edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1462] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.
Hide Rodney: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1450] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party rises to support the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. It is part of the agreement with our confidence and supply partner—National—that has enabled us to get our “three strikes” bill referred to a select committee. The ACT Party looks forward to robust debate at the select committee and back in this House over the issues raised by this bill.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1440] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.
Lee Melissa: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
Lee Melissa: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1438] 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I rise to take a very short call. I have to apologise to the member opposite Shane Jones. I was so shocked that a member from the Green Party had called the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill a racist bill that I did not really pay too much attention to what he had to say. I did not realise victims’ rights could be colour-coded so carelessly. 
This bill is designed to create a three-stage regime of increasing consequences for the worst repeat violent offenders. To me as a mother the idea of giving a warning to a child like a good mother would to make sure that he or she performed better next time is a good idea. This Government like a good parent would wants to give warning to an offender who commits a serious crime. The second time round obviously it will be a bigger warning. In terms of that person committing the offence a third time a lot of people in New Zealand will agree that the full duration of his or her term in prison should be served. I have to say that all of New Zealand will be applauding this bill and I do not understand how anybody could actually oppose it. That is all I have to say.
Goudie Sandra: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1427] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill I take up a few of the comments made by the previous speaker Jim Anderton. I was absolutely astounded when he said that he did not want to denounce criminals. That is a pretty amazing comment from a former Minister. The opposite of denouncing is condoning so what does that comment mean? Does that mean that he actually condones the activities of criminals? I find that quite an extraordinary statement. 
I applaud the excellent work of the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power and the Minister of Police the Hon Judith Collins as they work so hard to ensure the safety of all law-abiding New Zealanders. We denounce criminals; we do not condone them in any way shape or form. That is what our position is all about and that is this Government’s intention. Our primary concern is the safety of all New Zealanders. The Opposition in saying that it does not want to denounce criminals quite clearly condones them. It is no wonder that there has been no action over the last 9 years and that we now find ourselves confronted with this mess. It will take some time to sort out so I heartily commend the work of my colleagues in bringing this bill to the House. 
We will put into practice the Government’s policy of no parole for the worst and most violent repeat offenders. We are unashamedly putting the safety of the community before violent offenders. When offenders if they are over 18 get their first sentence for a serious or violent offence they will get their first warning. If they then get another sentence other than life imprisonment for murder they will get their second recorded final warning and there is no parole. When they commit a further offence they get a life sentence. That is as it should be. The purpose of this bill is to create a three-stage regime of increasing consequences for the worst repeat violent offenders and it is all about ensuring the safety of law-abiding New Zealanders. We stand forthrightly behind that.
Smith Lockwood: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1420] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This paper is published under the authority of the House.
Finlayson Christopher: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1420] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I hereby present an interim report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. This report is made pursuant to section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Standing Order 261. I will present the final report for the select committee’s consideration.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:652;Page:1420] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for the debate on the second and third readings of the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill to follow the conclusion of the first reading of the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. I will give a small explanation. The Business Committee has decided that upon the finish of the items in the urgency motion today which includes the first readings of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill we would ordinarily have come out of urgency and gone into a members’ day. That may according to our Standing Orders affect the day on which we next have a members’ day therefore denying members considerable hours in the House. So by agreement we have determined to seek the leave of the House to fill up the small amount of time that remains with debate on the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill. If there is remaining time I suspect that the House will probably adjourn. There will be though through this process a members’ day on 4 March. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1420] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1419] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and first reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill.  
These two bills are important to the Government. They each have different effects. One of the bills should it be passed will enable the courts to put stronger parole conditions on those appearing before them particularly where violent offences are involved. The other bill will give the Youth Court a lot more flexibility in the way in which it may ask young people to engage in corrective activity.
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:652;Page:1406] 
12.  
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Does he intend to respond to public concerns expressed about the implementation of section 92A of the Copyright Act which comes into force next week; if so what will be his response? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Yes; I will respond by saying that I am mindful of the concerns that have been expressed by the public in relation to this provision coming into force. As the member will be aware industry representatives are currently working on a code of practice to help implement this law which was passed by the previous Labour Government. 
