Tuesday, 8 November 2005

Volume 628

Sitting date: 8 November 2005

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Election of Speaker

Madam SPEAKER: I have to report that, accompanied by members, I waited upon Her Excellency the Governor-General at Government House yesterday when I addressed Her Excellency as follows:

May it please Your Excellency: In obedience to Your Excellency’s request, the Members of the House of Representatives, in the exercise of their undoubted rights and privileges, have proceeded to the election of a Speaker, and, as the subject of their choice, I now present myself to you and submit myself for Your Excellency’s confirmation.

To which Her Excellency replied as follows:

Madam Speaker, it is with much pleasure that I approve the choice by the House of Representatives of you as its Speaker.

I congratulate you on your election to this distinguished office, marking as it does the appreciation of the House of Representatives of your impartiality and ability.

I have further to report that I also addressed Her Excellency as follows:

I humbly thank Your Excellency for your confirmation of the choice made by the Members of the House of Representatives of me to be their Speaker.

I have now, on their behalf, to lay claim to all their privileges, and especially to freedom of speech in debate, to free access to Your Excellency whenever occasion may require it, and to the most favourable construction being put on all their proceedings.

To which Her Excellency replied as follows:

Madam Speaker, I confirm all the rights and privileges of the House of Representatives which have ever been granted. I assure you that the House of Representatives shall always have ready access to me, and that I will at all times place the most favourable construction upon its proceedings.

I desire to repeat my respectful acknowledgement to the House of the high honour it has done me in electing me to be its Speaker.

Authority to Administer Oath

Madam SPEAKER: I have received the following authorisation from Her Excellency the Governor-General to administer the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to be taken or made by members of the House:

Pursuant to section 11 of the Constitution Act 1986, I, The Honourable Dame Silvia Cartwright, Governor-General of New Zealand, hereby authorise you,

The Honourable Margaret Anne Wilson

Speaker of the House of Representatives

to administer to members of Parliament the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen required to be taken or made by every such member before that member shall be permitted to sit or vote in the House of Representatives.

HELEN CLARK, Prime Minister

Silvia Cartwright

Governor-General

7 November 2005

Sittings of the House

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Pursuant to agreements arrived at in the Business Committee this morning, I seek leave for a number of matters. I seek the leave of the House that at its sitting on Wednesday, 9 November it consider two Government notices of motion—one relating to the death of the Rt Hon David Lange, and the other relating to the death of Rod Donald—and for the House then to adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 15 November.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

Committees

Business of Select Committees

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave for all bills reinstated in this Parliament to be reported back to the House by 28 February 2006.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I also seek leave that the time by which each select committee must finally report on the 2004-05 financial reviews of the performance and current operations of departments and Offices of Parliament be extended to 31 March 2006.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

Business of the House

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I also seek leave that for the purposes of Standing Order 77(1) the publication and circulation of determinations of the Business Committee may be effected by electronic notification to all members of Parliament.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. The House will now await the summons to attend Her Excellency the Governor-General.

State Opening

A message from Her Excellency the Governor-General desiring the immediate attendance of honourable members in the Legislative Council Chamber was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

Accordingly, Madam Speaker and honourable members, preceded by the Serjeant-at-Arms, proceeded to the Legislative Council Chamber, and, after a short absence, returned.

Governor-General’s Speech

Madam SPEAKER: I desire to report that when the House did attend Her Excellency the Governor-General this day in the Legislative Council Chamber, Her Excellency was pleased to make a speech, the text of which was handed to me by Her Excellency, and I now lay such text on the Table of the House.

Honourable Members of the House of Representatives.

It is a privilege for me to exercise the prerogative of Her Majesty the Queen and open the 48th Parliament.

On 17 September the people of New Zealand voted for the fourth time under the MMP electoral system. Negotiations since then have resulted in the formation of a third term Labour-led government with a majority in the House on confidence and supply.

All parties involved in this process were looking forward to making a contribution to the new Parliament. It was therefore a tragedy to learn of the untimely death of Mr Rod Donald MP, the co-leader of the Green Party. Mr Donald had been instrumental, not only in building support for the electoral system by which New Zealanders now choose governments, but also in the Green Party making such a strong contribution to Parliament in recent years. He will be sorely missed.

My government's overall objective for the next three years is to continue New Zealand's transformation to a dynamic, knowledge-based economy and society, underpinned by the values of fairness, opportunity and security.

In the last six years my government has sought to lay the foundations for this transformation.

A great deal has been achieved. My government has implemented a framework for growing a higher value economy. It has invested heavily in education and skills development. It has refocused our system of social assistance. It has supported creative New Zealanders.

Ours is now a country more confident of its economic future and more secure in its sense of identity.

In the past six years New Zealand has enjoyed economic growth above the rate of our major trading partners. We have seen a significant decline in poverty levels and we have recorded the lowest crime rate in 22 years.

Unemployment has been reduced to the lowest rate in the OECD. Solid progress is being made towards the goal of eliminating child poverty.

Honourable Members,

Over recent years, my government has set about developing a distinctive New Zealand way of responding to the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.

This is an approach founded on New Zealanders’ creativity and innovation, on valuing both inspiration and aspiration, and on seeing our size and place in the world not as a limitation, but as offering opportunities to succeed.

The New Zealand way is much more than the clichés of ‘number eight wire’ or ‘punching above our weight’. It is based on the belief that as a confident, diverse, inclusive Pacific nation, we can work together to find new opportunities and market our best ideas profitably to the world.

This approach will continue to be applied to a range of policies and programmes aimed at lifting the quality of life and standard of living for all New Zealanders.

My government believes that the talents of all must be deployed in the drive to transform our nation.

It is important to build a broad consensus about the way ahead. Divisions within the community, perceived or otherwise, must not be allowed to get in the way of the transformation of New Zealand, to a prosperous, confident 21st century nation.

My government intends to work - as it has over the last six years - in partnership with people from across sectors and communities to advance New Zealand’s interests.

Honourable members,

The strong economic growth of the last six years has seen the emergence of significant skill shortages in key sectors of the economy.

In more recent years, growth has been led by domestic demand. That has been further fuelled by bank lending based on offshore borrowing. This in turn has helped to keep the New Zealand dollar at high levels for much longer than in any previous cycle since the dollar was floated. That has further increased consumption and inflationary pressures, translating into the need for tighter monetary policy.

Breaking this cycle is not going to be easy. It certainly means that significant fiscal loosening – either by way of large expenditure increases above those already signalled or by way of significant tax cuts - cannot be considered. The government will continue to maintain over the short to medium term a firm fiscal stance with substantial operating surpluses.

In these circumstances, the most effective contribution my government believes it can make to improving economic performance is to place even greater emphasis on the importance of savings, productivity, education and skills, science and innovation, and export growth.

The KiwiSaver scheme will be established in 2007 and legislation to that end will be submitted to Parliament early next year. Work will continue on relevant taxation regimes to ensure that they are conducive to the promotion of savings, while also paying appropriate attention to the maintenance of the tax base.

New Zealand is not aiming to compete with the low-cost manufacturing giants of China and India. The security of the New Zealand economy in the 21st century will come from the ability of our firms to be part of a high skill, high productivity, and high wage economy. New Zealand's transformation demands the move to new business models of higher value and more sophisticated products.

Particular attention will be paid to the promotion of productivity growth. Over recent years New Zealand’s GDP growth rates have been above the OECD average. But this has been achieved primarily by more people working, and by people working more hours than in most comparable countries.

The emphasis must now switch to producing more per worker, or, in other words, lifting productivity growth rates. This will require a wide range of policy initiatives. The review of the structure of corporate taxation, as referred to in the agreements with New Zealand First and United Future, and supported by the Progressives, will also be designed to take a wide-ranging look at our current system of corporate taxation with an emphasis on practical signals to lift productivity.

My government believes that science and innovation are critical to driving our prosperity.

As part of this, a multi-year funding path for research, science, and technology will be developed. A greater proportion of research investment will be moved into longer term funding arrangements. Compliance costs will be reduced by acknowledging the trust that research organisations with proven track records have earned.

Key areas of national research excellence will be identified, and then, for each area, my government will set out how it intends to maintain and develop long-term capability.

Particular attention will be paid to the commercialisation of innovation. This will involve acceleration of the commercialisation of research generated from within the public sector, more support at the seed and pre-seed stages, and better addressing capital market or funding gaps.

The agreement with New Zealand First commits my government to preparing for 2007 to be a specially designated “Export Year”. The work of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will be refocused more on exporting, especially of higher value goods and services, with a client-centred approach and a stronger presence in key offshore markets.

My government will continue to advocate for a fair and open global trading environment. That means taking an active role in the Doha Development Round negotiations of the World Trade Organisation, especially to secure fairer rules for agricultural trade.

Bilateral and regional trade agreements which are consistent with WTO rules and agreements will be advanced. Negotiations are under way with China, Malaysia, and ASEAN.

The backbone of the New Zealand economy will continue to be our primary industries. The Hon Jim Anderton, as leader of the Progressive Party in the coalition government will take responsibility for the agriculture, forestry and fishing portfolios with the objective of ensuring that these sectors lead the way in improving productivity and in innovation.

The agreement with the Green Party includes a commitment to developing a ‘buy kiwi made’ initiative to promote local goods and services to both the public and private sectors. New Zealand First is also supporting this initiative.

Honourable members,

New Zealand's growing economy relies on strong foundations. The foundations of a 21st century economy must include world class education, infrastructure, healthcare, and social services.

Education lies at the heart of my government’s vision for economic and social development.

It is my government’s intention that by July 2007 funding will be provided for 20 hours of free early childhood education for three and four year olds attending licensed, teacher-led services. Ensuring that all young children have the best possible start in life with quality education is essential.

Over the next three years, around 1300 extra primary teachers will need to be employed in Year 1 classes to implement a 1:15 teacher-pupil ratio for new entrant classes. The highly successful numeracy and literacy initiatives in our schools will be extended to reinforce the gains that have been made in the last few years in the foundation skills of young students.

At the secondary level, my government will work for full implementation of the School Staffing Review Group and the Ministerial Taskforce on Secondary Teacher Remuneration.

Over recent years there has been a significant increase in participation in post compulsory education and training. This has included the establishment and development of the Modern Apprenticeship scheme, and much higher numbers enrolled in industry training. My government's goal is to have all 15-19 year-olds in some form of work, training or other income generating activity.

My government will continue to invest in these areas, in particular through funding an additional 5,000 Modern Apprentices by 2008, and continuing to work towards the target of 250,000 people in industry training overall.

