Reinstatement of Business

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When did he first learn?

💬 Peter Brown: Do you want a date?

Yes.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

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).