TheyWorkForYou.co.nz blog

How closely did parties vote on bills in the 49th NZ Parliament?

Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:44:00 +0000

How closely did parties vote on bills in the last parliament?

By analysing party voting on final bill readings, we can see how the political parties differ when it came to legislation passed during the 49th New Zealand Parliament.

The closer two parties are on the plot, the more often they voted the same way in final bill readings. The distances between parties is calculated from their bill votes. The axes don’t have any special meaning.

Is there an explanation for the party clusters?

The National Party had a confidence and supply agreement with ACT, the Māori Party, and United Future in the last Parliament. Together these four parties formed the last Government.

Despite National and the Māori Party being in Government together, the Māori Party voted more closely with Labour in its voting on bills. National, Act, and United Future were relatively similar in their bill voting.

The Green Party voted differently from all other parties in its bill voting.

How was the party distances plot made?

The plot was created by a statistical analysis of final bill reading votes, using a technique called principal components analysis. The two principal components plotted above explain 83.2% of the variance in the way parties voted on final bill readings.

You can read a blog post for details of how to do the principal components analysis for yourself. The data is provided.

See the TheyWorkForYou.co.nz website for more party voting analysis and information.

NZ Parliament website inaccessible to overseas visitors

Fri, 06 May 2011 02:05:00 +0100

The NZ Parliament website has been inaccessible from outside of NZ this week (or at least inaccessible from London where TheyWorkForYou.co.nz is based).

The outage has been attributed to Anonymous launching a distributed denial of service attack against the NZ parliament website, and the parliament in response blocking access to overseas IP addresses in order to mitigate the DDoS attack.

The TheyWorkForYou.co.nz project has been on hold, with no updates to the site’s parliament content since January 2010.

In response to Parliament apparently blocking the official parliament website to overseas visitors, we have updated TheyWorkForYou.co.nz with parliament debates from January 2010 to April 2011. So recent NZ Parliament content is once again visible to the rest of the world.

TheyWorkForYou.co.nz is wearing the blackout theme to protest against guilt on accusation being brought into law by Parliament’s passing of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill on 14 April 2011.

An Anonymous youtube message to New Zealand says:

… the passing of the Infringing File Sharing bill is both a form of censorship and invasion of privacy … that one is guilty until proven innocent is an unlawful and unjust policy.

We do not believe that one, when accused of copyright infringement, should be questioned by their internet service provider and eligible to a $15,000 fine unless proven innocent.

We do not believe that one, when accused of copyright infringement, should be sentenced to six months suspension of Internet usage unless proven innocent.

We do not believe that one, when accused of copyright infringement, should be called a criminal in the eyes of Government for the single act of accessing information unless proven innocent.

In the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act 2011, Section 122P enables a district court, at the request of a rights owner, to make a suspension order requiring an Internet service provider to suspend the Internet account of an accused account holder for up to up to 6 months.

Section 122Q enables a district court, at the request of a rights owner, to make an order requiring an Internet service provider to disclose to a rights owner the name and contact details of an account holder.

Creative Freedom Foundation, which represent thousands of New Zealand artists, has stated this replacement to the previous Copyright Act Section 92A is a:

Internet Termination Law that harms many people for the actions of one.

We don’t cut off a family’s postal service if one person uses it to break the law.

We don’t cut off phones or electricity because someone plays music too loud.

How can it be OK to cut off the internet? The internet is now an essential utility for NZ homes and businesses.

In the Commerce Committee report on the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill the Green Party expressed their view that Internet disconnection was not warranted, stating:

The Green Party applauded the introduction of this legislation, as it began to address the significant failings of its predecessor.
The Green Party has always opposed, and continues to oppose, termination (account suspension) as a remedy for infringing file sharing. We believe it is disproportionate to the problem and would not solve it. The compromise before the committee isn’t a compromise on this issue at all. It is just a delay in implementation of this ill-considered remedy.
The Green Party asserts that there is a danger in heavy-handed regulation for a problem that may only be a temporary result of new technologies upsetting traditional business models.
The use of fines rather than Internet suspension is a more appropriate sanction for file sharing, and the punishments should be proportionate to the crime.
Citizens are not denied the right to use their telephones because they happened to be used in the commission of a crime, and this legislation should not set any precedent. Access to the Internet has become a necessity in an era when more and more public and private services are only provided online.
While supporting the bill in principle, the Green Party opposes the retention of termination in the legislation.