Even with the significant increase in participation, the number of skilled graduates and of those with trade and technical skills has not been able to keep pace with the growing demand in the economy. There is also a concern among some businesses that young people emerging from education and training are insufficiently prepared for the labour market.

My government is determined to improve the quality and relevance of tertiary education in New Zealand. While the general standard of tertiary education here is high, some high profile examples have demonstrated that a system which puts too great a concentration on increasing participation can lead, in some instances, to poorly designed courses and misuse of public money. Changing the system to prevent such outcomes will require a significant adjustment in parts of the tertiary sector.

The introduction of interest free student loans, which will be legislated for before Christmas, will also ensure that young people find it easier financially to acquire tertiary qualifications.

Over the next three years, eligibility for student allowances will also be extended, in accordance with my government’s own policy and its agreements with other parties.

Honourable Members,

Another key foundation for our growing economy is modern infrastructure. In this regard, New Zealand not only faces major challenges with respect to energy and transport policy and delivery, but also in ensuring that our ICT infrastructure is capable of supporting a dynamic 21st century economy and society.

It seems very likely that while the present high oil prices will fluctuate, there will not be a return to the low prices of the previous decade or more. This makes having efficient transport infrastructure more important that ever. My government will continue to invest heavily in that, including in public transport.

During this term my government will explore a wide range of potential energy scenarios in order to develop a National Energy Strategy. Priority will be given to renewable energy sources.

A more aggressive approach will be taken with respect to energy efficiency, in order to reduce the growth in demand, while also meeting the needs of households and businesses. This will be developed in co-operation with the Green Party. Measures will include increased support for solar water-heating, the introduction of a Home Energy Rating Scheme, improved building standards, use of passive solar design systems, and other mechanisms to achieve a sustainable path forward.

Progress will continue on the completion of Auckland’s roading network in the next ten years with attention being paid to ensuring a smooth flow of projects and flexibility around their management. The preferred solution to Wellington’s western corridor issue will be advanced as identified in the agreement with United Future.

Along with such investment, increased funding will be provided to encourage more people to switch to public transport.

With respect to ICT, my government will be advancing policies to ensure that the telecommunications sector becomes more competitive and that we achieve faster broadband uptake in line with our competitors.

Honourable Members,

New Zealand's transformation must be based on opportunity and security for all. Unlocking the potential of all New Zealanders is an imperative, not an ideal, in a dynamic modern economy.

Over the last six years my government has transformed our system of social assistance so that it is focused on assisting people to find sustainable employment. The social welfare system will continue to provide a base of security for all New Zealanders, alongside the provision of opportunities for work. During this term further action will be taken to encourage and support those on Sickness and Invalids Benefits to participate in the workforce. Further development will also be undertaken on the evolution of the new benefit structure focused on providing work opportunities for all New Zealanders.

My government has also prioritised lifting living standards for families. Working for Families represents the biggest boost for families on low incomes in over thirty years, and the biggest offensive on child poverty New Zealand has seen for decades. The decision to have children, and to raise a family, must not prevent New Zealanders sharing in the success of a growing economy.

Starting next year, my government will provide additional targeted tax relief to many families with children, as well as additional support for childcare. It will mean tax relief for every low and middle income family with children in New Zealand, as well as for many larger families on higher incomes.

My government is also committed to supporting New Zealanders find a better work-life balance. From 2007, all workers will be entitled to four weeks’ annual leave.

My government will continue to ensure that we have a fair system of industrial relations. In line with the support agreements with other parties, the minimum wage will continue to be increased, with a view to the adult rate being set at $12 per hour by the end of 2008 if economic conditions permit. Initiatives will also be taken to remedy the difficulties which have arisen with the Employment Relations Act provisions relating to vulnerable workers.

Honourable members,

Along with providing opportunities for all New Zealanders, my government is committed to ensuring security for those who need it. Decent health care, superannuation, and the social security system are central to our people’s sense of security.

My government’s priorities in health are to focus on primary health care through the continued roll out of accessible and affordable primary services; the implementation of preventative health care services; and increasing elective surgery numbers through initiatives such as the orthopaedics and cataracts projects.

Special attention will be paid to children. My government will work actively with other parties towards the objective of free primary health care for all under six year olds. Access to Well Child checks for pre-school children will also be extended.

A free “School Ready” check for all children before starting school will be implemented, including access to immunisations, and hearing and vision checks. All newborn children will be provided with a free hearing test, and there will be significant investments in improving dental services for children and young people over the next three years.

As part of the agreement with United Future, my government will develop a long-term medicines strategy to ensure quality pharmaceutical usage in the health sector.

Measures will be taken to strengthen the health sector workforce. Particular attention will be paid to the aged care sector.

My government will continue to focus on the security and well being of older New Zealanders.

In line with the agreement with New Zealand First, next year’s annual adjustment to the rate of New Zealand Superannuation will lift the married couple rate to 66 per cent of the net, average, ordinary time weekly wage. Work will also be undertaken to investigate ways to improve options for senior citizens who may be eligible for foreign pensions as well as New Zealand Superannuation. Ways to give better recognition to veterans of active overseas service will also be investigated.

The other element of the agreement with New Zealand First on senior citizens commits my government to developing a Senior’s Card to identify the holders’ eligibility to a range of entitlements.

Many superannuitants will be eligible for the extended rates rebate scheme to be introduced from 1 July next year. The mandatory over 80 driving licence test, a cause of so much stress to older people, will also be abolished.

Honourable members,

Providing security for all New Zealanders, young and old, also requires a continued focus on reducing crime. Progress has been made on reducing the rate of crime and increasing police crime resolution rates.

Now, pursuant to the agreement with New Zealand First, my government is committed to providing funding over the next three Budgets for an additional 1000 police staff.

Early intervention has the potential to achieve long term reductions in crime. Subject to positive evaluation, my government will expand successful early intervention programmes. It will support and further develop Youth Offending Teams. Further resources will be put into residential rehabilitation, and new initiatives to discourage youth involvement in criminal gangs will be developed. The home detention system will be reviewed.

A range of legislation will be introduced into the House covering an independent prison complaints authority, reforming pre-trial processes, improving Family Court procedures, overhauling the coronial system, and amending the Privacy Act.

Honourable Members,

I have outlined so far the government's priorities across the economy, education, healthcare, and social services.

Underpinning each of these priorities is an approach founded on a distinctly New Zealand way of working. This approach aims to be inclusive, forward looking, and focused on lifting the aspirations and developing the abilities of all New Zealanders. This is critical to our nation's success.

Honourable Members, one of the most distinctive features of the emerging New Zealand way is our sense of national identity, confidence, and creativity.

New Zealanders are holding their own alongside the best writers, musicians, and artists anywhere in the world. Our communities now fully embrace and support their creative members. We New Zealanders expect to see our stories and perspectives reflected on our airwaves, on film screens, in our literature, and throughout the creative spectrum.

My government will continue to support the creative sectors, knowing that they are helping to profile New Zealand very positively in the wider world, and that they play a critical role in nation building.

New Zealand has also gained enormous benefit from the many achievements of our sportsmen and women. My government will continue to work with the sports sector to build on its achievements and to increase participation of New Zealanders in physical activity. In this regard my government will support the Department of Conservation putting increased emphasis on opportunities for physical recreation in the outdoors.

New Zealand's sense of national identity is also underpinned by our position as an independent and principled player on the world stage.

My government will continue to ensure that New Zealand contributes positively to the resolution of the many challenges our world faces. Resourcing for our diplomatic, aid, and defence infrastructure is being significantly increased to that end.

My government is also committed to maintaining the quality of our environment and the preservation of New Zealand’s unique biodiversity.

Clean air, open space, and good water quality are seen as part of our birthright. Yet our reality does not always conform to this ideal.

A vision and strategy for ensuring long term water quality and management will be developed. National policy statements and national environmental standards will be used to achieve the desired goals.

My government will continue to implement the New Zealand Waste Strategy and provide extra funding for the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund.

My government will also continue to work with local authorities to improve the working of the Resource Management Act. Recent amendments to the Act should lead to significant improvements, and my government will ensure that the potential gains are achieved.

Climate change is a big threat to New Zealand’s land-based industries. The evidence worldwide of the adverse impact of human activity on climate is now overwhelming. My government believes it is important for New Zealand to move with the mainstream of international opinion in finding solutions to this problem.

Honourable Members,

One of the most distinctive features of contemporary New Zealand is our increasingly diverse population.

As New Zealand moves forward, we must address needs across a range of communities and ethnicities.

Social solidarity will be critical to our country’s success. My government will continue to promote tolerance and understanding between all those who make up our nation. The New Zealand way has always been to move forward together, recognising the independence of individuals, while pooling our collective talent for the good of our economy and society.

The place of Maori in contemporary New Zealand has been a matter of much controversy in recent times.

My government seeks to encourage rational and informed dialogue on the role of the Treaty of Waitangi, and on the rights and responsibilities of the Crown and Maori, and, indeed, of all New Zealanders.

It is time to recognise the emergence of a new, dynamic, confident Maoridom. It is time to lift aspirations, celebrate and encourage success, and not dwell on past failure. Pride in the achievements of all New Zealand communities and peoples must be seen as a cornerstone of the New Zealand way.

Success for Maori will come from utilising the many opportunities now available. Implementation of the Maori Fisheries Act, the acceleration of the registration of Maori Land Court Orders in the land transfer system, the expansion of the Maori Business Facilitation Service, the acceleration of the Treaty settlement process, and the continued expansion of educational opportunities will all assist.

My government is also working to conclude agreements on foreshore and seabed issues with both Ngati Porou and Te Whanau a Apanui over the coming period. These agreements will demonstrate that the Foreshore and Seabed Act does both protect the interests of the general population and recognise the special interests of Maori where those can be demonstrated to exist.

As well my government will be setting a final date for the lodging of historical Treaty claims by 1 September 2008 with the objective of having claims settled by 2020.

Honourable Members,

The election result has given my government the opportunity to build on the New Zealand way of working that has emerged over the last six years.

With the announcement of the final vote count on 1 October it was clear that the Labour Party held the largest number of seats. With other parties committed to discussing the formation of a government first with the party with the largest number of seats, negotiations were able to commence. This led to the Prime Minister being able to inform me some two weeks later that she was in a position to form a government with a secure majority in the House on confidence and supply.

The Labour-led government is a minority one, thus continuing what is now emerging as a normal feature of our political system. It rests on three layers of agreements.

