edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15562] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of Phil Twyford to omit clause 31 be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15561] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 182 in the name of Sue Kedgley to omit clause 29 be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15561] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 182 in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 23 be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15561] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of Phil Twyford to omit clause 23 be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15561] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 17 be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15562] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of Phil Twyford to omit clause 33 be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15561] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of Phil Twyford to omit clause 14 be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15560] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of Phil Twyford to omit clause 12 be agreed to.
Auchinvole Chris: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15556] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will just say that most members have been focused on the bill and this is the most substantial part of it. I am prepared to let this debate go on a little longer but Part 2 which follows is much more narrow and there will be a narrower debate.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15560] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of Phil Twyford to omit clause 11 be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15560] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 182 in the name of Sue Kedgley to omit clause 8 be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15560] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 8 be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15560] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 182 in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 6 be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15559] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 182 in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 5 be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15559] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 181 in the name of Gareth Hughes to clause 5 be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15559] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of Phil Twyford to omit clause 5 be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15559] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 4 be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15562] 
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; United Future 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 182 in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 31 be agreed to.
Calder Cam: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Calder Cam: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15559] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Goodhew Jo: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15633] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 If ever there was an opportunity to see the philosophical differences between members on that side of the House and members on this side now is the time. I will not spend a lot of time on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) because I think a lot of it has been said but the one thing that I want to finish on is very simply— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I know that there is a degree of strong feeling about this bill but a constant barrage is out of order. Members should look at Speaker’s ruling 63/4. It does not stop members from making a point but a constant barrage is disorderly. 
JO GOODHEW 
: Thank you for your assistance Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to put a very simple point on the record. Members on this side of the House believe in rational thought. We believe in people taking responsibility for themselves. We believe that people who go into business want to protect their businesses and that people who are in the business of looking after young children albeit for just a short period of time will run police checks on the people who work for them. It does not need to be regulated or legislated. They will make sure they know how to give first aid; it does not require a law. Members on this side of the House unlike members on the other side of the House know that it will happen without those people being told to do it. That is probably a very good place to finish.
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:660;Page:15593] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table “Capital and Coast GP practice fees” which includes the latest increase of a general practitioner practice in Mana which has gone up by $7.50. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member indicate the source of the document? 
Hon Annette King 
: It is the Capital and Coast District Health Board’s own publication. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Tremain Chris: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15580] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Wagner Nicky: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Wagner Nicky: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15553] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15573] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. With respect I want to raise two matters with you. There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing over the schedules and you have made a number of rulings. You ruled against Mr Jones in his first call only to reverse that. Mr Jones sought a second call. He has had only one call in—
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15574] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Hide Rodney: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15546] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I want to correct some of the statements that have been made by Labour members. 
Chris Hipkins 
: They’re factual. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No I am sorry they are false. First of all Mr Twyford said that no council supported the clause on core services. This is simply untrue. For example Rangitikei District Council officials advised me that the council thinks it is helpful to highlight in legislation those core services that councils must have particular regard for. I am sorry but the Labour members must have been asleep during discussion on that one. Indeed Wellington— 
Phil Twyford 
: How many supported it? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Twyford now changes the debate. He said none earlier and he misled Parliament. When we come to Wellington City Council I am advised that the council supported the clause in its current form. I think it would be helpful for this debate on the important area of local government if Labour actually concentrated on some accuracy.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:15562] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of Phil Twyford to omit clause 32 be agreed to.
Quinn Paul: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
Quinn Paul: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15371] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to stand to support the Maori Purposes Bill because this is just another step in the continuing journey of this Government’s contribution to extend the tools for and the capability of Maori development. It is in the spirit of the extraordinary work that this Government is doing to advance Maori causes across the disciplines of economics and commerce and in educational growth. I look forward to deliberating on this bill and hearing contributions during the course of the select committee’s consideration of it. Thank you.
Turei Metiria: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
Turei Metiria: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15369] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I will take a short call on the Maori Purposes Bill. The Green Party will be supporting this bill. It has been very special to hear the stories of Pukepuke Tangiora and the issues surrounding why her estate her land and her legacy are part of this legislation. 
The only issue the Greens have concerns the Maori Fisheries Act and I was on the select committee that considered that legislation. We just want to make sure that this is a genuine oversight and that there are no unintended consequences particularly for smaller iwi on whom this change may or may not have a significant impact. They are often the ones who are most forgotten and left out in issues around Maori fisheries. With that I reiterate that the Green Party will be supporting this bill and we are pleased to do so.
