edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14469. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): There are a number of amendments that we will be dealing with. If someone wishes to have a personal vote I will consider those personal votes. If you look at Standing Order 141 the process is that “A personal vote may be held following a party vote if a member requests one and the Speaker considers that the decision on the party vote is so close that a personal vote may make a material difference to the result.” As I mentioned during Part 1 the Speaker has agreed that there will be personal votes on some parts of Part 2. So I will put the party vote and if someone requests a personal vote then I will consider it at the time. There are a number that fall into that category.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 377 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 6 be agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14468. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.
Mitchell Mark: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMitchell Mark: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14468. Text is subject to correction.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I moveThat the question be now put.
King Colin: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionKing Colin: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14466. Text is subject to correction.]COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): I moveThat the question be now put.
McKelvie Ian: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMcKelvie Ian: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14464. Text is subject to correction.]IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I moveThat the question be now put.
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14442. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now move to the debate on Part 2 and this includes debate on schedule 3.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14442. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan; Other: Mallard.Part 1 agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14441. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The question is that Part 1 stand part. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. [Interruption] The Ayes have it. A party vote is called for. I will ask the Clerk for a party vote.Hon Trevor Mallard: Personal vote.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are having a party vote—it has been called for. I am giving a party vote.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14441. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan; Other: Mallard.Motion agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14441. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Committee is resumed. I had accepted a closure motion from a Government member so the question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.Hon Trevor Mallard: Personal vote.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I will not accept a personal vote. A party vote has been called for. I will accept a party vote.
Carter David: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionCarter David: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14441. Text is subject to correction.]Mr SPEAKER: Can I just ask whether the Chairman wishes to make any further comment. Can I thank all members for their contribution. I thought long and hard about the letter that I sent out and in actual fact if you follow a previous gambling bill that was before this House a member’s bill in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell we on that occasion followed a very similar system to what I have established today. I took substantial advice from the Clerk in determining whether Part 1 was largely procedural and on the basis of that advice that was my conclusion.I then sent a letter out that I think is relatively specific to members and I appreciate that at the time the Hon Trevor Mallard recalled the Speaker he had not actually seen a copy of that letter. But that letter quite specifically says that I will allow a personal vote on the second part. I refer members to Standing Order 139 which states: “Where the Speaker considers that the subject of a vote is to be treated as a conscience issue the Speaker will permit a personal vote to be held instead of a party vote.”I can assure all members of the House that I respect the role of the Chairman and I certainly did not instruct Mr Tisch in any way. Having said that I say that this matter was discussed at the Business Committee. I was personally not at the Business Committee yesterday and I think it would be a very dangerous situation having followed the way this House has evolved over a period of time as we have adjusted Standing Orders to our electoral system if at any time the working and the consensus arrangement of that Business Committee were put at risk. On this occasion there will be adequate opportunities for people to cast personal votes where I have determined that there is more of a gambling issue at stake rather than a procedural matter. So on this basis I adhere to the ruling made by Mr Chairman and the House will return to being in Committee.
Brownlee Gerry: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionBrownlee Gerry: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14440. Text is subject to correction.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I made no such suggestion but the member Trevor Mallard has huge experience in this House and also in theBusiness Committee and knows the sorts of agreements that can be reached there. No one is suggesting that anyone’s rights are cut off but on a procedural motion it would seem rather unusual to expect there to be a personal vote unless there was some compelling reason for there to be so.
Mallard Trevor: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14440. Text is subject to correction.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): The first thing I would like to do is say that I think I received an indication from Mr Tisch that he did not use the words “Speaker’s direction”. If that is the case if he did not use those words I apologise. I thought that he had. The second point that I would like to make is that there is no provision in Speakers’ rulings or in Standing Orders for the Business Committee to remove the right of an individual member to vote on a personal vote on a conscience matter. You cannot trade away amongst senior members the right of individual members to have personal votes.
Brownlee Gerry: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionBrownlee Gerry: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14440. Text is subject to correction.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Firstly I think that you did a good thing in providing guidance to all parties about how as the primary presiding officer of this Parliament you would see this bill being dealt with where there is clearly disagreement among parties about what should be a conscience vote and what should not.I have to say that we have heard from some speakers this afternoon on this point who were not present at the Business Committee yesterday where this matter was further discussed and it would be unfair and unreasonable to suggest that there had not been a discussion about which parts are most likely to attract the personal vote requirement or to see that called for. There were some understandings reached and I think that one of the difficulties that we are faced with now is that although that Business Committee has functioned extremely well for the last 5 years in my opinion we might be at a point where it is going to start turning on itself. I would ask that perhaps some of those who have spoken this afternoon speak to their representatives who were at the Business Committee to get a better understanding of exactly what I understood to be agreed positions.
