Committees — Business of Select Committees

I move, That a committee be established to undertake a review of New Zealand’s existing constitutional arrangements by identifying and describing:

New Zealand’s constitutional development since 1840

the key elements in New Zealand’s constitutional structure, and the relationships between those elements

the sources of New Zealand’s constitution

the processes other countries have followed in undertaking a range of constitutional reforms, and

the processes which it would be appropriate for New Zealand to follow if significant constitutional reforms were considered in the future;

the committee to consist of seven members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand Labour 4, Green Party 1, ACT New Zealand 1, and United Future 1.

In speaking to the motion, I say first of all that I regret the fact that by leave, even though, obviously, the Government parties are not going to oppose it, New Zealand First and National removed themselves from the select committee, and indeed therefore from the ability to participate in the committee should they change their mind at any point in the future. It seems to me in looking at the terms of reference that they are both very broad and encompassing and do not bias in the least the nature of the conclusions to be arrived at by the select committee. It is a very open process that is being proposed within this motion.

It would not come as a surprise to most members in this House, even to those who know me at all reasonably well, that I am a constitutional conservative—that is, I am a constitutional monarchist. I believe very firmly in the supremacy of Parliament, I reject the notion that the will of Parliament can be overruled by outside bodies, I believe in accountability to the democratic electorate at large, and I believe in the rule of law. But it is clear that over a long period of time we have come to the stage where a large number of questions have been raised about the nature of New Zealand’s constitution: how it works, what it means, how we have got to where we are, what the various documents mean within that constitution, and, should we wish to change those—and this committee does not deal with the issue of whether we wish to change them—what the processes will be for considering any changes that might be suggested. In some countries such as Australia, that issue of the process of change has been quite a difficult one.

New Zealand is traditionally regarded as having an unwritten constitution. It is, therefore, similar to the United Kingdom and one of, I think, only three countries, it is now claimed, that have unwritten constitutions. I am one of those who do not feel that that is some great disadvantage. There are any number of distinctly non-democratic States around the world that have extremely democratically written constitutions that are significantly disobeyed with great frequency. In fact, I have pointed out on many occasions that those countries that have a long and largely continuous history of democracy in the world are almost universally constitutional monarchies. The United States is actually the one great exception to that rule, but, of course, it chose to elect a monarch in its constitution. The United States president is an elected monarch and mirrors in his powers the powers assumed to be the powers of the King as they ought to have been in the 18th century, as opposed to the powers that the Americans thought George III was improperly exercising. In a sense, what one has in the United States is a kind of elected constitutional monarchy, and as we now largely seem to have Bushes one after the other, it may potentially become an actual kind of constitutional monarchy as well, with the election being a kind of confirmation process around the succession. [Interruption] That is right. If George is going, can Jeb be far behind? That is the question now being asked about the States in the short to medium term future.

The notion that our constitution is unwritten is actually a bit of a nonsense. There is not a thing called the “constitution”, but we have a Constitution Act, an Electoral Act, and a whole range of other Acts. What is significant about those Acts is that they are not subject to interpretation that overrides the will of Parliament. In other words, there is not a supreme law called the New Zealand constitution against which other New Zealand statutes have to be measured in terms of their constitutionality. For those brought up in the 1960s who think that is a wonderful, liberal idea that will lead to the progress of human kind, as a benign Supreme Court overrides nasty right-wing laws, I simply invite them to consider, first of all, the fact that progressive income tax was ruled out by the Supreme Court in the early 1930s and, in more recent times, the US Supreme Court has not shown itself as the vanguard of the democratic left—indeed, it is rather distinctly not moving in that direction in more recent times. As we are perhaps beginning to learn in New Zealand, the inclinations of supreme courts depend very much on the views of those who are appointed to them, rather than, necessarily, some broad all-encompassing view of life.

So we have many constitutional documents that are written, which have arisen in a large number of different ways. I think it is very important that we investigate them. It is often said that the Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of the New Zealand constitution, but that is a theory that does not have much historical weight. It is something that has been asserted as a doctrine in the latter part of the 20th century; the notion that it was the founding document of the New Zealand constitution would have seemed a totally bizarre notion to most people in the 19th century. However, that it is now a constitutional document of some sort is an unchallengeable assertion within the New Zealand context. But what the meaning of that is, and how that relates to other things is, of course, open to a huge variety of debate, and part of the select committee process will enable that debate to occur within an open and democratic framework—which, again, is why I regret the fact that the main Opposition party, the National Party, is not participating. The ACT party is quite right to have seen the fact that the committee can be the potential for exploring a whole range of issues, which can be properly explored in that way.

By no means is the committee there to assume a certain outcome. It is not there to assume that we will turn ourselves into a republic, although one occasionally hears the faint tinkling of those outside who are lining themselves up for the prospect of becoming New Zealand’s first elected president. There may even be one or two people inside the House who are suffering from the delusion that they might fill that role at some point within the not too foreseeable future. Certainly, even though I am a monarchist, I sometimes think that perhaps we might want to consider that issue when the reign of the current monarch comes to an end—not that there is anything personal about that, because the whole thing about being a constitutional monarchist is that one puts aside one’s views about the particular nature of the person who might be the monarch at the time.

The issue of process has been a very important one. The Australian development was around a very formal and quite difficult process, but it broke down on the very simple matter of how the president was to be chosen. Had there been consensus around that, the Australians would probably now have a republic at this point in time. There was clearly a majority for being a republic, but not for any of the particular versions of how to choose a president.

This is a process that we should undertake quite slowly and carefully, not rushing it. As I said, I do not object to the leave sought by National and New Zealand First. If at any point either party wishes to become part of the process, as they see it working and not being what they fear, I am very happy to make parliamentary time available for a motion to enable membership to be added. The Government has indicated that Government members will support the election of the Hon Peter Dunne as the chairperson of the committee. Ironically, by withdrawing from membership National and New Zealand First have now ensured that Labour will have a majority on the select committee. Mr Dunne is known for his careful thinking, for not rushing to conclusions, and for listening fairly to all points of view, and I think he is an excellent person to be considered for the chair of the committee. I might say that, amongst my own colleagues, there has been almost a huge rush of volunteers to be members of the committee. I have to say to those who have volunteered so far that I have the faint suspicion that those who volunteered the fastest may be the least qualified to serve, and perhaps the more reluctant might be the more appropriate to serve on a very careful process around a constitutional committee of this sort.

