edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Peters Winston: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
Peters Winston: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:650;Page:18899] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That last statement made in this House by Mr English which would be highly defamatory if it were made outside has to be rebutted. It was Mr Glenn himself on television who said precisely that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: That is a debatable point I am sorry.
Peters Winston: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
Peters Winston: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:650;Page:18895] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Point of order Winston Peters. I have made my ruling though. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Why would you do that if the House is the master of its own destiny? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Then you can ask leave. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am seeking leave because surely those who love the law as I am hearing from members on my right would want the law to be applied fairly. Nick Smith knows he had a trust account to meet his legal costs that was no different from mine. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. Leave has been sought to include the second part of Mr Woolerton’s amendment which refers to the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Is leave granted? No leave is not granted.
Peters Winston: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
Peters Winston: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:650;Page:18895] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Madam Assistant Speaker you have just heard from Mr Hide on a matter raised now as a matter of relevancy in respect of that motion—or the amendment of it—by Bill English. What Mr Hide just said was that the same thing that has happened to Winston Peters happened to Bob Clarkson because the cheque on the diagram he cited ends up going to the National Party and not to Bob Clarkson. We cannot have one law for Winston Peters and one law for everybody else. Nick Smith’s letter today which was dealt with by the Speaker was on a complaint from Mr Dail Jones that he had misled the House some time ago not that he had failed to declare which is what Mr English is trying to construe it as being. Mr English has acknowledged—and I was at the ASEAN conference at the time but I have the  
Hansard 
—that he had a trust fund and that he had made declaration of that. Now if I am to be retrospectively required to do something so must—surely to be fair—Nick Smith. Or are we going to have a situation where there is one law for Winston Peters and one for everybody else? That is why the amendment should stand in the way it is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you Mr Peters. I actually took some consideration and some advice on this as soon we received the motion. The original motion relates to a question of privilege relating to the Rt Hon Winston Peters and his returns of pecuniary interests. Any amendment that is put here must be relevant to the motion it seeks to amend. The problem is as I think the Hon Bill English said that the Privileges Committee deals with one issue one person. If we were to suddenly extend this by adding as a second part of the motion “insert the words the Hon Dr Nick Smith” then we are extending out the motion without it going to the Privileges Committee and having the entire work done that was done with the member in the committee. The motion does not relate to any other member and therefore the second part of Mr Woolerton’s amendment is I declare out of order.
English Bill: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
English Bill: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:650;Page:18894] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise a procedural issue to do with the amendment in the name of Doug Woolerton and ask you to rule whether the amendment is out of order. I refer to the second amendment which states: “insert after ‘order Rt Hon Winston Peters’ ‘the Hon Dr Nick Smith and any other member with relevant interests’.” That is an amendment he is making to the censure motion so if the amendment were to be accepted it would read: “censure the Hon Dr Nick Smith and any other member with relevant interests for knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests;”. I put it to you Madam Assistant Speaker that Parliament has actually devised a process for dealing with matters like this—matters of privilege where a member may have to be censured for knowingly providing false information—and it is called the Privileges Committee. Parliament has instituted it precisely to stop this kind of motion before Parliament being a motion that could censure anybody for anything on a simple majority. 
Today we have seen the Speaker exercise her prerogative to take a complaint look at its merits and decide that it lacks the merit to go to the Privileges Committee. That is exactly what happened in respect of Dr Nick Smith. The letter from the Speaker to Dail Jones MP says: “I have considered your letter concerning a statement by the Hon Dr Nick Smith and have determined that no question of privilege is involved.” I do not believe it was ever the intent of the House that a motion such as this could be used to circumvent the Speaker’s decision—just given today—that there was no merit in the issue that was raised in respect of Dr Nick Smith. So Madam Assistant Speaker I am asking you to consider whether the amendment that censures not just Dr Nick Smith but any other member with relevant interests—whatever that means—amounts to an open-ended censure motion being put to the House. It is entirely inappropriate and should be ruled out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you.
