edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2112. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Strike action must be preceded by a secret ballot and he said that one thing we hold dear is freedom to choose. That is what Tau Henare said. Well did the Ports of Auckland’s real owners have the freedom to choose recently on the lockout? No. Where is the fairness between both sides in this legislation? Where is the balance? There is no balance at all. You have someone who is prepared to come along and put his name to a member’s bill. You know I can remember way back the song “Part of the Union”. It went like this:  
Now I’m a union man  
Amazed at what I am 
I say what I think that the company stinks … 
With a hell of a shout it’s ‘Out brothers out!’ 
But with Mr Henare it is: “With a hell of a shout I sell out.” That is what is happening here: “I sell out.”  
It is not as Mr Sio said too late to withdraw this bill. But when I saw Mr Henare today it reminded me of that classic and most sad historic and biblical event. When St Peter is asked whether he knows Jesus the Bible says “and the cock crowed three times and he knew him not.” And all the workers and all the unionists whom Tau Henare used to work for in the old days when he had character and integrity when they came to him and said to him: “Are you going to act for us?” he knew them not.  
You know Mr Henare one of these days one of your grandchildren is going to ask you: “Grandad when they came for the ordinary people when they came for the worker when they came for us what as a member of Parliament did you do?”. That is what that grandchild will ask. If he withdraws this bill he will not have to splutter and cough and make out he cannot hear the grandchild. Oh no he will be able to look that child in the eye and say “When they came for people like you and me I stood up for the ordinary people. I stood up for ordinary New Zealanders the people whom with my background I knew I should respond to.” He will not have to look nervous and walk out of the room because the grandchild is asking such a serious question. He will be able to say as he looks the grandchild in the eye that he did something to stop these elitists ripping people off.  
He could withdraw this bill but he will not. He will not. But it is not too late even now for him to actually do what is his duty. And it is not hiding behind the skirts of women. It is not praising the white man who came from Merrill Lynch. It is not cuddling up to all those wide boys next to him now. No no it is the time for duty and the clarion call of all those who ever came to New Zealand First is “Honour thy people”. That is why we will oppose this legislation.
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2125. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Members this debate is concluded.
Robertson H V Ross: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2111. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next speaker I wish to advise the House that New Zealand First will split its call between the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the honourable member Brendon Horan—Standing Order 118(2).
Mallard Trevor: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2154. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Standing Order 139 actually does not leave you an option. If a matter is a conscience vote you must permit a personal vote to be held and not a party vote. There is not an option. It is not something for you Mr Speaker to choose to do. If it is a conscience vote then the procedures for split votes in Standing Order 140 do not apply because they are for split votes; they are procedures for party votes and not for personal votes. I know that my colleague Charles Chauvel has been studying this question as well as Mr Hipkins. I put it to you that you do not have an option on this. If it is a conscience issue you cannot choose to have a party vote on it. My submission to you is this has always been a conscience issue where there is a division. I accept there have been lots of times when there has not been a division and therefore it does not apply. But this is a conscience issue. You cannot get more of a conscience issue than gambling-type stuff in my opinion. But I know that my colleagues have views as well.
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2152. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but his time has expired.
Mallard Trevor: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2148. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to contest not your decision because I think in respect of Standing Order 141 there is going to be no doubt about the closeness of it but I think it is important that we do not yet accept the rationale that you have used—that is the practice of bringing matters to the Business Committee. The Business Committee is written into the Standing Orders in a number of ways and there are some rights and obligations of members with regard to the Business Committee and there have also been some customs that have developed. But the right of a member to indicate that for them a matter is a conscience matter to address that to the Speaker in this House around the time of a vote and after the party vote—Standing Order 140—and to ask for a personal vote appears in the Standing Orders to be untrammelled. I accept it is a two-part thing: the Speaker has to decide it is a conscience issue and then it has to be close. I think the Standing Orders are clear on this and I think it would be unfortunate if there was a ruling that stood that said that effectively because the matter had not been raised with the Speaker or it had not gone to the Business Committee the rights of members under Standing Orders which are very clear on the face of them were not going to be upheld.