The first is a coalition agreement with the Progressive Party. As with previous Labour-led coalition agreements, this provides for the maintenance of distinctive political identities in government and Parliament, and a commitment to focus on building a prosperous, safe, and sustainable New Zealand.

The Progressives are keen to bring to the government in this term their vision for both economic growth and greater ecological sustainability in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, as they see that as essential to preserving the natural capital upon which these industries rely. Improving the fisheries management framework through a network of marine protected areas is a key priority for them. In agriculture the twin challenges of increasing irrigation and avoiding nutrient build up in waterways are issues the Progressives intend addressing.

The biosecurity portfolio held by Hon Jim Anderton will continue to make an important contribution to ensuring the protection of our natural resource base, and will support the continuing economic development of the primary sectors.

The Progressives will also be continuing to pursue their key policy priorities around the misuse of drugs, better skills training and more support for families and senior citizens.

The second layer of agreements comprises the two confidence and supply agreements with New Zealand First and United Future respectively. These provide for positive votes in support of the government on confidence and supply.

The leaders of those two parties, Rt Hon Winston Peters and Hon Peter Dunne, hold ministerial portfolios outside Cabinet. They are bound by the conventions of collective responsibility with respect to those portfolios, but not otherwise.

There is also a list of detailed policy matters for action or development in both confidence and supply agreements.

The third layer is a co-operation agreement with the Green Party. As with the agreements with New Zealand First and United Future, provision is made for consultation on the broad outline of the legislative programme, on key legislative measures on which support is being sought, on major policy issues, and on broad budget parameters.

The Green Party will have full involvement in the detailed development and implementation of policy proposals for an enhanced energy efficiency programme and a ‘buy kiwi made’ programme. There will also be co-operation on two other levels of issues.

These agreements are an expression of my government’s desire to continue with the broad and inclusive approach which New Zealanders opted for when they replaced the winner-takes-all attitudes of the first past-the-post system with MMP.

Of necessity, the longstanding constitutional conventions associated with the consequences of the old electoral system are evolving to respond to the challenges of MMP. The fact that we have enjoyed stable minority government for the last six years, and can look forward to a further three, is a tribute to the adaptability of our constitution.

Honourable Members,

My government is deeply conscious of the honour bestowed on it in taking office again. Its mission is to lead the economic and social development of our proud, independent South Pacific nation. It seeks to work alongside a broad cross section of New Zealanders to achieve the best results for New Zealand.

I wish you well in your deliberations. You have been charged by your fellow New Zealanders with great responsibilities. I am sure you will do your best to fulfil them.

Appointments

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That Clem Rudolph Simich be appointed Deputy Speaker. I do so with great pleasure and with a sense of honour. When I moved the appointment some 3 years ago of Mr Simich as an Assistant Speaker, I expressed strong confidence in his judgment, in his impartiality, and in his ability in terms of his presence to carry out the job with great distinction. It is clear that he has done so, and I think it is clear, too, that there is a strong consensus in the House that he should move up a step to the position of Deputy Speaker for the coming 3-year term of this Parliament. We look forward to working with him; we have the greatest respect for his abilities.

Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition): I rise to support that nomination. Clem Simich has been a member of this House for nearly 14 years and, as the Leader of the House has indicated, he held the post of Assistant Speaker with distinction in the last Parliament. I have no doubt at all that he can with distinction fill the role of Deputy Speaker also.

Motion agreed to.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Can I be the first to congratulate the Hon Clem Simich. He is a member who is well liked and respected across the House. He did serve well in the last term as Assistant Speaker, and I wish him all the best in his term as Deputy Speaker.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I would like to add my comments by way of endorsement from New Zealand First of this appointment. I know full well that Clem Simich should be on the front bench of the National Party; everyone knows that. He clearly has the skill, the talent, and the ability, but that, of course, would rule him out. Therefore, we have found it necessary to promote him in another way, the best way we can, and I wish him all the best in the future.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): The Greens would like to offer their congratulations to Clem Simich. We have found him to be a gentlemanly, courteous, and fair person to deal with.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): The Māori Party also wishes to endorse Clem Simich. This party operates under the principles and values that we saw Mr Simich uphold right throughout my parliamentary term, and we want to wish him all the best.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): On behalf of United Future I convey our congratulations to Mr Simich on his elevation to be our Deputy Speaker. He is a man of rare courtesy and distinction, and he took a very fair-minded approach in the Chair in the last 3 years. I am sure we will see that continue in his new role as Deputy Speaker. He has our best wishes.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): On behalf of the ACT party I rise to support Mr Simich’s appointment. It is clear that he did a fantastic job as Assistant Speaker. He was always fair and reasonable, and I hope that that may long continue. Of course, his appointment does solve two problems: one for the Labour Government in terms of filling the role, and one for the National Party in terms of where to put Mr Simich. So it is a win-win situation.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive): The Progressive Party offers its warm congratulations to Clem Simich. I well recall Clem Simich winning a hard-fought by-election campaign in Tamaki to come here. He was going to deliver a message to his party; he is now in a position to deliver a message to the whole of Parliament. I offer my congratulations.

Hon CLEM SIMICH (National): Firstly, Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on being elected to the position of Speaker and on having that election confirmed by the Governor-General. I have been pleased to work with you over the past year. I have found it quite rewarding to have you as my Speaker. The words you spoke in Parliament yesterday I endorse completely, and I look forward to helping you, as far as I can, achieve the things you have set out that you wish to achieve as Speaker.

My first and special thanks are to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen for moving the motion for my appointment. I want to thank all members for the very generous way that they have accepted and supported that motion. I also thank the other leaders, who have been so generous in their words in respect of my appointment. I am quite humbled by it. I look forward to serving members as well as I can. Thank you.

Assistant Speakers

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That Margaret Ann Hartley be appointed Assistant Speaker. Ann Hartley was, of course, the Deputy Speaker in the previous Parliament, so she comes to this nomination with a considerable amount of experience. I think it is fair to say that she had something of a baptism of fire as Deputy Speaker in the previous Parliament. There is something about a woman in authority that seems to lead to a certain kind of chromosomal outbreak on the part of some colleagues within this House, but it is just a matter of adaptation over time, I can assure them.

Speaking from long experience over time, I can say that one gets used to women in authority and actually comes to enjoy it after a period of time, and I recommend it to members opposite in that respect. It is not really enough to sit on the front row of the paepae; sometimes it is more important to fully participate in all the activities from a leadership role, as you have demonstrated so well yourself, Madam Speaker. I have much pleasure in nominating Ann Hartley.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): This motion proves just how hollow the claim in the Speech from the Throne was, that the age of winner-takes-all politics is gone. If it had gone, then the motion would have nominated someone from this side of the House for an Assistant Speaker’s position.

I respond to Dr Cullen’s rather acerbic comments of a few moments ago, suggesting that Mrs Hartley was rather unfairly treated as Deputy Speaker at the time. I tell him that we reject that utterly. Yesterday this House unanimously installed Margaret Wilson as the Speaker. Every party expressed its deep respect for her abilities as shown in that position. The reality is that if no one in this House is any more elected than anyone else, then whoever sits as a presiding officer has to have the confidence of all the House in order to be able to exercise the authority that gives it any sort of direction. So we will move an amendment to the motion. We will nominate—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Oh, not Brian Connell.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Dr Cullen will have his fun, but let me make it very clear. Labour’s intention, in putting Ann Hartley in the position of Assistant Speaker, is to simply create a transit lounge before she goes off to Niue. That is the deal. We know that it will not be long before Dianne Yates explodes in such an apoplectic way that Labour will have to do something for her. We know that Dover Samuel’s days as a Minister are dependent on the term of one or two high commissioners around the place. There will be an exit from the Labour benches into all sorts of preferred positions as it tries to manage its own caucus. We believe that in nominating John McGregor Carter to be Assistant Speaker, we nominate someone who has long political experience. He has been in this House since 1987, he has served as a senior whip for a very, very long time, and he is well respected not only in this party but across Parliament. So as an amendment to the motion, I move, That the name “Margaret Ann Hartley” be omitted and the name “John McGregor Carter” be inserted.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): The age of winner-takes-all is over. That was the National Party’s—

John Key: Loser takes all!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: They will get over it. [Interruption] As for the Tauranga result, the matter is sub judice, and I will see the member in court in Tauranga on 28 November. He will not be laughing then.

I go back to the primary purpose of this speech. The age of winner-takes-all is over, as evidenced by the appointment of the Deputy Speaker today. Such obvious evidence was provided to the member, yet he missed it.

But the real problem with the nomination from the National Party is that it would mean that it would be denuded of more talent, denuded of experience, and bereft of parliamentary knowledge. It desperately needs Mr Carter on its own benches, not filling in over in the Chair. It is a party of people who have been out of power now for 6 years. It has a front bench comprised largely of people with no experience in Government. It is a party that cannot do without the experience of John Carter. Otherwise, we would support him. We know he has the ability.

National has a back bench with a whole lot of ambitious people who will soon use this Parliament as a ladder to climb over their colleagues. One needs to understand the procedures of Parliament to stop such things from happening. That being the case, we have to decline the nomination from the National Party, and for the most obvious reasons, and go with some experience and some unity in respect of the new Government.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Green Party will certainly oppose National’s amendment to the motion, and we would like to express our sincere confidence in Ann Hartley’s ability to take up this position. We believe that she did a very good job as Deputy Speaker in the last Parliament. She proved her ability to deal with some of the most abusive behaviour in the House, which is, I think, unfortunately still a very regular occurrence when members are dealing with women who are in positions of responsibility. In my view, and certainly in the Green Party’s view, Ann Hartley did a very good job of withstanding that abuse. She conducted herself with calmness and firmness, and she resolutely refused to be undermined and bullied by those around her. We certainly look forward to her taking up this role again, and we will vote against National’s amendment and support the Government’s motion.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): I rise to support the amendment. There is no reason why this House should believe what Winston Peters said, because if he was sincere in his remarks about Clem Simich, he could have made him Speaker of the House. He decided not to, so there was no sincerity in those remarks of congratulation.