Recent Wikileaks releases of US Embassy cables tell us that as New Zealand was working on the previous round of copyright reform in 2008, the US was actively lobbying several cabinet members.

According the leaked cables, in 2009, when the new Government said it would redraft the unpopular Section 92A, the US offered to help with drafting the law changes.

You can see which parties voted for the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill here.

Complaint that Department of Internal Affairs is hiring staff to evangelise proprietary software vendor's products

Tue, 25 May 2010 00:18:15 +0100

Dear Tony Ryall,

I wish to lodge a compliant that taxpayers money is being used to hire public sector staff to evangelise a for-profit software vendor’s products. A “Microsoft technology evangelist” position is being advertised online, a phone enquiry confirmed that the hiring organisation is the Department of Internal Affairs: http://www.candleapps.com.au/CIA/JobTemplates/CandleICT-NZ.aspx?WebsiteID=3&JobID=36928

This is the Government endorsing a specific vendor.

The real problem is that the inefficient vendor proprietary software lock-in situation has got so bad that the Government now needs to pay staff to promote a particular vendor’s products within government departments. I have long promoted the adoption of free open-source software by government to avoid inefficient vendor lock-in, and to reduce public expenditure on software license fees to overseas corporations that repatriate profits aboard.

Imagine the outcry if Government were hiring a “Telecom Evangelist” position, say, to promote Telecom services within a public sector organisation because Government had got locked-in to a proprietary Telecom telecommunications infrastructure.

NZ Department of Internal Affairs hiring someone to evangelise a...

Mon, 24 May 2010 23:18:44 +0100

NZ Department of Internal Affairs hiring someone to evangelise a proprietary software vendor’s products - WTF!?

TheyWorkForYou.co.nz is closed for 2010

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:40:47 +0000

On 19 January 2010 the volunteer that runs TheyWorkForYou.co.nz announced his decision to cease updating the website during 2010.

TheyWorkForYou.co.nz was built to hold power to account by making it easier for you to monitor New Zealand Parliament’s activity. A raft of social tracking features had been planned in 2006. But the process of loading Hansard data from www.parliament.nz each week proved manually intensive, and consumed too much resource to allow new features to be developed.

After yesterday’s announcement the following question was asked by email:

I wonder whether it’s possible to drop the workload by fixing the encoding at the source: namely, to have the Hansard staff encode and upload the information in such a way that they don’t give you buggered up data. I know you’ve been talking to them, and these conversations must have happened. What’s the obstacle to making a smooth TWFYNZ data ingest?

As far as I can determine, the parliament does not have an internal software development team dedicated to their website. They commissioned the development of the software that produces the HTML version of Hansard from a third party.

For the most part their Hansard HTML is structured and imbued with symantic meaning. However it often contains erratic deviations that are inconsistent with the standard structure. These have to be manually corrected before they can be loaded into the TheyWorkForYou.co.nz, partly because the loading software was designed to prevent erroneous content from being allowed through to the public website.

If you are from parliament and are curious about the manual alterations I make, you should look at the commit messages on this respository of HTML from parliament.nz (click each commit message to see details of the change).

TheyWorkForYou.co.nz does report more serious errors (such as omissions) to the Parliament. Wonderful parliament staff do their best to fix these promptly, even though the software causing some of the problems was not written by them. However I’m left feeling that Parliament has neither the will or the financial resource to invest in improving the overall consistency of their Hansard HTML. At present parliament’s budget for new development appears to be going towards a project to make a video archive of parliament debates available to the public.

Rethinking build versus buy for govt software apps

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:25:54 +0100

At a time when the NZ Government is reviewing its procurement systems, it’s worthwhile for us to look at overseas government experience. USA’s Department of Defence is rethinking build versus buy for government software applications:

“One vendor responded that it would undertake the project for $750,000 and that it would take a year of development time, but could offer no guarantee that the application would be completed. Two members of Nelson’s [inhouse] team built a prototype of the software in six weeks.”

