edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Smith Nick: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3782] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I think the numbers with regard to accident compensation speak for themselves. I will read the actual numbers with regard to the state of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) over the previous Labour Government’s last 3 years in office. That Government increased the liabilities of the accident compensation scheme in just 3 years by $10.5 billion. That equates to $5000 for every household of New Zealand. That is a deterioration of $5000 for every Kiwi household as a consequence of Labour’s management of accident compensation over the last 3 years. 
The members opposite and Mr Parker said they accepted there was a mess with physiotherapy but that it was just housekeeping. I have a housekeeping bill in my home and I tell Mr Parker how expensive his housekeeping bill over the physiotherapy mess that his Government made over the last few years has been. The extra cost of accident compensation in physiotherapy has added $500 million to the accident compensation scheme’s liabilities. That is not a bad housekeeping bill! That is an extra $100 million per year. 
I would like any Labour member opposite to explain why they ignored advice from the Department of Labour because I have very clear advice here from the department stating that the physiotherapy decision was wrong before the Government made it. A further point I ask is this. The changes were made in 2004 to physiotherapy. ACC reported to Ministers in 2005 in 2006 in 2007 and in 2008 that expenditure was out of control in physiotherapy. What did Labour do? It did absolutely nothing—absolutely zip. Labour handed this new Government a hospital pass of which physiotherapy is just part. 
It is the view of this Government that a 24/7 accident insurance scheme along the Woodhouse inquiry principles is absolutely critical. But if we are to save that heritage for New Zealanders we have to deal with the loose financial management of ACC. That will involve levy increases. That will involve changes in ACC—this week the corporation will be announcing redundancies in terms of head office corporate staff which has also grown out of control. That is in line with National’s provisions and promises to put the focus on front-line services. We will review some of the expensive extensions made to the accident compensation scheme by the previous Government but not funded. 
I say this new Government has been left a hospital pass a $10 billion increase in liabilities and we will have a difficult challenge that will require compassion a strong heart and a strong head as we ensure the security of this important New Zealand institution.
Hughes Darren: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3840] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been listening to the debate this evening since the House resumed after the dinner break and I am interested to know whether under Standing Order 261 the bill is compliant with the Standing Orders in that respect. I have not seen any evidence of that. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Attorney-General has not presented a paper. Consequently the bill is in order.
Macindoe Tim: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Macindoe Tim: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3840] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill deals with many issues of great importance to people in my electorate of Hamilton West. I commend it to the House and I wish the Social Services Committee well in its deliberations.
Roy Eric: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3772] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Just before I call the next speaker I say that at least 13 discussions are going on in the Chamber. There is too much—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. There is just too much chatter. Please keep it down.
Roy Eric: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3771] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The House is in Committee for consideration of the performance in 2007-08 and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises. The debate on the performance of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises is a series of debates on individual financial reviews of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported by select committees. A total of 3 hours is allocated for the debate. 
The debate on the individual financial reviews should be relevant to their performance in the 2007-08 financial year and to their current operations. A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. A list of the financial reviews available for debate is appended to the Order Paper. Reports on entities yet to be reported cannot be debated. 
I understand that members have indicated the Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises that they wish to debate. I understand that the first entity members wish to debate is the Human Rights Commission.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Auckland Governance Legislation Committee—Appointment of Chair 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Auckland Governance Legislation Committee—Appointment of Chair 
[Volume:654;Page:3771] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Darren Hughes seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s appointment of the Hon John Carter Associate Minister of Local Government as chair of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. The appointment of the chairperson of a select committee is a matter for the committee when it first meets. There can be no ministerial responsibility for such a decision. Furthermore the committee has not yet met and elected its chairperson. The ministerial comments relate to actions that are likely to occur in the near future. There is therefore no particular case of recent occurrence that would be grounds for a debate. The application for an urgent debate is consequently declined.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3770] 
12.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by his statement that all political parties and interested members of the public will have an opportunity to have input at more than one stage on the process of electoral finance reform; if so what progress has been made to date? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; an issues paper was released last Friday after consultation with all parliamentary parties. Members of the public have 5 weeks to make written submissions on the issues paper. There are also three public meetings to be held in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch where the public can make their views known. We are seeking a wide range of views in order to create a fair and enduring replacement for the Electoral Finance Act. 
