Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) Link to this
I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Statutes Amendment Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee. As members will be aware, the Statutes Amendment Bill is useful for making minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. It allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed.
I thank all the parliamentary parties for their consideration of the amendments proposed for the bill, and for expressing their support for the amendments included within the bill itself. I also thank those who have provided feedback on the process for obtaining cross-party support. This feedback has been valuable in the development of the process that we will use for the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). I acknowledge the splendid work of the various officials coordinating the administrative aspects of the bill, in respect of the development of the bill.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
I am glad the member opposite concurs. The bill introduces amendments to 50 Acts administered in 17 different departments. The proposed amendments include—and I will touch on just a few—the amendment to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, which empowers District Court judges and other specified court officials to authorise the use, when executing certain warrants under the Act, of facsimile copies of the warrants in question.
The amendment to the Gas Act 1992 ensures that regulations can be made covering all the parties necessary to give effect to gas customer switching. This amendment will enable the development of a more effective gas switching regime.
The amendments to the Racing Act 2003 relate to the nomination of an advisory panel. The panel recommends to the Minister for Racing three persons for appointment to the New Zealand Racing Board. The amendment permits a suitably qualified substitute member to serve on the panel when a member prescribed by the Act is unable to attend.
The amendment to the Biosecurity Act 1993 provides that inspectors, in conducting inspections of a transitional facility or a biosecurity control area to determine whether risk goods are present, may seize unauthorised goods, along with the risk goods, if unauthorised goods are found. Risk goods are goods that may harbour harmful organisms, while unauthorised goods include imported goods that have not been declared, or goods that have been cleared using misleading or fraudulent documents. This amendment will simplify an inspector’s powers to seize non-risk unauthorised goods.
The amendments to the Real Estate Agents Act 1976 make clear that references to a salesperson include persons engaged, as well as those employed, by a real estate agent. The amendment makes it clear that licensed real estate agents must retain custody of certificates of approval for every salesperson working for them, including the majority of salespersons who are independent contractors.
To conclude, the examples of amendments I have mentioned that are included in the bill demonstrate the value of the Statutes Amendment Bill as a vehicle for advancing technical yet important amendments. I commend the bill to the House.
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) Link to this
A fascinating insight into the Statutes Amendment Bill was offered by the previous speaker, Clayton Cosgrove. As he has said, no fewer than 50 statutes are to be amended by this bill. I will talk for just a moment about the policy behind this type of legislation, then look at two examples, one of which is of concern to the National Party—though I am bound to say that it generally supports this legislation.
The Statutes Amendment Bill, of course, is the archetypal omnibus bill. It consists entirely of amendments to other Acts of Parliament, including provisions, as we see here, that repeal other Acts. Unlike other bills, provisions are included in a Statutes Amendment Bill only if all other party spokespersons on a subject have indicated beforehand that they agree to the inclusion of the clause in the bill. That does not mean, of course, that all of the provisions will inevitably be passed, because any member still has the right to object to a clause in a Statutes Amendment Bill at the Committee stage. In such a case the clause is struck out of the bill. That arrangement is intended to enforce the longstanding convention that a clause in a Statutes Amendment Bill that is objected to will be withdrawn.
I note that a select committee—in this case, the Government Administration Committee, if this bill passes the next stage—considering a Statutes Amendment Bill can, with unanimous agreement, add clauses to the bill amending Acts not already amended by the bill as introduced.
I will now pick up two particular provisions that are contained in this legislation. The first is in respect of the Cook Islands Act of 1915. This is interesting legislation in constitutional terms because the Cook Islands Act is significant legislation. It was passed in 1915 when we had two Houses in our Parliament, the House of Representatives and the Legislative Council. We also had a Governor, not a Governor-General. Even today the constitutional curiosity continues that the realm of New Zealand includes the Cook Islands, but in addition to the Governor-General having responsibilities in respect of the realm, we nevertheless have in the Cook Islands a Queen’s Representative.