Woolerton R Doug: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
Woolerton R Doug: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:650;Page:18885] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to take a very short call to propose an amendment to the motion. I move  
That the words “censure Rt Hon Winston Peters for knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests” be deleted and the following words inserted: “note that several members of Parliament had legal fighting funds and did not disclose donations to these as it was unclear that this was required”.  
I have a further amendment to insert after “order Rt Hon Winston Peters” “Hon Dr Nick Smith and any other member with relevant interests”. Thank you.
English Bill: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
English Bill: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:650;Page:18885] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Madam Speaker the House would probably like some clarification about the process—whether we speak— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The normal process is that we would go around with each party but as the Green Party member did not rise I went to you. But the Green member has now risen— 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am quite happy to concede. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: —to speak.
Brown Peter: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
Brown Peter: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:650;Page:18880] 
PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. At the conclusion of this debate we will take a vote and it is a very serious issue to my mind. As you are well aware I wrote to you and asked that it be a personal vote in the interests of justice. You declined that and I just wondered whether you could spare a few moments of the House’s time to explain why it was declined. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking leave to have a personal vote at the end of this debate? 
PETER BROWN 
: If that is the option I have then I seek leave for the vote to be taken on this debate to be a personal vote. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Yes the member is quite right; he did write to me. I did consult with parties and the request was declined. But leave has been sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:650;Page:18877] 
11.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: Does she stand by her statement that “country-of-origin labelling does not serve a food safety purpose”; if so why? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister for Food Safety) 
:  
Yes; because all food for sale in New Zealand is required to meet New Zealand standards no matter where it comes from. A label that advises the country of origin of the whole food or of each or some of the ingredients does not in itself provide information on the safety of the food but provides information only on the origin of the food. That being said I say the Government fully supports voluntary country-of-origin labelling as a service to consumers. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is it therefore the Minister’s opinion that New Zealand and China have equivalent food safety standards? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I should say that high-risk foods that come to New Zealand from anywhere are in fact monitored by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. So it is not actually a question of the levels of standards that apply in individual countries; it is whether the food is up to the New Zealand standard when it arrives here. In that respect it does not matter whether it comes from China or Timbuctoo. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister tell us what routine tests New Zealand applies for detecting melamine in dairy products imported from China; if there are none how can she deny New Zealand consumers the right to know where their food comes from so they can make their own decisions? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No country routinely checks dairy products for melamine. This has been a situation that has arisen in China in respect of the addition of melamine in the chain of supply and as I made the point the other day one of the products we found that might potentially have had dairy product from China in it had come via Australia. The product did not in fact have melamine in it so I hasten to reassure people about that. But the product had the country-of-origin labelling that is required in Australia and that labelling said: “Made from domestic and imported products.” and therefore it did not assist in identifying whether the product came from China.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:650;Page:18876] 
9.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she agree that the principles of British justice which have evolved in New Zealand still apply in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. New Zealand has adopted through history and common law many of the justice principles first articulated in the British justice system. Over time many of these principles have been refined in New Zealand legislation and judicial decisions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it one of those most basic fundamental principles that one cannot be convicted of an offence that is not in the law? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it one of those basic fundamental principles that there cannot be in a case retrospective legislation or retrospective rules and then justice? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I believe that is correct. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it also fundamental to our laws and our system that an offence is only applicable when the law or rules have been in fact put in place? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Again the member is correct. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister regard that as being game set and match? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: All the issues the member has raised I gave affirmative answers to. If that is game set and match then it must be.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:650;Page:18874] 