Chester Borrows 
: What is the next stage of the review and will the public have further opportunities for input? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Yes once the Government has received submissions on the issues paper we will use them to develop a proposal document. All parliamentary parties will be consulted again before we release that document for further public consultation. Submissions on that document will assist us in drafting a bill to reform electoral finance law. Once the bill is before Parliament the public will also have a further opportunity to make a submission on the bill during the select committee process. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister aware that at the last election the National Party and its candidates disclosed the source of only 15 percent of their $4 million of election spending and does he agree that transparency with regard to donations to political parties is a cornerstone of maintaining public confidence in our democracy? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No and yes I believe that the issues surrounding donations will be well canvassed during this process.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3767] 
9.  
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What is the Government’s position on Maori representation for the new Auckland Council? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 On 6 April 2009 Cabinet agreed as noted in Cabinet minute 0912/7 that Maori representation should not be provided for within the new Auckland governance structure. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: When you took forward to Cabinet your recommendation to scrap the royal commission’s recommendations for Maori representation who else did you ask other than Pita Sharples who agrees that Maori representation should be scrapped? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the honourable member to restate his question because the Speaker did not actually do any of those alleged things. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: When did the Cabinet submission that was made by you Mr Hide to scrap Maori—apologies. Mr Hide when the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat while I am on my feet. I thank the honourable member. Colleagues I ask for a little decorum please. I call the Hon Shane Jones and I ask him to please concentrate. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Did the Minister seek the views of any Maori other than the Minister of Maori Affairs when deciding whether to ditch the royal commission’s recommendation for Maori representation? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes we did consult but the decision was made on the basis of a commitment to the democratic principle of one person one vote and also on the basis of the views of Dr Pita Sharples who felt the royal commission had not gone far enough. He said that the proposals as explained in the royal commission’s report would perpetuate the failure of existing Maori representation. He felt that the proposed mana whenua councillor was unachievable so we felt that there was more work to do in achieving proper iwi engagement. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I had great difficulty hearing the Minister and I wonder whether he could please repeat his last comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that it was perfectly audible compared with the sound levels in previous exchanges. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Why does the Minister have confidence in the select committee process and encourage Maori to make submissions to the select committee when he has summarily dismissed their submissions—over 100 went to the royal commission—on this vexed topic of Maori representation? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I have faith in parliamentary democracy and the select committee process. I have made it plain what my views are but ultimately the decision will be made by Parliament. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: It’s a jack-up! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Perhaps if Mr Shane Jones and the Hon Parekura Horomia spent less time eating McDonald’s— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order!
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3764] 
6.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports if any has he received on the state of the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received a number of reports from a number of people. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he agree with rating agencies such as Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s who make clear that closing our external deficit and building a more diversified and innovative economy is a greater challenge than reducing New Zealand’s relatively low Government debt; if so why has he gutted KiwiSaver research and development tax cuts and the Fast Forward programme which were critical to reducing the savings gap and getting our economy moving? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The first task of the Government has been to get expenditure and debt under control because they were out of control when the previous Government left office and the global recession made that worse. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he agree with commentator Rod Oram who said: “Two very big dangers arise from the government’s focus on its debt … First it will deliver an excessively conservative budget in order to make its books look good.”—and make the recession worse—“Second it will seriously under-invest in economic transformation”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What reports has he seen on alternative plans for managing the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen very few reports—in fact I do not think I have seen any reports—on alternative plans for managing the economy. Mr Oram just says we should transform it and the Labour Party just says we should spend more and run up more debt. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification from the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot use a point of order to seek clarification. He can ask a further supplementary question should he wish.
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3762] 
3.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the latest advice on the number of people out of work? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am advised that for the March quarter 2009 the unemployment rate was 5 percent—115000 people. Of those 41336 were receiving the unemployment benefit in April. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why is the Minister’s ministry calling urgent management meetings in Auckland this week to examine critical staffing shortages at most branch offices if as she stated Work and Income could “cope” on current staffing levels? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As previously said in this House we are currently recruiting for further front-line staff. That staff will go predominantly to Auckland offices and I know that in Waitakere they are looking at taking on another eight front-line staff for whom they are currently recruiting. We expect about 104 new staff by the end of June I think. 