In any event, 14 years earlier than 1915, in 1901, the Governor proclaimed the Cook Islands as part of New Zealand. If one looks at the principal Act one sees that it ran for many pages. Much of the material has been repealed. The Act covered things like island councils, which were like the High Court—the Supreme Court of New Zealand, as it was called. It dealt with criminal offences, the law of evidence, extradition, Crown land, native succession, adoption of children by natives, marriage, and provisions relating to criminal lunatics. Now we see, in Part 11 of this Statutes Amendment Bill, a number of other changes being made. First, a raft of statutes are repealed. Second, a significant number of regulations—3 pages of them, in fact—are revoked.
I just focus on one of the changes in clause 36(2). That subclause relates to the plan to repeal the definition of “Asiatic”. That change seems to be somewhat unusual, but in section 2 of the Cook Islands Act 1915 “Asiatic” was defined in the following way: “ ‘Asiatic’ means a person belonging to any of the Asiatic races (other than the Jewish race), and includes a half-caste and a person intermediate in blood between a half-caste and a person of pure descent from those races:”. Clearly, it is hugely appropriate that that definition should vanish from the statute book, and National would support that particular amendment.
But I am bound to say that we are much less keen on those changes that are planned to be made to the Public Audit Act in Part 36 of the bill, with particular reference to services in relation to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. What is happening here is very unusual, I would suggest. The position is that in our Standing Orders, under Appendix B, Part 2, there are elaborate provisions for a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament to be maintained. In fact, just in the last few days it has been an obligation on all MPs to make returns of their pecuniary interests, on a special form provided by the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests, to that office.
In Standing Order 15, forming part of Appendix B, there are detailed provisions for the Auditor-General’s review and inquiry. Not content with that, it seems, it is proposed that there be a new section 19A, which will give to the Auditor-General wide-ranging and wholly unnecessary powers to perform services in relation to that Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. I give notice to the Government that, certainly from my perspective, National would not support legislation that would give to the Auditor-General power to examine on oath, power to enter and break down the doors of premises, and a raft of ancillary powers that are surely not necessary for MPs, who are honourable members.
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
It is good for the Māori Party to be able to come to this House and feel that its members have been consulted on this legislation, and that their concerns have been taken into account. As a consequence we are happy to support the bill going forward.
During the consultation process and the kōrero leading up to the tabling of this Statutes Amendment Bill we identified points of concern and potential controversy associated with 10 of the 62 different Acts originally proposed for inclusion in this bill. Of those initial 10 Acts, we note that our concerns around six of the amendments have been considered to be of sufficient bearing to require that the amendments be removed from the bill being discussed today.
With regard to the Fisheries Acts, I note just for the record that some of our more substantial concerns were to do with amendments to the Fisheries Act 1996, the Maori Fisheries Act 2004, and the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. It is important for this House to know that our concerns around the proposed changes to fishing quotas and the effect of registering settlement quota interests against quota shares fall within the wider concerns related to the rights of tangata whenua to be consulted. The explanatory notes of the amendments to the Fisheries Act advised that people with a direct interest in the amendments had been consulted and were in support of them. But our interest was piqued when we never heard back from the Minister or his office after we asked a simple question: “were iwi included in this consultation process?”. We presume that the answer must be no, given that the proposed amendments are now removed from the bill. The issue, purely and simply, is one of due process; yet again this Government failed to abide by the process that it expects all others to follow.
Another key area of our concern related to the Forests Amendment Act 1996. We sought further information about the implications in the amendment that may arise for Māori ownership rights to forest produce, including carbon credits. We were also keen to understand the implications for Māori rights in relation to Crown forests on—or potentially on—Māori land. Again, there was no response—interesting!
I began this call, however, by introducing a good-news story to the debate and, in this light, I commend the Rt Hon Winston Peters in particular for his comprehensive response to the concerns we raised about four different Acts. In his capacity as Minister for Racing, Mr Peters listened to our concerns regarding the proposed amendment to allow an alternative person to serve on the nomination advisory panel as part of the process for appointing independent members to the New Zealand Racing Board. The Māori Party was concerned that that amendment could create an awkward precedent that could result in difficulties in maintaining communication, particularly if the goal was to ensure continuity of representation. We were also concerned about the increased pressure this could place on tangata whenua nominees to guarantee consistent representation. In discussion with the Minister we were able to resolve our concerns, so the amendment to the Racing Act 2003 will proceed.
