edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13515] 
2.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: What progress has been made on the inquiry into the future monetary policy framework? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that the committee has made sound progress on this inquiry. We have completed hearings. We heard from a wide range of interested parties and experts on matters relating to the inquiry. We have also spent time with our advisers to plan the timetable for considering the evidence and the issues raised during the hearings. The committee is optimistic that it will be able to complete its consideration of the inquiry by March 2008. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Can he confirm under the terms of reference requiring the committee to examine the role of productivity that official statistics received by the committee show that growth in both labour and multi-factor productivity since 2000 has fallen to less than half that achieved from 1990 to 2000 limiting the economy’s potential for non-inflationary growth under Labour’s policies— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that would seem to be a matter for the committee. The member may answer about process matters but not matters of substance. I will give the member one more go to ask his supplementary question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question related specifically to the terms of reference of the inquiry. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: But it is before the committee and I think it is a marginal call. I am happy to let you have another go but we do not want to get into matters that are before the committee and we do not want the chair to be asked to make a comment on matters that are inappropriate. But the member may have another supplementary question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question was very carefully worded because I did not mention information that only the committee has. You will note that I referred to official statistics that the committee has and those are official public figures. So I am not asking the member to comment— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can the member address that question without going into the considerations of the committee. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I cannot confirm the matter that the member has adverted to. What I can confirm is that the material received by the committee on that question indicates that the evidence on it to date is inconclusive. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table the official statistics that show exactly what I said. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13515] 
1.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee 
: When does the committee expect to report on the 2006-07 financial review of the Department of Corrections? 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee): 
 The committee is in the final stages of its consideration of the 2006-07 financial review of the Department of Corrections and we expect to report back to the House very soon. 
Simon Power 
: When is the committee scheduled to make a decision on whether to support an inquiry into the Department of Corrections now that it has a fairly light work programme as it has postponed it numerous times since I first put it on the agenda in January 2006? 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: That issue is currently before the committee. I cannot comment on proceedings that are still before the committee and are thus confidential. 
Simon Power 
: Perhaps I could help. I seek leave to table a media statement of today’s date from the committee advising that the matter of an inquiry into the Department of Corrections will be further considered on 20 February 2008. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13515] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member made an assertion in that statement that is factually incorrect to the best of my knowledge. He seems to have assumed that Mr Mallard was aware of what was going to be said by Mr Logan yesterday. There is no evidence for that at this point at all. I might also say that Ministers give answers on the basis of the information available to them. If one is required to come to the House to make a correction if some considerable time later information comes to hand that suggests the answer was incorrect one could end up rather endlessly coming to the House to make corrections. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I do not want this matter pursued. This is precisely why the appropriate procedure is to refer the matter to me in writing so that it can be fully investigated—so that we do not get into this kind of debate which cannot be resolved here. The member of course if he wishes is free to do so.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13514] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to turn your attention to Speaker’s ruling 157/6. There are a number of things in this House that have developed over a period of time and become the conventions of the House. One of the conventions that I have always understood for all the time I have been here is that when a Minister makes a mistake in an answer he or she at the first opportunity comes to the House and uses the provisions of the personal explanation procedure to make a correction in order that the House is not misled. The earliest opportunity that Trevor Mallard would have had to correct this matter was yesterday. Given his failure to do so I assume—given your comments before—that your advice to us would be that we have no alternative other than to bring a privilege charge against Mr Mallard.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13514] 
12.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she have confidence in police management; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes; I am confident that police management are providing leadership and direction and where areas requiring improvement are identified are taking action to address those areas. 
Simon Power 
: Is it acceptable that an offender who absconded while on home detention and had a warrant out for his arrest tried to hand himself into a police station a week later but was told to go away because he was not on the computer only to allegedly brutally assault an 83-year-old woman a month later? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it is not. 
Simon Power 
: Does she have confidence in the 111 emergency system when it took four calls for police to respond to two distressed teenage girls who had run to a nearby house after being held against their will by King Cobra gang members only for the patrol car to turn up an hour later and after the girls had resorted to escaping by taxi? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am always saddened to hear stories where there has been a failure in the 111 system but I say to the member that huge improvements have been made in the 111 system since the review that was undertaken by my predecessor George Hawkins. With the investment in terms of funding and staff that has gone into it we now see a much-improved service from the 111 call line. It is unacceptable when it does not work but there are times when errors are made. 
