edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9968] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9017] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(1A) to deny New Zealanders right of access to one of the most esteemed judicial authorities in the world.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6288] 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 102 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8 Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19714] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Perhaps we could resolve this issue. You have seen fit to provide counsel to myself and Mr Carter in respect of the use of the Standing Orders. I think it would help considerably if you saw fit to provide some counsel to the Leader of the House about his use of Standing Order 38.
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10438] 
1. DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps have been taken to ensure that schools have ready access to reliable anti-virus software? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Free anti-virus software for State and State-integrated schools will be available from the beginning of next year. A large number of schools currently do not have quality anti-virus software leaving them exposed to virus attacks. Through the provision of a common high-quality anti-virus software package at no cost to the schools the Government is protecting the investment schools are making. 
David Benson-Pope 
: How does this initiative fit within the Government’s wider strategy for promoting the use of information and communication technology in schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As Maurice Williamson often tells me ensuring our children develop good information and communication technology skills is an essential part of equipping them for life and work in the 21st century. I am looking forward to Maurice Williamson getting back on that front bench. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister aware that most viruses are designed to attack the hegemonic proprietary software platform Microsoft while non-proprietary operating platforms such as SuSE Linux now meet international security certification and how will he protect the ability of schools to choose open-source alternatives? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Quite a few schools use open-source software. That is their right and if they want to do that that is fine. I am not aware of the technical details but my understanding is that a lot of the software will support Linux as well as Microsoft.
Hobbs Marian: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hobbs Marian: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:618;Page:13868] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee to take the bill as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Swain Paul: Gambling Bill — Third Reading 
Swain Paul: Gambling Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8648] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 This is a good bill and I support it.
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8779] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. If there is no objection there will be a second reading only of up to 2 hours with the various procedural motions. [ 
Interruption 
] There is no third reading. [ 
Interruption 
] Well there is a third reading but there is no debate on it. The only speaking opportunities will be during the possibly 2-hour second reading.
Turner Judy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20271] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I will take a brief call in response to the National Party member Pansy Wong’s amendment. 
I start by saying that I support her intention. I agree that acupuncturists—traditional Chinese acupuncturists in particular—have had a very long journey in trying to get their professional qualifications recognised. Over the years—and this is a separate issue from this bill—they have been courted by smaller groups with lower standards of qualification who are I guess trying to heavy in on the scene. It has just caused delay after delay. However—and I have explained this to the member—United Future cannot support the amendment purely because although the intention is right I believe the correct mechanism for resolving this is the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. 
I am hopeful that as the Minister says those groups are now close to a solution. If she is right that is absolutely excellent. But I was concerned again at an attempt to bring about resolution through this legislation by recognising outside of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act groups that had not submitted properly to the process that is available to them. I accept there has possibly been some real game-playing in that regard for some time and I certainly understand the frustration that traditional Chinese acupuncturists in particular have had to put up with. 
However I think I mentioned at the second reading that if I had my way we would use the motivation of finance to say that if a group cannot get registered under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act then it should not be entitled as a profession to Accident Compensation Corporation registration. I think if a time frame was put around that—if a group was given a period of time to get registered under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act—we would find that acupuncturists would very quickly become motivated to sort out their little differences settle on a scope of practice with all that that involves and very quickly come forward with an application form. Then we could all move on as happy campers. 
So United Future will not be supporting this amendment although we absolutely share the concern about the issue that Pansy Wong is trying to amend. We will not support her amendment because we do not believe it is the right mechanism for what she is trying to achieve.
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9886] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
Amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 5 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 28 be agreed to: 
to amend proposed new section 57(3) of the principal Act by omitting all the words after the word “destroyed” and substituting the words “the Court must order the destruction of the dog if the presumption that the dog is dangerous is not rebutted”.
Pillay Lynne: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21713] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Smith Lockwood: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8279] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek your guidance on how an amendment can be out of order that seeks to ensure transparency and certainty of immigration policies in order to maintain the international credibility of New Zealand’s immigration system. It is rather odd because if that amendment is out of order it is being argued that our system should not be transparent should have no certainty and should have no international credibility.
Peck Mark: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Peck Mark: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20277] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Turner Judy: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Procedure 
Turner Judy: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:620;Page:15844] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is opposing the bill in its entirety. I think I mistook a vote as being for a procedural thing and voted eight in favour when I should have voted eight opposed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The voting list can be corrected. That is done under Speaker’s ruling 66/4. Is the member seeking leave to change her vote?