I turn to the Cook Islands Act 1915, the Niue Act 1966, and the Tokelau Act 1948. The other group of Acts that we sought clarification on were the amendments as they related to the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau Acts, and associated regulations. As someone who has lived in the Tokelau Islands for 9 months, who spent many, many years in and out of the Cook Islands, and who has developed a strong relationship with the Niue people of Auckland, I say that I have more than a passing interest in ensuring that the needs of Pasifika people are respected and taken into account. The material received on these statutes stated that the amendments are a complex project. We were of a united view that no matter how complex the project, it was essential to ensure that the respective Governments of the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau had been advised and consulted on the amendments. Again, it is a matter of due process.
In the response received from the Minister we were assured that the repeals would not compromise the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau, that their local laws would not change, except at the request of Tokelau, nor would there be any interference with the constitutional status of those nations and their unique relationships with Aotearoa. He also informed us that the respective Governments of these countries would be duly advised of the changes being made to our law books, before the bill was tabled. There is still more. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, went the extra mile to identify the quality expertise that had been made available to him on this matter. He especially credited Professor Tony Angelo for his work with aspects of the law in Tokelau and Niue, Alison Quentin-Baxter for her work, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and legal advisers in the Parliamentary Counsel Office.
Just a single letter or a confidential briefing was all that was required to be able to discuss and consider the implications and ramifications of the proposed legislative amendments. I cannot help but contrast that situation with the various statements over the last month that have risen out of the mouths of other Ministers, who have suggested that actions taken by tangata whenua have amounted to anarchy, are silly, are ridiculous, or are verging on hysteria. We have been told that in presenting the views of Māori our advocacy is inappropriate, very irresponsible, and surprising. Other Ministers have admitted that they have not been briefed on the key issues for Māori. The Prime Minister has told Māori that repossessing their lands in their endeavours to be heard is not the way to get things done. Just yesterday another Minister responded to my question in the House about consultation processes by implying that this was achieved by consulting another arm of Government, namely Te Puni Kōkiri.
This House needs to recognise that consultation with Māori does not mean talking to itself. Consultation with Māori does not mean that their ideas are dismissed or ridiculed and their people attacked. Consultation with Māori does not mean that they are ignored and their issues denied. Consultation requires the Crown to listen, learn, and be involved in dialogue and debate. The Māori Party will continue to put forward the concerns and priorities of Māori, no matter how uncomfortable or how surprised Ministers may be to hear them. We are here to do our very best to ensure that a strong and independent Māori voice with influence is present in this debating Chamber.
We are heartened by the response of Mr Peters, who has given us confidence that at least one Minister will enable an opportunity for people to participate, for voices to be heard, and for due access to justice to be part of the political process. We are looking forward to that Minister’s openness to tangata whenua voices extending to the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples when it comes back to the General Assembly for voting on later this year.
NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this
I rise to support the Statutes Amendment Bill, with the exception of our concerns, as indicated by Richard Worth, over Part 36, which relates to pecuniary interests. Beyond that, although this bill affects about 50 Acts—and my colleague Katrina Shanks will discuss some significant but smaller issues—the majority of the amendments are minor. They are mostly of a technical nature and are generally uncontroversial.
However, I draw the House’s attention to Part 7, which deals with the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. This is an important Act because it defines a charitable trust, and any registered charitable trust needs to comply with the Act if it wishes to maintain its legal status. The amendment we are dealing with is minor and pertains to the technical details required within applications for incorporation. National supports it.