Simon Power 
: Is she concerned that police have claimed that they were not aware of warrants to arrest Graeme Burton until 3 January this year when they failed to pick up the two warrants issued on 22 December last year and then failed to act on the warrant to recall Burton issued on 29 December that had been hand-delivered to the Wellington Central Police Station? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes and the police advise me that they recognise there are some failings in the current systems associated with the transfer of information between agencies. These issues are being addressed by the police and the agencies and I believe they will ensure this is not something that will happen in the future. 
Simon Power 
: Why did police refuse to provide affidavits to back up their claims to the Department of Corrections about Burton’s criminal activities while on parole when they already had sufficient evidence to raid his house at the end of November when it is the Parole Board that decides whether there are sufficient grounds for recall on the basis of whether he posed a risk to public safety rather than whether he had committed any crimes? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am unable to provide the member with that answer. I would need to ask the police why they did not provide those affidavits and I am happy to do that for the member.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13513] 
11.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Under what circumstances would the Government fully or partly renationalise the operation of the trains run by Toll Holdings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 If the result of the continuing negotiations with Toll showed that this was the only satisfactory way to achieve a strong efficient rail transport network. 
Peter Brown 
: Notwithstanding that Toll has won awards for innovation and efficiency does the Minister recognise that if rail were publicly owned it could open the door to all sorts of innovative practices that occur in railway services in some other countries? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government’s aim is to have a strong efficient rail transport network and it needs certainty around the ongoing situation. We have never had a settled implementation of the National Rail Access Agreement. Within weeks almost of that being finalised Toll was attempting to relitigate. Indeed I think it is fair to say that the view around what Toll is worth is largely based on the extent to which it is assumed that the Government will actually implement the National Rail Access Agreement. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that with public ownership it would be possible to lease part of the rail services out either in the long term or the short term; introduce rail freight grants as occurs elsewhere; and indeed allow bus or other operators to operate trains for a particular event—in short is he aware that public ownership could really bring our rail services into the 21st century? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said the Government hopes to achieve a strong efficient rail transport network and as I have confirmed all options are on the table in order to achieve that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Dominion  
of 21 July 1993 where the National Party sold off New Zealand Rail to its mates without any— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13511] 
9.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Statistics 
: What statistics has he received regarding the contribution to New Zealand made by volunteers? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 Today is International Volunteer Day. It is an opportunity to honour and thank those Kiwis who give tirelessly of their time to our community. Statistics New Zealand is committed to recognising the part volunteers play in New Zealand life and has today released statistics about unpaid work. This information shows that 89 percent of people aged 15 years and over undertook some form of unpaid work. In addition this year Statistics New Zealand has for the first time been able to provide extra information on the over 1 million volunteers who on average spend 5.1 hours each week volunteering in our community. 
Darien Fenton 
: How do these reported measures recognise the contribution of volunteers to New Zealand? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The new Non-profit Institutions Satellite Account launched in August can now measure the value of the combined 270 million hours of volunteer time as being worth over $3.3 billion. This translates to the equivalent of 4.9 percent of GDP and demonstrates beyond question how reliant we are on volunteers in the community. So it is a great day to say thank you to all of them.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13508] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I assume now that the only course of action open to us is for me to go through the farce of asking the question on the sheet and then to deal with other matters in supplementary questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The decision is yours Mr Brownlee.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13508] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to read the brief statement from Hugh Logan. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13508] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes there is objection. 
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to make it clear that the statement issued today does not in any way say that the advice given was totally wrong. Those words are not in the statement.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13508] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 At 2 o’clock today the Ministry for the Environment released a statement in the name of the chief executive Hugh Logan offering an apology to Erin Leigh for the fact that the material provided to the Acting Minister on 22 November in which Mr Logan claimed that Erin’s Leigh’s work was incompetent was totally wrong and stating that her media work was professional and of good quality. That renders the primary question on the sheet somewhat irrelevant. I am quite happy to ask it because we have numerous other supplementary questions and it is now clear that Mr Mallard did in fact mislead the House in a very serious way. So I seek leave of the House to ask a different question but one that is related to the topic. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13508] 
7.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any recent reports on subsidised medical prescriptions? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. Pharmac has recently announced that during 2006-07 close to 33 million prescriptions were subsidised which is a rise of 11.8 percent on the previous year. The Medical Director of Pharmac Dr Peter Moodie says that the biggest factor in this is the Government’s policy on access to primary care such as cheaper doctors’ visits and reduced co-payments. These policies reduce prescription charges to $3 a shot and have halved general practitioners’ fees. 