Jones Shane: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
Jones Shane: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15371] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Nga mihi nunui ki a tatou i tenei po. As I give this short but very important speech I would like to acknowledge the presence of very notable identities from Kaitaia in the gallery this evening. Amongst other things the Maori Purposes Bill—and this has been conveniently overlooked and ignored by Hone Harawira’s and Paul Quinn’s contributions the content of which was inversely related to the size of the problems confronting Maoridom—isolates outstanding challenges in relation to the implementation of the Maori fisheries settlement which a number of us realised— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted.
Calder Cam: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Calder Cam: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15357] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. Do the crime and do the time: that is the received wisdom and given that the State has the miscreant in custody at the time that sentencing is passed that is what happens. Our Department of Corrections does a wonderful job and many are the prisoners who receive drug and alcohol counselling or instruction in literacy and numeracy during the course of their sentence. For lesser crimes of course imprisonment is not an appropriate sentence and then do the crime and pay the fine is an axiom that is unfortunately often honoured more in the breach than in reality. A staggering $778 million of reparations fines other monetary penalties and court costs remain unpaid. Over 80 percent of that extraordinary mountain of money around $640 million is fines for traffic-related matters. 
The National-led Government believes this situation is untenable and we are setting out to do something about it. As John Mortimer observed: “No brilliance is needed in the law. Nothing but common sense and relatively clean finger nails.” I am pleased to report that during the consideration of this bill the Law and Order Committee as far as I was able to assess displayed consummate common sense cooperation bordering on collegiality a precious commodity in that committee and fastidious personal presentation. It is therefore a good tranche of law. 
This bill continues National’s commitment to working towards accountability. The bill will ensure court-ordered payments and reparations to victims are paid sooner thus continuing National’s focus on a more victim-based justice system. I commend this bill to the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:668;Page:15348] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday 17 November and Thursday 18 November 2010 and for questions to be lodged in the normal manner pursuant to Standing Order 372. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Goudie Sandra: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15352] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I commend the excellent Minister for Courts the Hon Georgina te Heuheu for bringing the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill to the House. I also acknowledge the excellent work done by Rick Barker as Minister for Courts in the previous Government. I can say that it has been a pleasure as chair of the Law and Order Committee to go through this process in a very collegial way—one of the very few occasions of that I might add—and I acknowledge the work on all sides. I was also very impressed with the officials—in particular our tall slim young man with glasses. I thought he did an excellent job. In fact I commend all the officials for the great work that they did. I was very very impressed. It really is a pleasure to work with people who know what they are talking about. 
This bill went through its processes quite well and some very sensible suggestions were put forward for change. It is a very worthwhile bill. It is something that people have wanted to see changed in some way so that we were not wiping all those thousands of dollars of fines. I applaud the incentivisation of fine payments and the proactive nature of this bill. I think most of the other aspects of the bill have been covered. I can see this bill bringing about a very very positive outcome in the future where we will see people being more proactive and responsible for the fines they have incurred.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:668;Page:15348] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:668;Page:15347] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the second reading of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill the first reading of the Maori Purposes Bill the interrupted second reading and Committee stage of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) the second reading and Committee stage of the Holidays Amendment Bill the passing through their remaining stages of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Child and Family Protection Bill and any bills into which they may be divided the Committee stage of the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill and the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill and the second reading of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill.  
That is an ambitious list which the Opposition is saying could take us right through until some time on Sunday afternoon. In fact Parliament cannot sit on a Sunday afternoon. I have given the House a previous assurance that we will be lifting at 6 o’clock on Thursday. The intention to take urgency this week was notified some months ago. Although the content of the urgency motion has a number of bills that are controversial it is largely driven out of the fact that we have just 11 House days left until the end of the year. If we take today as being the day for the rest of the week it gives us about 9 House days until the end of the year. There is a degree of urgency for the Government in wanting to progress bills. Some of these are widely supported; others will be more controversial. Of course Parliament will have the time to give those bills the scrutiny required. But of course we will have no repetition at all in those Committee stages because of the new commitment we have from the Opposition parties.
Vote: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15347] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Hayes John: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Third Reading 
Hayes John: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15340] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I say to the people of Auckland that that was a list MP looking for a seat. That was a list MP who has failed to get a seat and he is criticising a Minister of long standing who has been able to get a seat and win election after election. I say to the people of Auckland and also to the people of Wainuiomata Days Bay Petone Lower Hutt and Upper Hutt that their member of Parliament got up in this House this afternoon and wrongly opposed this Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. 
The Rugby World Cup will be the greatest event that New Zealand has ever seen. There will be 85000 visitors coming here and as our Labour colleagues have pointed out there will be a television audience of about 4 billion people watching it. This is the opportunity to showcase New Zealand to the world as a great place to live and to do business. 