That was a very considered speech from the Leader of the House. Many of the points he put forward in support of the motion seem, on the face of it, to be quite reasonable. The National Party, however, has decided not to participate in this process, because we are most uncomfortable with the terms of reference. We believe they are the only terms of reference that currently exist, as stated in the motion itself. I will go into those reasons in a few moments.

I make it clear to the House that if the Government were to be more upfront about the intention behind the select committee, we would be part of it. It seemed to me that in the Leader of the House’s speech, where he hit upon the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi and the issue of where that sits inside our constitutional arrangements, there was the seed of a new motion that may well see the National Party participate in this exercise. To that effect, I will move an amendment to the motion later in my speech.

I remind the House that in the year 2000 a constitutional conference was held in the Legislative Council Chamber. There was a compilation made of all the contributions at that conference, which Colin James put together. I have recently taken the time to read through those contributions, in order to get a bit of a feel for where New Zealanders’ thinking was about those issues 4 years ago. I think it is a shame that the Government, if it were serious about looking at New Zealand’s constitution, did not start with those fairly learned contributions that, as my colleague Dr Mapp said—he was a major player at that conference—were most divided on the issue.

Although this motion speaks of the constitutional development of New Zealand since 1840, that topic can be quite authoritatively found in that book put together by Colin James. The key elements of New Zealand’s constitutional structure, and the relationship between those elements, are thoroughly explored in those papers, and the sources of New Zealand’s constitution are similarly dealt with. Perhaps the processes other countries followed in undertaking a range of constitutional reforms are not so well followed. So my question has to be: why put that in this motion if there were not, ultimately, some intention to move New Zealand down that particular track?

There, I think, we start to lose the plot a little bit. Although I accept that the Hon Peter Dunne would be a fair chairman, he has publicly stated his desire to see New Zealand a republic. So I have this view that if Parliament is to progress down this line, perhaps there should be a discussion publicly, and then the option should be put to New Zealanders in the general election to come. I think it is that general election and the comments made by Dr Michael Cullen about the Treaty of Waitangi that have caused the Government the most problems on this issue.

I accept that the Government says it wants to do this in good faith, but I look at a couple of other things it has done this year—supposedly in good faith. One was the review into race-based funding in Government departments, agencies, and entities. When that issue was first raised by Dr Brash earlier this year, the Government’s first reaction was to deny it ever happened. It said there were no race-based funding arrangements in the New Zealand Government’s dealings with people. Then today a report was released that totally acknowledges the very vast extent of that type of policy making in the Government’s activities, but there is no commitment of any real substance to do anything about those issues.

We can also point to the issue of the seabed and foreshore proposals. The Government went around the countryside and spent millions of dollars in holding hui, up and down the country. It then went through a very exhaustive select committee process, only to turn up in the House, once the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee reported back, with what was effectively a new bill, a 150-odd page Supplementary Order Paper, that the House was supposed just to adopt and pass—which it ultimately did. Some of us voted against it, but most of the people who wanted, and who were on, that select committee were party to that complete denial of the pleas of submitters to it, and simply pushed through the legislation they wanted.

I have also heard the Leader of the House, Michael Cullen, say that he would never tolerate a situation in which the will of Parliament was interfered with or overruled by people from outside. Members should correct me if I am wrong, but did the Prime Minister not stand up in this House yesterday and tell us that over the recent debacle of the high salaries at Television New Zealand, heads would roll? Did we not hear today that at least three directors have offered to resign—to roll their own heads—and that the Minister of Broadcasting has said that that would not be necessary? The Government has blown in the wind and done a bit of trumpeting, but it will do exactly what it wants to do.

We can ask the same thing of the Leader of the House with regard to the Supreme Court’s decision over the Zaoui issue. Parliament makes it very clear in legislation that bail is not available to someone who is incarcerated as a result of his or her being named in a security risk certificate. But the Supreme Court has decided that whatever Parliament wants is not good enough, and it has granted the man bail. Well, good luck to him, it would seem. Those are two cases where Parliament’s will has been overruled in very recent times.

Perhaps that is a reason for having a discussion about our constitutional arrangements. I get back to the real reason behind the Government’s wanting to set up this committee. I believe it wants to take the issue of race relations, and the issue of the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in 2004 and beyond, off the political agenda.

So I want to move an amendment. It is that all the words from “constitutional arrangements” to “the committee to consist of” shall be removed and replaced with a motion that will read: “… to undertake a review of New Zealand’s existing constitutional arrangements and the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in contemporary New Zealand. The committee is to consist of 11 members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand Labour 4, New Zealand National 3, New Zealand First 1, Green Party 1, ACT New Zealand 1, United Future 1.” I will supply that motion to the House before we move on. If the Leader of the House is so upset that National is not being part of this new select committee, surely National’s representation on it should be much more akin to its representation as the main Opposition party than the motion he is proposing allows.

I wonder also just how serious the Government is about the results that come from this committee, when an equal weighting in the committee’s work is supposed to go on the consideration of the steps that New Zealand might take were it to embark on constitutional reform. I fear that many of the steps have already been taken, and the Supreme Court decision is no doubt a very significant step in that direction. I question whether the proposed nomination of Margaret Wilson to the Speaker’s seat in this House is part of that agenda, because there is no doubt that Margaret Wilson has a republican view of New Zealand’s future. Although the National Party does not want New Zealanders not to discuss these issues, I think it is very appropriate that we get right to the heart of them and that this House accept the amendment proposed by the National Party to the motion.

It is an interesting suggestion that has been put forward by the minority Labour Government, and it has been put forward in a very interesting way by the Leader of the House, Dr Cullen. I think I can agree with many of the things Dr Cullen said during the course of his speech. In agreeing with them, I feel that those were reasons why this motion should not proceed. It was one of those situations where the more he spoke, the more I thought he was speaking against the motion rather than for it. But I appreciate the open and frank way in which he approached this issue. It should be discussed in an open and frank manner, because it is of vital importance to the future of New Zealand.