Lesley Soper 
: Are these desirable gains in primary care secure for the future? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Certainly not were the Opposition’s announced policies of basing general practice fees on market forces to be implemented. Many years of gain in primary health care would be reversed.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13501] 
3.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Has he received any reports on plans to transform New Zealand’s economy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Yes. Today I released plans to intensify work in six areas to achieve the next step change in this country’s economic transformation. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why has he chosen only six areas of focus and what are these areas? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: We have chosen six not 16 or 26 because we wish to make good progress on a smaller number of key fronts. We will focus on improving broadband investment in sustainable technologies improved workplace skills supporting the internationalisation of our firms a better alignment of Government investment activity and making Auckland a world-class hub of innovation.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — State Services Minister—Lodging Questions 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — State Services Minister—Lodging Questions 
[Volume:644;Page:13498] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. As Mr Brownlee noted considerable thought was given to the ruling I have read out. The point that the member raised was addressed there.
McCully Murray: Speaker’s Rulings — State Services Minister—Lodging Questions 
McCully Murray: Speaker’s Rulings — State Services Minister—Lodging Questions 
[Volume:644;Page:13497] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to perhaps give some thought to a matter that is close to the matter you have just ruled upon. It is accepted of course that Ministers have a right to transfer to redirect a question to another Minister. But I think as I look at page 137 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 that it is clear that the purpose for that redirection is to ensure that the most appropriate Minister can answer that question. It is also apparent in Speakers’ ruling 138/3 that the Speaker has the discretion to refuse to allow the redirection of a question to another Minister where the Speaker considers this to be an abuse—in other words where the purpose is one that is different from ensuring that the most appropriate Minister answers the question. I would like at some stage some indication that Ministers who avoid answering a question through a redirection would be brought to heel by yourself using that precedent.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — State Services Minister—Lodging Questions 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — State Services Minister—Lodging Questions 
[Volume:644;Page:13497] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a matter for the Government and I am sure we will all be informed in time.
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — State Services Minister—Lodging Questions 
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — State Services Minister—Lodging Questions 
[Volume:644;Page:13497] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is a long ruling. It draws on the experience of the House and we of course accept that you have given a ruling in this way. The issue of ministerial delegations though immediately comes to mind. It is now some weeks since Cabinet was reshuffled yet there is still no formal list of the delegations for the various Ministers who sit outside Cabinet and it is not clear exactly where the delegations do lie in Cabinet. Madam Speaker has your office received any such information? If not when would you expect the House to be able to understand the way in which the Government is constructing its ministry?
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — State Services Minister—Lodging Questions 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — State Services Minister—Lodging Questions 
[Volume:644;Page:13497] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yesterday Gerry Brownlee raised a point of order concerning the lodging of question for oral answer No. 8. The question as originally directed by the member to the Minister of State Services addressed remarks made by another Minister the Minister for the Environment relating to matters relevant to the State Services Commission investigation of the engagement of Clare Curran by the Ministry for the Environment. The Clerk’s Office having been so advised by the Cabinet Office informed Mr Brownlee that ministerial responsibility for this investigation now resided with the Minister of Justice and that the question should therefore be addressed to the Minister of Justice. 
A member cannot insist on a particular Minister dealing with a question. The matters addressed in the question as originally lodged were not ones where only one Minister could be expected to have personal knowledge of the subject. Standing Order 369(a) allows questions to be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected. Speaker’s Ruling 138/1 makes it clear that it is not a matter for the Speaker or the House to determine which Minister has responsibility for the public affairs to which a question relates. The arrangement of administrative responsibility within Cabinet is an internal arrangement. The Government determines which Minister is responsible. 
Ministerial responsibility is not being avoided. A decision has been taken that it should reside with another Minister. Questions must be addressed to the Minister who is responsible. In this instance that is now the Minister of Justice. However there should be clarity about ministerial responsibility. Although the Government may make changes of this nature it does make the situation more complex for members lodging questions. Ideally such changes should be rare arising only from real and significant conflicts of interest. Where they do occur it would be helpful to members if the Government were to ensure members are officially informed.