This afternoon in the House various Opposition speakers have asserted that a Minister could override any decision of the Rugby World Cup Authority. That is not correct. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s not true! The member’s reading out the Minister’s speech! 
JOHN HAYES 
: That is not correct “Mr Duck”; no it is not true. The Minister following consultation with at least two other Ministers—two other Ministers—can make a final decision on only the most urgent application and then only in the period from 1 July 2011 until the end of the tournament. We hope the Minister will not be called on to exercise that power but given its nature it is entirely appropriate for that power to be exercised by a democratically accountable Minister. Thank you.
King Colin: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
King Colin: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15324] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak in the first reading of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3). I must concede that earlier speakers have canvassed this subject very well. I shall take only a short call. I certainly look forward to this bill coming to the Primary Production Committee so that we can glean the value out of the select committee submissions. While I am on my feet I will talk about how enthusiastic this Government is about aquaculture how focused it is on environmental sustainability and how aware it is when looking back of the impracticability of some of the other attempts to sort out the aquaculture industry. 
It is probably quite appropriate to see where all this started. In the 1970s a lot of the land-based farms in the Marlborough Sounds were finding the going very tough. With innovation they saw an opportunity to farm green-lipped mussels in the sounds and the rest is history. A wonderful book called  
Lines in the water 
 was published which celebrates the achievement of aquaculture in the Marlborough Sounds. 
One point I will make is that we are not necessarily talking about great endless hectares of water space being used to realise the $1 billion. It is quite clear that if the science is done and the water space is identified as being appropriate then salmon farming could double the financial returns in the Marlborough Sounds by actually reducing the overall areas. But the point we learnt as a select committee from what happened in South Australia is that one must do the science. One must identify the areas and then one has to look for a very simple but responsible framework in order for sustainable aquaculture to occur. 
There are very exciting opportunities. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research is doing very successful research into hapuka and their growth rates are very similar to those of salmon. With regard to this bill I see that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture wants us to report it back on 27 April 2011 which should give adequate time for us to test much of the thinking that is in the bill. I know that a lot of candle hours have been spent in anguishing over the details and complexity of such things as how to apportion the 20 percent that is due—the contemporary arrangements relating to Maori. That issue has to be looked at and I am sure that there are far better solutions in the second generation of stepping forward in aquaculture. 
I will leave it there. I am fully in support of this legislation. As the MP for Kaikoura which encompasses the Marlborough Sounds and probably some 1700 kilometres of coastline I realise not only the sensitivities relating to this legislation but also the enormous opportunities to harvest economic gain. I commend this bill to the House.
Goudie Sandra: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15327] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I applaud the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture Phil Heatley and his officials for the magnificent bill that they have brought to the House because at last somebody is doing something to clean up the dog’s breakfast in regard to aquaculture. Labour had 9 long years in Government and did not do it. This can and should be a billion-dollar industry. We need the export dollars we need the tax revenue and we need the jobs. Why? Because there is an ever-clamouring demand for more dollars for health education and policing and we will get that only by having the tax revenue and having the export dollars. As Conor English said it is an excellent opportunity. There is no free lunch. We need these jobs and we need that sort of revenue. But we will always get those people who try to oppose that type of thing. We will get people who march against things like the  
Hobbit 
 movies and the like. They march against the food industry yet it is the food industry the agriculture and aquaculture sectors in New Zealand that will have the opportunity with a bit of support and vision from the population of New Zealand and of course from the Opposition to make a real difference to the economy of this country which we so desperately need. 
I applaud the Minister and his officials for the work they have done because it has been difficult. It is quite a vexed issue. But the trip that the Primary Production Committee took to Australia showed quite clearly where the roadblocks were. If we look at Australia we see that it is the state that sets the areas and all a person who wants to get into the industry has to do is get a lease to fish and a licence to occupy. It is nice and simple. Here in New Zealand what is the process? They have to go through a plan change which means consultation; they have to lodge a plan change document with again consultation and hearings including the Environment Court; and they have to repeat that process for a resource consent and then repeat it for an undue adverse effects test with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. If that was not bogged down I do not know what was. It is absolutely no surprise that nothing has been happening in the sector for many many years. It is just wonderful to see that we have a bill here that will redress some of the concerns that have been raised and make some substantial progress in moving this industry forward. I certainly applaud it.