New Zealand First takes the view that if we are to proceed in the way suggested by Dr Cullen—as I said, I can go along with a lot of what he had to say—then time on this type of issue would be best spent by a royal commission. It should not be dealt with by members of Parliament, who have many other things to do next year, let alone sort out any future problems with the foreshore and seabed legislation, and suchlike, that might arise and that took a bit of time this year. There is a general election coming up next year, and if the ACT party feels that it will not have any contribution to make afterwards, then it can surely spend time on the select committee, because it may not be around after the election. Maybe that is why Mr Hide wants an ACT member on the committee. I can see his point of view.

New Zealand First expects to be busy electioneering next year, with a view to being back in a more dominant position after the next election. So partly there is a practical reason for New Zealand First’s viewpoint. We have other things to do to help run the country rather than tie down a member on a select committee.

If the job were done properly, this committee would probably meet for 6 months. How long would the committee go for? It would go for quite a long time. I think Mr Dunne, as chairperson elect, agrees with me that this committee would have to sit for a considerable length of time.

We have seen how the minority Labour Government operates on constitutional issues through, for example, the Privy Council matter and the Supreme Court legislation. The Supreme Court Act was rammed through this House. It had the support of only 38 percent of those able to vote at the last election, yet it was rammed through the House. In fact, the majority on both sides was the same: 38.1 percent of those eligible to vote at the last election voted for that Supreme Court legislation, and 38.1 percent voted against. Yet the Labour Government rammed it through.

There would be people who would come along to the parliamentary select committee and ask whether they were really wasting their time, because, as the Labour Government had proved that they had wasted their time in the past, they would presume they would be wasting their time in the future. Once again, if Prime Minister Helen Clark decides that a thing will go a certain way, it will be done that way. Everybody in the Labour caucus will jump to heel, supported by United Future—

💬 Nandor Tanczos: And the Greens.

DAIL JONES:—and the Greens, of course, as Mr Tanczos interjected. We have only to note what has happened about the appointment of Margaret Wilson as Speaker. There was no consultation with New Zealand First, but through an agreement with United Future and the Greens—bang!—it was done. So much for discussing that issue with other members of the House! Of course, I take many of the points made by Dr Cullen about the United States and our constitution, and I am reminded of a speech made by Winston Churchill in about 1946, quoted recently in The Economist. He told an enraptured audience in Fulton, Missouri, that the Americans and the British must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man that are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world—which, through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, trial by jury, and English common law, I go on to say, are the basis of New Zealand’s unwritten constitution.

Those are the foundation stones of the way in which New Zealand operates. They have served, and will continue to serve, New Zealand well. One would feel that this committee that was suggested by the minority Labour Government would be a partisan committee—based on the experience I have had, at any rate, in the last 2½ years in this House.

Of course, one of the things I would have liked to see in the terms of reference is a question as to whether New Zealand is independent and, further, if we are independent from Britain, what our independence day is. That is a question that might create some interest. Some people might say a date in 1835, some people might say 6 February 1840, and other people might have other dates. That particular issue will have importance, I think, when we look at Peter Dunne’s bill later on about what date New Zealand Day should be. Should New Zealand Day be the same as the day on which New Zealand obtained its independence? I suggest that that date was 21 November 1947, at the time of the passing of the Statute of Westminster legislation, because until that legislation was passed, this House, for example, was unable to get rid of the Legislative Council. That council was established by legislation in 1852, and until the Statute of Westminster legislation was passed, this House was still bound by an Act of Parliament passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. So the “consent and reply” legislation had to be passed in 1947, and it was only then that this legislature was able to move on in the early 1950s to get rid of the Legislative Council. I would think, then, that at some stage or another and in the course of a royal commission on the issue, New Zealand would consider just what day New Zealand’s independence day is, and whether we should be celebrating an independence day or something along those lines.

One question about the Treaty of Waitangi has been issued. There are various views on the treaty, and one view questions whether a minor naval official could enter into a documented agreement—which he thought he would call a treaty but he could have called it anything he liked—with a group of people who were virtually stone-age barbarians and who were unable to read and write, in a country they did not have possession of and authority over—

💬 John Tamihere: We’re talking about New Zealand, not Pakistan.

The racist member, Mr Tamihere, can keep on with his remarks. But if we look at, say, the Montevideo Convention, we can say for sure that the Treaty of Waitangi was not a treaty. The reason is that it did not comply with the requirements of two parties who were sovereign in their countries, because both parties had to have clearly sovereignty-defined territory. So in that sense, the so-called Treaty of Waitangi can never be a treaty. Mr Brownlee has raised an interesting point, but just as New Zealand First is not interested in supporting the Government’s motion, so, of course, it is not interested in supporting the National Party’s motion, which is based on a feeling of over-importance on the part of the National Party in this House. From what I can recall, Mr Brownlee said that the membership should comprise four Labour members, three National members, and one member from New Zealand First. We know that the sense of proportionality has been knocked out of the window altogether there. If the committee is ever to be effective it should have a membership of four, two, and one. So what that amendment betrays is, as I said, the feeling of over-importance the National Party has in this House. One will have to wait and see after the next election whether even a four-two-one situation will be appropriate.

This is a very interesting situation, and any future development of New Zealand’s history, I say, is a matter of the constitution, written or unwritten. People might say that on a particular day in Parliament this matter was debated and a select committee was established, but New Zealand First does not want to be part of that select committee, because on the evidence we have had in just this past 2½ years we cannot believe that the Labour Party will act fairly. We have seen evidence of that with the Supreme Court Bill. We know, for example, that the Greens said they would listen to the voice of the Māori people, but when the legislation came through and Māori were opposed to that bill, the Greens still went ahead and supported it. It was just the Greens and Labour who pushed that bill through this House by the slimmest of majorities. So the Labour Party, if it wants to do anything, it will do it.

I think that, in all fairness, the best way to consider this issue is to give a royal commission a broad-brush set of instructions, and that will encourage all New Zealanders to go to that royal commission knowing they will be given a fair hearing and a fair conclusion. At the end of the day, whatever happens, New Zealand First will expect to see a referendum to give effect to whatever the decision will be. That is totally in keeping with New Zealand First’s view. I notice nodding heads, but I will not name the members. Time will tell whether that will be the case.