Macindoe Tim: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMacindoe Tim: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14440. Text is subject to correction.]TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): I just want to indicate that the Chairman did not indicate to the Committee that he was in any way being directed by you Mr Speaker. What he did make very clear for the guidance of the Committee was that you had after discussion in the Business Committee written to members to indicate that all parties had agreed on the procedure that was to be followed. There is no doubt in my mind that the Chairman was simply upholding the intent of that letter and the agreement that was reached by all the other parties. I also want to indicate that in this instance we were dealing with a procedural motion and the suggestion that anything other than a party vote should be taken on a procedural motion is I would have thought quite extraordinary.
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14439. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Mr Speaker you have been recalled on the basis that a closure motion was put. I accepted the closure motion and put it to the Committee. At that stage the Green Party asked specifically for a personal vote. I denied a personal vote and subsequently I have used the letter that you have written to the parties as it is your prerogative to do stating that Part 1 because they are procedural matters would be on the basis of a party vote if a party vote were called for and that Part 2 because they are conscience matters if a personal were called for a personal vote would be allowed. I have quoted the letter from your office signed by you on 5 November which states the position quite clearly. On that basis the ruling that I made was that we would accept a party vote on Part 1 but not a personal vote. That is the decision and the ruling that I made.
Mallard Trevor: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14439. Text is subject to correction.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I moveThat the Speaker be recalled in order to contest the ruling you have just made.Motion agreed to.House resumed.
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14438. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am referring to Standing Order 139: “Where the Speaker considers that the subject of a vote is to be treated as a conscience issue the Speaker will permit a personal vote to be held instead of a party vote.” The issues about conscience matters are in Part 2; they are not in Part 1. So the points that have been made—and I refer the member to the decision of the Business Committee and the Speaker’s letter to the parties which I am upholding and so on that basis I have ruled. I am not going to entertain it further Mr Mallard because I have ruled. I have ruled on what the Speaker has determined. Mr Speaker has determined that it is an agreement of all parties on the Business Committee and it is not for me to actually deviate from that. At the end of the day—[Interruption] No hang on. At the end of the day it is at mydiscretion. I have ruled that Part 1 is to be done on party vote as per the Speaker’s instructions and that Part 2 is to be done by way of a personal vote on conscience matters.
Mallard Trevor: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14438. Text is subject to correction.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Is this a new point of order? Because I have actually ruled on the previous point of order.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have heard your ruling. Are you ruling that the Business Committee agreement can strip from a member their right to have a personal vote? Can you show me the Standing Order that allows that?
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14438. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for the points that he has brought up. There is an agreement from the Business Committee—I do not know whether the member is aware of it—that there will be personal votes allowed on Part 2. Here is the letter that has gone to all parties. It is dated 5 November. There is an agreement that says that Part 1 will be done by party vote and that Part 2 will be done by way of a personal vote on a conscience matter. That is the decision of the Speaker that is the decision that I have ruled on and we will now have a party vote which has been called for.
Mallard Trevor: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14438. Text is subject to correction.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to refer you toMcGee. Sorry this is somewhat unanticipated so I will have to go to the particular part.McGee makes it absolutely clear that gambling issues are areas where there is a traditional conscience vote. I do accept that it is the right of the Chair to decide when a personal vote occurs but I ask you to examine the precedent that you are setting for something that is a gambling issue. I want to point out that in this bill—for example looking at the purpose clause of the bill; the interpretation clause especially clause 4(2); and clause 5 of the bill which binds the Crown—every single one of those clauses involves extra gaming.
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14438. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. [Interruption] A party vote? [Interruption] No we are not accepting personal votes on Part 1. In Part 2 there will be—
Wagner Nicky: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionWagner Nicky: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14438. Text is subject to correction.]NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I moveThat the question be now put.
Barry Maggie: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionBarry Maggie: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14436. Text is subject to correction.]MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I moveThat the question be now put.
