clerk assures me that that was picked up at the time. Thank you. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “9 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “8 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “7 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “6 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “5 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “4 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “3 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “2 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “30 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “29 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “28 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6)“1 November 2010” and substitute “27 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “26 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “25 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As the amendment we have just voted on refers to Christmas and as the honourable Sir Roger Douglas has been scoffing as the party votes have been going on I am sure that all parties would agree to his using a language more appropriate to him such as Latin to count the ACT party vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “24 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “23 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to:  
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “22 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to:  
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “21 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to:  
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “20 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to:  
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “19 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “18 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “17 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “16 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “15 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “14 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “13 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “12 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “11 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “10 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “9 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “8 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “7 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “6 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “5 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “4 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “3 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “2 December 2010”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “30 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “29 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “28 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “27 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “26 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “25 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “24 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “23 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “22 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “21 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “20 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “19 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been watching the Clerk at the Table and it is obvious that she understands what we say in Maori when the vote is given. I wonder whether it is possible to stop the interpretation at this point and to have interpretation only when there is a change in the vote. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The Standing Orders do not provide for that. If the member speaks in either official language then by default if it is in Maori it has to be interpreted for the Committee. I anticipate that as the evening goes on there will be changes in the votes given by different parties. I think it is most useful for the sake of clarity on such a big and important bill to continue using the services of the interpreter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The question here is an interesting one— 
Chris Tremain 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Excuse me I am ruling. The interesting matter here is that if an interpretation is not given for those who do not speak Maori they will not know that there has been a change. It is a dilemma. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson may I say that the interpreter is still present and if he picks up that there is a change he may note that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that the interpreter is not to be an active participant in this. To interpret members’ words is one thing; to make judgments about what people have said is a different thing. I think we will continue with the current arrangement. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “18 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “17 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member Rahui Katene that another point about this voting procedure is that I suspect that some of the members are improving their Maori pronunciation and others are improving their ear for Maori language. These are the benefits of this if there is to be a benefit. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “16 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “15 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “14 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and insert “13 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and insert “11 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “12 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “10 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “9 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “8 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “7 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “6 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “5 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “4 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “3 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “2 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I apologise to the Committee. There was an earlier amendment that I had not dealt with and I will put it now. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (5) after “involve developing the” “Auckland”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “In certain situations the existing entities must obtain the consent of the Transition Agency before implementing decisions they have made.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7) “important and necessary” and substitute “significant and risky”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have a series of amendments to clause 5(1) in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute other dates. These amendments are not in the proper form as the expression “1 November 2010” does not occur in clause 5(1). These amendments are out of order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Auckland Super Council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) the following definition in its appropriate alphabetical order: 
Aucklanders 
 means the people who ordinarily reside in the Auckland area and whose views have been disregarded and ignored in the development of this Act. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) “and lacking the representation that Aucklanders want and deserve” after “section 9” in the definition of  
Auckland Council 
 or  
Council 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) “and which will render the current local authorities powerless by reviewing every decision and meeting they undertake in the transitional period” after “section 10” in the definition of  
Auckland Transition Agency 
 or  
Transition Agency 
.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (1) “and responsible for developing this Act without undertaking the consultation that Aucklanders want and deserve” to the definition of  
Minister 
.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) in the definition of  
reorganisation 
 “reorganisation of local governance in Auckland” and substitute “process of taking away the rights and fair representation of Aucklanders”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit “Local Government Act 2002”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit “this Act prevails” and substitute “those Acts prevail”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause:  
(2) Nothing in this Act overrides or removes the rights of ratepayers conferred under the Local Government Act 2002.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit “This Act binds the Crown” and substitute “This Act does not bind the Crown.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 June 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Hon George Hawkins has two amendments to clause 8 that omit 1 November 2010 and substitute 1 June 2010. The second of these identical amendments is out of order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 May 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 April 2010”. 
A party vote was called on for on the question that the amendment be agreed to. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I appreciate that we have three different presiding officers across the Committee of the whole House but the practice of the other two Chairs is to ask whether a party vote is called for when the vote is contested. When you declare that the Noes have it—as you are required to do to side with the majority—we contest that by saying the Ayes have it. The other Chairs have been saying “Party vote called for.” and we say: “Yes party vote is called for.” It is just that the different styles are making it hard to keep up. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for that. There is no requirement on the Chair to ask for a party vote. It is incumbent on a party to go for the party vote at the time when it is called. It is not incumbent on the Chair to ask whether members want a party vote. We discussed that ruling with one of the Labour members when I was last in the Chair. That is the procedure that I am following. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can we take it then from your comments that you are ruling out of order your predecessors as my colleague Darren Hughes has said who adopt a different position from you? Are you therefore ruling their conduct out of order and do we therefore have to recycle the process again? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Not at all. I am quoting from Standing Order 137 which states: “Where a further vote is called for a party vote is held unless the subject of the vote is to be treated as a conscience issue”. It is really up to members. I have actually called for the vote both ways. If no one goes for the call I can move on to the next amendment and that is how we have been practising it. The interpretation Mr Cosgrove that you are suggesting is that I should ask whether there is a party vote. There is no requirement to do that. A presiding officer may in fact do that but with previous discussions prior to the dinner break I followed this procedure. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I in fact was not making the interpretation that you say. I was simply asking for your advice because you have made a ruling as you are entitled to do. But for clarity are you saying that your colleagues who have occupied the Chair have actively— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No. When the member asked me that before I said that that is not the case. This is the way that I interpret it this is the way that I am doing it and we will proceed from there. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Thanks Lindsay. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Mr Tisch or Lindsay Tisch will do. I am standing as well. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 March 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 February 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “31 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “30 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “29 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “28 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “27 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “26 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “25 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “24 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I remind members that when a vote is taken it is done in silence. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “23 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “22 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “21 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “20 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “19 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “18 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “17 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “16 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “15 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “14 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “13 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “12 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As a new member I am a little reluctant to raise a point of order but I notice that the Labour members in the Chamber appear to be eating lollies which would seem to be in breach of Speakers’ rulings 16/6. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you for bringing that matter to my attention. If members discreetly eat lollies lozenges mints or Strepsils after long debates—I am sure we all need those at some stage—I think that is normal. They are not flouting the Speakers’ rulings. I am sure that all members of the House do it. Thank you for bringing the matter to my attention but I will rule it out of order. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It might be more bearable if they chewed with their mouths closed. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I am not accepting any more comment. We have had a bit of a laugh and I think we can take it in the spirit in which it was given. Time is pressing on so let us continue with the votes. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “11 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “10 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “9 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “8 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “7 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “6 January 2011”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “5 January 2011”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “4 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “3 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “2 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “31 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “30 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “29 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “28 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “27 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “26 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “25 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “24 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “23 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “22 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “21 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “20 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “19 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “18 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “17 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “16 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “15 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “14 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “13 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “12 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “11 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “10 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “9 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “8 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “7 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “6 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “5 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “4 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “3 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “2 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “30 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “29 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “28 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “27 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “26 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “25 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “24 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “23 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “22 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “21 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “20 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “19 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “18 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1;. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “17 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “16 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “15 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “14 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “13 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “12 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “11 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “10 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “9 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “8 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “7 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “6 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to take a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are on a vote. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No we are not. You have just called a vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have just announced a result. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is right and we have not had a closure and therefore members can take a call at any time. There are questions before the Committee: the further amendments and the substantive question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am advised that we proceed until we have finished the voting. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think your advice is incorrect. That would be the case if there had been a closure. There are currently I think five amendments and one substantive question before the Committee and because they are before the Committee and there has not been a closure they are debatable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I refer the member to Standing Order 135. The question is put when the debate is concluded. I refer the member to Standing Order 135(1) and (2). As no member went for a call during the course of the voting the member’s point of order is not accepted. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I refer you to Standing Order 135(1) and (2). The debate on the questions which were the amendments before the Committee previously had concluded. The debate on the substantive clause and the few amendments that have not yet been dealt with have not been concluded. It is quite clear that unless there is a closure members can take a call at any time where an issue is live before the Committee. The debate has not concluded and I want to take a call on a particular clause. There is nothing in the Standing Orders that says because more than 100 amendments have been put members cannot debate the amendments that are left or the substantive question if there has not been a closure. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: My understanding is that we are still on the amendments and Standing Order 135(1) states: “Except where otherwise provided as soon as the debate upon a question is concluded the Speaker puts the question to the House.” We have not reached that stage at this point. My advice is that it is out of order and we will carry on with the remaining amendments before us before we put the question to Part 1. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think the relevant point here is that prior to the voting on these clauses starting some 5 or 6 hours ago in fact there was a quiet period in the Chamber when no one sought the call. For that reason the Chairperson decided to put the vote and I think you will find that the  
Hansard 
 states that there was no objection to that. Then of course we started to go through the amendments to the question prior to putting the question. But we are in the process of putting the question. For Mr Mallard’s argument even to be entertained is an utter nonsense and would make an even bigger mockery of the democratic process than the Labour Party is doing so far. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Like this bill does! Don’t push us! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: What did you say? What was that? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am on my feet. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well listen to what’s going on over there. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Sit down. I am on my feet. We have some advice here. When the debate concludes the Chairperson proceeds to put the question as it was proposed at the commencement of the debate. That question was that Part 1 stand part. That is the question referred to in Standing Order 135. But before reading the main question the amendments must be dealt with. The debate was concluded because no further members sought the call. That is my ruling. I have ruled and we will proceed. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled for a considered ruling on this issue.  