Mallard Trevor: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2152. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The member is absolutely right—other than the application of Standing Order 141 where there is a requirement for the Speaker to make a ruling as to whether an issue is a conscience vote or not. I am trying to do some rapid research on contested votes on gambling issues—and there have been a lot of votes on gambling issues that have not been contested because the House has been unanimous on them—but I am unaware of contested votes on gambling issues that have not been treated that way. That is for pretty obvious reasons and that is that members do have points of view that go to their conscience rather than being ideological views which were what divided ACT in what the member referred to before.
Mallard Trevor: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2147. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just realised that there has not yet been at least amongst the Labour Party members a circulation of proxy forms for the personal vote. Casting my mind back to the Business Committee I cannot remember discussion at the Business Committee on this particular question. I thought it might be a good idea—because I have warned our whip that the nature of gambling matters casino matters and pokie matters have always been conscience votes—to make it clear that there will certainly be a call for a personal vote on this.
Woodhouse Michael: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2157. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I do appreciate the spirit in which the member Mr Chauvel has raised that point and also the issues that have been raised by Mr Mallard. I say this respectfully. The first reading of this bill started on 4 April 5 weeks ago and as a matter of process there has been plenty of opportunity for respective caucuses to consider their position and advise the Business Committee accordingly. It is simply not appropriate to be raising it—I say this respectfully—on the eighth call of the first reading 5 weeks after we started.
Upston Louise: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Upston Louise: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2157. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 In terms of trying to assist this point of the discussion I guess it is a first reading. Therefore any final decisions on this bill—I am assuming a change in the vote whether it is a conscience or a party vote could be done at a third reading which is possibly as the time when the bill is in its final stages the more critical of the votes.
Sharples Pita: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sharples Pita: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2157. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Mr Speaker speaking as the co-leader of the party that brought this bill to the House I heard your call for the vote and I heard Mr Mallard ask for the leave of the House and the leave of the House was declined. I feel that the vote now has to be put.
Hipkins Chris: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2156. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can certainly say on behalf of the Labour Opposition that we are not prepared at this point for a vote. There is actually a discrepancy. I was looking at this in relation to Easter trading this morning and there is an issue around some inconsistency around the casting of proxy votes in the Standing Orders that actually needs to be dealt with separately. I will raise that at another appropriate moment because it does require a proxy vote to be in writing and signed by a member. Therefore an email or a text message or a phone call is not sufficient so for us to do that it would be very difficult. So I am going to seek leave again. I know it has been put before but I think given the discussion we have now had I will seek leave again for the vote on this matter to be deferred until the next members’ day so that it can be discussed at the next Business Committee meeting.  
I just note that there are some strongly held views here that have been expressed by members and I would be very uncomfortable now as a whip casting votes on behalf of the whole party if it is declared by the Speaker to be a party vote.
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2150. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for that and we will look at that question following the right of reply. I call Te Ururoa Flavell.
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2120. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand that the next call is a split call. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes with a minute to go.
Woodhouse Michael: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2152. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Speaking to that point—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No you brought up a point of order Mr Peters and the member is responding. I have invited the member to respond to your point of order. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Although it is not very common it is not unusual for members within a party to vote with their consciences and split their votes. It happened quite a number of times in the 49th Parliament with members of the ACT Party. I do suggest to the New Zealand First Party as a way through this impasse that if its members are prepared to vote with their consciences—and I presume their leader is well aware having canvassed those views in advance of the debate—they are absolutely free to split their vote and cast it accordingly.