Should the Treasury and Department of Internal Affairs rethink build versus buy for NZ Government software applications?

Aussie's launch MashUpAustralia contest

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:13:27 +0100

The Australian Government 2.0 Taskforce has launched a MashupAustralia contest.

Entrants are invited to help show the taskforce why open access to Australian government information is good for Australia’s economy and society.

Around 59 datasets from the Australian and State and Territory Governments have been released at data.australia.gov.au on license terms and in formats that the taskforce claim permit and enable mashups.

Anyone who is an Australian resident/citizen is eligible for prizes (teams must have at least one Australian resident/citizen as a member). The contest will begin accepting entries on 7 October 2009 and close on 6 November 2009.

MP Expenses in the UK and NZ

Fri, 15 May 2009 01:51:11 +0100

I’ve just recorded an interview about MP expenses with Jemma Dempsey from RadioLIVE’s World at Noon. When preparing for the interview I noted some comparisons between MP expenses in NZ and the UK.

It seems the UK Parliament already had better disclosure of MP expenses than the NZ Parliament, even before detailed claim receipts were leaked to a UK newspaper last week.

In the UK I can find a breakdown of my MP’s expense claims by category and see the total amount she received. In NZ I couldn’t find online the expense amounts claimed by my MP.

My UK MP, a government backbencher, is paid £63,291 ($161,800), and in 2007/08 received a staffing allowance of £83,106 ($212,456) and £49,284 ($125,992) for other expense allowances. Comparing this amount to other MPs, my MP’s total expenses placed her 506th out of 645 MPs.

My NZ MP, also a government backbencher, is, as far as I could determine, paid $131,000. I couldn’t find the expenses amount claimed by my MP on the www.parliament.nz site. There was some generic information about entitlements but it wasn’t obvious what the maximum amounts were.

Later in the year the UK parliament will require even more transparency from MPs. From July, UK MP’s must include in the Register of Member’s Interests:

the precise amount of each individual payment for directorships and remunerated employment and
the nature of the work carried out in return for that payment.

In NZ, the Register of Interests doesn’t require MPs to disclose money received for private sector employment.

Ready to manage a $1.5bil Govt broadband project?

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 01:47:24 +0100

The NZ government is planning to invest $1.5billion in improving New Zealand’s broadband. The very first step in execution, identifying an appropriate person to run the first stage, is going to a RFP which is open for a week.

Miki Szikszai points out:

The right person for this role will be a kick-ass programme manager who’s only aim in life is to execute programmes brilliantly. That person is not going to be submitting an RFP. You will have to crowbar them out of an existing position. You need to look for these people - they don’t come to you.

In case you know the right person, you might want to point them at a summary of the tender below. If you want the full details the GETS tender link is: https://www.gets.govt.nz/Default.aspx?show=TenderDetail&TenderID=25618 (login required).

GETS Reference: 25628
Title	Programme Manager Broadband Investment Programme
Request for Proposal	Ministry of Economic Development
General Information	The purpose of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to seek a sufficiently qualified person to manage the implementation of the government’s Broadband Investment Programme. Background: The government has issued a proposal detailing its preferred option for the implementation of its Broadband Investment Policy. The Ministry of Economic Development will be responsible for finalising and then implementing this Policy. This will include analysis of any submissions received on the proposal; finalisation of the policy; and subsequent implementation of the policy through to the establishment of a Crown Investment Agency. The Ministry intends to establish a project team comprising permanent staff supported by consultants. The Programme Manager will lead the project through this initial period. To access the RFP documentation please download from below under file name
Respond by Date	Monday, 20th of April 2009 at 12:00 pm
Address Enquiries to	All communications relating to this RFP, or requests for clarification or further information, should be directed in writing to: [email withheld] All requests for clarification or further information must be made prior to Noon Monday 13 April 2009. Any requests for clarification or further information received after this time and date may not be responded to at MED’s sole discretion. Two hard copies of the response and one electronic copy of the response saved in Microsoft Word are to be delivered to: [address withheld]

To repeat, if you want the full details you’ll need a login to the Government Electronic Tenders Service website, the tender link is: https://www.gets.govt.nz/Default.aspx?show=TenderDetail&TenderID=25618

Tell NZ Politicians: No Guilt Upon Accusation, Repeal Section 92A

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:06:19 +0000

The Guilt Upon Accusation law, Section 92A of the Copyright Act, is due to come into effect on 27 March 2009. The Creative Freedom Foundation has renewed calls for National to repeal S92A and replace it with a workable alternative.