I would like to talk further about the charitable trusts, because they have been in the limelight this week. On Monday the leader of the National Party, John Key, had some good news for these organisations when he announced National’s new policy on tax deductions for charitable donations. That policy will benefit many charitable trusts. The Charitable Trusts Act allows an organisation to be registered as a charitable trust if its activity advances education, advances religion, relieves poverty, or is otherwise beneficial to the community. That covers hundreds of worthwhile organisations. Charitable trusts include social service providers, cultural groups, organisations that support the arts and heritage, and some international aid organisations. We know that Kiwis are generous people. Every day, New Zealanders give their time and money to charitable trusts so that they can do good work in the community. Most Kiwis do not even seek recognition for their efforts, but their generosity sends a message to charities that they are doing a good job, that they are worthwhile, and that they are supported.
National supports Kiwis who donate to their communities, and we support the good work these groups do. We want to promote a culture of generosity and giving in New Zealand, and this new tax policy is a bold step towards achieving that goal. John Key said in his Burnside speech that he wanted to turbocharge the efforts of private and community groups in order to make a difference. This policy shows he means it. It is estimated that it will cost the Government about $60 million to $90 million each year in lost revenue, but that figure will be more than matched by private donations to charitable trusts. When a National Government gives a dollar to charities, the charities will benefit by $3. In effect, it is a kind of matching policy—when people or businesses donate, a National Government will chip in, too. If this policy sees donations increase as much as National expects they will, it will boost donations up to $300 million. That is nearly double the amount that goes into the sector at this stage.
I have never come across a charitable organisation that was not looking for more funds. Most organisations do fantastic things on the smell of an oily rag, so this change in policy will give these organisations a real boost. It is always great to see New Zealanders unselfishly donating to organisations because they believe in Kiwis helping Kiwis and in trying to create a better world. It does not matter what the cause is—whether it is helping kids, supporting social work through the church, funding the arts, or enhancing the environment. Under a National Government, financial support for any contribution made by Kiwis to a charitable trust will be doing good work and will be making a difference, and that is the way it should be.
So, in conclusion, National supports both the amendment in Part 7 to the Charitable Trusts Act and the Statutes Amendment Bill, with the exception of Part 36, which relates to pecuniary interests.
KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this
I rise to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment Bill, noting the exceptions that Richard Worth highlighted previously. I want to say a good afternoon to members in the Chamber; the National Party regional chair, Patricia Morrison, who is sitting in the gallery; other visitors, and also those listening to the radio waves.
Today I am speaking to the Statues Amendment Bill, which makes minor amendments spanning 50 Acts. Many of these changes are minor—for example, changing cross-references. I look on the majority of this bill as a housekeeping chore—something that has to be done regularly but if one is not careful, a small change can have ongoing consequences. Many listeners of the radio waves today would have no idea of the Acts that the Statutes Amendment Bill covers, so I will give some examples of the topics and the changes being made to those.
The amendment to the Real Estate Agents Act will basically make all persons employed by a real estate agent a salesperson. Clause 139 amends section 70(1)(m) of the principal Act to reflect that salespersons and branch managers who are engaged, as well as those who are employed, by members of the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Inc. are subject to its code of ethics regarding their professional conduct. This is certainly an intriguing change.
The amendment to the Racing Act is also interesting. It relates to the nomination advisory panel that advises the Minister for Racing on the appointment of certain members to the New Zealand Racing Board. Clause 131 amends section 12 by inserting a new subsection (5A), which provides that if a panel member is unable to participate in a meeting of the panel, the panel member may designate a suitably qualified person to participate in the meeting in the panel member’s place. A layperson would wonder what this change is driving at.
The Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act is amended to authorise the maintenance of a register of information provided voluntarily by persons who made donations before 22 August 2005. Section 63(2) is amended by clause 92 to include, in the voluntary information, the donor’s reasons for donating. One wonders whether the changes made by this bill will mean there is a rush by recipients of these donations to receive information.
The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act is amended by clause 66 to substitute a new section 13C. Currently, section 13C allows the Governor-General to amend or replace the schedule of the Act by making an Order in Council on the advice of the Minister of Internal Affairs. The administration of the principal Act has been transferred to the Department of Building and Housing. Accordingly, the reference to the Minister of Internal Affairs is no longer appropriate, and new section 13C omits a reference to the Minister and restates the Governor-General’s powers.