Hughes Gareth: Urgent Debates Declined — Marine Reserve Akaroa Harbour—High Court Decision 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: Urgent Debates Declined — Marine Reserve Akaroa Harbour—High Court Decision 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2086. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are quite right under Speakers’ rulings 186/4 that a matter of the court cannot be considered under an urgent debate. But I seek your advice because there is now no mechanism by which the Minister will announce she will make a decision. As I understand it and as the High Court understands it this ruling now means the Minister must make a decision. I put it to you this is a matter of urgency—
Peters Winston: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2152. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is the motion that I sought before—when I sought leave for this because of the position that we have taken over a long long time on this issue—for it to be a conscience vote.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Marine Reserve Akaroa Harbour—High Court Decision 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Marine Reserve Akaroa Harbour—High Court Decision 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2085. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the important issue that members need to be clear about is that the House cannot debate under this Standing Order a decision of the court because that is not a matter of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility; that is a decision of the court. In the most recent case the member refers to in respect of the Crafar farms the reason why that one was declined was that that matter was still in front of the court. Once the Minister makes a further decision on this as long as it is not back in front of the court again it is theoretically possible that that could meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as long as it also met requirements in terms of the significance of the issue to set aside the business of the House to debate that issue. So it is a matter of thinking through clearly what is happening. In this case the court has made a decision. That is not a matter of particular occurrence involving a Minister. The Minister may well make a decision and if that does not go back to the court then theoretically that would be the time when this matter could be debated if it met the rest of the requirements of the Standing Order in respect of significance as well.
Norman Russel: Urgent Debates Declined — Marine Reserve Akaroa Harbour—High Court Decision 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Norman Russel: Urgent Debates Declined — Marine Reserve Akaroa Harbour—High Court Decision 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2085. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you just explain then what this means for the other issue of urgent debate that has been ongoing in this House which is vis-à-vis the Crafar decision. We did not get an urgent debate while you were away because there is a judicial review that has gone to the High Court. Does this mean that when that comes back from the High Court if the court were to overturn the Minister’s decision again you would take a similar approach that we could not have an urgent debate at that point?
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Marine Reserve Akaroa Harbour—High Court Decision 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Marine Reserve Akaroa Harbour—High Court Decision 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2085. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not a point of order. It seems the member wishes to argue with the Speaker’s ruling. That is not a point of order. The matter was considered properly under the Standing Orders of the House and the application simply does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders of the House and that is the end of the matter.
Hughes Gareth: Urgent Debates Declined — Marine Reserve Akaroa Harbour—High Court Decision 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: Urgent Debates Declined — Marine Reserve Akaroa Harbour—High Court Decision 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2085. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The High Court has now ruled that the Minister must consider—
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Marine Reserve Akaroa Harbour—High Court Decision 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Marine Reserve Akaroa Harbour—High Court Decision 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2085. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Gareth Hughes seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the quashing by the High Court of the Minister of Conservation’s decision to decline the proposal for a marine reserve in Akaroa Harbour. There is no ministerial responsibility for the decision of the High Court requiring that the Minister’s decision be reconsidered. As that reconsideration has not yet happened there is no particular case of recent occurrence that can be raised today. The application is therefore declined.
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2142. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: When we were last on the first reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill Todd McClay was speaking and has 30 seconds remaining if he wishes.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2083. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she stand by her statement that “I do not want to see unnecessary change for change’s sake. Rather I am looking to put in place pragmatic solutions as we implement our manifesto commitments and let employers employees and business focus on what they do best.”? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Absolutely and I stand by my next comments that these initiatives are part of our Government’s plan to give businesses the confidence they need to invest grow and create higher-paying jobs. 
Darien Fenton 
: What is pragmatic about her proposed changes to multi-employer collective bargaining which her officials have advised will reduce worker choice lead to fewer multi-employer collective agreements and could expose New Zealand to critical international scrutiny including a costly investigation by the International Labour Organization for breach of core labour standards? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: It is more pragmatic to enable for example a plumber in Invercargill to negotiate their own terms as compared with a plumber in Auckland rather than put them on a multi-employer collective agreement on the same terms. 
Darien Fenton 
: What is pragmatic about her proposal to remove the 30-day rule which her officials have advised will enable employers to offer less pay and conditions than exist for other workers in a collective agreement in the same workplace or does pragmatism in her book mean employers being able to pay less? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: That is just as pragmatic as the Hon Margaret Wilson suggested in the Cabinet paper dating back to 2003. 
Darien Fenton 
: What is pragmatic about her proposal to remove the requirement to conclude collective bargaining which her officials have advised will encourage surface bargaining encourage litigation result in higher staff turnover and see fewer collective agreements concluded and how would this help the locked out Talley’s workers get a fair outcome when their employer could just walk away from negotiations? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I am not going to comment on individual employment matters nor am I going to make comments like the honourable member Andrew Little when he called employers “parasites”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I say to National members that it may have escaped their notice but I am on my feet and I am not that short. The last part of that answer was unnecessary and uncalled for.
Mitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2083. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: How is the Government improving value for money in its procurement of services for the public sector? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce that the Government is expected to save around $60 million over the next 5 years after signing all-of-Government procurement contracts for mobile voice and data services. The new contracts are part of our ongoing procurement reform programme which is making Government buying as efficient as possible and reducing cost. These mobile voice and data contracts have been awarded to 2degrees Gen-I and Vodafone. They include all voice minutes and data used on mobile phones held by Government employees. Mobile voice and data services are a very significant cost for Government so these new contracts are a great result.  
Mark Mitchell 
: How much will the Government save through these public procurement contracts? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The seven contracts signed so far are on track to achieve a total saving to the Government and taxpayers of $350 million. Each dollar saved can be reinvested in improving public services and essential infrastructure in order to help grow the economy. We are continuing to show the substantial negotiating power of Government when procuring all-of-Government services. Agencies are now spending considerably less on items such as computers and the uptake by agencies is increasing as their existing contracts expire. Agencies and suppliers are also saving on resource costs due to having preferred suppliers.  
Chris Hipkins 
: Will his plans extend to the procurement of a new coalition partner for the Government by replacing Mark Mitchell with Colin Craig in Rodney; if so should Colin Craig separate his campaign contributions into amounts of $25000 or less? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! In so far as the Minister has any ministerial responsibility he may answer.  
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Tee-hee tee-hee!
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2079. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement regarding asset sales that “We are not going to do anything tricky there”? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 Yes I agree with the Prime Minister’s statement. This Government campaigned up front on the policy of the mixed-ownership model which includes the pledge that the Government will maintain majority ownership of these companies. This promise stands despite the unlikely theoretical scenario some members opposite keep raising. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why then does the Mixed Ownership Model Bill specifically allow him to “do something tricky” and sell off the vast majority of the affected companies through the issue of non-voting shares? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Well first of all there is nothing tricky in any of this because there is a bill and the Government has been completely up front about it. The fact is the member is creating what I think can only be described as an uncommercial fantasy in respect of the issue of these shares. It may theoretically technically be possible if you are looking at a textbook that that could happen but we have looked back at the New Zealand stock exchange and not one company has issued shares in the form that that member is suggesting. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: If the Minister truly does intend to retain 51 percent ownership of the equity and company dividends why is there no written guarantee in the bill which instead allows him to dilute the Crown’s equity and dividend rights to essentially zero through non-voting shares and other loopholes; and if he believes it is a technicality why does he not rule it out and amend the bill? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Because it is simply not necessary for that to happen. The fact is that we have done quite a lot of research which shows there is no company on the New Zealand Exchange that has issued shares in that format. We do believe that these companies will provide real benefits for New Zealand as part of the mixed-ownership model as part of helping us deal with debt in this country.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given that the bill does not require the Crown to retain 51 percent of shareholding but only 51 percent of voting rights does it meet the promise made in the agreement with United Future which calls for the Government to “Introduce statutory limits on the sale of public assets to no more than 49 percent of shareholding”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is completely consistent. What New Zealanders want to know is that this Government will maintain 51 percent of the control of these companies and that is what is in the legislation and that is what will be in the companies’ constitutions. Over the next 3 years debt in this country is going to grow from $50 billion today to $72 billion. It is imperative that this country takes action to control its debt.
Peters Winston: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2111. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Tau Henare was an organiser for the Clerical Workers Union. He marched against the Employment Contracts Act. He voted against the Employment Contracts Act because of his strong pro-union convictions yet today he walked in here quoted Luther and spoke like Lucifer. This is a man in a most sad circumstance because this Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill is not a Government bill; this is a member’s bill. This bespeaks someone who is being used. This bespeaks someone who has been purchased off. This is a man who is happy to sell his soul for a few pieces of silver or promotion. He was against all these things and this is a member’s bill.
Woodhouse Michael: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2149. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Just in considering the points that the member Mr Mallard has made I wonder whether you would also consider Speaker’s ruling 69(6) from a former Speaker Mr Kidd who said the fact that the House on a party vote might divide rather closely does not in and of itself constitute sufficient reason for there to be a personal vote. It is clearly not intended by the Standing Orders that there should be one just because it is close.