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Mr Speaker during the course of this afternoon we have attended to a number of amendments. The question was put that Part 1 stand part. We have had subsequent amendments to that. A member has suggested that he could take a call. There have been no other members seeking the call. We still have a number of amendments to put to the vote. My ruling is that when the debate concludes the Chairperson proceeds to put the question as it was proposed at the commencement of the debate. That question was that Part 1 stand part. That is the question referred to in Standing Order 135. But before reading the main question the amendments must be dealt with. The debate was concluded because no further member sought the call. That is the ruling I made. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think it is a relatively simple issue of what the question before the Committee was. In my opinion the question before the Committee has been on each occasion a number of amendments and then finally the substantive question of whether Part 1 stands part. We have not yet got to the Committee being asked to vote on whether Part 1 stands part. We have been dealing with amendments. There are five or six of those left. Earlier members made it clear that the debate had run out on the first few hundred—or most—of the amendments and chose not to take a call then. The question is whether the question that is now before the Committee is that the amendments stand part or whether the question is that the part stands part. 
My submission to you is that the question that is about to be put by the Chairperson is that the amendments stand part. That is what was to be voted on. We have not yet had a closure motion. The effect of a closure motion of course would be to cut out the possibility of further debate. That is the objective of a closure motion. That means that the amendments are all taken together. There is no opportunity to move further amendments or to withdraw them. There is no opportunity for further debate when the Committee has dealt with parts of an issue. So in the end the question goes to what we are debating and what we are about to vote on now. Are we about to vote on an amendment or have we absolutely concluded the debate? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think it is perhaps relevant to look at the range of Standing Orders that range from 292 right through to 296. Each of those Standing Orders will give you a clear idea of how amendments to any particular part of a bill are to be dealt with. It has long been the practice of the Committee of course that when a member is speaking to a part and wishes to make an amendment he or she indicates that intention and tables that amendment as the debate progresses. There was a very clear end to the debate earlier this evening at about 10 to 6. We have been voting through the amendments that have been tabled in the preceding 1½ hours 2 hours or perhaps 3 hours of that debate. Once the debate is concluded the assumption certainly should be that once the Chairperson says that the question will be put; that is the deal. Consequently everyone needs to know whether the question is amended. The reference is then to the Committee’s will to amend the question having heard all the arguments in favour of the amendments during the body of the debate. Of course the democratic process is to vote through those amendments; then once that has all been cleared away to proceed to the question itself. 
For Mr Mallard to argue that the two are somehow separate is quite irresponsible and I think quite unreasonable. I say it is irresponsible because the House has to be a place where there is a function that is understood by all who participate in it. That function is to pass legislation. The Opposition certainly has a role to question that. It has a role to put up opposition to that function by way of those amendments. But the question is always put and then there is the debate. During that debate the question is altered theoretically by way of the amendments claimed by members. Those amendments by members are tabled subsequent to the end of the debate. Today there was a clear period of time when no one was taking the call. The Chairperson then proceeded to put the question. Of course the question is undecided at that point because the amendments are not dealt with. We are in the process right now of putting the question. It is not conceivable that someone should be able to take a further call once that procedure has begun. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members. It is an interesting issue that has been raised by the honourable member and it is I think worthy of proper consideration. I was watching the proceedings very carefully on television to make sure I was aware of what was going on. The question was that Part 1 stand part and the debate on that question concluded earlier today. There is no question about that. That debate did conclude. When the Committee is debating the question that Part 1 stand part members may also debate the amendments that have been tabled as part of that process. Once that debate concludes—and I think I have to accept the point made by the Leader of the House—the motion that is then being put is that Part 1 stand part but before that can be dealt with the amendments have to be dealt with first. There is no provision in the Standing Orders for there to be any further debate on any of those amendments because the question that is being dealt with is that Part 1 stand part. So I have to rule that there can be no further debate on those matters. The amendments are being dealt with and once those amendments have been dealt with the question that is before the Committee that Part 1 stand part will be dealt with. The Standing Orders do not provide for any alternative to that. I thank honourable members. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions ( 
continued 
)  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “5 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “4 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “3 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “2 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Auckland Council 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 We are making steady progress through the night. Part 2 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill establishes the Auckland Council. However this part does not come into effect until 1 November 2010. We understand that the Labour Party also supports the creation of an Auckland Council but quite how it proposed to create it remains somewhat mystifying. 
It is necessary to establish the Auckland Council to enable the Auckland Transition Agency to work towards a new governance structure. Obviously if the agency is to provide a transition it has to provide a transition to something and that is what Part 2 is about. The Auckland Council will assume the responsibilities duties and powers of the Auckland Regional Council and the seven territorial authorities in the Auckland region. That is what establishing one council and one mayor for Auckland is all about. The Auckland Council will be a territorial authority and will have the powers of a regional council—that is it will be a unitary council. 
We look forward to the debate on this part. I am particularly interested in the contribution that we will hear from the Hon George Hawkins. We know that the Hon George Hawkins has done more work today than he did the entire time that he was in Government. It is also very clear and easy to understand why productivity slipped so much when Labour was in power given the sort of behaviour that we have seen here in the Chamber. I look forward to George Hawkins justifying himself and indeed the Labour Party to Aucklanders and to the people of New Zealand and explaining quite what the Labour Party is trying to achieve. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I want to speak on Part 2 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill which establishes the Auckland Council. This part establishes a territorial authority for Auckland to be known as the Auckland Council. 
It is interesting that when I got up to speak this morning Government members were all smiles. I do not know what has happened during the day but now they have lost that sparkle. They do not that sparkle any more—it has gone. One thing is for sure: the Government may be able to walk over people’s democratic rights out in the public but it cannot trample on the rights of Parliament as its members have learnt over the last 12 hours. I think that fact is very important because Parliament has to examine and look after the interests of Auckland. The Government can form a new council. It can join together all these different councils and buildings and call it Auckland Council. But Melissa Lee forgot the other ingredient: people. You must bring people together. Do you do it by saying in Mt Albert that all the crooks come from South Auckland and into Mt Albert? Saying that will not help. We are trying to build this Auckland Council together. When you try to do that you have to take the people with you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You cannot bring the Chair into the debate. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am sorry Mr Chairperson. 
The Government cannot build the Auckland Council in this way. Did the Auckland councils of Waitakere Manukau Papakura North Shore Rodney Auckland City or the Auckland region get the opportunity to say what Auckland’s new council should be called? They did not. Did anyone ask them? No. This bill is being pushed through in the dead of night by a Government that does not actually believe in democracy. The Government will give them the opportunity to have a select committee hearing on the second bill which is all about the rats and mice. When that bill is considered the select committee will be arguing over who will give out the key to the hall and who will clean the toilets in the hall. 