Urgent Debates Declined — Capital and Coast District Health Board—State of Health Services 
Urgent Debates Declined — Capital and Coast District Health Board—State of Health Services 
[Volume:644;Page:13517] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Capital and Coast District Health Board—State of Health Services 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Heather Roy seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the state of health services at the Capital and Coast District Health Board. In her letter the member refers to the resignation of the chief executive and information regarding events that have occurred. The chief executive’s resignation has been signalled for some time and the outcome of these reported events is unclear. No decisions have yet been made. This is not a particular case of recent occurrence and cannot give grounds to a debate. Furthermore as I said yesterday there are other opportunities to consider the performance of district health boards. The financial review of the Capital and Coast District Health Board is currently before the Health Committee and there is a general debate today. The application is declined.
Carter David: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13632] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 In the debate around clause 1 “Title” and clause 2 “Commencement” of the Electoral Finance Bill we see Labour doing its final move to steamroll this legislation through Parliament. It is steamrolling it through with the support of New Zealand First and the Greens and that will be noted by the voters. I will come back to that point shortly. 
I was in the Chamber earlier and Jill Pettis told us the true reason why this legislation is being pushed through the House and steamrolled by the Labour-led Government. Jill Pettis said—and people can go back and look at the  
Hansard 
—that lots of people out there at the moment want to write cheques for the National Party because those people want to see a change of Government. Helen Clark knows that. She knows that lots of people out there want to see a change of Government. The people who want to write cheques for the National Party are the mums and dads in New Zealand many of whom used to vote for the Labour Party. Many of them used to vote for the Labour Party because the Labour Party used to represent those people. 
People are fed up with being told what to do. They are fed up with it. They have enough of Labour telling everybody how they are to live their lives and that is what the bill does. The bill tells us how little we can campaign when using our own money but it does not stop the Government using taxpayers’ money to campaign at the next election. That is what it is about. Lesley Soper nods her head in agreement because she knows that at the last election Labour was caught with its sticky dirty little fingers in the till with $850000 stolen from the taxpayer. It was paid back although reluctantly but I will give Labour that one little credit. But the money was not paid back by New Zealand First; $50000-odd was nicked from the taxpayer by New Zealand First. Originally the New Zealand First members said that they would not pay it back but now they say that they will pay it back. The cheque is in the mail—yeah right! 
That is what this legislation is about. Sue Moroney knows that Lesley Soper knows that and the former Minister who is now to be a vice-chancellor knows that. He was probably part of the team that devised the strategy to rig the system after Labour members decided they did not have a hope of winning the election if they stuck with the old financial rules. This is an attempt to rig the election result but mark my words it will fail. It will fail. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13632] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13631] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13631] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13631] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13631] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 3 be agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13630] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 135 be agreed to: 
to omit from section 9(4)(b) the number “20” and substitute the number “25”.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13630] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 135 be agreed to: 
to omit from section 9(3)(a) the number “20” and substitute the number “25”.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13630] 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 134(1) be agreed to: 
to omit from section 8(1D) the number “20” and substitute the number “15”.
Hughes Darren: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13630] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave on that basis. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for the previous vote to be recommitted. That amendment is to section 8(1D) in clause 134 in the name of Judith Collins. It was to omit the number “20” and substitute the number “15”. There was some confusion on that and the response did not come from over here. We should have gone to a party vote. Leave has been sought. 