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2149. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I stand by the ruling I made before. But I just bring to members’ attention Standing Order 139 which clearly states: “Where the Speaker considers that the subject of a vote is to be treated as a conscience issue the Speaker will permit a personal vote to be held instead of a party vote.” That is Standing Order 139. It makes it very clear that the Speaker makes the decision. But the member is correct—we do not want to override that through the Business Committee so that it takes precedence over what is in the Standing Orders. I accept what the member has brought to our attention and of course it is always open for a member to call for a personal vote.
Woodhouse Michael: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2153. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I just want to briefly point out that I may have misheard you Mr Assistant Speaker but I am quite sure you have made a considered ruling under Standing Order 141.
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2154. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well we have not got to that point yet because I have not put the vote.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Marine Reserve Akaroa Harbour—High Court Decision 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Marine Reserve Akaroa Harbour—High Court Decision 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2086. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Standing Orders are very clear on this. As I have explained to the member if the Minister does make a further decision on this as I presume she may have to that then may be a particular matter of recent occurrence. That would meet that requirement of the Standing Order. This does not because this is a decision of the court. Once the Minister makes a decision that then theoretically could meet the requirements of the Standing Order. I am not guaranteeing it would because the Standing Order also requires the matter to be of sufficient importance to set aside the business of this House for an immediate debate. It has to be a very very significant issue to meet that test in the Standing Order. That would be the relevant time for the matter to be reconsidered.
Yang Jian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Yang Jian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2080. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
Dr JIAN YANG (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: How is the Government expanding its programme to reduce rheumatic fever in vulnerable communities? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 As part of the relationship accord between the Maori Party and the National Party this Government is tackling rheumatic fever head-on. Today we announced that as part of Budget 2012 we are doubling the spending from $12 million to $24 million over the next 4 years to reduce rheumatic fever in vulnerable communities. We currently have 101 schools engaged in the rheumatic fever campaign targeting 35000 children in seven regions. This new funding will allow more schools and more children to be targeted in this preventive programme. Around 70 percent of children who get this Third World disease will suffer some heart damage but with proper treatment that risk is dramatically reduced.  
Dr Jian Yang 
: What particular steps are being taken to reduce rheumatic fever in the Porirua region?  
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Today along with the Prime Minister and Minister Hekia Parata we launched a new throat-swabbing programme in Porirua at the Holy Family School. Porirua City has the highest rate for 5 to 15-year-olds of all territorial local authorities in New Zealand. The new funding in Budget 2012 to support tackling rheumatic fever will allow at-risk schoolchildren up to year 10 in east Porirua to be part of the throat-swabbing programme and follow-up antibiotic treatment. This covers 19 schools and colleges and 10 new schools will be enrolled in the programme.  
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora tatou. Can she share with the House some signals that might indicate how rheumatic fever is being prevented?  
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: To reduce the annual rate of rheumatic fever amongst Maori and Pasifika people and to contribute to the reduction of rheumatic fever occurrence in New Zealand ultimately our desire is to see the eradication of this disease. There is no place in New Zealand for a Third World disease that is preventable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 8 the Hon Annette King. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I have called the Hon Annette King. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Will the cross benches please come to order. I have called the Hon Annette King for question No. 8.
Vote: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2125. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Woodhouse Michael: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2125. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for all questions on the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2156. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member. I thank all members for their contributions. This has certainly exercised my mind. Advice from the Clerks is that the decision about whether a matter is a conscience issue is for the Speaker to determine in each instance. The practice that has been adopted in this instance has not been followed and that is the issue that I mentioned earlier about—[ 
Interruption 
] no I know; this is an overview—actually seeking from the Business Committee agreement that we would be having a conscience vote on this bill.  
This bill deals with gambling harm and its reduction and I agree that traditionally these bills have been a conscience vote. So I am prepared to do this. Do the whips have the process where they can cast a personal vote? I am asking the whips of each party if we were to go ahead with the personal vote can they vote in respect of their own members?