This bill of course looks at the formation of Auckland Council. Did the Government go and talk to the Maori population about what Auckland’s council should be called? It did not. It is absolute arrogance that the Government decides all of this for everyone. That will not go down well. They will not like the name “Auckland Council” in South Auckland. 
I hear that Dr Paul Hutchison— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: An excellent member! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: He is an excellent member because he actually says that the people in his electorate are afraid of this legislation. Sir William Birch known to us all as Bill Birch used to be in Parliament. He is not very keen on being dragged into Auckland. He might have worked for Auckland City; he might have worked for John Banks in the past. But he is not very keen to be dragged into Auckland. That is true of many places. 
When legislation is brought to this House without proper consultation it causes splits in the community. It causes splits in the Government. I wonder what Dr Paul Hutchison will say to Sir William Birch. Dr Hutchison just sat there and let a few little votes go by. He was not here most of the time. Now he sits there with a sheepish grin on his face. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is a very important bill and Part 2 is a key part. Let me divide my comments into two aspects. 
The first is that the Minister asked what Labour means by supporting a super-city. We are at the heart of the problem here. This bill confuses a unitary entity with an integrated entity. Labour believes in an integrated regional entity. We believe in a city that functions well and can discharge regional functions on a regional basis with good regional governance. There is nothing complicated about that. A public transport network is of course regional and needs regional oversight. That is not too hard. Arguably water services are in the same category. It is not complicated. It is true that there were too many functions at the local level that could have been lifted up and better governed at the regional level. That was in the royal commission’s report. It cost a million bucks there were 3000 submissions and it was a year’s work with lots of consultation and good thinking—and what did the Government do? It threw the report away and replaced it with a 10-page ACT manifesto which made a mockery of the whole process. An expendable Rodney Hide will get it in the neck when John Key realises it was a step too far for voters. We stand for strong regional governance. We do not want the ACT version of a unitary entity. 
But the real kicker in this part is the bit that deletes all references to the existing territorial authorities. There will be no more Manukau New Zealand’s most progressive city. No more Manukau means no more Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. No more Franklin means no more genial Dr Paul Hutchinson. The people of those areas— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a well-known precedent in this Parliament that members’ names are pronounced correctly. It is “Hutchison”. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Well all one can say to that is “Whhhy not?”. Those members’ constituents can look after themselves tonight. I am more worried about the good people of Waitakere the eco-city. My westies hate this Government now and “hate” is not too strong a word. They hate those Tories who are stealing their city—and who in fact are going further: they are erasing all reference to the name “Waitakere”. Poor Waitakere! You do not have the power to take our name. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: They do not have the power to take our names—you Mr Chair have much power. Those members do not have the power to take our names. 
Speaking of the taking of names it has been an interesting week in New Zealand politics has it not? We have learnt some new words. To be “Masuku’ed” means to be thrown onto the scrap heap. To be “Melissa Lee’ed” means to open one’s mouth and insert both feet and then defend it on the morning news the morning after and then not even explain oneself on  
Close Up 
. To be “Bakshi’ed” is to be the last living defender of the Indian community in the National Party because I tell you what every living Indian I know of in Mt Albert is now voting Labour. They are so pissed off about the Masuku affair and what they got out of it that they are voting Labour. So when you try—Oh goodness me! The “pedal king” Bill English is back. 
Nathan Guy 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member has been in the Chamber for a while and he continues to bring you into the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I did mention that earlier to Mr Cunliffe and he acknowledged that but he has done it again. Do not bring the Chair into the debate. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is a perfectly fair comment Mr Chair and I do apologise. I am so emotional about this bill that things got away from me. It is good to see Bill English back in the Chamber again. He has had a rough day too. To be “Bill English’ed” is to make a statement in the House about a Budget and then be slam dunked by one’s leader using exactly the same words within a month. He said: “Not next year not ever—oh sorry boss! Let’s fund it now sir if it’s OK with you.” I guess they do not take tea together very often. Look at that lot over there. They can see their majority dwindling away like the waters of the Manukau running to the sea. They know that in the good hands of the “little emperor” they have made a colossal mistake. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Let us get one thing clear right now in this debate tonight: the reason why the member David Cunliffe is angry is that this Government is doing everything that Labour members want to have done and now they do not have any defence at all. Labour members cannot criticise because we said—and they said—we would have one Auckland and we will. Then they said they want to put “local” back into local government and we are doing that; we said we would put local boards out there so that the local community could have a say in the things that matter to them and we will. That is exactly what those members have been asking for and that is exactly what we are giving. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a convention in Committee and in the House that speeches are addressed to you. The member has had his back to you the entire time he has been speaking. I think he should show more respect for you as Chair. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I do not need any help in this matter. The member can address whomever he wishes. This is a robust debate. We will let the member continue. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The other thing the members over there do not like at all—and this is the main point—is that they have asked why we have not consulted on the bill and we have told them that this bill starts the consultation period. There will be consultation for the next 15 months or more. We will be out there talking with the public. We will be listening to the public. What is even better is that we will actually implement most of the things the public ask of us because we can because we are flexible because that is the sort of Government this National Government—led by John Key—is and because that is what Rodney Hide’s bill will deliver for this country. I say to that shoddy Opposition over there that you do not like it because you are actually getting what you have been asking for— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have already ruled. You cannot bring the Chair into the debate. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The Opposition members do not like it because they are worried that the things they are asking for they are getting from a Tory Government. Much to their surprise all those things that make Opposition members weep and wail that produce all of that socialist bloody outpouring that we get from them we are addressing. We are giving it to Labour. We are going to stick it up Labour. We are going to get the whole country behind us because—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I think I know what the member is going to say. It is a robust debate—I actually might need earplugs—but interjections should be rare and reasonable. It would be good if we could hear what the speakers are saying. Please tone it down so that we can actually hear what is going on. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to request the Associate Minister to make a ministerial statement to explain how it can be that Labour is both jealous of the Government for doing what Labour would have done and frightened of getting a dose of “Torydom”.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Sit down. You cannot make that request. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think the important point that you should make as I indicated to the Speaker a couple of days ago is that when you are addressing people who are making a racket that is stopping a member from being heard it would be good to look at them. The people who were actually stopping the member from being heard were those behind him—in fact in front of him given the direction he was looking in. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Is that not exactly the problem? Opposition members just cannot take it can they? They cannot take the fact that this Government will be out there day after day listening to the people. The Prime Minister has been out there; the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide has been out there; and I will be out there. We will be listening engaging and making sure that the public of Auckland end up with the local government they want. 
What is more we will end up with a local government system in Auckland that not only is good for Auckland but happens to be good for the rest of New Zealand as well. That is the problem. Those members over there have been mucking around with this issue for 9 years. It got too hard for them so they said “Here’s a pass. We’ll give it to a royal commission. That will get it off our plate for a while.” When there finally is a Government that is prepared to respond and be decisive those members are astounded. They cannot understand a Government that makes a decision and a Minister of Local Government who is actually prepared to get out there and make some decisions. And there is a group of people behind him who will make sure that this happens. They will make sure it happens for their people. That is the issue. That is why that group over there are so astonished about what is happening. Labour members cannot believe that in the 9 years they had in Government they did nothing other than order a royal commission report. We are putting in place local boards which will be far more effective than the councils that the royal commission talked about and those members say they cannot understand it. 