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote Personal Explanations—Interjections Privilege—Hon Matt Robson 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote Personal Explanations—Interjections Privilege—Hon Matt Robson 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7534. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 The Hon Bill English raised an interesting point. In fact his stance today on the back of Mr Key’s performance raises probably two points. The first point is that it would be in order Madam Speaker if you were to confirm to the House whether Gerry Brownlee has relinquished the role of shadow Leader of the House because it would appear that Mr English and Mr Key have taken that role. 
The second point is this—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Paula Bennett that I thought points of order were heard in silence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: They are but the member will stick to the point of order please. 
RON MARK 
: That was the first point Madam Speaker and it is a point of order. We have a right to know who the shadow Leader of the House is. 
The second point is that Mr English raised the question of whether time spent by an MP being interviewed by police in response to allegations and possible charges that may or may not be laid by the police is time spent on business. That is questionable and it needs to be clarified whether that time is actually parliamentary time or time spent on public business. I ask you Madam Speaker when you consider and deliberate to address whether the time spent by Gerry Brownlee and Nick Smith facing charges for which they were convicted—all the preceding interviews in respect of those charges—was parliamentary time whether their votes at that time should have been counted and whether they should be refunding their wages for the hours spent on that matter for which they were successfully prosecuted.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7091] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Noes 107 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 84 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 21 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18528] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no reason why the Government cannot do that if the responsibility lies within the Minister of Justice’s portfolio.
Simich Clem: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Simich Clem: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17450] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members for raising that. I make no judgment on whether those two words that the member reminded the Committee of are equally offensive or not offensive at all. But it is all in the mind and I know exactly what was meant by both words. I do not claim to have any more knowledge than anyone else here but in respect of the point that Dr Nick Smith raised in particular to Ms Beyer that should have been raised at the time she said it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I did. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No she had sat down. She had finished. I had called the next speaker and so on. Let us move on and give Dr Wayne Mapp a chance.
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6896] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 81 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Simich Clem: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15642] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate is now on clauses 1 and 2. The vote will be taken separately. The debate is fairly wide ranging and members should address the two clauses.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17920] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 199 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1)(b) after the words “registered bank” the words “or registered building society”.
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4791] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Noes 48 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Deborah Coddington to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard be agreed to: 
to omit new clause 130A.
Alexander Marc: Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Alexander Marc: Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15083] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 After that garbled interlude we now resume normal programming. I rise on behalf of United Future to address the debate and give a contribution on the Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill. Unfortunately and regrettably United Future did not have a member on the Primary Production Committee so we have had a little catching up to do on the issues contained in the bill. Fortunately there is not much to talk about in this bill. I was interested in Nandor Tanczos’ earlier contribution. He spent an inordinate amount of time talking about the passage of hemp seeds as they coursed their way through the intestinal maze of birds. I had the idea that either he was a bird watcher or he was just watching to see where the birds were going to go so that he could pick the seeds up off the road roll them up in a newspaper and smoke them—which is probably closer to the truth. I was also interested in the contribution from the Minister of Health who talked about all the different products made from hemp such as food rope soap oil and also hand cream. I think that that should be passed on to the Minister of Finance so that he has smoother hands to relieve the public of New Zealand of their tax dollars through their pockets. Again I was also quite interested in the testing of seeds from the plants with lower than 0.03 percent of THC and also of those with higher levels. I am sure if there was a job available in differentiating one from the other Nandor Tanczos would be eyeing it after his career in Parliament is all but over. [ 
Interruption 
] Will the member be joining them? No. 
There is not much to talk about on this bill because other members have made all the points that are relevant. However the one thing I will note is that hemp is actually a very viable commodity. I think that down the track it will provide quite a lot of jobs and earn quite a lot of income from overseas and from the goods that it can produce. Hemp does produce nice cloth despite the objections of the ACT member Gerry Eckhoff. It does produce good rope and all the rest of it. I think there is a lot to be seen here. Despite the garbled contribution from the New Zealand First member Craig McNair there is a vast difference between hemp and the marijuana that is used for illicit drug purposes. I do think we should go down the track of having trials to see whether hemp can be contained and whether it can be a useful crop for the future. Hemp does have a future in this country and I think there is an industry that we could look to pursue. 