Carter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Interisland Ferry Service—AraterePropeller LossText is subject to correctionCarter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Interisland Ferry Service—AraterePropeller Loss[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14406. Text is subject to correction.]Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the state of the interisland ferry service following the ferryAratere suffering mechanical problems in Cook Strait last night. TheAratere’s mechanical problem of yesterday is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However KiwiRail’s response is ongoing. Surveyors are ascertaining the damage the remedies and the time frame for theAratere resuming service. A Transport Accident Investigation Commission inquiry has also been opened.The big hurdle to get over in an urgent debate application is whether the matter has reached the stage where the business of the House should be set aside. The test is a high one. Every incident cannot be the basis for a debate even though on the face of it the incident may be significant. I am not convinced that I would be justified in setting aside the business of the House today. The application is therefore declined.
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionAuchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14406. Text is subject to correction.]12.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) to theMinister for Arts Culture and Heritage: How does the Government intend to mark the centenary of the First World War?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): The Government has developed a comprehensive programme called WW100 to mark the First World War. WW100 has a very strong digital presence and I know that Mr Grant Robertson will be delighted to visit the website—ww100.govt.nz—because he is a 21st century guy and also on Facebook and Twitter. The centrepiece will be New Zealand Memorial Park in Wellington which will be opened on Anzac Day in 2015. Funding has been allocated for national and local centenary projects. The Government is also supporting the Auckland War Memorial Museum’s Cenotaph database which will provide a page for every New Zealander who served in the First World War. There is also an international component. Heritage trails in other countries will tell the stories of New Zealand’s involvement in battles from Gallipoli to Western Europe.Chris Auchinvole: How is the National War Memorial Park progressing?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Brilliantly. The Minister of Transport and I recently visited the trench that will take State Highway 1 underground at the Buckle Street part of the park. Construction is 3 days behind schedule which is a fantastic achievement for such a major project. It is a huge credit to Mr Brownlee his transport officials and those in the New Zealand Transport Agency.
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionTwyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14405. Text is subject to correction.]11.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to theMinister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that the housing situation in Christchurch is “a challenge not a crisis”?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) on behalf of theMinister of Housing: Yes. Although as a result of the Christchurch earthquakes there was significant loss in that housing stock building consents are now at a 37-year high with almost 600 new dwellings and with 29 new homes being consented every day since September. The challenge is being met.Phil Twyford: How many affordable homes will be built in Christchurch given that Gerry Brownlee says that the Government is already well on the way to delivering more housing in Christchurch at a scale and time line that equals Labour’s plan?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do wish that the member would quote my colleague accurately. He said that we are ahead of the curve as far as the potential plan from the Labour Party is concerned.Phil Twyford: Does he agree with New Brighton resident Sue Davidson when she says that they have been forgotten and why after 3 years has the Government never proposed anywhere in Canterbury the kind of innovative hands-on approach that Labour has announced for New Brighton?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Although I do not have responsibility for the regeneration programme in the suburb of New Brighton in Christchurch what I can tell the member is that there have been discussions going on for a very long time about urban renewal in Christchurch. What we have seen in the last few days from the Labour Party is a desperate attempt to get on the bus and start claiming that in 18 months’ time should it be the Government it may do something. By then they will be able to see the action well and truly started.Phil Twyford: With the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment estimating a shortfall of 7000 homes in Christchurch why is he refusing to get behind Labour’s plan to build 10000 affordable starter homes in Christchurch when all of the evidence points to a crisis at the affordable end of the market?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As I said earlier when answering a question as the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission it does not matter how many times you put emotive and flowery language into questions because the reality of the facts that are presented is far more important. Rents in Christchurch for example remain significantly cheaper than they are in Auckland. There were also 1100 houses available on the TradeMe website as of this morning. So when there is so much stockstill available but a recognition that we do have to replace a good number of the nearly 8000 houses that have been red-zoned and we have got a programme to do it and we are seeing the consents coming through at a rate of about 5000 a year I say of course that the challenge is being met. It is not a crisis; it is a challenge.
Mitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionMitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14400. Text is subject to correction.]7.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to theMinister of Commerce: What steps is the Government taking to introduce more competition into the housing construction market?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): One of the five main contributors to the high cost of construction in New Zealand as identified by the Productivity Commission last year is the cost of building materials which can be as much as 30 percent higher than in Australia. That is why the Minister of Housing and I have released theResidential Construction Market Study—Options Paper. This paper sets out options to introduce more competition into the housing construction sector which can bring down the costs of home building materials. The options include proposing increased transparency simplified compliance changes to anti-dumping duties and tariff concessions which can bring down the costs of new-home building materials.Mark Mitchell: How will these options help to increase competition and lower the cost of building materials?Hon CRAIG FOSS: More competition in the building construction sector can lead to more choice and lower costs for consumers. Submissions to the market study earlier this year raised concerns that it was difficult for good quality and new products to come into the New Zealand market. The paper outlines options that could be made with changes to the regulatory framework and to promote competition to make it easier for these quality products to come to the New Zealand market. More choice and more competition is a win-win for all of New Zealand.Phil Twyford: After all the tough talk from the Minister of Housing scapegoating local councils for his failed housing policy will the Government now be brave enough to tackle the vested interests holding back competition in the building supplies market?Hon CRAIG FOSS: This Government certainly has the courage to deal with the crisis of housing that was inherited in 2008 by this Government where building construction costs had increased by almost double particularly in the period 2002-08. The suite of measures we are undertaking—freeing up land supply Resource Management Act reform reining in council contribution rates halving interest rates for New Zealanders and investing in skills and productivity—is the courage of conviction to help New Zealand families address their building construction costs.Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he would tackle the vested interests in the building supplies market. He did not address that question.Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to go back and look at his question it certainly has been adequately addressed.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionCosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14398. Text is subject to correction.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): My question is to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission and asks—[Interruption] Are you OK? Are you all right?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please just start his question again without responding or interjecting himself.
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionDunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14398. Text is subject to correction.]5.Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) to theMinister of Foreign Affairs: What advice has he received on the call from Amnesty International opposing the appointment of Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa as Chair of the Commonwealth for the next 2 years and host of next week’s Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs): I have received a range of advice on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) and the issues raised by Amnesty International. The decision to accept Sri Lanka’s offer to host and chair CHOGM was made collectively by Commonwealth countries in Perth in 2011. By offering to host CHOGM the Sri Lankan Government knows that it is opening itself up to scrutiny on human rights and reconciliation issues. It is the New Zealand Government’s position that the most constructive thing that New Zealand can do is to engage and use the opportunity to examine progress. The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be visiting the north of Sri Lanka during CHOGM next week to do precisely that.Hon Peter Dunne: Has the Minister seen the various reports of human rights abuses occurring in Sri Lanka and has the Government sought to make any expression of concern about those issues to the Government of Sri Lanka in advance of next week’s CHOGM?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Minister receives a range of advice on those issues. He has visited Sri Lanka twice this year and he does raise those very points with Sri Lankan officials and politicians when he engages with them.Hon Peter Dunne: What is the Minister’s reaction to claims that New Zealand’s overall approach to the Sri Lankan issue is a softly softly one linked to its wider campaign for a seat on the United Nations Security Council?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I completely refute that assertion.
Ross Jami-Lee: Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionRoss Jami-Lee: Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14383. Text is subject to correction.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I commend the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill to the House.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Education and Science Committee.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14363. Text is subject to correction.]A personal vote was called for on the questionThat New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill be now read a second time.Ayes61Adams (P)DunneKey (P)SimpsonArdern S (P)EnglishKing CSmith (P)Auchinvole (P)Finlayson (P)Lee (P)Tisch (P)Bakshi (P)Foss (P)Lotu-Iiga (P)Tolley (P)Banks (P)Foster-Bell (P)McClay (P)Tremain (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McCully (P)Upston (P)Bennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McKelvie (P)Wagner (P)Bennett PGroser (P)MitchellWilkinsonBorrows (P)GuyNgaroWilliamson (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)O’Connor S (P)Woodhouse (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)Parata (P)Yang (P)CalderHeatley (P)RossYoungCarter (P)Henare (P)Roy (P)Coleman (P)Hutchison (P)RyallCollins (P)JoyceSabin (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Shanks (P)MacindoeNoes59Ardern J (P)Graham (P)MartinShearer (P)BeaumontHague (P)Mathers (P)Sio (P)Browning (P)Harawira (P)Moroney (P)StewartClark (P)Hipkins (P)Norman (P)Street (P)ClendonHoran (P)O’Connor D (P)TirikateneCosgrove (P)Hughes (P)O’Rourke (P)Turei (P)Cunliffe (P)Huo (P)Parker (P)Turia (P)CurranJones (P)Peters (P)Twyford (P)Delahunty (P)King A (P)PrasadWalker (P)DysonLittleProsser (P)Wall (P)Faafoi (P)Logie (P)Robertson GWhaitiri (P)Fenton (P)Lole-Taylor (P)Robertson R (P)Williams (P)FlavellMackey (P)RocheWoods (P)Genter (P)Mahuta (P)SageTeller:Goff (P)Mallard (P)SharplesLees-GallowayBill read a second time.