Dean Jacqui: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Third Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15332] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the third reading of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. The member opposite whose name I cannot recall made a contribution. He talked about the possible power of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to have a historic home demolished days before the Rugby World Cup. As fanciful a notion as that is and as far away from reality as one could possibly get in the context of this argument when I raised the question very much an eleventh-hour objection typically I was just wondering. It is never good to think on one’s feet. That is why we have select committees; to talk about issues like this. But I wonder whether the fact that the Historic Places Act has an effect on historic homes might limit the particular fantasy scenario that that member has promoted. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s not one of the Acts; it’s excluded. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: It is indeed what the Act has said. 
John Hayes 
: No you’ve ducked that one. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Yes ducked and it is too late. I am afraid that the fantasy has been disproven just like that. 
It is probably just as well that that fantasy scenario has now been disproven by that member across the House because this bill has as its intention the smooth and proper running of the Rugby World Cup tournament in 2011. I have to say that with Sonny Bill Williams on the team now I think we are going to do pretty well. Those passes the other night were something to behold. The whole of New Zealand is now excited by the prospect of the All Blacks turning out for a marvellous tournament which will be supported by the provisions in this bill. 
There are just a couple of issues that have been raised. One of them is the Rugby World Cup liquor licensing provisions. If we have a look at what the bill does for liquor licensing we see that it does not change the criteria for liquor licences. It does not make it easier to get a liquor licence. All it does is simply speed up the process give the police some extra powers and give extra considerations like having to have food available for purchase and having to supply free water. For the life of me I cannot understand why Labour had to have a conscience vote on this bill in the Committee of the whole House. Can anybody tell me why Labour had to have a conscience vote on liquor licensing? 
Hon Members 
: They were having a coup. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well yes I know. Some were for some were against and some abstained because they simply did not know. The rest of New Zealand is excited about the Rugby World Cup. This Government is excited about the provisions in this bill. Labour—well it simply does not know where it is. Thank you.
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15328] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Primary Production Committee consider the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 27 April 2011. 
Motion agreed to.
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15321] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 In my introductory speech I should have pointed out that I wanted the Primary Production Committee to consider the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) and that the committee will report its findings to the House on or before 27 April 2011. I would like to inform the House of that and I seek leave to do so. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15304] 
12. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: Is he satisfied that the process for awarding the ultra-fast broadband tender is appropriate; if so why? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 As I replied to the member’s exact same question last Thursday yes; and for the same reasons. 
Clare Curran 
: Has he received any advice or expressions of concern from industry stakeholders relating to a potential or actual conflict of interest in Murray Milner’s role as director of Crown Fibre Holdings at the same time that he was a consultant to Huawei Technologies a likely bidder for equipment and services on ultra-fast broadband; if so what is the detail of that advice or concern? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No I have not received any concern in that respect. I have sought advice in response to the member’s questions from the chair of Crown Fibre Holdings and I am satisfied that Crown Fibre Holdings has robust and comprehensive procedures in place regarding conflicts of interest which all board members and staff are required to comply with. I note again that Huawei Technologies is not a respondent in the ultra-fast broadband initiative but a technology provider. Crown Fibre Holdings will not be entering into agreements with technology providers; that is an issue for the Crown’s partners to manage. 
Clare Curran 
: Did he meet with Chinese technology company Huawei Technologies during his recent trip to China leading an information and communications technology delegation; if so whom did he meet with on what occasions and what was discussed? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Absolutely. I led the trade delegation and we met with a number of very large Chinese telecommunications companies including China Unicom China Mobile China Telecom and Huawei Technologies. I met with Huawei Technologies’ chief executive officer and founder Mr Ren as part of a visit to its Shenzhen headquarters. The purpose of the visit was to showcase the New Zealand companies that were travelling with the trade mission I was leading and give the opportunity to build contacts and relationships with Huawei Technologies which is one of the world’s largest telecommunications technology providers. Although Huawei took the opportunity to show me some of its product range neither the New Zealand urban nor rural broadband initiatives were specifically discussed.
Kaye Nikki: Governor-General Bill — Third Reading 
Kaye Nikki: Governor-General Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15305] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on the Governor-General Bill. The purpose of this legislation is to provide simpler financial arrangements for the support of the Governor-General and his or her programme. The other major purpose of this legislation is to provide greater transparency and to ensure that we have a simpler regime than the present regime. 
As we know the main provisions within this legislation are about creating a new funding structure for the Governor-General. This is really about ensuring that we have greater transparency in the funding structure of the office of the Governor-General and this stems from the Law Commission report that was previously tabled in the House. The present exemption for the Governor-General’s salary from income tax will be removed. Members on this side of the House believe that there is no longer a justification for this exemption. Successive Governors-General have also requested that it be discontinued. The bill also removes certain outdated restrictions on the availability of the annuity paid to former Governors-General and their surviving spouses or partners. The annuity recognises the significant role played by a Governor-General’s spouse or partner in supporting the office holder. 