There is one problem with the nomination that the Leader of the House has made, which is that Ann Hartley did not earn the respect of the House when she had ample opportunity to do so as a Deputy Speaker. We voted against her last time, and she won that vote. Over the last 3 years Ann Hartley has had the opportunity to show the judgment, the temperament, and the balance that are required of a senior officer of the House, and she has failed to earn the respect of the House. Few officers of this Parliament fail in that respect. Most of them are given time. They do get a baptism of fire, but they get the opportunity, and they make it. The next nomination on the list is Ross Robertson. I admit that I was a sceptic when he took up office. But he earned the respect of this Parliament, and that is why we will support that nomination. However, we cannot support this one. We are dealing with a Government that is a curious mix of the reluctant and the incompetent: those who are reluctant to go, and the rest of them, who are incompetent. Ann Hartley happens to fit into both categories.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I just want to say a few words, first of all, in response to Winston Peters, who said that the time of winner-takes-all is over. That is a bit rich coming from Winston Peters, who has just lost the seat of Tauranga and who promised the people of New Zealand that he would not take the baubles of office. That loser has taken the biggest bauble of office his greedy chops could reach around. That is what Winston Peters has done. He demonstrates now in this Parliament that the loser can take all, because he has done that with the shonky agreement he has entered into with Helen Clark.

I heard Dr Cullen say that some people gave Ann Hartley a hard time as Deputy Speaker because she is a woman. Well, I can tell Ann Hartley that I think Dr Cullen was referring in part to me. Doing that had nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman; it was all to do with contesting vigorously in this House and with ensuring that the Standing Orders have their play. Just to demonstrate that to Dr Cullen, I say that ACT will support Ann Hartley’s nomination as Assistant Speaker, because we think that she can, and did, learn. We look forward to Ann Hartley being a good Assistant Speaker.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I rise on behalf of the Māori Party to wholeheartedly support the motion of the Government that Ann Hartley be the Assistant Speaker. She has our wholehearted support and the absolute respect of this caucus.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): United Future will be supporting the amendment that has been moved. We do that because we have a very high regard for Mr Carter. We think he has performed well in the various roles he has held in the past. In this particular position of Assistant Speaker one is not entirely removed from partisan debate. The concerns that have been expressed about his being a loss to his party are therefore not as relevant. We think he could do a good job, and we are prepared to support his nomination.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the name “Margaret Ann Hartley” be omitted, and the name “John McGregor Carter” be inserted.

Ayes 50

New Zealand National 47; United Future 3.

Noes 68

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

ANN HARTLEY (Labour): Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate you on your election and I look forward to working with you. I would also like to congratulate the Hon Clem Simich, whom I very much enjoyed working with in the last Parliament; I think we had an excellent team. I thank all members, and assure all members that I will certainly, as a presiding officer, be working in the House to make sure that I serve the House well.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That H V Ross Robertson be appointed Assistant Speaker. I do so with the Government’s stand of a 100 percent record on votes in this House during this forty-eighth Parliament we now have. I call the member Ross Robertson. I call him many other things as well, and some of those are well known in public. I call him a friend; I call him a colleague; I call him somebody who has performed extraordinarily well in the job. Indeed, he has on occasions been known as “Spot”, which is a tribute to his terrier-like qualities, his extraordinary energy, and the fact that he gets around his electorate and around everything he has to do. He has been a member of this House since 1987, and he is universally liked on all sides of the House. Of course, he brings to the House a dedication to its standards. He would like to impose upon us a code of conduct, with some of us wanting to plead guilty in advance but declining to do so, and we have not accepted that particular suggestion. But I am very confident that he will continue to perform that role with distinction.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): On behalf of the National Party, I say that we will certainly endorse H V Ross Robertson for the position of Assistant Speaker. We believe that Mr Robertson exercised independence and neutrality in a very fair and even-handed way during the last Parliament. In particular, members of the National Party are confident of his working knowledge of the Standing Orders, and look forward to welcoming him and his continuing in that role.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First wholeheartedly supports this appointment. But I want to respond also to the comments of Rodney Hide, someone who grossly overspent at the last election.

Rodney Hide: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh yes, he did. He forgot his colleagues and his fellow candidates, went to Epsom, and grossly overspent. Members should not ask me; they should ask Richard Worth. They need not believe me; they should believe him. Richard Worth knows, so do the people who work for him, and Rodney Hide has the temerity to come here and fail to recant on that fact. It was he, with Don Brash, who sat in our office, in our caucus, making every offer possible: “Anything you want, you can have.” It was Don Brash who said in July to the media that he was very happy for the leader of New Zealand First to be the Minister of Foreign Affairs—though he never discussed it with me. [Interruption] Oh yes, he did.

Dr Don Brash: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. At no time did I offer to Mr Peters the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs in a National-led Government—or any other ministerial position.

Rodney Hide: Point of order—

Madam SPEAKER: No, I do not need any assistance. [Interruption] I do not need any assistance, Mr Hide, I am on my feet. I know this is, in effect, the first day, but I remind members that when points of order are taken they are heard in silence as a matter of respect. I also note that when a member speaks, it must be relevant to the motion. I think the member was straying off the point of the motion as he continued in his speech. So I ask the member to continue his speech but to speak to the motion before the House.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I will. My real point is that Ross Robertson would never behave like that. It is not in his nature—that is why he is qualified for the job. He has enormous experience, unlike the people who are now complaining. But my real point is that what Mr Hide had to say, given what Don Brash told the media in July without any consultation, is like that word one cannot use in Parliament, but its first letter resembles a rugby goalpost. It is a word I cannot use in Parliament but it starts with “H”, and today we saw the first attempt by those people to gainsay every action they took before the last campaign.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table Mr Winston Peters’ Rotorua speech, so that everybody can see who else is a person beginning with a letter not dissimilar to a rugby goalpost.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that speech. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I seek leave to table the press statements of the visitation to the New Zealand First office by one Rodney Hide and another Mr Don Brash, whose purpose we all know was certain. They should not deny it now or try, in my absence from Parliament on important public business, to get away with a total, undiluted piece of hypocrisy.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those press releases. Is there any objection?

Gerry Brownlee: What’s he tabling?

Madam SPEAKER: Press releases. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I rise to support Ross Robertson in this role. I should add that Ross Robertson is a very well-behaved member of Parliament and an excellent Assistant Speaker. Now, without Jonathan Hunt, he probably knows the Standing Orders better than anyone else here in Parliament.

I know that he would not behave like Winston Peters behaves. I was at the meeting with Don Brash, and I know for a fact that the allegation that Mr Peters has made is totally false. There was no suggestion at that meeting that the National Party would have Mr Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs. In fact, Mr Peters wanted an offer to be put on the table that Mr Brash resolutely refused to put on the table. What was very clear from that meeting is that Mr Peters decided to support a Labour Government. That is the fact of the matter. He decided to go for the baubles of office and to support the Labour Government. It may well be that Mr Peters is now embarrassed about that, as he well may be. He may be unable to explain it to the people of Tauranga, he may well be unable to explain it to his own members of Parliament, and he may well be unable to explain it to the president of his own party, Doug Woolerton. But he should not bring that embarrassment to this House and try to reinvent the history of what happened at a meeting.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was prepared to let this debate go on for a fair while, in the interests of open democracy, but a second rant that is the same as the first does not address the issue, which you so appositely put to me that I should do. I wish you would do that to this member now, before he bores us all witless.

Madam SPEAKER: The question of relevance is equally applicable in this instance. Has the member concluded?

RODNEY HIDE: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Allegations were made against me by the Rt Hon Winston Peters—[Interruption] There we go. Are New Zealand First members going to be allowed to interrupt on a point of order, after a warning?

Madam SPEAKER: Are you speaking to a point of order, Mr Hide?

RODNEY HIDE: Yes.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, I thought you were continuing your speech. Please continue.

RODNEY HIDE: The point of order is that allegations were made by Winston Peters against me, in terms of spending, that were totally unfounded. Allegations were made about a meeting that I attended, and Mr Peters made that point. I am allowed, under the rules of debate, to respond to those allegations. I think it is very unparliamentary for Mr Peters, just because we are pointing out the truth, to say, in responding to what we said—[Interruption] There he goes. I am raising a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been constantly interrupted by Ron Mark, I am now being interrupted by Winston Peters, and I do not see any protection from the Chair.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. He has made his point of order in full. I remind members that we would not have these points of order if all members were relevant and stuck to the motion that is before the House.

RODNEY HIDE: We rise to support Ross Robertson.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Nearly a royal “we”.

RODNEY HIDE: It is a very, very royal “we”. I say to Mr Peters that this is just the start of what is to come. He will be held to account for the decisions that he has made in becoming the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): The Greens are happy to support the nomination of Ross Robertson for Assistant Speaker. We find it unfortunate, given that on Tuesday we will begin a 19-hour debate on the formation of the Government and its programme, that the election of the presiding officers of the House has to be disrupted by the kind of debate we have just had. It is not that that debate should not occur; we do not think that this is the appropriate place for it to occur when we are electing our presiding officers. We enjoyed Ross Robertson’s running of the House in a friendly way, his attention to the Standing Orders, and his fairness. And I really enjoyed the way he started each session with “Kia ora.”

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): The Māori Party rises to support the nomination of Ross Robertson to be Assistant Speaker. We know that he manages the House really well. The one thing I am really proud of is that he always attempts to pronounce Māori correctly. Kia ora, Ross.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): It may come as a considerable surprise to the House when I say that I agree entirely with everything that the co-leader of the Green Party said. Ross Robertson was a superb Assistant Speaker in the last Parliament, for all the reasons that members have outlined. He will be equally so in this Parliament, and we have every delight in supporting his nomination.

Motion agreed to.

H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou, e ngā iwi, e ngā hoa, e ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to all, to the tribes, to friends, to the four winds, greetings, greetings, greetings to you all.]

It is with humility that I gratefully accept the profound honour that you, my parliamentary colleagues, have offered me to serve in this House as one of your presiding officers. This forty-eighth New Zealand Parliament is blessed with many new sets of lungs, alongside seasoned politicians who are well accustomed to the delicate difference of opinion of this place. I will ensure that every member has the fullest opportunity to define, defend, and deliver his or her visions according to the letter of the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings, and in the spirit of engagement that our public expect. On this 400th anniversary of Guy Fawkes’ plot, it behoves us all to be inclusive of all opinion, for this is a chamber of ideas. This is a place where continuous streams of ideas are tested, according to our Standing Orders and the Speakers’ Rulings. It is like a river that flows from bank to bank, so that its true potential is realised for all.

Lastly, I just say this: last year members unanimously celebrated 150 years of our parliamentary democracy. We enter a Parliament that is finely balanced, like our German MMP counterparts. I trust that we will all work together, tātou tātou, to ensure that this House grows in public esteem. Tihei mauri ora!