That was Mr Dail Jones of New Zealand First. I fear that those “nodding heads” might have been people nodding off to sleep. I am a little surprised by Dail Jones’ contribution where he said, I think, that it would be a waste of his time to turn up to the select committee. If that is to be the measure that that member applies to what he does or does not do around Parliament, he will have a lot of spare time indeed. I have to say that I am also a bit surprised by the National Party’s reasoning for not turning up to this committee. Its reason is that its members do not agree with this committee and they do not agree with where it is going. Well, that is part of the feature of being in Opposition, actually. Large numbers of bills go through this House that we as Opposition MPs are vehemently opposed to. There are select committees sitting on legislation that we do not agree with, but we turn up in order to improve the legislation and to take part in the debate, and because we live in hope of convincing our Labour colleagues they are wrong. But the idea that when we see something we disagree with we somehow pick up our toys, hop out of the sandpit, I have to say is unparliamentary indeed. So the ACT party will certainly be taking part in this select committee, and we will have Mr Stephen Franks as our member.

There is nothing more important than the constitutional arrangements of a country—nothing. Like it or not, the Government has set up a select committee to have a look at those arrangements. I think that it behoves us all to take an interest in what that select committee is up to. Let us just think of the things we will be considering. We will be considering the rules within which the Government operates and, in particular, the protections that citizens have from the Government. If we look at our constitutional arrangements, we see that they have sort of grown up in a haphazard way, and that is so particularly in the last 20 years. We have as some sort of constitutional principle now some partnership between Māori and the Crown, but what that partnership is has never been explored in a consistent and considered way.

I think of New Zealand First, which has wasted many, many hours of this Parliament’s time in trying to explore, in question time, what are the actual principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—principles that infest large sections of the legislative make-up of New Zealand. Dail Jones has asked questions, Winston Peters has asked questions, and they have got nowhere. But they are very important questions. This select committee is the precise place at which New Zealand First should turn up and start exploring what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are, what they mean to the Government, and what they mean to New Zealanders. But, no, New Zealand First has said it will not turn up. Why? Because Dail Jones thinks it would be a waste of his time. Well, he could be right.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: When is this member going to resign? When is ACT going to get a decent leader?

It is always lovely to get Trevor Mallard’s positive contribution! It is always wonderful when Trevor Mallard shakes himself awake and puts forward an intellectual contribution to a debate about the constitution of New Zealand. I just say to him that the TVNZ board is not sitting over here. We are actually doing OK.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: At 2 percent?

Trevor Mallard says 3 percent. Well, I remember when Helen Clark was on 2 percent and Trevor Mallard was running around trying to do the numbers to keep her in place in her party, and things turned out right.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: And it worked.

It did work. So I tell Mr Mallard to hold his breath, just wait, and he will be surprised at what can happen. The ACT party had the opportunity to participate in this select committee. Trevor Mallard probably does not like that, but the Hon Dr Michael Cullen was very pleased. I wrote him a letter, with the help of my colleague Mr Stephen Franks, and I have to say we had a very good meeting with Michael Cullen about our concerns and what we would like to do in the committee. Our particular concern was whether the committee would be adequately resourced to do the job, because this is a big job and if we are going to be involved, we want it to be done well.

We raised other concerns. We asked what limits were there on Parliament’s ability to take away a person’s property. To be honest, I suspect there are none. So this Parliament could decide, with 61 votes, to deprive any New Zealander of his or her private property. I suspect there are no constitutional limits on Parliament’s ability to come along and deprive someone of property. That is a serious deficiency in our constitutional arrangements. So we said to Michael Cullen that we would like to explore that issue in the committee. I would have thought the National Party would be keen to stand up for private property rights and try to get some protections in our constitutional arrangements, so that a Government with a bare majority could not turn up in Parliament and deprive people of their property rights.

Another of our concerns is the ability of Parliament to overturn contracts. We know that a Parliament with 61 votes can overturn any contract that it likes—no compensation required. Mr Franks and I suggested to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen that we would like to explore that issue as part of these constitutional considerations, because we believe there should be limits on what Governments can and cannot do; and the constitution is the place to sort that out. We see the ACT party as having a positive impact on this select committee.

Another of our concerns is the current excess taxation of New Zealanders. ACT has stood up and complained about excess taxation. The National Party has stood up and complained, following our lead, about excess taxation. New Zealand First has stood up and complained. Likewise, United Future has stood up and complained. So we were interested in what sort of constitutional arrangements could be established that might constrain a Government’s spending and constrain a Government’s ability to raise taxes—again, with a simple majority of 61 votes.

I have to say, and I think my colleague Stephen Franks will agree, that Michael Cullen was very open to our asking these questions as part of this committee. Why? Because it will be a committee of Parliament. Now, I do not think that Michael Cullen shares our view of what the constitution should be, and I do not think we share many of his views, but we are in our Parliament and we will be turning up and putting forward our views and asking our questions. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen accepted that. So it behoves us all to take part in the parliamentary process and to represent the views of all New Zealanders. I am disappointed that the National Party and New Zealand First, in some hissy fit over what a committee might do, what it might come up with, what particular process it might follow, have decided they will not partake, but would have allowed this select committee to be entirely run by the Government, if it were not for the ACT party and the Greens. They are the only two parties that will be standing there, aside from the Government, asking the tough questions.

Gerry Brownlee might scoff, but who is doing it, if it is not us? Because the National Party is not turning up, New Zealand First is not turning up. I see Dr Cullen in the Chamber, and I ask him how many times have we heard New Zealand First members in this House get up and ask questions about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and what they mean—principles that infest all our legislation going back years?

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I don’t know.

💬 Jim Peters: They don’t know.

That is quite right, but the New Zealand First Party has a golden opportunity to get on the select committee and actually do some work to discover what it might mean, to discover the implications, yet Dail Jones says: “Oh, no, it would be a waste of my time; to hell with that.” I say: “Shame on New Zealand First and shame on National for not accepting your parliamentary obligations!”

This country is in a process of constitutional change, and it is part of a slow process of decolonisation. That makes some people in this country uncomfortable. It is right that it should do so, because, if that means anything at all, it must mean a shift in the bases of power. It is not clear to everyone that we are undergoing such a process, because this country is unusually fortunate. Our constitutional debate is not forged in civil war or in violent revolution, but in peaceful evolution. That allows us a unique opportunity. It allows us to take a measured approach. It allows us to take a considered process of full public participation and an incremental approach towards an agreed destination.