Let us wait and see what happens in another 6 months 9 months and 12 months when we have heard the public of Auckland when we have made the alterations they ask of us and when the second and third bills have been passed. Let us see what is delivered. Let us see what they think when we end up delivering the goods for Auckland. I know that we can deliver. I know that the Prime Minister will deliver. I know that the Hon Rodney Hide will deliver. I know that collectively we will get in there and give Aucklanders exactly what they are looking for which is local government that works for them. They know that right now their local government does not work for them. They know that at the moment local government in Auckland is not performing in the way that they need it to. Even Bob Harvey the Mayor of Waitakere recently apologised to the people of Auckland. Well we will set up a local government system that works for Auckland and works for New Zealand. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Part 2 is very short but it really gets to the heart of this Draconian legislation. It is the part that deletes all reference to eight democratically elected city councils—that expunges them from the face of the earth—without so much as a vote. It expunges Manukau Waitakere and the other city councils. But we have to remember that we are not just stripping away and expunging those councils; we are stripping away and expunging democracy. I have a cartoon here that sums up what this particular part of the bill is all about. In the cartoon there is a maniacal demonic Rodney Hide with his jackboots trampling on Manukau Papakura Waitakere Rodney the North Shore and Franklin. The caption states “Who’s laughing at my dancing and yellow jacket now?”. The demonic Rodney Hide is trampling on the democratically elected councils of Auckland. 
I ask members whether the Government told the people of Auckland before the election that it was planning to destroy—to expunge—the eight democratically elected councils of Auckland. Did the Government tell Aucklanders or New Zealanders that before the last election? It did not. The Government is trying to con New Zealanders into believing that it is implementing most of the recommendations of the royal commission. But did the royal commission recommend expunging eight local councils from the face of the earth? Did it recommend getting rid of Waitakere Manukau etc.? It did not. Part 2 gives the lie to the Government’s pretence that it is implementing the recommendations of the royal commission because it is not. Part 2 is the complete antithesis of what the royal commission has recommended. 
It is a basic tenet of democratic Government that if there is to be a change to a system of governance that should be agreed to by the majority of the governed. That is why we had a referendum when we changed to MMP. But the people of Auckland are having their governance completely wiped away. Their democratically elected councils are being completely wiped away without any referendum without any poll without any say and without any consultation. Nobody has put to the electors of Manukau: “Are you dissatisfied with your council?”; “Do you want to have your council expunged from the face of the earth?”. Nobody has asked the people of Waitakere whether they want to get rid of their city council. That is why this bill is so profoundly undemocratic and so profoundly Draconian. It is expunging those democratically elected city councils without ever asking the people represented by those councils whether they want to get rid of them. 
Contrary to what Government members are saying satisfaction studies have been done year after year that have shown that the majority of people on the North Shore support the North Shore City Council. They do not want the council expunged; they support it. The majority of people in Waitakere support their council. They do not want it expunged. That is why Part 2 gets to the heart of the bill and why this legislation is so Draconian. That is why we are having this protest here in this Parliament today. We are protesting at the Draconian way this Government is eliminating eight democratically elected councils without ever giving them the right to vote. And the bill is in violation of the Local Government Act because the Act requires a poll before any reorganisation. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I first want to say something in rebuttal of the so-called expert on local government the Hon John Carter because some of us have long memories. Some of us can remember at least two pieces of legislation that were introduced into this House as a result of a very bad county clerk up in Northland. Who was the county clerk who lost all the cemetery records? There had to be a bill—an authorised agent bill—to forgive him for losing them. Who was the county clerk who without authority sent a truck 50 miles with half a dozen beer on the back? There was no authority at all to send the truck 50 miles back and forth. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are expecting some 1000 amendments to Part 2 so it would be good if that member could concentrate on the part itself rather than filling in time. [ 
Interruption 
] Is this a point of order or not? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Points of order are heard in silence. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: We are expecting the Labour Party to put up some 1000-odd amendments on this part as it did on Part 1. It would be very good if that member could either get to some of those amendments or somewhat uniquely speak to the part itself. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I invite the member to take the call. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As was said by John Carter this is a robust debate and if Gerry Brownlee does not like it up him he should just leave the Chamber and go back to his room. If he cannot take it he should go. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is late at night and clearly that member has had a bit of an extra sugar dose— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I have a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I am on my feet. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Sorry I did not notice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It is a robust debate and that was not a point of order. That is a debating point and you get a chance to take a call later on. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: My last point on John Carter by way of rebuttal is that some of us can remember how he first came into the Chamber. He was the loyal chair of the National Party committee for the electorate. Do members know who the member was? It was his father-in-law “Blackberry” Austin. He was a man of honour a man of integrity. When “Blackberry” Austin was down in Wellington his then son-in-law was plotting against him. He got the numbers— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have had over 2 minutes of talking about a member on the other side of the Chamber. We are on Part 2. I bring you back to the part and ask you to concentrate your last 3 minutes on it. 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to say that I have had three fathers-in-law but Neil Austin was not one of them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That was not a point of order but it was an interesting point! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am sorry; I got the de facto thing mixed up. I apologise. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Let us settle down. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Getting to Part 2 I can remember that in 1989 and 1990 we made some fairly robust changes in the local government area. They were promoted by the ACT member Dr Michael Bassett. What happened then? Wherever those changes took effect the Government lost. I do not think Labour has ever won Devonport back again after the Devonport local body was abolished. I do not think we have ever won Eastbourne since the borough of Eastbourne was abolished. Those changes occurred under a Labour Government. 
I ask Nikki Kaye how happy she will be during the next election to go out there and defend the abolition of the Auckland City Council. Rates will have gone up by $700 to $1000 to pay for the transition costs. In Part 2 that cost is written off. I say to Paul Hutchison that he might survive as he has a reasonable majority but there will be something very questionable there. But I know that amongst National’s Auckland members we will see a struggle for list places. It is slightly easier than it was yesterday because Melissa Lee has gone quite a long way down the list in the last 24 hours. Paula Bennett has been working on going down the list for a period of time. 
Manukau City is one of the cities that go completely as a result of the bill. I tell any members opposite who are members for Manukau City—and I am not quite sure where the boundaries are—to stand up for Manukau. They should listen to what the people of Manukau are saying. At least instead of having this kind of farce instead of having their political advertising paid for by the Parliamentary Service—[ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite complain about the pledge card but the taxpayers are paying for this advertisement which is a retention scheme for Nikki Kaye. I will not bring the Chair into it but I want to know whether Nikki Kaye authorised the advertisement I am holding up. Nikki Kaye did not authorise it? So there is a National Party advertisement— 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Thank goodness that rant is over. I want to turn to the speech made by George Hawkins. For 9 years we have not heard boo out of George Hawkins but today—in one day—he has done more work here than he has done in the last 9 years. That is an indication of where the Labour Party is at. George Hawkins is leading the charge to save the Labour Party! None of the others on the front bench including my sparring partner Trevor Mallard could do anything other than spend 6 hours of the Committee’s time of New Zealand’s time and of the New Zealand taxpayers’ time on some spurious little amendments that Labour knew it would lose anyway. 
The Hon David Cunliffe said that the Indian community in Mt Albert would all vote in favour of Labour. I point out that that is real Fabian Society logic: Labour members will create victims in each community and then ask those people to vote for them. They will say to those little victim societies: “We’ll help you. You stay down there and we will be up here helping you. We will protect our own little hideaway on the rung of the ladder.” That is what the other party is on about. 
Not half an hour ago George Hawkins bold as brass asked what the name of the council was. Well if he had only bothered to look he would have found that it is called the Auckland Council. That is the point I say to Mr Hawkins; it will be called the Auckland Council. That is actually stated at the beginning of Part 2 so maybe the member who has spent the last 9 years doing nothing should have looked at Part 2. 
The other thing is that all these people across the other side of the Chamber have been talking about a referendum. Where was the referendum in 1989 when the Hon Michael Bassett who was not a member of the ACT Party was the Minister of Local Government for the Labour Government? That is right—a true Labour Party person not like these ones. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Mana Motuhake! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I am glad the member raises the issue of Mana Maori Motuhake. What we saw tonight during the vote was Labour trying to get back the Maori vote by saying a few Maori words! That is its whole plan. And now it is even talking about joining the hikoi! The Labour Party is now going to join the hikoi! The last time there was a hikoi there were 20000 people outside Parliament baying for the blood of the Labour Government. For goodness’ sake! 