Reinstatement of Business

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That the following business be reinstated:

Bills

Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs’ Tails) Bill

Arms Amendment Bill (No 3)

Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4)

Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 2)

Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4)

Climate Change Response Amendment Bill

Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill

Coroners Bill

Courts and Criminal Matters Bill

Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill

Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill

Criminal Procedure Bill

Criminal Proceeds and Instruments Bill

Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill

Education Amendment Bill

Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill

Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill

Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill

Energy Safety Review Bill

Evidence Bill

Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill

Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill

Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill

Historic Places Amendment Bill

Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill

Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill

Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill

Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3)

Kerikeri National Trust Bill

Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill

Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill

Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2)

Legal Services (Territorial Customary Rights) Amendment Bill

Manfeild Park Bill

Marine Reserves Bill

Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill

New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill

New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill

New Zealand Day Bill

New Zealand Sign Language Bill

Oaths Modernisation Bill

Overseas Investment (Queen’s Chain Extension) Amendment Bill

Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill

Police Amendment Bill (No 2)

Protected Objects Amendment Bill

Rail Network Bill

Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill

Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill

Securities Legislation Bill

Sex Offenders Registry Bill

Sports Anti-Doping Bill

Standards and Conformance Bill

Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5)

Taxation (Depreciation, Payment Dates Alignment, FBT, and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill

Veterinarians Bill

Petitions

Commerce Committee:

2002/177 Dr Muriel Newman and 6778 others

Education and Science Committee:

2002/61 Graham Crawshaw and 851 others

2002/155 Brian Sheedy and others

2002/170 Colin Tarr and 35,329 others

2002/172 Fiona Mildon and 395 others

2002/180 Addo Mulders and 1249 others

Finance and Expenditure Committee:

2002/157 Rod Donald and 7984 others

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee:

1999/177 Trevor Graeme Cullen

2002/5 Suzy Wakim and 573 others

2002/13 Joan Macdonald and 2565 others

2002/14 Timothy Jones and 1062 others

2002/33 Timothy Jones and 2314 others

2002/37 Wan Ji Kang and 640 others

2002/38 Kenneth Wang and 7296 others

2002/39 Jackie C W Orr and 1533 others

2002/120 Dr Mohammad Jabawe and 46 others

2002/144 Bruce Blades and 1020 others

2002/151 Eric Liu on behalf of the Hwa Hsia Society and 955 others

2002/158 Stuart Vogel and 116 others

2002/163 Rae Julian and Paul Martell on behalf of the Council for International Development and 13,911 others

Government Administration Committee:

1999/239 Peter Robert Cameron and 994 others

2002/148 Brenda Wilkin and 2050 others

2002/173 Robert James Lee

Health Committee:

2002/162 Helen Smith

2002/178 Dr Muriel Newman and 585 others

Justice and Electoral Committee:

2002/90 John Tonson for PANIC (NZ) and 86 others

2002/92 John Tonson for PANIC (NZ) and 47 others

2002/160 Larry Baldock MP and Gordon Copeland MP

Law and Order Committee:

1999/54 Frank Louis Miessen and 4 others

2002/131 Derek Williams and 1506 others

2002/168 Manchao Li, Kenneth Wang MP and others

2002/174 Robert Cochrane Fitzgerald

Local Government and Environment Committee:

1999/227 Kees Bon and 146 others

2002/21 Judith Taylor

2002/34 Matthew Ross Harper on behalf of the Pegasus Bay Users Association

2002/65 Phil Evans

2002/122 Len Harvey and 1196 others

2002/179 Malcolm Anderson and 37 others

2002/182 Claire Gulman and 1452 others

2002/183 Lucy White and 3287 others

Primary Production Committee:

2002/171 Harry Schat and others

Privileges Committee:

2002/175 Amer Salman and Omer Ali and 724 others

Social Services Committee:

2002/153 Margaret and Stan Lambert and 16 others

2002/156 Russell and Marion Miller and 7079 others

2002/164 Philip Lynch

2002/166 Aubrey Fitton

2002/181 Frank Moloney and 3840 others

Standing Orders Committee:

2002/83 Dr Anthony Hochberg and 9 others

Other matters referred to committees

International treaty examination of the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment

International treaty examination of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement

Statutory Review of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002

Other business

Orders of the day for the consideration of the following:

Report of the Regulations Review Committee on an Investigation and complaint about civil court fees regulations 2004

Report of the Social Services Committee on a Briefing from the Department of Building and Housing

Report of the Health Committee on Supplementary Order Paper No 298 (relating to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3))

Report of the Government Administration Committee on the Visit of the Government Administration Committee to Australia 20 to 24 June 2004

Report of the Regulations Review Committee on Complaints regarding Regulation 8 of the Gambling (Harm Prevention and Minimisation) Regulations 2004

Report of the Officers of Parliament Committee on the Appointment of a Deputy Controller and Auditor-General

Report of the Regulations Review Committee on a Complaint regarding the limits and exclusions on Class 4 Venue Costs Notice 2004

Report of the Primary Production Committee on the International treaty examination of the Agreement to promote compliance with international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the International treaty examination of the Accession to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South East Asia (1976)

Report of the Commerce Committee on the International treaty examination of the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Marrakesh, 2002) and the Final Acts of the World Radiocommunications Conference (Geneva, 2003), amending the Constitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union (1992), as amended by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto, 1994) and by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis, 1998)

Report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the International treaty examination on the amendment to provide for cargo-only accession to the 2001 multilateral agreement on the liberalisation of international air transportation

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Monetary Policy Statement, June 2005

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Fiscal Strategy Report, Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2005, and 2005/06 Estimates Votes Audit, Finance, Revenue and State-Owned Enterprises

Report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders

Report of the Primary Production Committee on the International treaty examination of the Treaty on Cooperation in Fisheries Surveillance and Law Enforcement in the South Pacific Region

Report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on a Briefing on progress in implementing key recommendations of the 1996 Transport Committee inquiry into truck crashes

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the International treaty examination of the Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Poland for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income

Report of the Health Committee on Briefings on the national hearing and vision screening programme and the approach to health screening in New Zealand

Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Activities of the Regulations Review Committee in 2005

Report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on its Visit to Australia 22 to 26 May 2005

Briefing report of the Primary Production Committee on Exercise Taurus and Operation Waiheke

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Inquiry into New Zealand’s relationship with Latin America

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Inquiry into New Zealand’s relationship with the Kingdom of Tonga

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Inquiry into the role of international human rights in foreign policy

Interim report of the Regulations Review Committee on a Complaint about Animal Welfare (Layer Hens) Code of Welfare 2005

Report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Inquiry into 2004 local authority elections

Report of the Education and Science Committee on the Inquiry into setting of National Certificate of Educational Achievement examination questions

Report of the Constitutional Arrangements Committee on the Inquiry to review New Zealand’s existing constitutional arrangements.

This is the first time this motion has been moved in the House, under the changes to the Standing Orders and the Constitution Act. Previously what happened was that at the end of a Parliament a motion was moved to carry matters over to the next Parliament. Famously, of course, in 1984, with the so-called “schnapps election”, that did not happen and there was no business for the incoming Parliament to pick up. Since then, of course, we have had that carry-forward motion successfully moved.

On constitutional grounds, I think it is far preferable for an incoming Parliament to determine the business that it will have under review. I think also, however, that there is very good reason for that motion to cover the business as it was at the time the House rose for the election, and for the Government not to attempt to use a temporary or, perhaps, passing majority in the House on particular matters to remove issues from the Order Paper, whether they be members’ bills, Government business, or other business. Indeed, I understand that the National Party is thinking of moving an amendment to remove bills from this particular motion. I have to say that that, I think, will probably be the summit of National’s achievement for this Parliament, and I trust that those amendments—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just watch this space.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the member had better get a decent barber before he starts interjecting any further. But certainly, if that is all the National Opposition can manage to do on the first day of Parliament, it is showing its lack of imagination, its lack of wit, and its lack of talent. After all, it is appropriate for this House to consider properly any bills that are in front of it—to debate those bills if the Minister or member in charge chooses to have that matter proceed to consideration by the House. It is, of course, open—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What about the gender bill?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Goodness me, the member is back in action already—a sort of chirping little sparrow on the things opposite. I remind the member that once he starts chirping all the time he will invite the appropriate retaliation from this side of the House, so I invite him to shut up before he carries on. I know that more senior members know what I am referring to, and I am being very kind to that member by not commenting on why he behaves like that so often in this House.

So I have deliberately moved a motion that picks up all the business in front of the House.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Losing his rag on the first day.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is actually a female activity, not a male one, if the member had any idea at all.

So I have moved this motion, and I am sure we will face some rather silly amendments. We will face some rather silly speeches as the various contenders for the leadership of the National Party try to show what they can do as opposed to the efforts of the current leader of the National Party. I trust that the common sense of the House will reject those motions and allow members and Ministers to determine the future of those bills.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): Notwithstanding the interpretation that the Deputy Prime Minister puts on this motion, the reality is that this is the Government’s work programme for the next 3 years. These are the Government’s bills, so anyone who votes for these today—[Interruption] Well, OK, there are a few exceptions, such as members’ bills, but the vast majority of these 2½ pages is the Government’s programme, carried over from last time. It is the stuff that Labour wanted to do and could not do, or did not get done. It wants this House to say: “Right—we want to pick it up now and run with it again.” So the United Future party and New Zealand First, and anybody else who chooses to support the motion, choose to buy into the Government’s programme.

We know that the New Zealand First Party spends endless hours telling everybody that it is not part of the Government, that it is only there on the odd day, that one day it will be part of the Government and the next day it will be part of the Opposition, and that it will probably vote against the Government frequently. Of course, New Zealand First does not want to be considered as part of the executive. Mr Peters wants to be able to say that he is not part of the executive, but the Prime Minister is saying that he is. We will see how that issue plays out in the future.

The real point, though, is that included in this motion are a number of bills that I would have thought New Zealand First members did not want to see advanced. We know they are desperate to differentiate themselves in this House, and we want to help them. We are going to move an amendment to exclude the following bills from the motion: the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3), the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill, the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill, the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2), the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill, the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill, the Rail Network Bill, and the Police Amendment Bill (No 2)—all bills that Winston Peters stood up in this House and fought against.

Winston Peters told this House that all those bills were of no value to the New Zealand population and of no value to the country as a whole. I suspect that Winston Peters will now say that all those bills are fantastic because they got him a very nice motor car. That is the situation we are facing here. So we are moving an amendment, which has been placed with the Clerk, so that New Zealand First can show that it is not a party attracted by the so-called baubles of office, and that it does have an opportunity to stand by the votes it cast just a few short months ago.