Recent events in this country have added impetus to this process of constitutional change. We have seen the establishment of our Supreme Court and the assertion, as a result, of judicial independence. That has been important, because the doctrine of judicial independence has been academic in this country while our final appeal court has resided in London. We have seen the enactment of the foreshore and seabed legislation, and it has raised, quite properly, questions of what are the constitutional protections for tangata whenua and what are the protections to stop Parliament from usurping property rights. Even the current debate over what is the best flag for this country, is symbolic of an interest in constitutional matters. But that debate has been constrained in this country by a general lack of knowledge of what our constitution actually is.

During the hearings on the Supreme Court Bill, Sir Tīpene O’Regan said that New Zealanders are constitutionally illiterate. I agree with that comment, but it is not surprising that that is the case, since there is no civics education in our schools. Most people in this country do not even know how legislation is enacted, never mind the roots of parliamentary, judicial, and executive “legitimacy”. But people are capable of understanding those debates and forming opinions. The language of the debate may be unfamiliar to many people but it is not incomprehensible. So we need a proper process in this country to provide information to the public and to facilitate public discussion about this matter. The course of action that we are discussing in this motion is part of that process.

I remind the House that this specific proposal began as an agreement between the Green Party and the Government, made during our support for the Supreme Court Bill, and the terms of reference have largely been nutted out in the Justice and Electoral Committee. I am pleased to see the Hon Peter Dunne is so enthusiastic about a Green Party idea, he wants to chair the committee. The Government needs to remember that it is the committee itself that will elect its chair. It is not for the Prime Minister to decide who the chair will be, despite attempts to put a conciliatory gloss on it. So what should this committee do? It is not for the committee to determine what our constitution should be. That is for the people of this country. But it is helpful to have a select committee lay out the sources of our constitution now. The point has been made that we can find it in Professor Philip Joseph’s textbook and we can find it in the Cabinet Manual. That may be true, but what do those things mean? There are widely divergent views on this, and the recent debates between Dr Cullen and the Chief Justice indicate how divergent some of those views can be.

I think it is right for this Parliament, at the start of the 21st century, to lay out its view of what it means—its view of what those sources are, and how they work out in practice. There is no single view in this House, just as there is not in the wider community, but what we can do is lay out the parameters of that debate and the arguments for and against different positions. The other thing a select committee can usefully do is provide an accessible text, readable by lay people and accessible to the average New Zealander, that can lay out that information and thereby provide a basis for a much more informed discussion in the community. As the Green Party has often said in the past, that needs to be backed up at a more basic level with a commitment to civics education in our schools.

I was looking at the December issue of Law News and in it there is an article by Catriona McLennan about a paper by Professor Bruce Harris on the constitutional future of New Zealand, which was published in the New Zealand Law Journal. Professor Harris said that there is a lack of public knowledge about constitutional issues, that constitutional education in schools is inadequate, and that a prerequisite to any constitutional reform process must be an effective programme not only to meet the understanding deficit in the community but to increase enthusiasm about constitutional debate. This committee is an opportunity for Parliament to take a step in that direction. Professor Harris also makes a number of useful suggestions about how we might proceed to have a public discussion, and we should take note of those suggestions. Other people have made suggestions too, but they are just suggestions. We need to start to work towards a collective agreement about ways to proceed, and a commitment to make that happen.

The last role of the select committee is to look at the processes used to debate constitutional change in other countries and what processes we might use in this country, bearing in mind that we can learn from overseas countries but that we are unique in Aotearoa and have to develop processes specific to ourselves. That process is about public discussion. As I have already said, it is not for the select committee to determine whether and how we might change the constitution, but it is a proper role for a committee to determine how Parliament can facilitate a debate about whether we should change and how any such change should take place.

As I stated at the beginning of my speech, we are in an unusually fortunate position in this country in that this debate is happening not in revolution, not in war, not in violent confrontation, but in a peaceful, slow evolution. That is extremely important. This is part of our process of coming of age as a nation. I know I am privileged as a member of this Parliament to participate in this process, and I look forward to doing that on behalf of the Green Party.

One of the good things about this debate is the consistency of the ignorance from the member who preceded me. I should tell him that this is not a Green Party idea. The Deputy Prime Minister and others will know that I have been advocating for a constitutional inquiry, at reasonably frequent intervals, since 1994.

💬 Rodney Hide: Very effectively, too.

Absolutely; we now have it. I think it will be a very positive step forward. I want to take some time to deal with some of the issues that have been raised about what is actually intended. That Dr Cullen is a very conservative constitutional monarchist, and I am a cautious conservative republican—

💬 Stephen Franks: Irish.

—and proud of that, too—are quite irrelevant to the debate. What is relevant is the process that is being followed and the objectives of the exercise. If we look at the terms of reference we see very clearly that, contrary to Mr Brownlee’s fears, this is a very cautious and very deliberate first step, and it may be an only step. Let me go through the process as I see it over a period of time, and I will pick up some of the points that Mr Jones made in this regard.

This select committee inquiry is essentially to bring together all of the elements of the New Zealand constitution as we know them to be or discover them to be; to tease out their relevance, their relationships, and by implication their effectiveness; then, if a process of change is deemed desirable at some future point, to determine how that might occur. The committee then will make a report to the Parliament. The Government of the day will consider that report. I would imagine that if it accepts the recommendations we put forward, it would then move to establish, at a future point, something akin to the commission of inquiry that Mr Jones referred to. That might well have very specific terms of reference. I envisage that that process would take some years, as it should, and that at the point the commission of inquiry reports—and I am relying here on the experience of the royal commission into the electoral system—its recommendations would essentially be just that.

The Government at that point, and who knows what its form might be, would have to determine whether it wished to accept those recommendations, and how it might proceed to deal with them. It would seem to me that if we were, at that stage, looking at major constitutional change—and that is a huge if—then the only way realistically to proceed would be by way of endorsement at a binding public referendum. But that is a process—if one even assumes its inevitability—that is likely to take the best part of a decade from here. The steps we are taking by establishing this committee and this review process are very much preliminary groundwork. It does not prejudge an outcome; it does not even presume a specific outcome. It is a stocktake of what we have, what we assess its effectiveness, by implication, to be, and if we were to consider change, how we might go about it.