7.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What Government initiatives come into force next week that will benefit New Zealanders? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 From 1 October New Zealanders will experience the benefit of a new low tax rate of 12.5 percent the lifting of tax thresholds for workers on middle and high incomes and increases to the Working for Families tax credits. These are just a few of the initiatives of a responsible Labour-led Government planning for a strong and sustainable future for all New Zealanders. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Who will benefit from these initiatives? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: All workers will pay less tax after next Wednesday but in particular these initiatives will benefit those on low incomes families with children and superannuitants. Recent research shows that the gap between rich and poor in our country has reduced for the first time in over two decades. The 1 October changes continue our Government’s focus on delivering fairness.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:650;Page:18868] 
3.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any recent reports relating to investment in rail? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. I have reports showing widespread public support for the Government’s decision to purchase the rail operator and to establish KiwiRail. I have also seen reports showing public concern about National’s refusal to give a firm commitment not to sell off KiwiRail at some point in the future. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What other reports has he seen relating to investment in rail? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen various reports showing that in 2002 and 2003 as Minister of Finance I was asked both written and oral questions by and received Official Information Act requests from Mr John Key relating to the Government’s decision to invest in the rail network. Last night I saw a report showing that during that time contrary to his previous assurances to the House and the New Zealand public and despite making no disclosures of interest Mr Key was purchasing shares in Tranz Rail. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell Parliament why he paid for Toll Rail almost twice as much as the best official advice he could get on its valuation and does that mean that because it is other people’s money he is happy to be reckless with $350 million? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As he sits next to a past money trader the member should not talk about being reckless with other people’s money. But coming to the point of the matter I say that half of the purchase price for the Toll operation was to buy it out of a contract that would have led to ever-growing subsidies being paid to an Australian operator that was repatriating profits back to Australia. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Minister of Finance seen any reports that when New Zealand Rail was sold by the National Government it sold it for less than the price of the wooden sleepers on the tracks? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is certainly correct. The value of the business was vastly greater than was paid for it at the time but subsequent asset-stripping occurred by a succession of foreign-dominated owners. Only New Zealand ownership and Government ownership with a long-term programme of investment will realise the full potential of rail. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What reports has he received on investment in the rail network as opposed to that in the rail operator? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen reports that show that just like it did with the purchase of the rail operator National initially opposed the purchase of the rail network. Of course it is now apparent that at the time that Mr Key was leading the opposition to that investment he had been trading in shares in Tranz Rail.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18792] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Public Transport Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time.
Turei Metiria: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18784] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I will start the Greens’ contribution to the third reading of the Public Transport Management Bill by giving some thanks particularly to the MMP parties—to the Maori Party to ACT to Jim Anderton’s Progressive party to Taito Phillip Field and indeed to the Labour Party for supporting the Greens’ option C proposals which were debated in the Committee last night. It is important for the public to note that these are the kinds of times when MMP truly delivers its benefits for the public of New Zealand. What we have done with this collective of parties in Parliament has been to make sure that there is a real constructive option for councils when dealing with the public transport needs that are so clear in their cities and in Auckland in particular. 
Probably I ought to give some thanks to National members too for spending all of their time in the debate on the bill in this House on giving the Greens the credit for option C. Of course we are most happy to accept credit for option C because it is in fact the best outcome for the community and for public transport. At times and at this time in particular when our most vulnerable communities are suffering from the rising cost of food and fuel prices alternatives must be made available to them so that they can get out and do their daily business in an easy financially useful accessible and cheap way. Option C and this bill will provide that option for our communities. We are absolutely proud that option C has been supported by Parliament. 
Option C was supported by all of the Auckland councils by all but one regional council and by those operators in the public transport arena who were unable to break through the legacy of incumbency and monopolistic behaviour established by the previous National Government’s policies on public transport which were developed in earlier times. Those policies essentially entrenched the capacity for commercial operators to continue to lock out other operators from the public transport sector. We are very pleased to be able to break the monopolistic policy that was proposed and supported by National many years ago and to be able to reform and transform our public transport system into one that truly works for the community as a whole. 
I think that enough has been said on this bill and that that is all that needs to be said. We are very pleased that it is passing into law. We are very pleased to have delivered this outcome for the community of Auckland in particular and also for other communities around the country. I am pleased to see this bill passing into law.