Jo Goodhew 
: How is Work and Income coping with increased numbers of unemployed people? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This Government has focused resources on front-line services to get people back into work as quickly as possible and that is working. As of just the last week within a month of those people coming through the doors of Work and Income to go on a benefit 30 percent of them had not gone on a benefit whether or not they had found work. Work and Income is coping. It does need more front-line staff—there are no two ways about it—but we are certainly focused on that. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why then are the positions of 31 front-line field officers—whose job it is to work one-on-one with clients to ensure that clients are receiving the financial support they are entitled to—being disestablished after the assurances the Minister has just given the House and has given in the past that no cuts are happening and that resources are going to the front line? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The chief executive has responsibility for the structure of staffing. He has made those calls and certainly those are calls that I back. 
Hon Annette King 
: How can the 90-day employment trial legislation be “a great example of partnership working for everyone” as the Minister has stated when last week a citizens advice bureau in South Auckland advised that it is seeing one person a day who has been hired and then fired under that legislation? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: If we looked at the facts I think we would also see many employees who are getting a chance that they were not getting before this legislation was put in place. I am hearing daily that people who were not getting opportunities are now getting them that employers are now taking on people whom they would not normally have taken on and that actually the legislation is working out there.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:654;Page:3810] 
Sittings of the House 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 The House has made good progress this evening on the Crown entities debate. I seek leave from the House for the House to rise early this evening for the 6 o’clock dinner break. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. 
Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Urgent Debates Declined — Auckland Governance Legislation Committee—Appointment of Chair 
Urgent Debates Declined — Auckland Governance Legislation Committee—Appointment of Chair 
[Volume:654;Page:3771] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Auckland Governance Legislation Committee—Appointment of Chair 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Darren Hughes seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s appointment of the Hon John Carter Associate Minister of Local Government as chair of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. The appointment of the chairperson of a select committee is a matter for the committee when it first meets. There can be no ministerial responsibility for such a decision. Furthermore the committee has not yet met and elected its chairperson. The ministerial comments relate to actions that are likely to occur in the near future. There is therefore no particular case of recent occurrence that would be grounds for a debate. The application for an urgent debate is consequently declined.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:41] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (1) “and responsible for developing this Act without undertaking the consultation that Aucklanders want and deserve” to the definition of  
Minister 
.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:40] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “In certain situations the existing entities must obtain the consent of the Transition Agency before implementing decisions they have made.”
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:40] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I apologise to the Committee. There was an earlier amendment that I had not dealt with and I will put it now. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (5) after “involve developing the” “Auckland”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:39] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “2 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:39] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “3 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:39] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “4 November 2010”.
Mallard Trevor:  
Mallard Trevor:  
[Volume:654;Page:13] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not sure a party vote was called for at that stage. I think you were asking whether there was a call for a party vote and I am not sure that there has been. Before you move to it I think you probably have to wait to see if anyone is calling for a party vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: What I have been doing when there is opposition is that I have probably truncated the process a little bit. The member is perhaps going to indicate that he may not be calling for one—I will observe. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “5 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:13] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The 93rd amendment to Part 1 clause 3 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins. Members of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Noes have it. Party vote called for.
Hide Rodney:  
Hide Rodney:  
[Volume:654;Page:71] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 We are making steady progress through the night. Part 2 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill establishes the Auckland Council. However this part does not come into effect until 1 November 2010. We understand that the Labour Party also supports the creation of an Auckland Council but quite how it proposed to create it remains somewhat mystifying. 
It is necessary to establish the Auckland Council to enable the Auckland Transition Agency to work towards a new governance structure. Obviously if the agency is to provide a transition it has to provide a transition to something and that is what Part 2 is about. The Auckland Council will assume the responsibilities duties and powers of the Auckland Regional Council and the seven territorial authorities in the Auckland region. That is what establishing one council and one mayor for Auckland is all about. The Auckland Council will be a territorial authority and will have the powers of a regional council—that is it will be a unitary council. 