But I think it has one other important element. It seems to me that it will be an inevitable concomitant of this process that we engage in some form of public interaction. Firstly, I think it is important that New Zealanders as a whole get a chance to express a view on how they perceive the New Zealand constitution, and, secondly, it is important that the debate that has been lurking around for some time about nationhood, about constitutional arrangements, and about where we might go with diverse elements like flags, national days, and all those things that are not covered here or relevant here, gets a chance to be aired. I get a sense that New Zealand is at the point where it wants to discuss these issues.

One of the things that arose from Dr Brash’s Ōrewa speech earlier this year—if I can be permitted to use some imagery—was a situation akin to the lifting of the lid off Pandora’s box. Everything came out, flew around, and made a great deal of noise and unsightly presence, but there were no solutions as to how either the problems might be resolved or the things put back in the box. It seems to me that what people were actually saying was that, yes, it is fine to get everything out there, and it is fine to know what we perceive our problems to be, whether or not we agree with them, but we are really much more interested in a way forward. We are really much more interested in what it all means and how we take this country forward, and if that means we need to start to talk about our constitutional arrangements, their adequacy, and whether change is required, so be it.

This is a very deliberate, cautious first step. Some have said that it is not the right time. Frankly, there is never a right time. But I think that in this country, probably since the days of Norman Kirk’s walk across the Waitangi marae in 1973 with the young Māori warrior, there has been a bubbling sense of that amorphous thing called New Zealand nationhood, and a willingness—increasingly fostered by journalists and others—to start to discuss it. This process is part of capturing that.

It is also part of doing the necessary review of the adequacy of what we have at the moment, in a deliberate and considered way. I get no sense, from the considerable amount of correspondence I have had since this matter has been in the public arena, that New Zealanders are keen to make rapid, unproven change. New Zealanders are certainly keen for a debate and to express a view. It may well be, as perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister implied, that their views will harden up once there is a change in the monarch in Britain. I do not get any sense that New Zealanders want to take any precipitate steps while Queen Elizabeth is on the throne. The future may be a different story, and if one looks at the genes in that family, one sees that that future may be a very long way off from being confronted. Most of us will be long into our dotage by the time the Queen shuffles off this mortal coil. So I do not think there is any great need for concern or a hurried response, but I think it is an appropriate time to start considering these issues.

I want to pick up some comments made by Mr Hide—he may have made them tonight, but he has certainly made them in correspondence with the Government—about the range of issues that ought to be considered. I know that Mr Franks has expressed similar views, as well. I think that some of the matters relating to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, property rights, and associated matters are properly issues that ought to come on to the agenda here. I do not see this as being necessarily exclusive in that regard.

Mr Brownlee spoke about the Treaty of Waitangi, and he seemed to be postulating that it was an either/or situation—we either have a constitutional environment where we take the treaty to be the absolute founding document from which everything flowed, or we ignore it altogether. If I heard him correctly, I thought that was the message he was proposing. The relevance of the treaty to this exercise is of some importance, but I personally do not believe that it is sufficiently relevant that it requires a specific term of reference. It is a feature and a part of the New Zealand constitution, but in some sense it is no greater than any other feature. I think that by making it a specific reference, we accord it a status that will simply ensure two things: first, that it will be given a status that is not warranted; and, secondly, that the division and the anger about it that Dr Brash referred to earlier, and that Mr Brownlee picked up tonight, will simply be fuelled.

I want to make this final point. The committee, when it is established, will meet to elect its own chair. I am grateful for the indications of support from the Government for my nomination. In the event that it is successful, I give this pledge to the House: while my own personal views are well known and I do not shrink from them, I will not chair this committee in a way that demonstrates any bias at all. It is important that this be done properly, be done impartially, and be done fairly, because the outcome is one that all of us will have to live with, whatever our particular view, and that is completely as it should be in a process of this type.

The last speech illustrates the whole difficulty of the process here. Essentially, what Mr Dunne was saying is that this matter has to be driven from the top down, that parliamentarians have to guide it and set the terms of reference. Apparently, they should ignore the big topic that has motivated this whole inquiry. Let us be honest about this: the Government would not be moving to set up the select committee but for the Ōrewa speech earlier this year. I have to say to Mr Dunne that that, in many respects, is the central question about our identity.

The reason I say that is I was involved in setting up the constitutional conference in the year 2000. I had extensive discussions with the then Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, the subsequent Prime Minister, Jenny Shipley, and with various other people, including Colin James, who became the organiser. The conference was held in the Legislative Council Chamber.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Was it a waste of time?

No, it was not a waste of time, actually. There was a large number of contributions, but the abiding theme that came out of it was the sense of division. Whilst Colin James certainly pulled together all those contributions, and the conference concluded with a tentative way forward, in fact the whole issue stalled. That was the reality. Mr Franks will well remember this. The whole issue stalled because of the central issue of what was the role of the treaty and whether this nation could ever find any sense of consensus on it. I guess the fact that nothing happened thereafter meant that people thought it was too dangerous, that it was too difficult to go close to, and that we should do nothing.

That was the Government’s response. In the year 2000 the current Government had a choice. It could have funded the university centre to continue the dialogue and to have further conferences and discussions. I am sure that Dr Cullen will recall that the Government made a conscious decision not to do so. It must have made that conscious decision, because some eminent New Zealanders made these representations and the Government simply ignored them. After all, these kinds of discussions require a degree of central government funding. That is why the conference occurred in the first place. In fact, the Hon Tony Ryall provided $50,000 from his Ministry of Justice budget to help it take place.

The current Government has not done any of that. For the last 5 years it has done nothing. However, when Dr Brash, at Ōrewa, made a speech that changed the political landscape of the country, the Government suddenly felt the impulse and the necessity to have a constitutional select committee. It is all about defusing things. That is the Government’s intention. I do not believe that the public will be fooled by that process. I do not believe that a select committee of this Parliament, as opposed to a process that is driven by a wider group of New Zealanders, will be successful. Mr Dunne has said that it will all take a lot time, the committee will just listen to things and make a report and so forth, and ultimately there would be a referendum if there was to be any change. And Mr Dunne has been quite honest about what his particular motivations are.