Hon Members 
: Iwi-Kiwi! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is right—I am an iwi and a Kiwi which makes me better than those members. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You can’t hack it Tau. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Let us see who cannot hack it! We will take Auckland and we will progress into the future. I tell members that Waitakere is behind this; the people of Waitakere are behind this 100 percent. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you very much—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Who speaks is solely at the discretion of the Chair. Comments like that are reflections on the Chair. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Leader of the House directly challenged your ruling and I ask you to call on him to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I did not take personal offence at that but the point is well made. Points of order are heard and once they are dealt with that is the end of it. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Part 2. In doing so I would like to address clause 9 and talk to some proposed amendments. Some of my colleagues have talked about the name of Auckland and so has Mr Henare over there. He talked about the name of Auckland City but he forgot to mention that the people of Auckland have not been asked whether they want their city to be called Auckland City. National has made a really presumptuous assumption that the people of Rodney Franklin Waitakere—where I live—and the North Shore want to be covered by a local body called the Auckland Council. It is just arrogant but is that not what we have seen in this debate all the way through? All the people of Auckland are affected by this so all Aucklanders deserve to be asked about the new name. 
Many many discussions have been had throughout Auckland there has been lots and lots of criticism and it is really up to the House now to consider some of the suggestions that Auckland people have made about what the name should be. There are a variety of reasons why the House should consider other names. There is the issue of historical names—we are talking in this bill about 80 to 100 years of history—so we should be looking at those. There are significant place names—places that are really really important to the tangata whenua—and these are also names that we need to pronounce accurately. So I will support an amendment to clause 9. 
Part 2 is the guts of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill because it sounds the death knell for all existing councils and communities across Auckland. In this part we are talking about people—the 1.4 million people of Auckland the people of Manukau and those in Otara; I am sure these will be foreign places to members on the other side of the Chamber. There are also the people of Mangere Papatoetoe and Manurewa and as we heard from our colleague Su’a William Sio they are mourning the loss of their say and they are mourning the loss of their city as are the people of Waitakere City—our proud eco-city—Ranui Swanson Henderson Glen Eden and Te Atatu. I say to Mr Henare that he should be talking to the people he lives near. Those people are often in need of council support and they are very proud of the reserves and the wonderful west coast beaches. All of that will be handed over. That is what this clause does and that is what this bill does. 
There are also the people of Auckland City including those from Mt Albert Kingsland Avondale and Morningside where we have a wonderful National candidate who makes blunder after offensive blunder and demonstrates how utterly unsuitable she is to represent any electorate. Let us talk about the people of Otahuhu Onehunga Panmure and Glen Innes. The member for Maungakiekie is sitting over there—he has not said very much. The Citizens and Ratepayers members on the Auckland City Council do not give a toss about those people and that is what we will see under this one Auckland Council. In the last 2 weeks Auckland City Council has cut the citizens advice bureaux funding and a free community event in Onehunga that is attended by thousands has been ditched. We know how hard it has been for the community board members of Maungakiekie to fight for Otahuhu and we know how little support they get from a council that is dominated by wealthy people. They do not have any care for poorer communities. 
The people the citizens the ratepayers the young the old the families and the communities all lose their identity through Part 2 and the establishment of the Auckland Council. The people of the little town of Papakura as we know are up in arms; 1000 people attended a meeting because they know they are going to miss out through this proposal. There are also the people of North Shore and those of some of the poorer areas like Northcote Beachhaven and Glenfield right up into Albany and even across to Helensville—and we know what the people of Helensville are saying about this. They are saying: “Give us back our voice.” But this part takes away their voice from them for ever. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I will take just a short call. We have an amendment to clause 9 in the name of the Hon David Parker. I am sorry but having studied it the Government will not be able to support this amendment. There are two difficulties with it. First it specifies who can and cannot stand to be mayor of the new Auckland City. 
Hon David Parker 
: Just who can’t. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Well specifying who cannot stand specifies who can I say to Mr Parker. It is an amendment to clause 9 which has nothing to do with the mayor and does not mention the mayor so it is entirely inappropriate. 
I find it interesting that Labour Party members have been attempting to lecture me and other members of the Government about democracy when the Hon David Parker presumably with the support of his Labour caucus members would rule out any existing mayor from standing to be mayor of the new city. He would not only rule them out from standing but also prevent the people of Auckland from voting for whom they might choose to be mayor. Mr Parker is actually deciding who can stand to be mayor of the new Auckland City. He is going around saying “That person can’t stand that person can’t stand and that person can’t stand.” 
More particularly the Hon David Parker with the support of the Labour Party is saying that no former Minister of any Government can stand to be mayor of the new Auckland City. I ask Mr David Parker whether that is now Labour Party policy. If it is such a good idea why is Labour proposing it only for Auckland? If Labour members actually had the courage of this policy they would— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. To accuse a party or an individual of lacking courage is a breach of the Standing Orders. It should be clearly ruled out. The member cannot get around that by the approach he is attempting to take. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Well it is a line call. The member called it a breach of policy but of course a policy cannot exist in itself; it has to exist by virtue of members and of parties. The member should not refer to courage in that regard. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: If the Labour Party is consistent with its policy and if it is sticking to some level of principle presumably Labour members are saying that they are quite happy for Parliament to make a general rule that would rule out people who would otherwise be entitled to put their names forward for office. Labour members are saying that those people cannot stand. I and members of the Government find that abhorrent and anti-democratic. I would like to hear someone—just one person—from the Labour Party stand up and defend that amendment. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 At last we have the first response for a long time from the Minister of Local Government on this part of the bill which he is responsible for. Part 2 which consists of clause 9 disestablishes six or seven councils— 
Sue Kedgley 
: Eight. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —eight councils including the Auckland Regional Council; seven councils plus the regional council—and forms the Auckland Council. In doing so it creates the greatest concentration of representation in New Zealand in my memory. The Auckland Council covers not only more people than the whole of the South Island but substantially more than that number; 1.4 million people will be covered by one council. That council is getting broader powers than any other council in New Zealand has at present. It is getting territorial authority rights plus regional council rights. 
On top of that the mayor of the council is getting extra power; executive powers are being conferred upon the mayor of the council. There were some checks and balances on the regional council’s powers through some of those powers being devolved down to some additional councils standing underneath the regional council but those councils have been abolished. Therefore there is a further concentration of power in the hands of this new mayor. That new mayor—and I am very surprised that provincial members of the National Party such as Amy Adams from Selwyn and Chris Tremain from Napier are not worried about this—will bring down Governments. He or she will have the power to come to central government and say “Do this or I do that.” I think those powers are a gross abuse of the rights of Parliament and a gross abuse of overall democracy in New Zealand. 
Further than that there is the danger that those powers will be politicised because of the alignment of the mayor with a political party here. I think it is inappropriate that people who have been Ministers of the Crown who have clear allegiance to one party or another in this place hold that office. If those members want evidence of the kind of abuse that can occur they need only look at the conduct of John Banks this year compared with that of mayors of yesteryear. What is he saying about the Waterview Connection? What he is saying is clearly not in the interests of his council of which Mount Albert and the Waterview Connection are part. He is saying virtually nothing. What did he do to the prior Government—a Labour Government which was not matey with him a former National Government Minister? He stood over Parliament and said that unless the Government bought social housing off the Auckland City Council it would flog it off or raise rents. Those are the sorts of excesses that can be carried out by inappropriate mayors with too many powers. Those risks are increased if those mayors have a political alignment to Parliament in Wellington and that alignment is most evident when the mayors have been Ministers in a Government. Their alignment is clear their allegiances are clear and they take those allegiances with them to the grave in most cases. We have seen it with Mr Banks. 
If the Hon Rodney Hide cannot see that that is a risk then he is blind. If the provincial members on the Government side cannot see that the power that is invested in a mayor of a council that has more people in it and more voting power than the whole of the South Island plus 50 percent is extreme then they are not wise people. It is obvious. We are creating a beast that will be able to whip Parliament and that is not appropriate. There is a real need for checks and balances especially as some of the checks and balances have been removed through the abolition of the layer of councils beneath the current regional council; they have been stripped away by the Government. It therefore is all the more important that we have limits on the powers of the mayor who is being created under this legislation. 