Clare Curran 
: Will the Minister delay the implementation of section 92A of the Copyright Act due to the concerns of Internet service providers Internet users and rights holders? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: At this stage I have confidence that the discussions that are occurring between the various parties will produce the code. 
Clare Curran 
: Given the Minister’s party’s support for this legislation at its time of passage will he amend the legislation to assist in developing workable guidelines to implement the policy; if not why not? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The Government will do everything it can to assist the implementation of the code between the parties concerned.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:652;Page:1398] 
9.  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for the Education Review Office 
: Has she made any changes to the way that the Education Review Office will review schools? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister responsible for the Education Review Office) 
: 
 Yes. I have asked the Education Review Office to identify schools that are performing consistently well and from 1 March this year these schools will now be reviewed every 4 to 5 years. These schools will have shown that they are capable of reviewing their own performance and processes and that they are able to use this information for the benefit of their students. This Government is proud to recognise that there are many high-performing schools in the education sector that should be able to get on with the business of providing high-quality teaching and learning experiences for their pupils. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What reports has she seen on support for these changes? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have seen a report from the New Zealand Educational Institute lauding the move and applauding the Government for “creating a high trust model which will be welcomed by those schools and they will appreciate the show of confidence.” I have also seen a typically confused report from the Labour spokesperson on education Chris Carter. In one line of his release he states that the policy may have some merit but in the next he refuses to support this high-trust model. The question for Opposition members is very simple: do they support a review system that lets our best schools get on with the job of teaching? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Will the Minister assure the House that extending the review periods for some schools will not affect the Education Review Office’s staffing numbers and resources given her recent commitment to enhancing support for struggling schools? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: This policy is not about changing the number of jobs at the Education Review Office. It is about ensuring that the resources of the office are focused on schools that are not performing consistently and that really need the support.
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Sub Judice Rule—Members’ Freedom of Expression 
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Sub Judice Rule—Members’ Freedom of Expression 
[Volume:652;Page:1387] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members yesterday members raised points of order about the sub judice rule. I have given consideration to the practice that has developed around the application of the rule and members’ freedom of speech. 
The first issue is the time during which the rule is engaged. Standing Order 112 is very clear. The rule applies from the time a charge is laid or in relation to cases other than criminal cases from the time when proceedings have been initiated by the filing of the appropriate documents with the court. The rule ceases to apply when the verdict and sentence have been announced or a judgment given. 
There are two strands to the way in which the Speaker applies the rule. First reference to a matter before the court risks being prejudicial to the outcome of the case or may be unfair to those involved in the proceedings. Second it is contrary to New Zealand’s constitutional principles. 
Standing Order 111 articulates the minimum standard in respect of protecting the rights of individuals to a fair trial. The practice of the House that has evolved though is that the Speaker in exercising his or her discretion under Standing Order 111 must also have regard to the comity between Parliament and the courts. 
The House has set itself a high standard of restraint and respect with regard to its special constitutional relationship with the courts. What is before one ought not to be discussed or adjudicated on in the other. Parliament often asks the courts to uphold its privileges. It must be equally vigilant in defending the role of the courts. 
It is important however that the sub judice rule does not unduly constrain members’ freedom of speech or inhibit members discussing the law in general. There is a fine balance between the competing interests of the legislative and the judicial branches of Government. Members may feel that this balance needs reconsideration. The Privileges Committee currently has before it an inquiry dealing with these very issues. I urge members to put their views to the committee. Any rebalancing of these important constitutional principles requires proper consideration in such a forum.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:652;Page:1469] 
Sittings of the House 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The House has made very good progress this afternoon and this evening and I seek leave for the House to rise a little bit earlier this evening. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:652;Page:1420] 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for the debate on the second and third readings of the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill to follow the conclusion of the first reading of the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. I will give a small explanation. The Business Committee has decided that upon the finish of the items in the urgency motion today which includes the first readings of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill we would ordinarily have come out of urgency and gone into a members’ day. That may according to our Standing Orders affect the day on which we next have a members’ day therefore denying members considerable hours in the House. So by agreement we have determined to seek the leave of the House to fill up the small amount of time that remains with debate on the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill. If there is remaining time I suspect that the House will probably adjourn. There will be though through this process a members’ day on 4 March. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection.