We look forward to the debate on this part. I am particularly interested in the contribution that we will hear from the Hon George Hawkins. We know that the Hon George Hawkins has done more work today than he did the entire time that he was in Government. It is also very clear and easy to understand why productivity slipped so much when Labour was in power given the sort of behaviour that we have seen here in the Chamber. I look forward to George Hawkins justifying himself and indeed the Labour Party to Aucklanders and to the people of New Zealand and explaining quite what the Labour Party is trying to achieve.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:64] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1;. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “17 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:64] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “18 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:52] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “5 January 2011”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:51] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “6 January 2011”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:51] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “7 January 2011”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:51] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “8 January 2011”.
Tisch Lindsay:  
Tisch Lindsay:  
[Volume:654;Page:44] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No. When the member asked me that before I said that that is not the case. This is the way that I interpret it this is the way that I am doing it and we will proceed from there. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Thanks Lindsay. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Mr Tisch or Lindsay Tisch will do. I am standing as well.
Cosgrove Clayton:  
Cosgrove Clayton:  
[Volume:654;Page:44] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I in fact was not making the interpretation that you say. I was simply asking for your advice because you have made a ruling as you are entitled to do. But for clarity are you saying that your colleagues who have occupied the Chair have actively—
Tisch Lindsay:  
Tisch Lindsay:  
[Volume:654;Page:44] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Not at all. I am quoting from Standing Order 137 which states: “Where a further vote is called for a party vote is held unless the subject of the vote is to be treated as a conscience issue”. It is really up to members. I have actually called for the vote both ways. If no one goes for the call I can move on to the next amendment and that is how we have been practising it. The interpretation Mr Cosgrove that you are suggesting is that I should ask whether there is a party vote. There is no requirement to do that. A presiding officer may in fact do that but with previous discussions prior to the dinner break I followed this procedure.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:33] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “25 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:33] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “26 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:33] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “27 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:32] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “28 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:28] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “15 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:28] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “16 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:28] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “17 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:27] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “18 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:27] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to:  
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “19 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:23] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “3 January 2011”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:23] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “4 January 2011”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:23] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “5 January 2011”.
Tisch Lindsay:  
Tisch Lindsay:  
[Volume:654;Page:17] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You have made your point. I will not in future ask whether a party vote is called for. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “30 January 2011”.
Mallard Trevor:  
Mallard Trevor:  
[Volume:654;Page:17] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. With respect I think that was not quite the point that Chris Tremain was making. I think he was trying to ask the Committee whether votes could be taken more or less as read rather than having party votes each time. I think that is an interesting approach to democracy but it is a view that I do not share. I am one of the old-fashioned types who think it probably would be better for this Parliament and better for colleagues and parties if we voted properly through the lobbies. I can see that time has moved on on that particular issue. But I think the right to a vote and the right to call for a party vote is something that is well established.
Tisch Lindsay:  
Tisch Lindsay:  
[Volume:654;Page:16] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am seeking some advice at this stage. Where a vote has been put and a party has voted either for or against I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 67/4 which states: “When the Speaker declares the result on the voices that unless challenged is final and may not be disputed. The right to challenge does not lie with those whom the Speaker has declared to be the majority. The right to challenge the result lies with the minority who believes that the decision of the House would be different if it were tested by a vote.” That is why in my interpretation I have asked whether there was a call for a party vote. I did so out of courtesy. It is not out of order to ask that question but obviously the member does not believe I should be asking whether a party vote is required.
Tremain Chris:  
Tremain Chris:  
[Volume:654;Page:16] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I am more than comfortable to take the Chairman’s ruling on this matter without recalling the Speaker.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:12] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “6 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:6] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:6] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “2 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:5] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “3 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:5] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “4 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:3] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “11 December 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:3] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “12 December 2010”.
Guy Nathan:  
Guy Nathan:  
[Volume:654;Page:88] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hide Rodney:  
Hide Rodney:  
[Volume:654;Page:79] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I will take just a short call. We have an amendment to clause 9 in the name of the Hon David Parker. I am sorry but having studied it the Government will not be able to support this amendment. There are two difficulties with it. First it specifies who can and cannot stand to be mayor of the new Auckland City. 