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2078. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Good boy Tau! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: What’s that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Would the member just please ask his question. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well I would if they would be quiet.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: To the Minister for Social Development. How will Budget 2012—[ 
Interruption 
] I will just give it to him! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member needs to be careful. I might just go on to the next question. Question No. 5 the Hon Tau Henare. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: OK let us start again.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let us get on with it.
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2147. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member. I am just getting some advice. We will carry on.
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2153. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well the split vote provision in this Parliament now is that those who vote for and against in a split vote have their names recorded. So that is a very clear provision which is— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That’s not the point at all. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well you said that— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Treat it like a conscience vote. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am on my feet. The provision now is quite clear. Under a split vote our members are recorded for and against and the public knows which way they voted. So we now move to the vote.
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2157. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: This is my final ruling. I am going to put the vote and if the member calls for a personal vote I will allow it.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I call for a personal vote. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: A personal vote has been—I have to put the question first.
Mallard Trevor: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2150. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think we are getting ourselves into the possibility of some trouble here. I totally agree with the member. There have been gambling bills after gambling bills and there have been lots of gambling bills where the House has been united there has been agreement and we have worked forward together. But where there have been divisions there have been conscience votes and parties have split because people do have different views. On this bill I gather that other than New Zealand First there is actually pretty broad agreement among most members of the House. I think it would be unfortunate if without due consideration of that issue—and I accept that you made a suggestion earlier that it should have gone to the Business Committee which is the practice but it is not the Standing Order. What I am going to do—and I apologise to the Greens and to Mr Flavell—is seek the leave of the House— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We’ve still got another speaker yet. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. After the last speaker I will seek the leave of the House for the vote to be deferred in order for that matter to be considered in a considered way by the Speaker and to come back to the vote on this bill on the next members’ day. I am just giving notice of the fact so that members know that that is what I am going to do. Otherwise frankly we end up with confidence issues in the way the House is being run.
Upston Louise: Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Upston Louise: Sittings of the House 
[Sitting date: 08 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2072. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to lift 2 minutes early.
Goldsmith Paul: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goldsmith Paul: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2072. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 It is very pleasing to be speaking on a bill that enjoys such widespread support across the House as this one the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. Based in Epsom as I am we are surrounded by a great deal of the country’s greatest heritage in terms of building sites—my next-door neighbour’s house was bought in the 1840s. Of course the community is still I suppose grieving the loss of one of the great houses of Remuera Coolangatta which was demolished several years ago and unfortunately there is still an empty site there today.  
There are real dilemmas when you are dealing with such heritage such as who pays for retaining these things when the owner would potentially lose a lot of value. As a society we want to retain this heritage but we have to grapple with how to go about doing that in the most efficient manner. The thing that appeals to me about this bill is that it develops I think a more robust process and a more efficient one and it more effectively resolves that tension between separating local volunteer branches which are focused quite rightly on advocacy from the statutory decision-making board which is the basis of this heritage bill. I will not go any further than that in the interests of getting this completed tonight. Thank you.  
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.
Fenton Darien: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Fenton Darien: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2070. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. As my colleagues have ably expressed Labour supports this bill’s referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee and I think my colleagues have done a very good job of outlining our issues our concerns and also why we are supporting this bill so far. There are just a couple of comments I would like to make if I may.  
Labour does support good governance and any effort to strengthen agency governance is supported. However we are not convinced that removing three elected board positions and replacing them with two board positions appointed by the Minister necessarily strengthens governance or improves the responsiveness of the body to the public. So through the select committee process Labour will ensure that this bill does in fact strengthen governance and the performance and operation of current processes and does not come at the expense of our archaeological heritage and the public participation in that process. Of course although Labour supports any measures to reduce unnecessary costs and delays we also note that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage has said that the overall problem is small and likely to remain so with just around 350 applications a year.  
Finally can I just comment that if this issue is such a priority for the Government we do wonder why the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage has taken 2 years after Cabinet asked him to report on the consent process to actually bring changes to Parliament. With those few comments I am pleased to affirm that Labour supports this bill’s referral to the select committee.
Roy Eric: Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Sittings of the House 
[Sitting date: 08 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2072. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not.
Roy Eric: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2070. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is a split call.