Speaker’s Rulings — Sub Judice Rule—Members’ Freedom of Expression 
Speaker’s Rulings — Sub Judice Rule—Members’ Freedom of Expression 
[Volume:652;Page:1387] 
Wednesday 18 February 2009 
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Sub Judice Rule—Members’ Freedom of Expression 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members yesterday members raised points of order about the sub judice rule. I have given consideration to the practice that has developed around the application of the rule and members’ freedom of speech. 
The first issue is the time during which the rule is engaged. Standing Order 112 is very clear. The rule applies from the time a charge is laid or in relation to cases other than criminal cases from the time when proceedings have been initiated by the filing of the appropriate documents with the court. The rule ceases to apply when the verdict and sentence have been announced or a judgment given. 
There are two strands to the way in which the Speaker applies the rule. First reference to a matter before the court risks being prejudicial to the outcome of the case or may be unfair to those involved in the proceedings. Second it is contrary to New Zealand’s constitutional principles. 
Standing Order 111 articulates the minimum standard in respect of protecting the rights of individuals to a fair trial. The practice of the House that has evolved though is that the Speaker in exercising his or her discretion under Standing Order 111 must also have regard to the comity between Parliament and the courts. 
The House has set itself a high standard of restraint and respect with regard to its special constitutional relationship with the courts. What is before one ought not to be discussed or adjudicated on in the other. Parliament often asks the courts to uphold its privileges. It must be equally vigilant in defending the role of the courts. 
It is important however that the sub judice rule does not unduly constrain members’ freedom of speech or inhibit members discussing the law in general. There is a fine balance between the competing interests of the legislative and the judicial branches of Government. Members may feel that this balance needs reconsideration. The Privileges Committee currently has before it an inquiry dealing with these very issues. I urge members to put their views to the committee. Any rebalancing of these important constitutional principles requires proper consideration in such a forum.
Tremain Chris: Maiden Statements 
Tremain Chris: Maiden Statements 
[Volume:651;Page:894] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to sit beyond the normal 6 p.m. rising to allow completion of the maiden statements. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There being none leave is granted.
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:798] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:956] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:956] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:955] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:949] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:948] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:840] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:839] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Barker Rick: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:839] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We now come to clause 2 and there is an amendment in the name of David Parker that seeks to change the commencement date. There are some concerns about it not setting a precise date but on balance I think we will let the Committee decide the question. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
This Act shall not be submitted for Royal Assent until 30 days after a regulatory impact assessment and the report on the financial and unemployment effects on New Zealand’s tallow to biodiesel industry have been presented to Parliament.
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:830] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:829] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The second amendment in the name of the Hon David—
Hodgson Pete: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:962] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 The witching hour is approaching so I will limit myself to just a few remarks and take up the call at 9 o’clock tomorrow morning. 
I address the first remarks made by the Minister of Energy and Resources Gerry Brownlee at the beginning of this third reading debate when he called the Labour Party arrogant. I want to place on the record a rebuttal to those comments. It was not this party but National that decided that the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill would be debated under urgency. It was the Government not the Opposition that set the pace and decided we would be debating until midnight. It was the Government not the Opposition that said that this legislation must not go near a select committee and that it must go through the House the week before Christmas when no one else is listening or taking a care because they are concerned with other matters. The Minister through the entire Committee process did not take a call except by way of interjection at which point he was sat down Mr Assistant Speaker Barker by your very good self. The Minister took those actions yet he calls the Opposition arrogant. That is a case of the pot calling the kettle black if ever there were one. 