The same would apply to the United Future party. Today we heard that United Future is likely to vote against the Government more often than it will vote for it. So one would have to ask why United Future members are going to vote for this motion to go ahead today. Why does United Future not have an amendment that pulls out some of the things it is so particularly opposed to? It is important that we understand that this is effectively the first confidence vote—[Interruption] There is a lot of disruption in the House.

Madam SPEAKER: There normally is. People do tend to chat.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, they are not supposed to stand in the aisle and have a discussion.

We know that Clayton Cosgrove has been dispatched down to New Zealand First’s most difficult member, Mr Woolerton, to have a chat to him, to make sure that his vote stays in place. [Interruption] Madam Speaker, this is quite outside the Standing Orders, and I would like you to do something about it.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please resume his seat. He is not a whip.

GERRY BROWNLEE: It is extremely important that we understand today that this is the first confidence vote that the Government faces. It is effectively where the Government says to the Parliament: “These are the bills we put into the process last time and want to carry over.” The Government is going to require its coalition and supporting partners to vote for it. They will sit there and smile, but they need to know, and the public needs to know, that they will be voting for bills they voted against just a short time ago. [Interruption] We just heard another member from down the back, Mrs Pettis from Whanganui. We told her she was going to lose her seat. She lost it splendidly. I congratulate Chester Borrows. We welcome him here. I forgot to add Jill Pettis to the long list of Labour Party members lining up to take a diplomatic posting and likely to exit this Parliament very shortly. Mrs Pettis had a short career but never mind, she did well anyway!

I return to the motion and say that National has this amendment and wishes to find out whether New Zealand First is serious when it says it will vote with the Opposition sometimes and with the Government at other times. Is this a time when it will vote against itself, when it is in Opposition, or in favour of itself, because it is in Government?

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I take a brief opportunity to note Gerry Brownlee’s kind comments about New Zealand First. He clearly recognises that we have a role to play in this House, and we have. Let me say to the honourable member and to the House—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about the baubles of office.

PETER BROWN: I will talk about the baubles of office, if the member likes: I have not got any.

Let me assure the House that the bills the honourable member listed in his amendment and said that New Zealand First had voted against—and he is probably correct in that; I am not in a position to dispute it—are bills we will continue to vote against. Let me just say that first and foremost—and I ask the honourable member to take note of this—New Zealand First stands for democracy. We do not want to impose our views in a dictatorial fashion upon all New Zealanders. People have a right to be heard, and we support that right. I believe that a more distinguished politician than myself—somebody like Winston Churchill—once said something like: “I may not agree with you but I will go to my death fighting for your voice to be heard.” So New Zealand First will not be supporting the National Party amendment.

Let me put this question to the honourable member who moved the amendment. How many of the new National Party members have actually read the bills that National wants to throw out? I ask all those new members who have read them to raise their hands. Not one! I guarantee that not one of those new members has read those bills. I say to members opposite: “If that is defending democracy, then you have a lot to learn.”

New Zealand First does not support all these bills but it does support the democratic process. We believe that many of them will be defeated on the floor of the Chamber. That is where we stand on the matter.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): I think the National Party should reflect very carefully on the precedent it is setting with this amendment, because what goes around comes around. The fact is that when a bill has passed its first reading in this House with a majority, has been referred to a select committee, and has had submissions on it called for from the public, then Parliament ought to do the public the courtesy of listening to those submissions and of considering them properly in a select committee. If this amendment is to proceed, then we should watch out for what will happen to all sorts of bills that the National Party puts up.

A member’s bill is included in this amendment motion. All members know how difficult it is to get a member’s bill called in the ballot, into the House, and through its first reading. Everybody has had that experience, and to knock it out at this stage without even the courtesy of a select committee hearing is extremely bad parliamentary process. I think it is a very bad way to start a new term. I know that this Parliament is a different Parliament. Parliament is the author of its own destiny, but it also has a responsibility to consider things that are part-way through their process properly. If I were totally opposed to every bill in this motion, I would not support the National Party’s amendment; I would wait and defeat the bills in the House, if that were the way the Greens wanted to vote. I think it is really poor process, and I urge the National Party to withdraw its amendment.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour): I do not support the National Party’s amendment to this motion. The co-leader of the Green Party is correct; there is a member’s bill here. It is my bill—the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Prime Minister says it’s gone.

GEORGINA BEYER: It has not been voted on by this Parliament yet. It was put forward for first reading in the last Parliament. At the end of the day it will be my decision what happens to the bill. Whether it stays in or out is my decision. I do not believe that the process that Gerry Brownlee and the National Party are trying to institute is right. It is undemocratic, and I would expect that it betrays their real ideals.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek the leave of the House to table the Sunday Star-Times article in which the Prime Minister stated that the very bill that the member has spoken about was dead.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that newspaper article. Is there any objection? There is. It will not be tabled.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): The co-leader of the Greens does raise an issue that is right in some respects. There are members’ bills listed in the motion that National supports. So we will be moving a further amendment to the motion to the effect that we will exclude all bills except a number of members’ bills that we do support, because we believe that Parliament and the public should have the opportunity to make submissions and discuss those bills. I would have to say that list does not include Georgina Beyer’s bill. I am very surprised that the discipline of the Labour Government has broken down to the extent that a back-bench member has risen in this Parliament on its first day to defy the Prime Minister.

Hon Member: An exit with dignity’s coming.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It will be another exit with dignity in a transit lounge to Niue—it will end up doubling the population.

Georgina Beyer: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to correct the member. He should not rely on the newspapers of this country to print the story correctly.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may not be aware that, over the last couple of weeks, the Prime Minister has cultivated among the media the idea that Labour is now a centrist Government that has given up its dreams of more social revolution, and that the way it is demonstrating that is to drop that member’s bill. [Interruption] Actually, the Prime Minister tried to drop the member, but decided to wait a bit longer because the queue was becoming rather long. The Prime Minister then made a show of publicly disciplining that member, but now she sees fit to get up today.

We thought that Winston Peters would be the problem. Well, he is—and I will come back to that—but it is clear now that the Prime Minister’s political strategy is creating real tension in the back bench of the Labour Government. [Interruption] Marian Hobbs says that she is innocent. She has moved a long way down to the back bench and, apparently, not because she wanted to—that is for sure. She is another one of the reluctant, or maybe the incompetent; I am not quite sure.

My colleague Gerry Brownlee put his finger on a key issue today: this Parliament needs to have explained to it just what Winston Peters’ position is. We have talked over the last couple of days about Mr Peters’ having gone for the baubles of office. We found out today that there is only one bauble; he got it and his colleagues did not. I feel particularly sorry for some of those members. I think Brian Donnelly is respected in the education sector as one of the senior influential figures in New Zealand education. He has been reasonable, non-partisan, knowledgable, and respected. He had an opportunity to play a ministerial role in the new Government that even I, as the Opposition spokesperson on education, would have been happy to see him play, but he does not have that ministerial role. The question is why he does not have one.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Because they’ve run out of baubles.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because they have run out of baubles already—exactly! I think Winston Peters is confused. He was going for a bauble, but he has ended up being the ballboy—carting the ball around in foreign affairs for Phil Goff and Helen Clark. Members will miss him, will they not? The attack dog of Parliament has become the lapdog—that is what it is.

But, seriously, he owes it to this House to be here today to explain to this Parliament just what this Government arrangement actually is, because I do not think that he knows. Just a small sign that the public might not have noticed, but Parliament should have noticed, was that he has tried to reverse the normal seniority of seating on the cross bench. What normally happens is the leader sits closest to the Prime Minister and his or her deputy would sit in the middle seat. But no, Winston Peters was trying to do what he did in the photo taken at Government House, which was to take the limo, take the cash, and take the trips, but not show up to the meetings—so as to try to look like he is not part of the Government. He has said that he is in Opposition and in Government. Well, there is no seat in the middle of the aisle, I say to Mr Peters. So what is his position? This is the day for him to come here—where there are more MPs than there will ever be during the next 3 years—and tell the House just what his relationship with the Government is. When we look at what he has said about it, we wonder why he is voting for every piece of legislation listed in the motion.

We can look at what Winston Peters says and we can look at what he does. What he does is give total support to the Government. On every matter on which he could have dissented from the Government in its formation, he has gone with the Government. He has agreed to the Labour Party Speaker. He has agreed to the distribution of select committees. He has agreed not to let any of his colleagues into Cabinet. Everything Helen Clark wanted, he gave her. Not once did he stand firm for anything—except on a couple of policy decisions; we have to give him that. He has gained some policy concessions but that is all. In respect of Parliament, he has done nothing.

This is the person who ranted for years about how Parliament had to change. He ranted for years about how it should not be winner-takes-all. Then, when he had the one chance in his career to really change the way Parliament works, he gave it up. That is why the people of Tauranga gave up on him. They stopped believing him. They stopped believing what he said. We saw again today his deep respect for my colleague and friend Clem Simich. It is just that the respect was not so deep that he could be bothered making him Speaker of the House when he had the opportunity. He was the one person who could have done so. There was no one else. He was the one person who could have made his friend and esteemed colleague Speaker of the House, and he refused to do it. What does Winston Peters do? He insults this Parliament by saying that it is only media misrepresentation that would leave anyone confused or would lead his supporters to think that he had broken an election promise. Well, I think it is parliamentary misrepresentation, and that is a much more serious issue.

So I say to Mr Peters that before he votes holus-bolus for the Government’s programme—I was going to say that it is a do-nothing Parliament, but when one looks at the programme one sees that it is a done-nothing Parliament—he should explain to the House whether he is with it or against it. It is really that simple. He should explain why he picks up a whole Cabinet salary when he says that he will deal with only one-twentieth of its issues, and why he picks up all the baubles of office when he takes almost none of the responsibility. That is what this Parliament respects. We know that under MMP a small party does the deals to make power and to be in Government, but we respect the parties that take the responsibility that goes with those deals. Small parties have made and broken their careers on those deals. They have lost colleagues. Some of them have disappeared completely, like the Alliance. But they all took responsibility, except for Winston Peters. So I ask him today to come to the House and show us that he will take the responsibilities of Government, if he is so keen to take its rewards and privileges.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I would just like to remind members at the outset of the debate, although I did not interrupt the honourable member when he was speaking, that the reference is to Madam Speaker, not Mr Speaker.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): I would like to go back to the point we were debating, which is the amendment proposed by Gerry Brownlee to the reinstatement motion. I remind the House that, as the Leader of the House said when introducing the motion, this is the first time under the new Standing Orders that we have adopted the procedure of reinstating business. I, for one, do not want to see the House start off on the wrong foot when it comes to including members’ bills in amendments to that motion.