Further than that it is appropriate that we limit the number of terms that mayors can stand for. In the United States a President can stand for two terms only. We are creating a presidential-like figure here. We are creating a figure who has more power than anyone in any regional or territorial authority has now; 1.4 million people is an enormous voting block which can be whipped into a fervour against the current Government be it a National-led or a Labour-led Government in the future. They can be whipped into a fervour against the sitting Government. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I have taken a call because I think it is important that members of the Opposition hear what the rest of New Zealand thinks about the proposals that the Government has set out in this bill. It is very important that the rest of New Zealand has a say because they are being very badly represented by the members on the Opposition benches. I stand for the real New Zealanders whom none of those members are prepared to represent. I stand here to represent the views of the rest of New Zealand who in fact totally support this bill by an overwhelming majority. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Chairman could I please have a bit of quiet? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that this has been a robust debate on both sides. The member is a well-known interjector who participates and makes interjections on many occasions. I think it is fair enough that when he is on his feet and being provocative he should expect a bit back in return. I can hear the member very clearly; I invite him to continue. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Thank you for your guidance Mr Chairperson. So most people—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: There are some interjections that are beyond the pale. The member knows what I am referring to. 
PAUL QUINN 
: As I was saying the rest of New Zealand agrees with the royal commission’s report which fundamentally says that the current governance of the Greater Auckland region is dysfunctional it is debilitated and it is broken. The royal commission has recommended a unitary body and Part 2 of this bill creates that unitary body. 
The Opposition throughout this debate has just grandstanded. We can start with the Hon David Cunliffe. He lives in St Marys Bay but he walks in here this morning and pontificates about the people in Manukau City and Otahuhu. He would not know one from the other! He talks about the Indian community in Mount Albert but he would not have met even one of them. He would not have been down the street to meet them; he is stuck in St Marys Bay. Yet he waltzes in here with his bibles—the four volumes of the royal commission’s report—which he plonks on the desk with great drama. Then he stands up and pretends to be a preacher in his bid for the leadership. He stands there and preaches. Well let me tell Mr David Cunliffe that he ain’t any preacher and he sure as hell is not Martin Luther. 
Then we have Mr Mallard lecturing us about our wonderful MPs and their margins. Well let us reflect on that Trevor. Paul Hutchison’s margin is outstanding: 15000-plus and going up. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Firstly I thought I would give the member a chance to breathe. Secondly members— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Excuse me that is not a point of order. The member will come straight to the point of order. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: It is a convention that members are referred to by their full name not by their first name. The member referred to Mr Mallard by his first name. Between breaths he ought to adhere to the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Members this is a robust debate; I realise that it is about 11.20 at night but people want to have a fair go. If members want to raise points of order they should be serious points of order and should not be raised in order to interrupt a person’s speech. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I was serious. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member was not entirely serious about it in my view. I invite the member Paul Quinn to continue his speech uninterrupted. 
PAUL QUINN 
: I am happy to call the member the Hon Trevor Mallard. He and I go back a long way; we are friends from way back. However he has a grudge against me for creeping into his majority. He lectures our people on our majorities but his majority has gone backwards for the last three elections—it has gone backwards. Yet he has the audacity to tell our people about majorities. 
Let us now come to the member for Rimutaka; let us talk about the member for Rimutaka. This morning the member for Rimutaka stood up and accused me of promulgating a unitary authority for the Hutt Valley based on the Auckland model. Well let me deny it; let me say that that member is wrong—that member is wrong. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member is clearly tired and emotional but he has gone too far— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Excuse me—the member will sit down. That is not a point of order. I have made the point before that if members are going to raise points of order they should be serious points of order and they should be about order. We do not want any reflections. I will let the member start again but I want to make sure that he raises a point of order. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you. There is a longstanding convention in this Chamber that it is not permissible under the Standing Orders to accuse a member of lying. That member has just done so. I am sure you heard it and everybody else did. I ask that he withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Well I have to say that I was listening to the speech quite carefully and I did not get that out of it whatsoever. If the member took that reflection he is drawing a very very long bow. I remind the member that this is a robust debate this is a debating chamber and for the first time we have speeches not readings. We are having a debate tonight not readings and I think that such a time is when the House is at its best. I want the debate to flow. It would be good if people spoke to Part 2 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill but given the time I am being a bit liberal about it. So let the speeches flow please. 
PAUL QUINN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been watching the clock but there have been so many interruptions—so many interruptions—and I do not have a stopwatch. Could you just brief me on my time— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: 10 seconds. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think that members on this side are enjoying this speech so much that we would not mind if another couple of minutes were added in by leave for this member to make his point because— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No. Members cannot seek leave on behalf of other members. The member has 10 seconds to go; the bell will go and I will then take the next call. 
PAUL QUINN 
: As I was saying this bill is about a unitary authority and this morning it was suggested that I was promoting a unitary authority for the Hutt Valley. I seek leave of the Committee to table a newspaper article which says the contrary of what was said by the member for Rimutaka— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought to table a newspaper article. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Tonight we have seen the National Government take the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill so seriously that it has put up the heavy hitters. First we had Mr John Carter and we know Mr Carter’s form and credibility in this Chamber and in other places. We know that he will go down in the annals of Parliament not for his contribution in the Chamber but for his contribution to talkback radio. As I recall Mr Carter tried to imitate a Maori person by the name of Hone; that was his great contribution to New Zealand. We then heard from Tau Henare. Of course Tau Henare has been in more parties than any of us have had hot dinners apart from Gerry Brownlee. 
I am sure Mr Hide is poking around here somewhere and he said a very interesting thing at the local government conference in February. He said: “It is always a good idea before a spend-up to get the agreement of the people who are going to pay for it.” That is what Mr Hide said to the local government conference. I think that in our democratic society that is not a bad thing. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh! Oh! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Do not worry I say to Gerry; Pizza Hut will be open after the Committee rises. I tell him to stay awake. 
I think that was a fair comment by Mr Hide but the problem is that for this bill the Government has no agreement from the people of Auckland. Tau Henare got up and asked why Labour members have made contribution after contribution for over 8 hours in this debate. The truth is that we have done so because we are the last line of defence for the people of Auckland to make a contribution and put their voices forward. 
Mr Brownlee was described in the Christchurch  
Press 
 last week by his mate Dave Henderson as quite a nice guy but absolutely useless. That was from a mate of his. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to confirm that that was the comment that was made but I also point out that the particular gentleman mentioned has never met Clayton so God knows what he would say about him! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Members I want to let the debate flow. I realise that we are not being particular about the Standing Orders in respect of requiring members to talk about the bill. I ask members not to take points of order so that we can get on with the debate and people’s speeches can flow freely. I invite the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to resume. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is fine. That contribution just shows what a plonker Gerry is—that is the truth. If that is the best contribution that Gerry can make then Dave Henderson is dead right because on this side of the Chamber we are the last line of defence for the people of Auckland. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh he does not like it. 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have heard points of order from Labour members on a number of occasions this evening about the use of members’ full names. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is correct and I would advise Clayton Cosgrove that he took a point of order on the use of full names. I think the member should take his own advice and speak according to his own views. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I could not agree more. The Hon Gerry Brownlee is the man named in the Christchurch  
Press 
 as the third most powerful person in New Zealand. God help us! Even the third most powerful person in New Zealand will not allow over a million Aucklanders to have their say. So for over 8 hours Labour members have stood up and Mr Hawkins has put up hundreds of amendments because we are here to defend the democratic right of the people of Auckland to have a say. 
National members believe that consultation goes like this: there is a royal commission of inquiry; the commission’s report is accepted—and I think it was Mr Henare who said he agreed with the commission’s report—the commission’s report is changed; and the Government’s own proposal which has not been consulted on is put up and is rammed through under urgency. That to National members is consultation. If they do not like the fact that they are here at 11.31 p.m.—and Mr Brownlee would rather be at home in bed beside the pie warmer warming up supper—then I say to them that they are going to have to do some work. I tell them to strap in because it is going to be a bumpy ride for the next day or so. Even if they do not like to work they are going to have to work because Labour members will allow Aucklanders to have representation through this House. 