The Opposition’s job where it opposes legislation is to fight it to the closure. We have fought this bill to the closure and we will continue to fight it during the third reading debate until the time has expired. That is our way of offering opposition to something that we think is wrong. We take our opportunity to say why we think it is wrong. The Minister on the other hand took no opportunity during the Committee stage to either put his own arguments or rebut ours yet he got up in the third reading debate and said we were arrogant. That is unfortunate. 
I want to say some other things but it depends on the time available. Perhaps I can sneak in a very quick story about Whirinaki power station. Whirinaki was built by the New Zealand Government in the Hawke’s Bay in around 2004 as a 150 megawatt diesel-fired power station. It was built there because until 6 months earlier there had already been a 150 megawatt diesel-powered station at Whirinaki. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:956] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Tremain Chris: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:955] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hutchison Paul: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:954] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will take one more call.
Carter David: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Carter David: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:952] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Macindoe Tim: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Macindoe Tim: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:948] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Woodhouse Michael: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:947] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Guy Nathan: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:946] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:943] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:943] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Quinn Paul: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Quinn Paul: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:943] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Guy Nathan: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:942] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:934] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Wong Pansy: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:918] 
Hon PANSY WONG (Associate Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 There was a lot of wind and hot air blowing from the Labour Opposition. If it could be turned into energy we might not need to build any more renewable generation or whatever. After 9 long years the Hon David Parker has said that everything is under control; New Zealand is leading the world. I am sure that New Zealanders will be so glad that Labour is no longer the Government. Mr Parker was trying to tell them that they are lucky that New Zealand’s power prices are very reasonable. Tell that to our senior citizens and the households that year on year are facing the threat of power price increases and power cuts. 
The Labour Party’s mate the Green Party pointed out that the thermal ban in the emissions trading scheme legislation was nothing but a sham so why should it continue to defend the indefensible? I think at least the Green Party’s credential on renewable energy is slightly superior to that of the Labour Opposition. Government members are pleased to say that we do not have to once again support banning or mandating alternatives that will not be viable because the Green Party has already said that the thermal ban is not workable. So why not be honest and remove it from the legislation? The Minister of Energy and Resources the Hon Gerry Brownlee has already pointed out that the emissions trading scheme that National supports will be the pricing signal because thermal generation will attract carbon charges while renewable generation will not. I also hasten to point out that during the 9 years of Labour’s rule we found that a hydro scheme was not able to go ahead— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Not one. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: No not one. That was because the Resource Management Act was the legislation that was acting as much as a barrier to renewable generation as to any— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: The Minister was very excited about ferns and things like that. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: Exactly. Obviously the Minister of Energy and Resources the Hon Gerry Brownlee felt very strongly about that. Not only will National remove this dishonest legislation the thermal ban that the Green Party says will not work but we will advance changes to the Resource Management Act. That will do a lot more to lead to more renewable generation being built. Members on this side of the House are about practical solutions not about slogans and action about leading the world.
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:914] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Wong Pansy: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:906] 
Hon PANSY WONG (Associate Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I think the Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons actually provided the reason why Parliament should support the repeal of the last Labour Government’s legislation in terms of the emissions trading scheme—the part relating to banning thermal generation. She correctly pointed out that the legislation relating to the thermal ban had so many loopholes that one could drive a bus right through it—it was completely useless. So why should Parliament embrace the retention of part of a piece of legislation when apparently nobody—even the parties that supported it—has confidence in its being effective? In fact it is useless so why should we retain that part of it? 
 The other issue is that Labour—the Opposition—has made much of the fact that this bill has not been sent to a select committee. Let me share with members of Parliament the way that Labour respects the select committee process. When the emissions trading scheme bill was sent to be examined at the select committee the part of the legislation banning thermal generation was actually added in the last very minute despite all the submitters including the Business Council for Sustainable Development which opposed the inclusion at the last minute of the thermal ban. That is not to mention the major sector groups such as the Major Electricity Users Group and the generator group. So Labour did not pay much respect to the select committee process. A bill was sent to a select committee new additions were made and the committee completely ignored the feedback on the legislation from the submitters. 