During the progress of other speeches on this legislation what has become very clear is the recognition of the current Governor-General and the huge contribution that he has made to New Zealand. We have been very fortunate in this country to have had a number of very good Governors-General from a range of backgrounds but this bill is about bringing the office of the Governor-General into a much more modern arrangement. We know that the office of the Governor-General is a symbolic connection between the community and the State. We know that the Law Commission made a number of other recommendations within the report on the modernisation of the office as well. In terms of this legislation it is important that we recognise it is vital to have this transparency given the importance of the office of Governor-General in New Zealand. 
I am very pleased to support this legislation and the modernisation of the arrangements for the office of the Governor-General. I reiterate my support for the huge contribution that the current Governor-General has made during his time in office. I think it is really important that this bill is supported by members across the House as it will separate the arrangements relating to the Governor-General from those providing for Ministers and MPs and it will better reflect the constitutional boundaries that are so important for the independence of this office. I am pleased to commend this legislation to the House.
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15301] 
9. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What announcements has she made about Canterbury Enhanced Taskforce Green funding? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
on behalf of the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Last week we announced funding of $96000 to support the first Canterbury Enhanced Taskforce Green project in Waimakariri. The project will support clean-up and restoration work on the Waikuku Beach Reserve needed as a result of the damage caused from the Canterbury earthquake. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: How will this funding support the Waimakariri project? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The Canterbury Enhanced Taskforce Green funding will subsidise the wages of a supervisor and five staff working on the project. We are working with all local councils to identify other potential Enhanced Taskforce Green projects around the region.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Pansy Wong—Ministerial Resignation 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Pansy Wong—Ministerial Resignation 
[Volume:668;Page:15305] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Pete Hodgson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the resignation of the Minister for Ethnic Affairs and the Minister of Women’s Affairs the Hon Pansy Wong. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Not all ministerial resignations will lead to an urgent debate. In this case I am not persuaded to accept the application. Although there is ministerial responsibility for the acceptance of a resignation of a Minister the administrative responsibility in this case lies with the Speaker. The issues that led to Mrs Wong’s resignation are not ones to which ministerial responsibility attaches. Parliamentary travel entitlements are funded through Vote Parliamentary Service and administered by the Parliamentary Service. It is the Speaker who must answer for them. Furthermore there is a Parliamentary Service investigation under way. This needs to run its course. To justify an urgent debate there must be an element of urgency to require a matter to be debated immediately; otherwise the scope for urgent debates would be enormous. The urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. It is not a vehicle for addressing matters that are the responsibility of the Speaker. The application is therefore declined.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15298] 
6. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all statements made by him and on his behalf on the matters which led to Pansy Wong’s resignation? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the honourable member I say that excessive interjection from the back of the House is unnecessary. I think the member knows whom I am looking at. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf in the House last Wednesday by Bill English who said: “the member’s allegations are disgraceful they have impugned a member of Parliament in a way that is absolutely unnecessary and unjustified.”; if so does he still maintain that revealing Pansy Wong’s misuse of taxpayer funding has been unnecessary? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Given the facts known at the time the Acting Prime Minister made those statements yes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does he stand by his statement on  
Breakfast 
 this morning in relation to the Hon Pete Hodgson: “If he’d asked a question that was the right one I’d at least um even—even reluctantly give him some credit.”; if so is he suggesting that if the public want transparency around his Ministers’ misuse of taxpayers’ funds that depends on the right questions being asked rather than his Ministers’ honesty? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes but I regret saying “um”. I know that my mother brought me up better than that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does he stand by his statements on Radio New Zealand this morning when he said that he advised Pansy Wong not to talk until a Parliamentary Service investigation into her use of subsidised international travel has been completed because “MPs need to be able to answer questions honestly truthfully and hopefully directly.”; if so why when Pansy Wong is the only person in possession of the all the facts is she not allowed to share those facts with the media and the public? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: To the best of my knowledge she is not but the Parliamentary Service report will actually prove what the facts are. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does he stand by the statement of his spokesperson Kevin Taylor calling Pete Hodgson—I abbreviate—an “f-wit” for questioning the legitimacy of Pansy Wong’s travel and business affairs? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Mr Hodgson did not question the travel. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps we could have a vote on that question in Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just ask the House—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet and there will be no further interjection. The House will settle down. These are not easy issues and I respect that fact. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does he stand by the statement of his spokesperson Kevin Taylor calling Pete Hodgson—I abbreviate—an “f-wit” for questioning the legitimacy of Pansy Wong’s business affairs? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think Mr Taylor could in hindsight have chosen his words more wisely but I am relieved that he did not use his fists.