The interesting speech made by Dr Cullen raised a particular point. As I understood it, he said he was a supporter of the current constitutional arrangements. He nailed his colours to the mast on that point. It seems to me that his views are different from those held by the Prime Minister. It is clear that the Government has an agenda. The high point of it, in the sense that it has been the most prominent move, was, clearly, the passage of the Supreme Court Act—and I wonder to what extent the Government rues the day it introduced that particular issue. Clearly, it was a major step. The Government did not go and get public consent. It never put it to the people directly. I know that it was part of Labour’s overall manifesto, but people vote on many things; I doubt whether the Supreme Court was uppermost in anyone’s mind. That particular issue was never put to the people. It was a major constitutional change.

We could easily end up in a situation where the only thing left is, in a sense, the shadow of a monarchy. We could end up having a referendum that is intended to endorse, effectively, what has happened, instead of there being a proactive decision by the public to make an affirmative choice. New Zealanders could end up endorsing the reality of what has already happened. Why do I say that? I say it because, when I look at what the Government has done over the last several years, I see a series of measures that are small in themselves but are cumulatively quite significant—incremental, creeping republicanism, in fact. I refer to measures like changes in the oath of allegiance for new citizens; the renaming of Queen’s Counsel to Senior Counsel; and the change to the oath of allegiance for senior military officers—it is no longer to the Crown but to the Government, and that is quite a significant change. We also have the removal of the portrait of the Queen, to be replaced by that of the Prime Minister, in our embassies—though not, perhaps, our high commissions—and the refusal to issue a Queen’s golden jubilee medal in 2003, when Canada actually did so.

So, collectively, the Government—the Prime Minister at least, if not Dr Cullen—clearly has an agenda. To be fair, the Prime Minister has been reasonably open about it. She does want New Zealand to be a republic; she actually says that. But, more significant, she has been taking a series of steps intended to get New Zealanders to the point where, when we have the referendum, the result will be a foregone conclusion. That seems to be the overall plan. We have to see, in a sense, the establishment of this select committee as part and parcel of the process.

There are other ways to deal with the matter. I do recognise that there is a degree of interest in constitutional issues. Obviously I understand that; otherwise, I would hardly have been involved in setting up the conference in 2000. I suggest that the more appropriate path—the path the Government should have taken—was to develop the outcomes from the constitutional conference in 2000. That would have been much more obviously and transparently a process controlled, essentially, by the public, as opposed to the agenda-driven approach of a committee.

I acknowledge that Mr Dunne will try to chair the committee fairly; I accept that. Nevertheless, that is not the issue. The issue is twofold. Firstly, is this review a diversion? The answer is yes. Secondly, is it intended to be part of an overall agenda to advance the cause of republicanism, so that a referendum will simply be a confirmatory vote as opposed to a genuine choice? I believe that the answer to that is yes also. The Deputy Prime Minister said today that he believes in supporting the constitutional monarchy. I think that is, in reality, a minority view—to be charitable—in his own Government, because it is clearly not the Government’s agenda.

For those two fundamental reasons—firstly, it is a diversion; secondly, it is part of an overall agenda—National finds that it cannot support this proposition. Moreover, the terms of reference simply do not address the central issue so eloquently addressed by Dr Brash earlier this year.

I would like to pick up on a point that my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp made in respect of the constitutional conference. I think the one thing that came out of the constitutional conference in the Legislative Council Chamber was the fact that there is no desire amongst the people of New Zealand for the sort of constitutional change that this cabal known as a select committee will be discussing. As I travel around the country, no one asks me about the constitution. No one asks me about the role of the monarchy. No one asks me about the matters that this select committee will look at. People do ask me about more incentives to work hard. They do ask me about more police. They do ask me about less red tape in the community—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You love being wrapped up in it, with red bows!

And they do ask me when we will have a Minister of Education who does not have a speech impediment; maybe we will have that next Monday.

The key issue to be discussed in this review is race relations. That issue will not be solved by members of the select committee trying to say it is not important. Middle New Zealand will not be denied, in respect of changing the role of the Treaty of Waitangi, in the way that the Government thinks.

Just in the last few days, we have seen how the separatist views of the Government and the senior public service have impacted on Māori. Mr Hemopō from the Hawke’s Bay has been here in Wellington arguing the case that the Government’s view of the role of Māori and of the treaty is such that Māori are given extra points that keep them in jail longer. One standard of citizenship cuts both ways. Why would a Government have a policy that says: “Because you’re Māori and you answer a certain way, you will get extra points to stay longer in jail.”? That is the sort of political nonsense the people of New Zealand want expunged from the public service. We want the removal of—[Interruption] Dr Cullen says he wants that; he does not. Mr Hemopō is saying that he wants that separatism removed from the law, so that Māori are not automatically assumed to be violent.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Oh, come on!

Well, that is what the Department of Corrections says. “Might be minth pie time.”—is that what the Minister is saying? I say to the Minister of Education: “The fact ith thith.” We are saying that middle New Zealand will not be denied in respect of its desire to remove the treaty from the fundamental tenets of Government in New Zealand. Government in New Zealand should be built on fairness, equity, and treating New Zealanders the same regardless of their race. The Government is forcing on the public an agenda that is heading towards an inevitability that this country will have radical constitutional change that the people do not want. New Zealanders do not want this. New Zealanders do not want to sack the Queen. New Zealanders do not want to have the Treaty of Waitangi enshrined in our constitution any further than it is at the moment. What the Ōrewa speech showed is that middle New Zealand has had enough. The Government will not be able to fix that with some silly committee.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that the National and Labour whips have been talking about the issue—and I have also been involved in the discussion—of anticipating a closure motion on a debate that, technically, is not limited. When the debate is not limited, it is deliberately like that in our Standing Orders. We recognise that the Government can move and carry a closure motion, but on an issue like this I think it is improper not to allow a different sort of debate from the normal introduction debate, which runs ritually backwards and forwards. I know that Mr Smith wants to have another call. I certainly would like to have 10 minutes. I do not think this is a debate where the Speaker should be bound by arrangements that are reached between whips.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: There was an arrangement, and Mr Franks was part of that arrangement. Now he wants to change that arrangement, yet the Government on the standard tariff could have moved the closure before Mr Ryall’s speech. But if the member insists on speaking for 10 minutes we cannot stop him, since this is not a speech that is being split between members of one party. I simply note that in this House when arrangements are arrived at they are stuck to for a pretty good reason, which is that eventually life goes around in this place over time.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: National did seek to have a third call. That was not going to happen. I looked to negotiate with ACT to be able to split the call. I negotiated with the Government to be able to take one 10-minute call split between the two of us—National and ACT—and that was certainly my understanding. That is National’s position.