Write TODAY to the coalition government politicians to tell them how your business and life would be affected if your Internet account is terminated on accusation.

TheyWorkForYou.co.nz is blacking out the portraits of National Government MPs on our website until the Government replaces Section 92A with a workable alternative.

This Website is Blacked Out

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:07:43 +0000

Blackout protest against 'guilt upon accusation' copyright law reaches Parliament and TV news

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:40:00 +0000

TV3 News has shown a clip about Thursday’s demonstration outside of Parliament. The demonstration is part of the campaign against the ‘guilt upon accusation’ copyright law, Section 92A of the Copyright Act.

Bronwyn Holloway-Smith, Director of the Creative Freedom Foundation, gives a good summary of the problem with Section 92A when interviewed:

This law will remove New Zealanders’ fundamental right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty. That’s not something that artists want done in their name.

TWFYNZ on the News

Towards the end of the news clip TV3 show a screenshot of the TheyWorkForYou.co.nz website to show its blackout protest theme … they didn’t get copyright permission to do so.

Public Demonstration against Guilt Upon Accusation, 12noon, Thurs 19 Feb, Parliament steps, Wellington

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:31:07 +0000

Creative Freedom Foundation Press Release about Public Demonstration against Guilt Upon Accusation, Parliament steps, Wellington, 12 Noon, Thurs 19 Feb:

The Creative Freedom Foundation announces that at 12 Noon on Thursday 19 February 2009 a public demonstration will be held on Parliament grounds in Wellington in support of MPs against Guilt Upon Accusation laws in New Zealand – specifically the controversial Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment Act, due to come into effect on 28 February 2009.

S92A reverses New Zealander’s fundamental right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty, punishing internet users with disconnection based accusations of copyright infringement without a trial and without evidence held up to court scrutiny.

Over 10,000 people have now signed the CFF’s petition against Guilt Upon Accusation laws in NZ. At 12.30pm, as part of the demonstration, CFF Director Bronwyn Holloway-Smith will present the petition to the government via Hon Peter Dunne of UnitedFuture.

The CFF call on the Minister responsible Hon Simon Power to immediately repeal S92A or delay its commencement, pending a review of how to best balance the rights and obligations of creators, distributors, and Internet Service Providers with respect to digital materials. Those opposing S92A can email Mr Power on s.power@ministers.govt.nz, respectfully notifying him of their concerns. Holloway-Smith states that “while we understand that New Zealanders are passionate about this issue, letters should be polite.”

Each MP will also be given a copy of a CD featuring the Creative Freedom Foundation’s Guilt Upon Accusation anthem: The Copywrong Song.

The organisers of the protest are asking participants to turn up wearing colourful clothes and with black placards – echoing the Internet Blackout campaign that has seen thousands of internet users “blacking out” their webpages, blogs, and social networking sites to show their opposition to the law.

Download The Copywrong Song and find instructions on how to take part in the blackout campaign can be found on CreativeFreedom.org.nz

I urge all of you who are able to attend this demonstration. Elpie has a good blog post that explains why it is important that New Zealand doesn’t become the first country to allow guilt upon accusation laws.

Please get to the demonstration! Civil servants, if you can’t take political action, go “watch” the demonstration at lunchtime.

Protest against guilt upon accusation laws in NZ

Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:09:56 +0000

The Creative Freedom Foundation have announced an Internet Blackout protest against New Zealand’s guilt upon accusation laws.

Join The New Zealand Internet Blackout to protest against the Guilt Upon Accusation law ‘Section 92A’ that calls for internet disconnection based on accusations of copyright infringement without a trial and without any evidence held up to court scrutiny. This is due to come into effect on February 28th unless immediate action is taken by the National Party.

Join thousands of New Zealanders already against this law by blacking out your Facebook photo, your websites, your Myspace pages, your Twitter account, in protest against this unjust new law that may come into effect on February 28.