The House tends to develop and operate on the basis of conventions. Today we are at the birth of a new convention in relation to the reinstatement of business. I believe we should start on the right foot by deciding that our convention should be that members’ bills will always be reinstated. The exception would be, of course, when the party to which the member who introduced the bill belonged no longer remains in Parliament following an election. In other words, if there is no practical way of carrying that bill forward, it would be a different situation. But with that single exception, I believe we should decide here today as a Parliament on a convention of reinstating members’ bills.

After all, members’ bills are the bills of members. They are not part of the Government’s programme. They are quite separate and distinct from that under a different category. So I think it would be wise for Parliament and, in particular, the National Party to reflect on that and to ask whether we want to begin this Parliament by deciding, in this first reinstatement motion, to exclude a member’s bill when the member who introduced that bill is still here to continue to promote it during its passage through the House.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I rise to support Jeanette Fitzsimons. The principle not to pick and choose but to carry the business forward that was decided by the previous Parliament is not a bad principle. In fact, ACT has a bill in the motion that was brought forward by a colleague, and I certainly appreciate the fact that the Government of the day has accepted that bill and put it forward. But with that comes the responsibility that we should carry all the bills forward. If we start picking and choosing, members who have put forward a bill because they have had the luck of the draw, as it were, and the members of the public who have got excited about a particular bill and who have made submissions, would get chopped by the Government of the day. That certainly does not seem right.

It is also not the case that the motion calls for a vote of confidence in the Government. If it were, I would not be voting for it. It is clearly not a confidence vote.

I was very interested in my colleague Georgina Beyer’s comments. I think it will be interesting to debate some of the bills in the motion.

John Key: You voted for Ann Hartley.

RODNEY HIDE: Absolutely! If National Party members wanted us to vote for one of their colleagues, they should tell us that they will put someone up. It is a courtesy of Parliament, I say to Mr Key, that if one puts up a colleague and wants that person to win, one goes around and asks people to vote for that person. I also point out to the National Party that it is all very well to blame Mr Peters for not voting for, or supporting, Mr Simich for the Speakership, but Mr Peters never had the opportunity to have a vote. If the National Party wanted to put up Mr Simich as a Speaker, they should have done so. If its members had asked us to vote for him, we would have done so. It is a basic parliamentary procedure that if one wants someone to vote for something, one must go around and ask for the vote. I say to Mr Key that one should not take it for granted. I thought that would have been obvious.

To return to my previous point, I think it is a good principle to carry business forward. It will not always be the case and I would hate to see it become an automatic convention, because if there is a major shift in Government, there could be a lot of bills that would unnecessarily occupy a Government’s time. But I will be interested in the debate on the bills in the motion.

We heard a most passionate speech from Georgina Beyer in favour of the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill, in which she said that it was for her to decide whether this bill would be debated. I agree with her, and I thought it was very presumptuous—maybe the reporting was wrong, and I look forward to the Prime Minister explaining that—for Helen Clark to have gone around saying that the bill was dead before Parliament had even met to have this debate. Only Parliament can kill that bill, not the Prime Minister. So I support Georgina Beyer’s promoting her bill. I do not think I will vote for it, but I want to hear the debate and the arguments.

I listened to Mr Peter Brown, and I think it will be an interesting Parliament. We heard Peter Brown say that he did not get any bauble of office.

Simon Power: He got nothing.

RODNEY HIDE: He got nothing. Then he looked to the back bench of the National Party and asked how many of those members had read those bills. I hope that none of them have, because I do not know what they have been doing if they are sitting down reading those bills. But if it is all right for Peter Brown to ask questions of the back bench of the National Party, maybe we could ask Mr Brown when he first learnt that Winston Peters would be the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Labour Government and whether he agreed with that.

Peter Brown: I can answer.

RODNEY HIDE: When did he first learn?

Peter Brown: Do you want a date?

RODNEY HIDE: Yes.

Peter Brown: I can’t remember the date, but it was in the discussions that took place.

RODNEY HIDE: Maybe Mr Brown will come down, in the opportunity that he will have in this Parliament, and explain to members the precise process by which Mr Peters explained to him that he would take the bauble of office.

Given that Mr Brown is in an expansive mood, maybe he will answer another question: did he believe the speech Mr Winston Peters gave in Rotorua? He cannot answer. There is a stunning silence. Mr Peters campaigned on his honesty and integrity, but even his deputy leader did not believe the speech that the Rt Hon Winston Peters gave in Rotorua as part of the election campaign. He sat there like a stunned mullet when I asked him whether he believed the speech.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member is firing questions at me that I am only too willing to answer. But I am bound, as he is, by caucus conventions—although I accept that he has a caucus of two and I have a caucus of seven. But I can infer from the honourable member’s comments that he thinks Peter Brown was not terribly happy about the speech that was delivered in Rotorua. In fact, Peter Brown did try to influence the decision that was made. He failed, and he is an honourable member. He sticks exactly to the caucus agreement.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, it is a debating point. [Interruption] It might be very interesting, but it is not a point of order.

RODNEY HIDE: No, I thought that was the best point of order of the session. As I understand it, Peter Brown did not agree with what Mr Peters did. He knew that he could not believe the speech that was given in Rotorua, even while it was being given.

Peter Brown: I never said that.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, he never said that he believed it, did he? I ask the member whether he believed the speech in Rotorua when Mr Peters gave it.

Peter Brown: Am I allowed to answer?

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please sit down. The series of questions produces the irresistible temptation in members to respond to them, but this is not the appropriate forum in which to do that. The member can ask the question and continue with his speech.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: I said the member can continue, but I am merely saying that Mr Brown was seeking my guidance. For the assistance of the House, I would point out that we are not having a question and answer series across the Chamber. There can be interventions, and there are from time to time. I am not denying that Mr Hide can ask those questions. I invite him to continue his speech after the member’s point of order.

Gerry Brownlee: You may have considered advising Mr Brown that he could seek the leave of the House to engage in that sort of banter, as Mr Hide rather forensically questioned him—

Madam SPEAKER: This is also not a point of order. Thank you.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 54/4, which states quite simply that, based on a House of Commons practice, it is possible for a member to yield to another member and to answer any question that he or she asks in the course of debate. That is exactly what has occurred, it is completely within the Standing Orders, and we should allow it to continue—

Madam SPEAKER: It is an academic point. There has not been any request to yield. I ask the member to continue his speech, please.

RODNEY HIDE: I am not yielding anything. If Mr Brown wants to take a call, he is most welcome to do so. If Nick Smith wants to yield his time, he is most welcome to do so, too. It is not as if much time is needed; it is just a yes or no answer. Did Mr Brown believe Mr Peters’ campaign speech in Rotorua at the time when he gave it?

Hon Brian Donnelly: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the issue of relevance has already been referred to today. I fail to understand how these rhetorical questions from Mr Hide are relevant to a debate around a motion for an amendment put forward by Mr Brownlee. I do think you need to rule on relevance, in this regard.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I ask Mr Hide to continue please, and I remind members of the motion before them. If members could address that as specifically as they can, that would be helpful.

RODNEY HIDE: The issue—and I thank Mr Donnelly—is the reinstatement motion. The issue of whether New Zealand First is part of the Government and whether it has accepted the baubles of office came up. Mr Brown himself referred to the baubles of office, and to how he did not get any. Mr Donnelly did not object to Mr Brown’s claim that he did not get any baubles of office. I think the country knows that Mr Brown completely missed out on getting any baubles of office.

The country also knows that Mr Brown did not believe the speech that Mr Peters gave. He did not believe it for a second. I asked him a straight question. We also know that Mr Brown absolutely opposed Mr Peters’ taking of the baubles of office. Mr Peters’ own deputy opposed it, and his president opposed it. It is no wonder Mr Peters is telling the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that he cannot do any work right now, because he is busy quelling a rebellion in his own caucus and party. In fact, that is what he is doing now. He is on the phone to Grey Power, trying to hold his party together. I have this statement from Mr Brown. ACT supports this motion going through.

Mr Brown is the person who, first of all, as Mr Peters’ deputy, tried to persuade Mr Peters not to go back on his solemn promise to the people of New Zealand and accept the baubles of power. Then, the very next thing, after Winston Peters took the baubles of office, Peter Brown said that he was an Opposition member and wanted to sit on the Opposition benches. That is where Peter Brown and Mr Peters wanted to be seated, because they said they were not Government MPs but Opposition MPs.

Peter Brown: That’s right.

RODNEY HIDE: Mr Brown is saying that he is an Opposition MP. I ask Mr Donnelly whether he is an Opposition MP.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Just like last time.

RODNEY HIDE: Those members are saying that they are Opposition MPs.

I thank Dr Cullen for reinstating all these bills. It will be fascinating to debate each and every one of them, and to see just how this Parliament goes.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty): This is a carry-over motion from a leftover Government. The morsels are just being warmed up in this motion—they are quite ridiculous. The National Opposition has made it very clear today that this Government is propped up by Winston Peters, a man who told the people of New Zealand that he would be their insurance policy and would make sure his party did not sell out. This is what he said about his commitment to stay on the cross benches and not move from Opposition: “It involves for my colleagues a real sacrifice, but we willingly make it.” He said: “… post election will be about securing the policies we campaigned on, not about pursuing power and the baubles of office at any price.” Well, Mr Peters was right. It did involve, for his colleagues, a real sacrifice. But one member did not sacrifice anything, and that is Mr Winston Peters, the attack dog who has become a lapdog.

What about those extraordinary admissions from Peter Brown? The discipline in New Zealand First has completely broken down since Bill Gudgeon went. I bet members never thought they would hear that name again, or that of Craig McNair. What a sell-out there has been from New Zealand First. We need only to ask the party president, Doug Woolerton, about that. Within minutes of Labour and New Zealand First cuddling up together, who was the first rat off the ship? It was Doug Woolerton. He did not want a bar of it. The second person out the door was the treasurer of New Zealand First. Why do the New Zealand First members not admit that since then there have been mass resignations from New Zealand First up and down the country, because people know that the only honest politician has let them down, again? Goodness, there is a swirling cauldron in New Zealand First. Mr Peters’ colleagues were prepared to make a real sacrifice, and they made it for Mr Peters and his baubles of office.

I say to the New Zealand First members—to Ron Mark, who can just see the title “Honourable” floating off somewhere over the horizon, to Doug Woolerton, and to Brian Donnelly—that they should stick to their word and vote against those bills that New Zealand First railed against before the election, by supporting the Brownlee amendment, which will expunge from this motion those bills that New Zealand First members, when they stood on platforms, said they would oppose. Why do the New Zealand First members not back what they said at the time and expunge those bills from this motion?