💬 Murray Smith: I understand that there may have been discussion between the whips in Labour and National. To my knowledge, there has been no communication with United Future’s whip. I certainly want to take a call tonight on this matter, because of its importance. I do not think it is right that the minor parties should be bound in this instance by discussions between only two parties.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I assure the member that the Speaker cannot be bound by any arrangement like that. A call can only be split between members of the same party. In fact, this is a 10-minute call, because no closure motion has been moved to date.

Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to reassure Mr Tisch that I was not taking issue with the arrangement that Labour and National had reached, nor would I have done so except that I knew the United Future member was seeking a call, as well. I thought that perhaps the Labour Party whip was not aware of that when considering the closure motion. It would have been awkward to have had a 5-minute speech when there might have been a 10-minute speech if the Government is, in fact, not able to get the closure motion through. I wanted to draw attention to that point.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker is not involved in this matter. It is Mr Stephen Frank’s call. I have called him properly, and it is his call.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on that point of order. Is this a new point of order?

💬 Rodney Hide: Yes. What I do not understand is why you thought that there could be a 5-minute call, because my understanding is that members can only share a call with someone of the same party. So I do not understand how the Speaker could have decided that there would be a 5-minute call.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member had listened, he would have heard me say that I was not party to that, at all. Tony Ryall took his call, and that was his call.

The terms of reference that have been put in the motion describe a job that would ordinarily be done by officials or academics, or be published in a Government background paper. I believe that this committee was originally conceived as an exercise to take awkward issues safely past the next election. The only forward-looking instruction in the terms of reference is directed safely away from home—to review other countries’ processes for constitutional change. Nevertheless, we join in this, knowing that we could be part of a tactic to give credibility to a diversionary manoeuvre. But I believe that the committee can make it much more, and if it becomes clear that we are wasting our time, ACT will not continue.

There are plenty of issues to raise. Over the past 20 years there have been distortions in a number of our institutions by what essentially has been an elite consensus. Some of it has been calculated hypocrisy—just political opportunism and deception—but not necessarily ill meant. It has been well-meaning arrogance in a view that the end justifies the means, by historians, by people outside the political process, by the judiciary, and by many who mistrust and patronise ordinary people. But on a constitutional matter there are really only three hard issues: firstly, how to minimise conflict over succession and leadership without insulating leaders from the boot when they deserve it; secondly, who has the power to ensure that the rules about succession are followed; and, thirdly, who watches those watchers. Our judiciary has been watching the rules from the sidelines because our conventions have been so strong, but those conventions have been modified, and I believe that this committee can describe not just what they ought to look like but the way that they are actually operating.

In essence, deciding who watches the watchers has been the hardest issue for most countries, and the easiest for us when the watcher was the Privy Council. When judges could only interpret or apply existing law, which was laid down by elected representatives, the risk of the judges getting out of their station was low. But now we have considerable tension in this area. I believe that the Hon Michael Cullen made a thoughtful and useful contribution when he moved the motion. He has been watching closely. He has moved considerably since his speech to the Labour Party in Gisborne when he essentially told us there is a separate status for Māori—“Eat that!”. I think he wants to see this committee deal with some of these issues in a way that is very difficult for a governing party to do on its own. We have a Chief Justice who only last month told the International Bar Association conference that in constitutional law even Parliament was not sovereign. It appears that these judicial supremacists, as Lord Cooke identified them, are confident that they are on a roll.

Well, these are the matters that this committee can look at. But they are too large and I do not think we will see solutions. What we must report on are the many minor changes; the things that have happened that have evolved our constitution without any significant public debate, such as the absence from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act of protection for property rights, and an interpretation of the “living document” treaty that has actually buried the only really substantial property protection for New Zealanders in it. The Chief Justice, at that same conference, gently mocked property rights as a focus of a Victorian bill of rights. We have provisions reserving appointments for Māori and giving trump status, under the Resource Management Act, for example, to Māori spirituality. Where is our separation of Church and State in that position? There is a transfer of political decision-making to judges through the calculated use in law of undefined terms that Parliament has deliberately left in the law. We did it last week when kaitiakitanga was given no definition and was left for the judges to flesh out. Then there will be criticism of the judges for being inventive.

I refer, also, to the powers of general competence of local authorities. I hope the committee will revisit the changes made only 2 years ago when we turned on their heads rules that had underpinned liberty for hundreds of years. The liberties of individuals are protected only when local rulers cannot use coercive powers for anything they have a bright idea about. Then there are the spurious partnership obligations that Mr Hide talked about, and the loss of open courts—we have courts that are closed and where justice can never be seen to be done, because of blanket secrecy. In the court area again, de facto sentencing power has gone to the Parole Board instead of to judges. The judges are involved in just a charade.

But I do not think this committee should think that its task is to prepare the ground for a written constitution. In the absence of some strong external threat or exhaustion after civil strife, a constitution drafting exercise will just be a scramble for political advantage. Ordinary New Zealanders will not have the endurance to outlast the political junkies, and the ordinary people have better things to do with their time. So I believe that this committee would be best served if it looked at a few incremental things that it can fix, and some protections it can put into our arrangements to prevent the sort of mudslide of new law that we have had over the last 20 years, and the surrender of political control of speech to the media establishment.

I also hope it will come back and put a nail through the heart of the “living document” treaty. Dr Cullen, Ms Wilson, and Ms Clark still seem to think that there is a “living document” somewhere. It seems to be some sort of deity. Maybe Dr Cullen is no longer a believer. We think this committee can help put a stake through its heart, so that it becomes a genuine document once more.

I move, That the question be now put.