Skunk Works at UK Parliament

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:41:16 +0000

Robert Brook talks about skunk works at the UK Parliament:

Websites mentioned by Robert include:

HANSARD 1803–2005, Is The House Sitting? and his Twitter account.

Overseas Special Votes - Party Vote Split | NZ Election 2008

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:04:39 +0000

The official voting statistics for the NZ General Election 2008 doesn’t report party vote totals for the Overseas Special Votes.

However, it’s possible to obtain the overseas party votes from the per electorate polling place reports. I wrote some Ruby code that grabs the per electorate numbers and sums them per party.

Here’s a pie chart showing the overseas party vote percentages:

National won a majority (51.0%) of the overseas party votes. The Greens overseas vote percentage (13.8%) was more than double the percentage of votes they received overall (6.7%). The other newer parties and Labour received a lower proportion of the overseas vote than they did of the overall vote.

For comparison, here’s a pie-chart of the overall election result party vote percentages:

Only 32,461 valid overseas special party votes have been recorded. Here’s the count of overseas party votes by party:

National Party: 16,548
Labour Party: 8,782
Green Party: 4,487
ACT New Zealand: 963
Māori Party: 437
New Zealand First Party: 405
United Future: 261
Jim Anderton’s Progressive: 139
Kiwi Party: 129
Family Party: 71
The Bill and Ben Party: 43
New Zealand Pacific Party: 42
Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party: 40
Libertarianz: 39
Alliance: 27
Democrats for Social Credit: 25
RAM - Residents Action Movement: 9
The Republic of New Zealand Party: 8
Workers Party: 6

Data source: New Zealand Ministry of Justice and Chief Electoral Office Voting Statistics from the General Election held on 8 November 2008

Guardian Hack Day #ghack1

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:15:00 +0000

The Guardian’s technology team hosted its first Guardian Hack Day last Thursday and Friday. Staff and a few invited guests entered into a 24-hour codefest where anything was possible. I was fortunate to be one of the guest participants.

The hack I built turned certain phrases in Guardian articles, like “Something is” or “Somebody said”, into a link that shows you how the same phrase ended in other Guardian articles. For example:

This hack shows, with a simple technique, it’s possible to summarize how an authority, like the Guardian, reports a topic over time. Perhaps something similar could be applied to the New Zealand parliamentary debates? I’ll add it to the todo list!

Martin Belam, has a good write up of some of the other Guardian hacks made at the event.

Hack day events, such as the Guardian’s, show amazing work can be produced in a 24 hour period. All that’s required are computers, an Internet connection, and a bunch of creative people.

Creative work doesn’t require meetings, project managment, business analysis, or a procurement process. Or, should I say, all those activities are fulfilled by the people making the work conversing with each other and with business domain experts. Software code required can be written on the spot. Code re-used from elsewhere is usually open source software licensed under a Free Software licence, so no fees need to be paid.

Fortunately, pretty much every day that I work on TheyWorkForYou.co.nz feels like a hack day.

Update: you can see photos of the Guardian hack day on Flickr.

Section 92A - "cut off anyone who might be breaking the law"

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 02:04:00 +0000

Minister Judith Tizard made comments related to Section 92A of the Copyright Act half-way through a bfm radio interview on 10 November 2008. It required a response. Here’s a transcript and my comments:

Interviewer: “The concern with the IT people though is that when they came and expressed concerns about, say, the potential that people would be disconnected from the Internet for civil offences - it perhaps was not the exchange of ideas which caused the main problem, but the feeling that you’d almost sort-of prejudged the case when you’d came and sat down with them.”

Judith Tizard: “We’d made - the law had changed, they came about a year too late - and I tried to explain the process by which laws are made - and to be, to be, um, [sigh] to be specific there are a couple of people who are upset, …”

There are 592 members of the Facebook group for Fair Copyright for New Zealand - No Section 92a.

Judith Tizard: “… most of the rest - and to be blunt they’re talking bullshit - um, you know, if - yes it is easier for ISPs, Internet Service Providers, to cut off anyone who might be breaking the law, um, but you know, you can go to a library and use the Internet, and you can go to another ISP.

So my argument was that there was commercial sense in having a process, ar, by which we could - it’s a combination of education and enforcement.