Vote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionVote: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14363. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Question agreed to.
Simpson Scott: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionSimpson Scott: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14362. Text is subject to correction.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): The constituents of Coromandel want jobs they want opportunity and they want a chance to share in the great wave of tourist convention people who will come to Auckland and then on the shoulder of their conferences and conventions want to explore other parts of our beautiful country. My colleague Mark Mitchell made the point earlier this evening that people will want to go up to his electorate of Rodney and so too they will want to come to Coromandel. They will want to come to Coromandel to explore the lovely beautiful scenic attractions we have like the white sandy beaches and they will want an opportunity to experience the terrific quality of parliamentary representation.Tim Macindoe: They’ll come to Hamilton West as well.SCOTT SIMPSON: And they will come to Hamilton West as well. So this bill the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill represents a very good deal for the people of Auckland. It represents a very good deal for the people of New Zealand.It strikes me as being somewhat truly bizarre that in 2001 a Labour-Greens administration supported a deal that was less favourable to the taxpayers than this one less beneficial to New Zealanders and yet it supported that deal. Did we hear a squeak? Did we hear a tweet? Did we hear a single word of opposition from the Greens to that deal? Not a single word and now today we have all these bucketloads of crocodile tears—Jami-Lee Ross: Sanctimonious.SCOTT SIMPSON: —about a significant deal that will be good for all New Zealanders. It is sanctimonious. My friend the member for Botany says that it is sanctimonious and he is absolutely right.This deal represents an exceptionally good opportunity not only for the people of Auckland but for surrounding districts as well because in the shoulder seasons we want tourists. We want them to come. We want them to come to New Zealand. We want them to experience the great delights that we have as a nation and this convention centre will help achieve that. I heartily commend the adoption of the second reading of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill to the House.The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to.
Mitchell Mark: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionMitchell Mark: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14356. Text is subject to correction.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Firstly I would just like to acknowledge my colleague and good friend Kanwaljit Bakshi who is a very very good member of the Commerce Committee. He has had some really positive input in the work that the select committee has been doing on this New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. He is also very passionate about the community that he represents. I think it goes a long way to talk about the poor quality of the debate when you have a member of this House who gets up and accuses him of speaking rubbish.I would like to say that I find it amazing that there are members of this Parliament who are getting up and saying that there are going to be no benefits to New Zealand at all of us being able to attract a further 33000 tourists each year into our country and that there is going to be no positive spin-off. I would like to use a couple of quotes from Business New Zealand’s Chief Executive Phil O’Reilly. He said: “For New Zealand to deliver on the goal of achieving more high value tourism an international quality convention centre is essential.” I agree with him entirely.I would just like to talk about my own electorate of Rodney. When we have 33000 additional visitors coming into Auckland each year they are not going to sit in a convention centre; they will want to get out and experience New Zealand. They will want to take in the Kiwi experience. Rodney has got wineries. We have got fantastic horse trekking outfits. We have got Snowplanet in Silverdale. We have the Pūhoi cheese factory and the historic Pūhoi Pub. We have the Waiwera hot pools. We have SheepWorld between Warkworth and Wellsford. We have got wonderful facilities at Gulf Harbour. We have got wonderful accommodation and lodges in Rodney to stay in.Actually if those 33000 delegates arrive in New Zealand each year I am very confident that they are going to be out spending and wanting to experience and putting more money into our local economy. So I am very very happy to stand here to support this bill. I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Tisch Lindsay: Voting — Correction—Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) BillText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Voting — Correction—Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14345. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): From 31 to 33 in opposition. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Dyson Ruth: Voting — Correction—Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) BillText is subject to correctionDyson Ruth: Voting — Correction—Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14345. Text is subject to correction.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I seek leave to correct a vote cast on the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought. What is the correction?Hon RUTH DYSON: I wish to correct the vote to change it to 33 in opposition.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: From?Hon RUTH DYSON: From 31.
Tisch Lindsay: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Third ReadingText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14340. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call.