Anne Tolley 
: Is that subsection (1D) or (1C)? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is to subsection (1D). Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Hughes Darren: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13630] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There is confusion as to whether we had a division on the preceding amendment so I would ask whether we could we record our division on that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. There is some confusion and it is possible I did not hear a response to the call for the “Noes” but leave should be sought to revisit that to put that vote again.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13629] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 134(1) be agreed to: 
to omit from section 8(1D) the number “20” and substitute the number “15”.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13629] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 134(1) be agreed to: 
to omit from section 8(1C)(b) the number “20” and substitute the number “15”.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13629] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 111 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 128 be agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13628] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 170 in the name of Metiria Turei to insert new Subpart 1A be agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13628] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 126(1) be agreed to: 
to insert after the word “person” the words “body corporate”.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13628] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 125(b) be agreed to: 
to omit the amount “10000” and substitute the amount “10001”.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13628] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 125(a) be agreed to: 
to omit the amount “40000” and substitute the amount “40001”.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13627] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland; Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 122 be agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13627] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 121(4) be agreed to: 
to insert after the word “person” the words “or body corporate”.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13627] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 121 be agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13627] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 120 be agreed to: 
to omit the word “which” and to substitute the words “that the person knows”.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13626] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 120 be agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13626] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 120 be agreed to: 
to insert after the word “person” the words “or body corporate”.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13626] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to omit the phrase “third party” in each case where it appears in this part and to substitute the phrase “interest group” is ruled out of order. It is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 119 be agreed to.
Simich Clem: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13625] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member who raised the point of order and those who have contributed. Members will be aware that I was about to put the closure motion before the point of order was raised and I am going to do it now. Those who wish to speak have wide scope to do so in the debate on clauses 1 and 2. They know that it is a summary of everything we have covered. Perhaps Mr Borrows could use that opportunity when it comes up. I am going to put the closure motion.
Hutchison Paul: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13625] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I do not wish to be disorderly but I would like to back up my colleague Chester Borrows. Clause 121 which he talked about is a pivotal clause in that it breaks a long tradition in New Zealand whereby normally a search warrant would not be issued for an illegal matter that is associated with only a fine not imprisonment. Mr Chairperson if you were not prepared to give my colleague Chester Borrows the call I would be very happy to back him up.
Cullen Michael: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13625] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson I think it might be time for you to draw the attention of members to the fact that the acceptance of the closure motion is not a debatable matter. It is entirely within your discretion. It is actually disorderly to keep questioning the Chair’s accepting a closure motion.
Borrows Chester: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13625] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like the opportunity to speak to clause 121 on the basis that nobody else has addressed this particular clause relating to search warrants. I have not spoken on this bill. Last night while seeking a call I was savagely thrust aside by a recalcitrant member Paula Bennett and so I have chosen to stand alongside Kate Wilkinson at this opportunity in the hope that it will not happen again.
Hughes Darren: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13625] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The question is that the question be now put.
Cullen Michael: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13624] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member raises a very fair point and I suggest perhaps that we might take leave for the member since you had started putting the motion to have one speech and then for the closure motion be put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not need any more help on this. I will take it upon myself to call Anne Tolley.
Tolley Anne: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13624] 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to point out that I have not taken a call on this part and the Green member in particular has spoken at length about my actions in regard to her Supplementary Order Paper 170 and I ask you for the opportunity to reply to her questions of me in this part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is an interesting twist.
Cullen Michael: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13624] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think we have been adequately informed in the debate on Part 3. The question is that the question be now put.
Chauvel Charles: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13620] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We have been on this part for quite some time. We have had 18 speakers. Mr Carter has not spoken yet.
Hobbs Marian: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13619] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pillay Lynne: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13613] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I want to take just a short call on Part 3. In particular I want to say that I am very pleased that the Justice and Electoral Committee—and in referring to the select committee I actually mean the Labour members the Green members the New Zealand First members and United Future members on the committee who were the people who listened to submissions—wanted to see accountability and transparency in this bill. They were committed to increasing the terms of penalties to bring about accountability and to punish those who do wrong—those who collaborate in and undertake corrupt practice. And by hokey there are people sitting opposite who know what that all is about! 
Briefly we have increased the maximum term of imprisonment from 1 year to 2 years. The majority of the select committee—the thinking people on the select committee—said very clearly that for corrupt practice a fine of $40000 is not enough and that amount has been increased so that any financial agent or party secretary who is found to be undertaking corrupt practice will be fined up to $100000. That is a penalty fitting the crime. For individuals the paltry $15000 penalty is increased to $40000. That sits alongside all the other good common-sense changes to this bill that bring back accountability transparency and honesty into our electoral system and that is what we on this side of the Chamber believe is very important.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13604] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to insert new Part 2B be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
New Part 2B not agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13604] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Motion agreed to.
Hayes John: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Hayes John: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13603] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I will not take a point of order on the matter I have just ruled on. If the member is raising a point of order on the matter I have just ruled on—on the closure—he cannot do that. I have ruled.