Among the National members sitting there is the member for Auckland Central who has betrayed every one of her constituents. Mr Bakshi who I think has made a contribution in this House only twice sits there like the ghost who walks. He does not represent his community. He was elected to this House to represent his community in Mount Albert in Auckland and he has said nothing in this debate. In the Law and Order Committee Mr Bakshi has said nothing apart from his name since he was elected. He is like a ghost. I invite that member to get up. A miracle may happen: Mr Bakshi may get up and take a call. He may put forward his personal view and represent the people who elected him. I am happy to yield now if he will get up and take a call. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. I am not sure I can match the testosterone that is floating around but I will have a go at telling a few stories that are relevant to Part 2 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill which we in the Green Party firmly oppose as being contrary to the best interests of the people of Tamaki-makau-rau let alone the country. 
I will address a couple of myths. One of the myths is that once the councils are “omitted” obliterated and expunged from the record under the provisions of Part 2 they will supposedly be gone. I will put money on them having to be reinstated in a few years because it is not going to work. It is a “super stupid city” idea and it ain’t going to work. 
One of the things I have heard the Government say tonight is that it will consult. It is all very well consulting after the fact but it is like consulting the corpse to find out what it thinks once it is already dead. I will comment on the word “consultation”. My father who is in his 80s and who is a fine man with a long history of meeting challenges in this community said that consultation in this country has become a cross between a con and an insult. I think that is relevant to this situation—when the Government is not really serious about making any changes based on public opinion it uses the word “con-sult-ation”. 
Many of us have experienced what “con-sult-ation” is actually like. We go along to meetings where it has already been decided by people more powerful than ourselves what is going to happen. Then those in charge say “Thank you very much for your opinion. This is what we’ve decided anyway.” That is why my father believes “con-sult-ation” is a con and an insult particularly with reference to this bill. 
In terms of why we oppose this bill there are a number of reasons. The findings of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance were very important. One of those findings which the Government is deciding to trash is the commission’s recommendations in relation to the Maori seats for Tamaki-makau-rau. The royal commission was quite clear that three Maori seats as a minimum are needed for Tamaki-makau-rau. If we do not have any councils we sure as hell need some Maori seats. 
I will give members a couple of stories from my own experience of living in Auckland City about why Maori seats are important. Some voices have not been heard and they will be heard even less if this bill goes through. I am thinking about a place called Waterview where a number of friends of mine and I stood on the side of the highway by some trees. Those trees were planted in memory of war veterans on land that was donated on Great North Road to the city by Ngati Whatua ki Orakei. It was donated for health and a hospital was built there. But when city authorities decided to widen the highway because they could not invest in public transport for some strange reason—and we still have that problem—they ignored the pleas of Ngati Whatua and allowed a petrol station to be put on land that had been donated for health reasons. Because there were no Maori seats there was no redress. That is one example of how Maori seats are essential if these voices are to be heard. 
Another example is a place called Okahu Bay. Until Mayor Robbie came along all the raw sewage and hospital waste of Auckland was dumped straight into Okahu Bay. Because there were no Maori seats and there was no listening to Maori voices there was no way to get redress. The uncles of my friend Pakihana Hawke would go down to the bay and they would gather up the foetuses that had been flushed out of what was then called Auckland Hospital and take them to bury them because it was such an abuse of their culture that human and hospital waste should be flushed into Okahu Bay. 
It is not a pleasant story but it is important in terms of this bill because these people have not yet had redress. If the Government introduces this bill they will have even less of a voice about their specific cultural concerns which many people do not understand to this day. Hence the reason for members’ horror at what I am saying. Ngati Whatua had to do that to honour their cultural responsibility to Auckland harbour until finally the waste was taken out of Tamaki-makau-rau and out of the Waitemata Harbour and is now dumped in the Manukau Harbour. 
If Manukau has no voice and if Ngati Whatua has no voice because we have an elite of 12 people who do not understand these stories we will not be better off. Neither will those people. So we need to think about what Ngati Whatua actually says. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am going to do something that the Government might find a little confusing. I am going to actually talk about the bill. Despite all the calls from the Government side we have yet to hear those members talk about this bill which they are so desperate to ram through the House. In particular I want to talk about the amendment put forward by my colleague George Hawkins to amend clause 9(2) by adding “as defined by the Local Government Act 2002”. 
This Government has been lazy in its drafting. It is so desperate to push this bill through the House that it has been lazy in its drafting. The Government is giving powers to the new Auckland Council that it is not willing to define. We will define them by way of amendment so that the people of Auckland know what powers the Auckland Council will actually have. We think the people of Auckland need to know those kinds of things. This amendment draws the bill back to the Local Government Act. 
I want to talk about the Local Government Act. I am willing to wager that not one member on that side of the Chamber has actually read the relevant section of the Local Government Act. Hands up any member on that side who can say that he or she has read it—other than John Hayes! There is one member—John Hayes and he is not even from Auckland! None of the Auckland members have read the relevant section of the Local Government Act. The relevant section is section 149. It confers on regional councils the power to make by-laws and that provision is one of them. 
Section 14 of the Local Government Act 2002 “Principles relating to local authorities” deals with the principles by which this local authority will need to operate. What is the very first principle? It is that a local authority should conduct its business in an open transparent and democratically accountable manner. Has the Government been leading by example in that regard? No it has not. It is trying to push this bill through at 11.40 on a Thursday night. It is desperate to push this bill through. It did not want to send the bill to a select committee. What kind of example is it setting for the new Auckland authority that it is establishing? A very very bad one. 
What is the next principle that the Auckland Council will have to give effect to? Section 14(b) states that a local authority should make itself aware of and should have regard to the views of all of its communities. Has the Government done that by pushing this bill through the House? No it has not. We heard from the Maori Party earlier on this evening that 50 percent of Maori in this country live within the jurisdiction of this new authority yet they are being steamrollered by this Government which is ignoring the recommendations of the royal commission in regard to Maori representation on the new authority. The Government is not setting a good example for this authority. It is not willing to adhere to the principles in the Local Government Act 2002 yet it wants the new Auckland Council to adhere to those principles. Frankly it is disgraceful. 
We know that this Government is all talk. Government members are willing to strut their stuff around the House and to pretend that they are in charge now and can do whatever they like without any reference back to the people who put them there. They do not care. We heard earlier from Ministers and members in that Government that the people had their say on 8 November last year and that is it—they do not get another say for 3 years. I can tell Nikki Kaye that in 3 years’ time when those people have their say she will be history as will Paul Hutchison and all the other Auckland members because they have not listened to their communities. Allan Peachey will be history in 3 years’ time—2½ years’ time in fact. Aucklanders are counting down the days until they can get a member who will represent their interests and who will lead by example when it comes to following the principles of the Local Government Act which this Government expects the new authority to adhere to although the Government itself is not willing to adhere to them. 
The Government has not shown any leadership when it comes to consulting and to acting in an open transparent and democratic manner. It has not gone back to the people of Auckland. It has changed the royal commission’s recommendations. It has ignored large chunks of them. In fact the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide said that some of the recommendations were heavy-hitting. I invite Rodney Hide to tell the Committee which recommendations he thinks are heavy-hitting and which ones he does not. Thus far we have heard no evidence from Mr Hide as to which recommendations he thinks are heavy-hitting. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I take members back to some comments made by the Hon John Carter about an hour ago when he said as many other National members have said over the past week that consultation has occurred and that indeed it is ongoing. The Minister of Local Government and the Prime Minister have said in question time that this Government is a consulting Government. Part 2 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is the point at which that comment is shown up for the sophistry that it is. Part 2 is the bit that does the business. Part 2 is the bit that creates the super-city. Part 2 is the bit that takes out the second tier of governance—contrary to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance which consulted endlessly—and later on replaces it with in effect a third tier. So instead of having tier one and a slightly weaker tier two we will have tier one and a very weak almost non-existent tier three. That is the architecture of Part 2. It is the point at which the damage is done. 