Sabin Mike: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Third ReadingText is subject to correctionSabin Mike: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14340. Text is subject to correction.]MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): Unfortunately that member Mr Goff after many distinguished years in this House has not learnt that just because he says something loudly it does not actually make it factually correct. The trouble is—and Mr Goff summed it up right at the end of his speech—that he is trying to somehow tie this bill the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill back to the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation and the flaws that actually that Labour Government passed quite willingly. It swept that one under the corner of the carpet. This bill has got nothing to do with that legislation and the member knows that. What disrupts the credibility of that party is that it keeps trying to tie back legislation to something that is all about a scandal because it—Dr David Clark: Read the bill.MIKE SABIN: I have read the bill.Dr David Clark: You said this isn’t related to the other bill.MIKE SABIN: Well actually I say for that member that what this bill will deal with more is the gangsters who are out there manufacturing P and getting away with blue murder in what they do and the means by which the powers that have warrants to intercept those communications access those communications from the agencies. It is nothing more than systems and processes. It does not in any way change any existing safeguards.Although people on that side of the House want to whip up some sort of conspiracy the New Zealand public have long ago woken up to the story that members on that side of the House are crying wolf saying “Oh please believe us; it must be a conspiracy.” and manufacturing this that and the other. But it does not stick because you do not make sense—sorry not you Mr Assistant Speaker. Those members do not make sense in their argument.This bill does not change the authority. It does not change the way that those organisations have to go about getting warrants to intercept the information. There is nothing to see here. There is nothing to see but an Opposition party that is floundering around trying to whip up a crisis where there is not one to see. New Zealanders back a Government that actually gets on and protects their interests and does not dilly-dally and play politics.
McKelvie Ian: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Third ReadingText is subject to correctionMcKelvie Ian: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14337. Text is subject to correction.]IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It is a pleasure to take a brief call on the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. I find myself disagreeing with the previous speaker Richard Prosser which is sad because some of the things he says from time to time I agree with. I do agree with the fact that there are some very intelligent people on this side of the House however.Hon Phil Goff: Name them.IAN McKELVIE: I certainly will not name myself. I am proud to belong to a Government that has the courage to do what is best for New Zealanders the courage to preserve democracy in a time of great change and a time when the telecommunications industry is changing by the minute.Grant Robertson talked about the broad powers that this bill contains. He talked about a lot of issues related to this bill that led me to believe that he did not understand the legislation. He in my view is arrogant in himself and in his disregard for the well-being of law-abiding and hard-working New Zealanders.We then heard the Greens take a similar approach through their leader distorting the truth of the matter even further by linking our operations and legislation to the rest of the world in a manner that is clearly untrue. I think he must have been out there in that jungle he has created on the front lawn.We then heard some more I guess scuttlebutt from the other side of the House that clearly misrepresented the intention of this bill and in my view leads to the undermining of public confidence in our security services which are extremely strong.We sat through a number of submissions and a significant amount of work on this bill to get to the point we are at today. I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting this bill and I am sure that it will create an environment and do the job that it has set out to do in protecting those New Zealanders who need protecting from the rest of the world. Thank you.
Mitchell Mark: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Third ReadingText is subject to correctionMitchell Mark: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14335. Text is subject to correction.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Our national security fundamentally is very very important to all of us. It is something that should be taken seriously. I was very disappointed with the contribution made by the Opposition Leader of the House on the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill. He spent most of his speech attacking other members of the House which probably indicates that really he did not have that much to contribute. One thing that I did agree with him on was the fact that threats have changed a lot over the last decade. In the last 10 years there have been significant changes to the types of threats that we have to be aware of and try to detect. Hence we have to keep updating and changing our legislation to stay in step with those threats.New Zealand in terms of transparency and oversight levels has one of the highest levels of transparency and oversight of our agencies which are there to provide protection for us of any country in the world. I would defy anyone to name somewhere that has a higher level of transparency.Unfortunately I can take only a short call on this but I just wanted to finish by highlighting again that this bill does not change the existing safeguards to protect people’s privacy. It does not change in any way the authority of agencies to intercept telecommunications and it does not require data to be stored or stored data to be disclosed. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Vote: Human Rights Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionVote: Human Rights Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14325. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Human Rights Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes105New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes15Green Party 14; Mana 1.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Upston Louise: Human Rights Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionUpston Louise: Human Rights Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14325. Text is subject to correction.]LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am pleased to support the Human Rights Amendment Bill.
Roy Eric: Voting — Correction—Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment BillText is subject to correctionRoy Eric: Voting — Correction—Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14324. Text is subject to correction.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wish to make an announcement in relation to a correction of votes. On 27 March when the Committee of the whole House was considering the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill the results of three votes were announced incorrectly because a member voted in person and had a proxy cast for him. The correct results for the votes on amendments proposed by Mark Mitchell Tim Macindoe and Dr Paul Hutchison are in each case one less for the Noes. The corrected results make no difference to the outcome of each vote. The record will be amended accordingly.