Unfortunately this bill is not a vehicle that United Future can support. There is a more viable alternative. This bill has become superfluous so United Future will not support it. However I think there should be a sense of gratitude for the fact that the bill has been brought forward and for the fact that hemp will be discussed in the future as a viable crop for this country.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8225] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 30 
New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 81 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 249 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(3A)Section 51(6) of the principal Act is repealed and replaced with the following: 
(6)If in any case the licensing authority has reasonable grounds to believe the holder of a licence has failed or is failing to comply with any conditions attaching to the licence the authority may suspend the licence for a reasonable period to enable the authority to consider the case.
Robertson H V Ross: Companies Amendment Bill Insolvency Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Robertson H V Ross: Companies Amendment Bill Insolvency Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:616;Page:11957] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We actually have two bills here. Shall I put them as one question? There is no objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Chamber—Television Cameras Question No. 5 to Minister 16 March—Minister’s Replies 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Chamber—Television Cameras Question No. 5 to Minister 16 March—Minister’s Replies 
[Volume:624;Page:19303] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a new matter. I am sorry but this will undoubtedly save time at question time. I want to raise with you something that happened at question time yesterday and a difficulty we on this side of the House have at question time. I want to take the House back to a supplementary question Heather Roy asked the Minister of Health yesterday. She asked—and I have the  
Hansard 
—“How many patients will die of the flu this winter because of this dodgy vaccine?”. It was very clear to the House that she asked how many would die of the flu. The Minister answered that no patients would die because of this dodgy vaccine. Then I asked whether the Minister would stand by that statement. 
 The Minister then said with regard to me rewriting the question that she had said it was not a dodgy vaccine. The Minister had actually said that it was. There was a series of points of order then the Leader of the House Michael Cullen stood up and suggested that we were somehow trying to rewrite Heather Roy’s question when the question was entirely about people dying of the flu. That meant we had to use another two questions. 
On the third question that the ACT party asked I asked: “How many people will die of the flu this winter because this vaccine does not vaccinate them against all three strains as promised?”. I am sure the House can appreciate that that was the same question. The Minister replied: “I do not have that information”. That meant that she did not know. My point is that that is what takes up a lot of time at question time and a great many points of order. The Minister could have said on the very first question that she did not have the information. It was not helpful that the Leader of the House tried to reinterpret the question. I ask you not to let the Government get away with trying to reinterpret Opposition questions or forcing Opposition parties that have very little chance to question the Government to burn up their questions as they try to seek clarification. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is effectively debating the Minister’s answers yesterday. It is not a matter that the Speaker can resolve. There are occasions available to do that like the general debate where that matter could be raised.
King Annette: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
King Annette: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6804] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Dalziel Lianne: Personal Explanations — Immigration—Morning Report Interview 
Dalziel Lianne: Personal Explanations — Immigration—Morning Report Interview 
[Volume:615;Page:11077] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation in respect of an answer I gave in an interview on  
Morning Report  
this morning. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to do that. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want it clarified. Just getting up and saying— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I am entitled to raise a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: You may raise a point of order after I have ruled. I want to rule first. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You have just ruled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I have but there is no room in the Standing Orders to give reasons for objecting. Any member is entitled under our system to object and a member has done so. That is perfectly valid.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8845] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 39 
New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 141 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to clause 105 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5312] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I thank you.
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5151] 
A party votewas called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 32 
Noes 82 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Tizard Judith: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Tizard Judith: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:609;Page:6838] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
Peck Mark: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peck Mark: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11662] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Prebble Richard: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Prebble Richard: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13040] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson you are absolutely right. Under the Standing Orders you are the sole judge. But I do think that you have made an error. The reason I say that is that as the debate was proceeding Mr Marc Alexander from United Future handed me a sheet which I notice he had put before the Committee on this part. I am counting up and I think there are 12 amendments. Maybe Mr Alexander should have gone for the call and maybe you judged that he did not want to make one. But then I noticed that he voted against the closure motion. 
I think in all fairness I would like to be able to ask for leave that this vote not be taken at this point. At least we could hear from United Future because if you look at this bill that party has taken a great interest. It has put in a minority report and has fully participated. Mr Alexander may not wish to speak to his amendment—but I hear from him that he does. I think it is fair to have at least one more speaker on this part. At that point at least all those parties that wanted to participate on the bill will have done so otherwise it is not fair. I know that you try to be fair but I think you have made an error of judgment on this occasion.