I ask the Hon John Carter if he would like to take a call—either from the ministerial chair or perhaps later in the debate if he finds himself in his own seat—on why he said that consultation is ongoing. By the time Part 2 passes into law there will be nothing serious to consult about any more. Let us just see whether I can test that statement with some questions. We know that Part 2 does not come into effect until November 2010. Various existing councils will go through a wind-up phase between now and then. What will happen when there is consultation on the other legislation on this issue which the Government has promised will go to a select committee? What will happen when people come along and argue for the restoration of some form of second-tier governance in Auckland? They may not argue for the precise district councils or city councils that we have now but perhaps for a version that was described in some detail by the royal commission. Will the select committee be allowed to hear submissions about the badness of Part 2 or will the chair of the select committee—a special select committee—rule them out of order? What is more if people do come in their droves to say that they want a second tier to offset the superpowers that David Parker talks about in a system with only one tier will the Government be open to reviewing the decision we find in Part 2? If the answer to either of those questions is no then we will not have consultation on the guts of this legislation. 
It is not OK—at least I do not think it is OK—for Government members to say they are busily consulting. But boy are they going through the pretence of it! We know that Auckland City backbenchers are being invited to hold meetings. I do not know who the hell will go because the decisions on the passage of this bill—not on the passage of subsequent bills but on the passage of this bill which are the essential decisions—will have been taken. Perhaps people will go along to express anger but knowing that that is essentially a waste of time they are more likely to stick close to their televisions sets. So what about this word “consultation”? What then will the Government say to the public of Auckland as this legislation quietly goes rotten? What will it say in response to the question of why it did not consult? 
We know that the royal commission sat for months soaked up millions of dollars heard hundreds of submissions and considered matters carefully. We know what it reported and we know that within a week the Government thought it knew better. Yet Government members said—and say—that they are consulting. I am not sure they should say that any more. I think that the more honest approach given Part 2 is to say that they just think differently and that they are not going through the pretence of consultation because they are the Government they have won an election and they have decided it is going to be this way. The royal commission gave them some very interesting and useful findings but its central finding about a balance between a super-city tier one and a second-tier group—all of whom were given names by the royal commission— 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 All evening I have been trying to think of one good thing I could say about the way in which the National Government has been handling the super-city debate and I have come up with something! The only way in which Councillor Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga will focus on his real job is if we disestablish the Auckland City Council. 
There are actually some good things to say about this bill. The establishment of the Auckland Council is the centrepiece of the governance arrangements proposed by the royal commission. The establishment of the council is the essence of the super-city idea; it is being debated in homes in workplaces in public meetings—meetings like the public meetings that Government members are going to have at taxpayers’ expense in the next 2 weeks—in protest marches across Auckland in every suburb of Auckland. This super-city offers the chance for Auckland to make a fresh start to pool our resources so that we can use them intelligently and sustainably to start to plan to use our infrastructure in a coordinated way and to develop our city in a holistic and integrated fashion. The Auckland Council—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have two points of order—[ 
Interruption 
] Now there are three. The first one is that John Hayes just invited you to table your speech. Although this is a robust debate there have been rulings from previous people in the Chair that that is not an appropriate thing to say at this point of time. Do you want to rule on that one first? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is making three points of order. I will listen to all three. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The second point of order is that Mr Hayes has shifted from his bench and has been interjecting fairly consistently throughout the debate. [ 
Interruption 
] We now come to the third of my complaints and that is that the Leader of the House the Hon Gerry Brownlee and Mr Hayes have both interjected during this series of points of order. It is my opinion that that practice seems to be developing in the Committee in particular and as part of the minority I look for your protection so that points of order can be heard in silence. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I am sorry. I am really really sorry to be dobbed in by Parliament’s new head prefect. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Mr Brownlee if you are truly sorry you would consign yourself to staying here until 1 a.m. as fit punishment rather than seeking to get let out early. I say to the Hon Trevor Mallard firstly I did not take it that the member who interjected “you” was meaning the Chair. It was an interjection; it was not part of the debate. I have been letting the debate flow. I prefer to let people give their speeches. I have been exhorting members all night to let the debate flow. We are not reading speeches; we are debating. I think it is a very good debate and very robust. 
As for the member shifting seats everybody has shifted seats tonight. Everybody has gravitated towards this part of the Chamber because this is where the action is and I do not see anything particularly wrong about that. I invite Mr Twyford to continue; he has 3 minutes and 17 seconds left. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. First of all you did not rule on the third leg of the stool in this particular case and that is the question of whether the Leader of the House and Mr Hayes should be interjecting during points of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: You are right; the members should not do that. But they are not the first to have done it tonight. I did not think the infraction was sufficient to tell them off. There have been other comments. Let us have the debate. I give Mr Twyford 3 minutes 17 seconds unless of course there is some reason why I should not. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The last of this series of points of order is that I take offence at being called “head prefect”. Catherine Delahunty was at school with me. She would vouch that there was no chance whatsoever of my being any sort of prefect at school. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I think I would concur with that. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to raise a serious issue in relation to my colleague’s speech—and I am sorry for breaking into his speech. I want to raise an issue about Councillor Sam Peseta Lotu-Iiga. I wonder whether his declaration of his pecuniary interests included his councillor’s remuneration. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. Order is about the order of the House in relation to a Standing Order. The member may feel that that matter is serious but it is not a point of order. For I think the sixth time I invite Mr Twyford to continue his speech. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I regret to dispute your ruling but it is clear that in this particular case a member has a direct pecuniary interest. Someone whose position is being abolished— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member will take his seat. That is not a point of order for the purpose of this debate. Pecuniary interest is not a matter of order for this debate. I invite Mr Twyford to continue his speech. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am reluctant to disagree so strongly with the Chair especially when a particular person is in the Chair but whether someone is eligible to vote in a particular debate is a matter of order. It is very much a matter of order in this House which members are permitted to vote. It is my understanding that where a member has a special interest a particular interest above that of the public or above that of a particular class of individuals then that member’s vote cannot be cast. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: If the member wishes to raise that point he should do it at the time at which voting is about to be undertaken. I will ask the Clerk to investigate the matter and we will come back to it sometime later. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Excuse me; I am still on my feet. That is not a matter on which to interrupt a member’s speech when that member has 3 minutes and 17 seconds left. It is a matter that you should raise at the time that there is a vote. In the meantime I will have the Clerk check and I will come back on it. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Excuse me how does that work? You should go from one side to the other. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Taking points of order is not about going from one side to the other. David Cunliffe had sought to make a point of order before the member did. I simply went in chronological order. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Before we get into that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will hear the Hon David Cunliffe first. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: This point of order is in support of our junior whip’s point of order. It relates to Standing Order 401(f) which in particular asks the Clerk to take into consideration this matter of timing. The Standing Order gives as an example of a contempt or a breach of privilege “as a member failing to declare before participating in the consideration of any item of business any financial interest that the member has in that business:”. It is quite clear that Councillor Lotu-Iiga has a financial interest in the outcome of this legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have just assured the House that I will go through all of these matters in a considered way and I will come back to the House on them. I do not want any more discussion on that at this point. The matter is closed. That is the end of it. I will come back on it at some later point. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I appreciate that you are asking the Clerk to give a ruling under Standing Order 401 and its various subsets so that the House can be clear on something. But I would be very disappointed if you were asking that in the particular case of a member in this House. Pecuniary interests are very very clear. A person has to have a particular pecuniary interest over and above the general interests of everyone else. Every farmer in this House every schoolteacher in this House every health worker in this House would be declaring pecuniary interests left right and centre if that did not prevail— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have just said that I did want to hear anything more on this matter. All the points the member has raised are well understood and will be well taken care of. I want the debate to continue. I do not want to have litigation backwards and forwards about this issue. I want to have some consideration of it and resolve the matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a relatively simple point of order. Both at the end of your ruling before David Cunliffe’s point of order and again during your ruling on that point of order you were criticised by the Leader of the House—once from his bench and once from his feet. It is not a good example. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 12 a.m. to 9 a.m. (Friday)