Williamson Maurice: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Williamson Maurice: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18774] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have the Order Paper from Wednesday 10 September. If there is a new Order Paper out I would like to see a copy of it. I have not seen it—it has not been made available to us—but there may be one. On the Order Paper I have after the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill there is the Public Transport Management Bill Committee stage only and then the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I do not know how members are supposed to function in a House with an Order Paper that is supposed to tell us what the order of legislation is but does not. The third reading of the Public Transport Management Bill is not listed on this Order Paper nor has there been an Order Paper printed for us to see a change. I would really like to know how that process works.
Cullen Michael: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18774] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I realise the member is a relatively new member but the motion moved last night was for urgency to include the remaining stages of this bill. It is a motion that has been moved in that form in this Parliament I think one could say since time immemorial and it enables the House to move from the Committee stage to the third reading. That is the effect of urgency apart from extended sitting times. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Did you publish the urgency motion? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for raising that Mr Williamson. That has been covered.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18774] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to omit and substitute words in clause 2 is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee of the whole House.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18774] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The bill is set down for third reading forthwith.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18773] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 47; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18773] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 248 in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 2 be agreed to.
Barnett Tim: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Barnett Tim: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18773] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18772] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Wong Pansy: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18767] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Last night we had started to debate the title which is the Public Transport Management Bill. I suggest that a more appropriate title would be the “Public Deception Bill”. The reason for that is very clear. When the introductory version of this bill was brought back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee after a round of consultation the great majority of the submitters had opted for a tightening of control on public transport and for giving authorities more say in terms of obtaining information from commercial operators etc. Even the Government stated in the foreword of the bill that it supported that move instead of going towards the extreme option C which is that a regional council or authority can remove commercial operators from bus services that do not require a ratepayer or taxpayer subsidy. It was very clear in the introduction to the legislation that adopting that option would undermine business confidence so we thought it was good that Cabinet had signed off the bill in the form it had when it was introduced to the House and referred to the select committee. 
But here we go in the Committee stage away from the submitters and the Labour Government is actually backing Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons from the Greens to reintroduce option C which has been rejected by Cabinet and the majority of the submitters. That is incredible. Not only has the Government reintroduced an option that should not be there but also it is trying to rush this bill through under urgency. This legislation could be used to confiscate private property rights. Many bus operators who came before the select committee argued and demonstrated that they have worked long and hard to build up their businesses but under this last-minute change the legislation will give regional councils and some public transport planners a free hand to organise and dictate how things should be going.
Hayes John: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hayes John: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18500] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 If we want to build affordable houses then I am afraid I have to disagree with the Minister. Even if one is living in Queenstown Wellington Nelson or Auckland and one is earning a substantial income house prices are very substantial. One could be living in Eketahuna earning $12 an hour and not be able to— 
Debate interrupted.
Sio Su'a William: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18495] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) 
: 
 It is 25 minutes to 12 o’clock so I will keep this rather short. The working public of New Zealand who are listening to this debate could be forgiven if they feel somewhat confused after listening to the National Party contribution on this significant Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill. 
The public will have heard speakers from the National Party attempt to portray empathy for the local citizens of New Zealand but the truth is that those members do not care. They do not care about people who are struggling with private rentals. They do not care about families who want to get into their first home. The truth of the matter for those who are listening is that National just does not care about ordinary New Zealanders. We can look at 1990 when National was the Government. National Party members were the ones who sold off the State houses of New Zealand. They were the ones who sold them off to their friends. They were the ones who refused to maintain the stock that we now have to rebuild—that is what the Labour Government is doing. 
I acknowledge the Hon Maryan Street because she is a Minister of Housing who is showing leadership in difficult times. She is a Minister who is showing innovation by coming forward with the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill. Labour believes that access to decent affordable housing is fundamental to the health and well-being of families and communities. It is a basic human right of New Zealanders that the National Party does not seem to consider to be important. 
The bill provides new powers to enable territorial authorities to increase the supply of affordable housing in their local area. It does not try to impose anything on local authorities; it is an enabling bill about working in partnership with local government throughout this country. “Partnership” is a word that the National Party ought to be familiar with; it ought to learn from this Government. This is a Government that is prepared to work in partnership with like-minded parties in this House. 