You can’t say to copyright owners we will legalize the theft of your creative work, nor, could we say to citizens you can’t use music that you own and, you know, an ipod together.”

There were 125 public submissions on the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill when it was before select committee.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, several submissions were against the termination of a person’s Internet connection based on the accusation that they might have infringed copyright.

Consumer New Zealand’s submission raised this warning:

The onus is then on the customer to prove their case and get their website access reinstated. We believe this responsibility is open to malicious abuse by parties who wish to close-down websites or disrupt in some way another person’s business or enjoyment of the use of the internet.

Based on these submissions, following their deliberations the select committee removed the offending clause from the bill.

However during the committee of the whole house stage, Section 92A was reinstated.

In the parliament debate, National’s Christopher Finlayson explains their reasoning for reinstating Section 92A:

Christopher Finlayson: … The Minister [Judith Tizard] knows, and I certainly know, that we have all had approaches from various commercial entities, as a result of which the Minister has come up with a number of amendments. We will support those. The first makes some changes to new section 92A, and I need not go into that in any great detail. We support what is being done there. Essentially, it is putting back into place what had been there before the bill went to the select committee.

So that is “the process by which laws are made”. People and industry make submissions to a select committee, which agrees and removes the clause.

Then both the Labour government and the largest party in opposition, National, succumb to corporate lobbying and put the clause back in.

Say goodbye to democracy.

Say goodbye to freedom on the internet - was nice while it lasted.

Press Releases versus Blogs

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:26:59 +0000

An academic researcher has asked TheyWorkForYou.co.nz if the site “got a traffic spike during the campaign”.

The short answer is no. There was no traffic spike during the election lead-up.

Friends recommended I put out a press release about the party bill voting analysis. A few things prevented me from producing press releases, one was my time was too limited to write them. To be honest, my strength lies the ability to design and code the software behind the site, not the articulation of sound bites for news stories.

Also I have a reluctance to rely on the old commercial media apparatus. Based on my observations the commercial media appears to produce material laced with implicit political spin and distortion, while purporting, at least on the surface, to be journalism.

Independent political blogs are now producing timely, in-depth coverage that is in some ways superior to that of the commercial media. Though blogs are also often loaded with political bias, they are at least are open about where they stand.

For now I’ll concentrate on adding more features to TheyWorkForYou.co.nz. For publicity I’m going to rely on others to help promote the site. If the site is valuable then over time this approach will be successful.

Thanks to those that mentioned the party bill voting analysis last week, including: the comparing the parties post at No Right Turn; and wombleton’s #nzelection hotness tweet on twitter.

Least we forget

Sun, 09 Nov 2008 14:32:19 +0000

On the day after the election, the official parliament.nz website has added to its latest news section an article about Parliamentarians and World War I. This of some relevance since it is the 90th anniversary of the World War I Armistice on 11 November.

To be seen as truely relevant, the parliament.nz website should be complimenting its ‘news’ from last century with more contemporary issues like Saturday’s election, and the Iraq War.

Two parties which New Zealand has just elected into power, National and Act, voted in favour of the New Zealand Government joining the USA-led war coalition. This coalition invaded Iraq on 20 March 2003. For those of you that missed my previous post here’s that vote from Parliament’s “Debate on Iraq” held on 18 March 2003, two days before USA led the invasion of Iraq:

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) : I move, That this Parliament

recognises the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions and 4126 Debate on Iraq 18 Mar 2003 proliferation of weapons of mass destruction pose to international peace and,

noting the UN Security Council on 8 November 2002 in resolution 1441 unanimously voted that Iraq has not complied with previous UN resolutions and was in material breach of its obligation and gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations or “face serious consequences”,

further notes the report of the UN arms inspectors that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full and complete disclosure,

this House disassociates itself from the New Zealand Government’s position at the United Nations to oppose a second UN Security Council resolution and deplores the announcement of France to veto any such resolution and

this House records its support for the United States of America, Great Britain, and Australia’s preparedness to enforce UN Resolution 1441 and calls on the New Zealand Government to offer all practical support to the “coalition of the willing”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 35
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 84
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Motion not agreed to.

Ayes 35
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.
Noes 84
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Motion not agreed to.