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16929] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9372] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 200B(3) of the principal Act by inserting the following new paragraph: 
(e)whether there has been any reliance upon the power contained in section 200G(1) and if so a report on the exercise of power and circumstances in which it came to be exercised.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7517] 
9.  
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Have there been any significant developments in threatened species conservation? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Yes. A good example is the recovery of kokako to a point where new populations are being established. Last week five kokako were released into Wairarapa’s Mount Bruce forest. They had been transferred from a thriving King Country population where numbers had been boosted by successful pest control. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What is being done to avoid further losses of kiwi at Okarito Forest? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Okarito Forest is being managed as a kiwi sanctuary. My department has developed a strategy to ensure that the brown kiwi population there will increase this year. Sufficient eggs will be taken from the wild and hatched and the birds will be held in predator-safe environments until they can be returned as juveniles that are large enough to fight off predators. 
Metiria Turei 
: What are the main threats to kokako outside these highly protected areas and what prospect does he see of restoring the dawn chorus to much larger areas of the conservation estate and to private land? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Stoats remain the main problem attacking kokako. We are continuing to try to eradicate this pest as best we can.
Prebble Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8812] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on this. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am challenging your ruling and I am asking for the Speaker to come back because to have the Chair just sit there and say it is not for her to say what the parts are is unsatisfactory. I am looking at the motion and I see it states that the Committee was to debate the bill “part by part”. Here are some other parts. Why has the Chair decided that some parts count and some do not? We have never had a ruling like that from a Chair before. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have given the ruling very clearly. Would the member like to move for the Speaker to be recalled? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes. If you are not prepared to give us an explanation as to why some parts do not count perhaps we should have the Speaker back to let us know why some parts do not count. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has the right to so move.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8858] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.
Carter Chris: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Carter Chris: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7118] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Agriculture 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Wool Industry Restructuring Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
Motion agreed to.
Simich Clem: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7796] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I would be comfortable with giving ACT another call. There are 15 amendments. ACT have 80 percent of those.
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10352] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time.
Benson-Pope David: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6818] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise in support of this legislation and I would like to compliment my colleague Lianne Dalziel for the effort and the vision that goes into such a necessary policy change. I think most New Zealanders welcome the sensible prioritisation in relation to the needs of this country of the many thousands of people who are keen to come to it. It is a sad comment also on the attitudes and the personnel involved in the tired old Opposition parties that debates like this become yet another excuse to scratch the sore of bigotry and prejudice. I cannot imagine a better illustration of that than the comments the leader of the New Zealand First Party made just recently. 
Like a lot of New Zealanders I watched a rugby match on Saturday evening. I was substantially moved by the incredible image of Deborah Wai Kapohe singing first “La Marseillaise” followed by the New Zealand national song. I cannot imagine a better statement of what this country stands for than that which the NZRFU provided us with on Saturday night. I regret that so many members of this House cannot take the opportunity to celebrate what this country represents in terms of its ethnic diversity. They should get on with the job and leave their tired old bigotry and prejudice at home.
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22324] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14317] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There are many occasions in this House where four or five parties vote in one direction and a couple of parties vote in the other direction but the couple of parties are noisier than the four or five parties voting in favour. The numbers are overwhelming when it comes to the party vote but on the voices if one was to go by sheer noise—in this case one versus nil—it would have been called in favour of the minority. That is not the basis on which the Chair makes the judgment on a voice vote.
Vote: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9584] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Mark Ron: Personal Explanations — Question No. 3 to Minister 2 November—Authentication 
Mark Ron: Personal Explanations — Question No. 3 to Minister 2 November—Authentication 
[Volume:621;Page:16859] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just received in my tray a letter from the Speaker of the House—and my point of order concerns putting the record straight—relating to a breach of privilege allegation that the Hon George Hawkins tried to bring against me on a matter concerning misrepresentation of an issue in the House. The issue relates to a question I asked in the House last week in which I quoted something from specifically the May edition of the  
Police News. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
RON MARK 
: I am in a point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I say to Ron Mark that what I am hearing is more in the nature of a personal explanation. He is quite free to seek leave to make that personal explanation if he wishes but what he is saying is not a point of order at this stage. 