I join the Hon Maryan Street in commending this bill to members of this House.
Simich Clem: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18492] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted.
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18492] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 47; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18492] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18492] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Barnett Tim: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Barnett Tim: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18491] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18492] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Sio Su'a William: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18490] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Fenton Darien: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Fenton Darien: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18489] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18482] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18482] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Dyson Ruth: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18482] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18475] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18475] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maryan Street to clause 27 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (7) “must” after “the territorial authority”.
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18475] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to.
Sio Su'a William: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18475] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hobbs Marian: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18474] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call Tim Groser I just want to make something very clear to the previous speaker Jacqui Dean who I think misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that I wanted her to focus on the wording of the bill on the intention in this bill and not to focus on alternatives that are not part of this bill. Speaker’s ruling 104/1 states: “Consideration by the committee of the whole House is the nuts and bolts stage in which a bill is considered [part by part] and detail by detail …”. It is not the wide things. That speaker did actually deal with that. But that was my warning before people take off into the wide blue yonder of housing affordability in general.
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18468] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill be read a second time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18454] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the Real Estate Agents Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Bill read a third time.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:649;Page:18452] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I simply sought leave for the House to discharge all bills listed in the urgency motion at the conclusion of this third reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:649;Page:18451] 
Business of the House 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave for all bills on the urgency motion to be discharged at the end of this third reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
Sue Moroney 
: What is the point of order sorry? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member care to repeat it? I do not think the whips heard. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: They were not listening. 
Hon Annette King 
: We have to be allowed to hear it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I did. The member was on the phone. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not hear the point of order. I was just wondering whether the member could repeat it. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You cannot have a point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is a point of order on the floor please. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. I have a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I sought leave— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Brownlee I am on my feet. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I sought leave. You cannot override the Standing Orders like that. You must put the leave. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Brownlee there is a point of order on the floor on my right. The member is perfectly entitled to do that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What Standing Order gives her the right for that? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Point of order the honourable member Sue Moroney. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You cannot have a point of order when you already have a point of order. I sought leave—your only option is to put the leave. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Brownlee please be seated. I am on my feet. You know the rules—you are a longstanding member and you know precisely what the situation is. There is a thing— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You cannot take a point of order when there is a point of order on the floor. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is such a thing in the House as common courtesy. The members did not hear what you said. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I will say it again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I think that might help. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I simply sought leave for the House to discharge all bills listed in the urgency motion at the conclusion of this third reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.
Paraone Pita: Business of the House 
Paraone Pita: Business of the House 
[Volume:649;Page:18451] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not hear the point of order. I was just wondering whether the member could repeat it.
Moroney Sue: Business of the House 
Moroney Sue: Business of the House 
[Volume:649;Page:18451] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You cannot have a point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is a point of order on the floor please. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. I have a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I sought leave— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Brownlee I am on my feet. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I sought leave. You cannot override the Standing Orders like that. You must put the leave. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Brownlee there is a point of order on the floor on my right. The member is perfectly entitled to do that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What Standing Order gives her the right for that? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Point of order the honourable member Sue Moroney. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You cannot have a point of order when you already have a point of order. I sought leave—your only option is to put the leave. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Brownlee please be seated. I am on my feet. You know the rules—you are a longstanding member and you know precisely what the situation is. There is a thing— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You cannot take a point of order when there is a point of order on the floor. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is such a thing in the House as common courtesy. The members did not hear what you said. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I will say it again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I think that might help.
Robertson H V Ross: Business of the House 
Robertson H V Ross: Business of the House 
[Volume:649;Page:18451] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
Sue Moroney 
: What is the point of order sorry? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member care to repeat it? I do not think the whips heard. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: They were not listening. 
Hon Annette King 
: We have to be allowed to hear it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I did. The member was on the phone.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:649;Page:18451] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave for all bills on the urgency motion to be discharged at the end of this third reading.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18441] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18441] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The amendment from the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 2(2) is now ruled out of order because it is inconsistent with the previous decision of the Committee.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18441] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18438] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18438] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18437] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.