I also want to move an amendment to this motion to exclude all the bills except those that are well founded, sensible, and promoted by National Party MPs. They are the Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill, the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill, the Kerikeri National Trust Bill, and the Manfeild Park Bill. They should be put in there, as well.

This is the opportunity for New Zealand First to say whether it is in the Government or the Opposition. If it is in the Government, it will vote to support the progress of bills it originally opposed. If it is in the Opposition today, it will support the Brownlee amendment. But maybe we will have to wait until later next week to see whether New Zealand First is going to be in the Government today, or in the Opposition on Wednesday and back to being in the Government on Thursday. I cannot wait until question time to see whether New Zealand First will actually ask any hard questions of the Government. [Interruption] Oh, its members do not get any questions—that is right, they do not get any questions, because they are such a mere shadow of what they were in the last Parliament. In fact, they are a wafer of what they were in the last Parliament.

This motion goes to the heart of what New Zealand First will stand for. Its members talked about a real sacrifice they would make to avoid the baubles of office, but the minute they got the opportunity their leader jumped in—and left them behind with nothing. Did he say to those members that he thought he might be able to get them some portfolios?

R Doug Woolerton: What are you ranting on about?

Hon TONY RYALL: Mr Woolerton asks what I am rambling on about. I ask him what he was rambling on about when he quit his presidency of New Zealand First. Why was he trying to take his principled position when the party went and jumped in with the Labour Party, after saying it would not go into coalition with anybody? New Zealand First said it would stay in Opposition, so what is Mr Woolerton going on about? If he was happy about that, why did he not stay there? Is he happy to support a Government with a Minister, Lianne Dalziel, who does not tell the full story? How are we ever going to believe the answers that Lianne Dalziel will give in this House in question time? How can we ever believe what she says? Are New Zealand First members happy to support Mr Benson Pope as a Minister in this Government—a Minister charged with social policy in this country and with maintaining a peaceful and non-violent community? Do they want to stay supporting that sort of man as a Minister in this Government?

The New Zealand First members need to know that they have betrayed everything they stood for. But they have an opportunity today to honour the people who were out campaigning for them. The Koos Freswyks of this world, who give up every hour of every living moment to campaign for New Zealand First, feel completely let down by what it has done. So here is the opportunity New Zealand First has, by voting for the Brownlee amendment, to throw out the bills it does not support. I have spoken to those New Zealand First people, and I can see their body language in the House today. They are always conferring with each other and chuckling away in a nice little group there, but it is a group that people are going to see as part of a failed Government. The Clark-Peters Government has no plan—no vision—other than maintaining the baubles of office amongst each other. It is time that New Zealand First showed where it is—in Opposition or in Government—and let us get on with it. New Zealand First has simply been whitewashed by this Government, so it is time it showed which side it is on.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I listened with interest to Dr Cullen's explanation at the start of this debate about the point of a reinstatement motion, and how it was more relevant than a carry-over motion as previously done by Parliament. He actually made the right point, which was that a Parliament is to start afresh, and that the whole point of having a reinstatement motion is to avoid a situation where the next Parliament is bound by the work programme of the last Parliament. So to those members, including Jeanette Fitzsimons, who say that, no, the public should be given an opportunity to make submissions on bills, I say that the real point is that that would have been the case had a carry-over motion continued. We now have a reinstatement motion, which enables this Parliament to start afresh. That is precisely why the Standing Orders Committee unanimously amended the process.

I do not think that I was alone when I sat on this side of the House and heard Mr Brown admit that he disagreed with his leader. It was an extraordinary admission, done under a neat and tight cross-examination by Mr Hide, in an environment that I am sad to tell Mr Brown will come back to haunt him. The Clark-Peters Government—or the “Peters party”—has an opportunity now to do away with that Government programme, excepting for a few decent members’ bills. New Zealand First is now supporting a work programme it spent a large part of the last Parliament opposing. It stood on this Opposition side of the House and debated against bills that its members are now about to vote to have included and continuing in the Government’s work programme.

For 3 years I sat and listened to New Zealand First members calling United Future members “lapdogs” and “doormats”. Well, I tell New Zealand First members that I have only two words for them—that is, “Woof, woof!” Now is their chance to show United Future the very thing they accused its members of for 3 years. New Zealand First should stand up and vote against the Government's work programme when the motion is put. I tell Mr Brown that this is the opportunity to show that his party belongs over here and not with the Government, because already New Zealand First members are being tarred as being part of that Government. Mr Dunne also has the opportunity now to show he has what it takes to vote against the Government work programme.

Now there is a complete charade where Mr Peters is a Minister outside Cabinet, bound by collective ministerial responsibility—apparently—on his portfolios, but on nothing else, which is an extraordinary departure from the doctrine and convention of collective ministerial responsibility. But the Prime Minister just waves that away by saying: “We will just adjust those conventions. We will just amend the Cabinet Manual.” Actually it is not as straightforward as that, and members opposite should reflect on the Westminster model and on the fact that the doctrine of collective responsibility means that their leader and their party will be bound by all ministerial portfolio decisions.

R Doug Woolerton: Go and get a life.

SIMON POWER: Doug Woolerton tells me to get a life! I hope that Mr Woolerton’s 12-year friendship was worth it when he just threw away the presidency of New Zealand First. Actually I admire him for it. At least he stood up for what he believed in, unlike poor old Peter Brown, who said: “I don’t believe the speech in Rotorua. I want to sit on the other side of the House. It’s got nothing to do with me, I got nothing.” What a sad indictment!

But it is not true that those New Zealand First members got nothing. I am told that Ron Mark will be the deputy chair of the Law and Order Committee, and will work under Martin Gallagher, keeping Martin Gallagher honest as the chair of the Law and Order Committee. What a disgrace! Mr Donnelly will at least retain some semblance of respect by continuing to chair the Education and Science Committee, which is a job he did extremely well. I can tell by the look on his face that he is disgusted with the deal that has been done. He is appalled with the outcome of negotiations he had nothing to do with.

But, of course, those New Zealand First MPs are not alone in missing out. Poor old Steve Chadwick—it looks like the smoking got her in the end. Jill Pettis, who stands today as a list MP in this Parliament, is destined for a job offshore. There is also Dianne Yates and Georgina Beyer. The debate on Georgina Beyer’s bill will be very interesting. Russell Fairbrother should have paid a ransom for his own career. And then there is poor old Jim Sutton.

We should give the Greens some credit. During the election campaign, at least the Greens were honest enough to say to the public: “We are the only party that will tell you now that we will go into coalition with Labour.” But, they are not. They have been left on the shelf again, for the third time. I encourage the Greens to contain that vengeance for every vote in this Parliament to make sure that they exact the revenge that they deserve for being duped for the third time in a row.

It is worth finishing with a quote from the speech in Rotorua. In a speech made in Rotorua on 7 September, Mr Peters said: “We are not prepared to compromise our principles, simply to pursue the perks of office. We are not the desperate lonely hearts of New Zealand politics looking hopefully and forlornly for a suitor.” It appears that he was wrong again.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): It is a cause of concern—in fact, I think it should ring alarm bells—that the National Party has so little respect for, and understanding of, the democratic process that it would seek to use what is essentially a procedural motion to knock out members’ bills that have had their first reading and, in some cases, on which submissions have been received from all around the country. It is seeking to deny those persons who have made those submissions the right to be heard.

We know that this is show-pony stuff. We know that this is the National Party flexing its muscles and showing us that it will rule the roost and rule this House. It is real show-pony stuff. Nevertheless, it is an important democratic principle. I point out that through this procedural motion National is seeking to eliminate my Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. That bill has received 100 submissions. One hundred New Zealanders have made submissions on this bill, and National is seeking to deny them the right to be heard. It is seeking to deny employers federations, the Plunket Society, and Parents Centres—all of those middle - New Zealand organisations—the right to be heard after they have gone to considerable trouble to make submissions. National members are seeking to undermine democracy in an attempt to be show ponies.

Frankly, I find it astonishing that a party that seeks to portray itself as family-friendly, and that all throughout the election campaign talked about being family-friendly, would oppose a bill that would give working parents a very simple, minor right to request to work flexible hours. That is all my bill would do. Why would a party that promotes itself as family-friendly deny that right? I ask all the new National women members, who I am delighted to see in the House today, whether they really want to deny parents of children under the age of 6 their meagre right to be able to request to work flexible hours. Do those women want to say that every parent must work 40 or 50 hours without even the right to ask their employer for the ability to work flexible hours? I ask that of those members, and also of the new male members of National, such as Mark Blumsky, the former Mayor of Wellington, with whom I had the privilege of working. He has a young daughter. I am sure that he would support a parent having the right to request of his or her employer the ability to work flexible hours. The employer would be able turn down the request. That is all that my bill seeks to do.

It is even more astounding that the United Future party, which calls itself the family-friendly party—whose whole raison d’être is to be the family-friendly party—is opposing the right of parents to seek from their employers the ability to work flexible hours. Have no members noticed the recent survey by the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust, which found overwhelmingly that the parents of New Zealand want the right to work flexible hours? They consider that the right to work flexible hours is one of the key issues for parents—[Interruption] I say to Mr Copeland that I know that, and I respect that he and New Zealand First members understand democracy. They understand that submitters have the right to be heard, and I do respect that. But I just say that it is astounding that a party that purports to be family-friendly should somehow vote against a bill that would seek to allow parents to work flexible hours. It is, frankly, astonishing.

This is show-pony stuff; fortunately it will be defeated. National has made its point; it has flexed its muscles. But, surely, all members should please think about the democratic principle here that members are undermining a precedent, a convention, a democratic process—that is, the right of New Zealanders, particularly those who have already made submissions, to be heard and to be considered in this House.

TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 69

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 49

New Zealand National 47; ACT New Zealand 2.

Motion agreed to.

Madam SPEAKER: I shall now put the amendment to the amendment. The question is that the motion be amended by excluding all bills, except for the following: the Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill, the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill, the Kerikeri National Trust Bill, and the Manfield Park Bill.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand National 47.

Noes 71

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

Madam SPEAKER: I now put the amendment to the motion; that the motion be amended by excluding the following bills: the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3), the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill, the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill, the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2), the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill, the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill, the Rail Network Bill, and the Police Amendment Bill (No 2).

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand National 47.

Noes 71

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 71

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 47.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 4.51 p.m.