RON MARK 
: Before I do that can I just read out specifically what the letter said; I will then be guided by your ruling based on the content of that letter. “While I have determined that no question of a breach of privilege is involved in this case it is of course incumbent on any member who feels that he or she might have given inaccurate information to the House to clear the matter up.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member can do that by personal explanation. The member should seek leave to do that. 
RON MARK 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
RON MARK 
: The explanation relates to a question that I put to the Minister of Police last week. In the content of the actual primary question I quoted something and said it had come from the May edition of the  
Police News 
. The Minister in his answer commented that the quotation in fact had come from the June edition of the  
Police News. 
 Not being used to the Minister being right I took umbrage at his challenge and I challenged him in return. Subsequently we found that despite authentication having been done by the Clerk’s Office there indeed had been an error between our staff the Clerk’s Office and the actual question being accepted and tabled in the House. So I am just seeking to say that in actual fact on this occasion the Hon George Hawkins was correct but there was no deliberate attempt on my part to mislead the House. The question had been lodged with the Clerk of the House and the relevant copies of the  
Police News 
 had been attached to it but unfortunately the authentication quoted May instead of June.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8228] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Heather Roy to clause 253B be agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8965] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I was involved in the point of order and I want to make a statement in support of the Prime Minister’s position. We frequently see members of Parliament raising in the House individuals’ private medical records. If members look at the statements made by the Privacy Commissioner—because that always presents a problem to the health authorities—they will see that the Privacy Commissioner has said that if one raises some of one’s health details then one can have 
a response from the relevant authority that tells one other things. Rau Williams will be a case that Mr English will remember. The House would have been greatly served in that case if we had had a prompt response letting us know about his total health condition. If a member raises a person’s health record in my view the Government is entitled to give us the full answer. 
Peter Brown 
: Full. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member can interject but I ask how we can as a Parliament hold Ministers accountable if we then do not allow Ministers to give a full account. [ 
Interruption 
]
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:13142] 
11.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Transport 
: What actions has the Maritime Safety Authority taken to protect the coastline around one of New Zealand’s busiest shipping routes? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 This week the International Maritime Organization approved the Maritime Safety Authority’s appeal to ban vessels from travelling close to the shoreline between Bream Head and Cape Brett north of Whangarei. This is a world-first decision by the International Maritime Organization which means that this unique marine area will be protected and preserved and it is a precedent that I am very proud of the Maritime Safety Authority for setting. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What evidence does the Minister have that this announcement addresses the concerns of conservationists? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I have received reports that marine conservationists such as Wade Doak have welcomed the ruling by the International Maritime Organization as a victory for New Zealand particularly given that New Zealand was unable to apply such a ban without the weight of an international organisation. The Northland Regional Council has also strongly welcomed the announcement with the Whangarei harbourmaster estimating that it will allow an extra 6 hours to respond to potential oil spills in an environmentally very important area.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:610;Page:7291] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Privileges Committee to meet during the evenings of 29 and 30 July to consider the question of privilege relating to the Hon Harry Duynhoven. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is not.
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16929] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9750] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Peters Winston: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Peters Winston: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5444] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 When a leader of a party rises and deals with a fact so cavalierly as to say “I think he was here; I am not certain where he was.” he certainly opens himself up to accusations of being so careless with the truth that it is a mere bagatelle to him. That is my point. He must have known where Mr Robson was—the one colleague he has left. He must have pointed it out and been certain about it but he was not and it was mere serendipity that he walked in here late at night and saved Mr Anderton’s bacon. I do not intend to apologise for saying that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The matter is over. The vote was cast correctly. Offence has been taken. Mr Anderton’s word was doubted and I ask Mr Peters to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No I will not. I doubted his word properly. He can prove that I am wrong but I doubted him properly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Peters I would ask you again to withdraw and apologise for saying the word “liar” to Mr Anderton. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I asked him to find where his colleague was. He had no idea where he was. I was quite proper in raising the question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will say again to Mr Peters that offence was taken. The member did doubt Mr Anderton’s word and I would ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No Madam Chairperson read the Standing Orders. On a vote we are entitled to doubt a member’s word. I am sorry but you have been misadvised. I am entitled to doubt a party’s word. The whole of the Standing Orders say that. That is why they have a personalised vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member called him a liar. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am sorry for that part. I apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you. That is what I wanted.
Vote: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7130] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Wool Industry Restructuring Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 99 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13293] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.