Hon David Parker 
: Just who can’t. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Well specifying who cannot stand specifies who can I say to Mr Parker. It is an amendment to clause 9 which has nothing to do with the mayor and does not mention the mayor so it is entirely inappropriate. 
I find it interesting that Labour Party members have been attempting to lecture me and other members of the Government about democracy when the Hon David Parker presumably with the support of his Labour caucus members would rule out any existing mayor from standing to be mayor of the new city. He would not only rule them out from standing but also prevent the people of Auckland from voting for whom they might choose to be mayor. Mr Parker is actually deciding who can stand to be mayor of the new Auckland City. He is going around saying “That person can’t stand that person can’t stand and that person can’t stand.” 
More particularly the Hon David Parker with the support of the Labour Party is saying that no former Minister of any Government can stand to be mayor of the new Auckland City. I ask Mr David Parker whether that is now Labour Party policy. If it is such a good idea why is Labour proposing it only for Auckland? If Labour members actually had the courage of this policy they would— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. To accuse a party or an individual of lacking courage is a breach of the Standing Orders. It should be clearly ruled out. The member cannot get around that by the approach he is attempting to take. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Well it is a line call. The member called it a breach of policy but of course a policy cannot exist in itself; it has to exist by virtue of members and of parties. The member should not refer to courage in that regard. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: If the Labour Party is consistent with its policy and if it is sticking to some level of principle presumably Labour members are saying that they are quite happy for Parliament to make a general rule that would rule out people who would otherwise be entitled to put their names forward for office. Labour members are saying that those people cannot stand. I and members of the Government find that abhorrent and anti-democratic. I would like to hear someone—just one person—from the Labour Party stand up and defend that amendment.
Henare Tau:  
Henare Tau:  
[Volume:654;Page:77] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Thank goodness that rant is over. I want to turn to the speech made by George Hawkins. For 9 years we have not heard boo out of George Hawkins but today—in one day—he has done more work here than he has done in the last 9 years. That is an indication of where the Labour Party is at. George Hawkins is leading the charge to save the Labour Party! None of the others on the front bench including my sparring partner Trevor Mallard could do anything other than spend 6 hours of the Committee’s time of New Zealand’s time and of the New Zealand taxpayers’ time on some spurious little amendments that Labour knew it would lose anyway. 
The Hon David Cunliffe said that the Indian community in Mt Albert would all vote in favour of Labour. I point out that that is real Fabian Society logic: Labour members will create victims in each community and then ask those people to vote for them. They will say to those little victim societies: “We’ll help you. You stay down there and we will be up here helping you. We will protect our own little hideaway on the rung of the ladder.” That is what the other party is on about. 
Not half an hour ago George Hawkins bold as brass asked what the name of the council was. Well if he had only bothered to look he would have found that it is called the Auckland Council. That is the point I say to Mr Hawkins; it will be called the Auckland Council. That is actually stated at the beginning of Part 2 so maybe the member who has spent the last 9 years doing nothing should have looked at Part 2. 
The other thing is that all these people across the other side of the Chamber have been talking about a referendum. Where was the referendum in 1989 when the Hon Michael Bassett who was not a member of the ACT Party was the Minister of Local Government for the Labour Government? That is right—a true Labour Party person not like these ones. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Mana Motuhake! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I am glad the member raises the issue of Mana Maori Motuhake. What we saw tonight during the vote was Labour trying to get back the Maori vote by saying a few Maori words! That is its whole plan. And now it is even talking about joining the hikoi! The Labour Party is now going to join the hikoi! The last time there was a hikoi there were 20000 people outside Parliament baying for the blood of the Labour Government. For goodness’ sake! 
Hon Members 
: Iwi-Kiwi! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is right—I am an iwi and a Kiwi which makes me better than those members. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You can’t hack it Tau. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Let us see who cannot hack it! We will take Auckland and we will progress into the future. I tell members that Waitakere is behind this; the people of Waitakere are behind this 100 percent.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:71] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:71] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:70] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “2 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:70] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “3 November 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:70] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “4 November 2010”.