I am glad once again to be able to take a call in this House to support the legislation that National has been campaigning on—we have made our position very clear. We believe the way to incentivise renewable resources is that thermal generation will eventually be subject to carbon charges and renewable generation will not through the emissions trading scheme that we will develop. That is a very sensible way forward rather than retaining the part of the legislation that even the Green Party says is not workable and is sending all the wrong signals. Of course I hasten to point out that I have not seen Pete Hodgson—who goes on and on about what the Hon Max Bradford did to the electricity industry—in his time as Minister of Energy ever come up with a plan. Even now every winter New Zealanders are still subject to the threat of either a power cut or increases in power prices. I believe that our Minister of Energy the Hon Gerry Brownlee has once again sensibly brought in legislation that sends a clear signal that we support renewable preferences. Once again we believe that to retain a part of a piece of legislation that is not workable and puts our energy supply at risk is not the way to go. I am very happy to support the passage of this legislation.
Tisch Lindsay: Maiden Statements 
Tisch Lindsay: Maiden Statements 
[Volume:651;Page:871] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Honourable members we come to the last of the maiden statements. As has been the practice for previous statements I ask that you limit your congratulatory messages so that the incoming member can conduct his or her maiden statement.
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:864] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Wong Pansy: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:852] 
Hon PANSY WONG (Associate Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the third reading of this Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill. The bill is intended to repeal the compulsion part of the biofuel legislation that was passed by the previous Labour Government which continued to show its distrust of New Zealanders’ ability to make an informed choice. We all know that biofuels are already available for sale. National has made the point that we support the development of the biofuel industry but we also trust New Zealanders to be able to make an informed choice. Instead of making it mandatory to force the various distribution chains to sell “x” quantity of biofuel our approach is to implement viable alternatives such as tax incentives and at the same time—which is most important—to develop a sustainable standard. 
The Hon David Parker sat there and did nothing for 9 years and then in the last minute of a dying Labour Government those members brought in legislation that talked of compulsion and mandatory actions. I think that those members should have got the message from the New Zealand public that they have been voted out of office. On this side of the House the Government side we show that we have confidence in New Zealanders. Before anybody thinks about mandating anything a credible standard has to be developed to judge what a sustainable biofuel standard is. 
I ask members to think about this. It is incredible to think that the previous Labour Government—and this is why it lost office—would mandate an action without even developing some standards. What is a sustainable biofuel? We have all learnt now on looking back that the first wave of biofuel was disastrous for food crops and that the second wave led to deforestation. Now once again with the technology still in development some people want to rush headlong into mandating something. 
I am very very proud to be on the Government side. We are able to provide a viable alternative of tax incentives for the development of the biofuel industry and at the same time we are able to show our confidence in letting our people—New Zealanders—make those informed choices.
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:840] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Report adopted.
Barker Rick: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:840] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted 
.
Barker Rick: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:840] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. The votes are matters for the whips and it has always been the acceptance of this House that the whips are accurately recording the votes and casting the votes in accordance with a party’s wishes. What those wishes may or may not be at that time is for that party to determine not for the House. The record stands unless the whips come back and say that they have made a mistake and that is not the case at this point. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Hodgson Pete: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:840] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I bring to your notice that in the brace of votes we have just had United Future’s party vote was consistently recorded by one of the Government whips. In an earlier phase of the Committee of the whole House stage the United Future vote was not recorded by the Government whip. That leads to two possibilities: the first is that United Future had a view that it wanted to vote only in the latter stages of the Committee of the whole House and the second is that United Future’s vote was not recorded even though the National Party whip was under instruction to record it. It seems to me that the latter of those two explanations is the more likely. Therefore some of the votes recorded earlier in the Committee of the whole House stage may need to be adjusted.
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:840] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Clause 3 agreed to.
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:839] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Barker Rick: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:839] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: There is an amendment to clause 1 in the name of the Hon David Parker which is ruled out of order as it is regarded as not being a serious amendment.
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:839] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Adams Amy: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Adams Amy: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:839] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Guy Nathan: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:837] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Carter John: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Carter John: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:836] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.