The amendment by clause 78 to section 43G(2) of the Gas Act in the repeal and substitution of paragraph (c) is another example. It ensures that regulations can be made to enable consumers to switch gas suppliers. Currently, this section enables regulations to be made only in respect of gas retailers. However, other parties, including gas-meter owners and distributors, are required to participate in a gas customer switching regime.
Clause 143 amends section 253 of the Resource Management Act to provide for the Attorney-General, and not the Minister of Justice, to appoint environment commissioners or deputy environment commissioners. The Resource Management Amendment Act 2004 made the change from Minister of Justice to Attorney-General for all other judicial appointments under the Resource Management Act 1991.
The Charitable Trusts Act has already been talked about by my colleague sitting beside me, Nicky Wagner. Basically, it removes the need for a body corporate subscriber to add its seal to the application. This amendment loosens up the more formal procedures of the Charitable Trusts Act.
I finish with the amendment by clause 165 to section 39 of the Trade in Endangered Species Act, which authorises an endangered species officer to seize a specimen of an endangered, threatened, or exploited species from a ship, aircraft, port, or aerodrome if the specimen is being traded in contravention of the principal Act, or if it is not listed on the inward or outward report for the ship or aircraft. The specimen is automatically forfeited to the Crown under this provision. The amendment extends the scope of the sites from which an endangered species officer may seize a specimen to include approved transitional facilities and customs-controlled areas. Although an endangered species officer is empowered elsewhere in the principal Act to seize specimens from these sites, the automatic forfeiture of a specimen is not a consequence of these seizure powers. The amendment is a response to the increasing practice of unaccompanied baggage and goods being inspected and cleared by Customs Service and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officers at these sites.
Obviously, many more amendments can be highlighted, but I hope members have had an insight into some of the changes being made by the bill. Thank you.
RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this
I had intended to take a very, very short call, because everybody knows that Statutes Amendment bills get a pretty good working over by most caucuses in the Parliament. That has to be done, because Statutes Amendment bills by their very nature do not get to the floor of the House unless every party agrees. They tend to be non-controversial because they are technical in nature, and although some speakers may feign some concern or disagreement with a particular part or Act that is being technically amended, the truth of the matter is they really are not. If they were concerned, the bill or that part of the bill, simply would not be here today.
But it does present one with a little bit of intellectual gymnastics, when one considers for a moment what the odd member says. The speech made by Nicky Wagner—
Nicky Wagner from Christchurch, from the National Party. She pointed out and discussed the amendment in Part 7 to the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. If I were that lady from that party I would not even want to mention the Charitable Trusts Act. I would not want to remind this House—
The Hon Clayton Cosgrove from Waimakariri asks why that is. Why it is, is that the Charitable Trusts Act—as she quite correctly pointed out—enables church bodies and religious groups to enjoy some exemptions, particularly exemptions from taxation laws, which other people do not enjoy, because they are religious bodies that are there to teach and preach the word of the Lord, or whichever deity it is that they happen to recognise, and they are not, for one thing, politically motivated or politically engaged.
How interesting it is that the National Party would even want to go near that, because we all now know from Nicky Hager’s book The Hollow Men that that is precisely what one of these groups of people, namely, the Exclusive Brethren, has been doing. Ironically, we suspected all along—and we now know with absolute surety—that the National Party was the fiscal benefactor of precisely that activity. So possibly there is a deficiency in this Statutes Amendment Bill, and possibly we should be looking more closely at the Charitable Trusts Act of 1957, to make sure that political parties cannot receive third-party funding for their election campaigns.
How ironic it all was, and in fact we can go beyond irony to say what a great lie it was, when Dr Don Brash accused another party of stealing an election, buying an election, by spending $800,000-odd of taxpayers’ money on a pledge card. Well, as much as I might wish to agree with the sentiment that the expenditure was inappropriate, what an absolute joke and what a masterful stroke of hypocrisy it was, coming as it did from Dr Brash, when now we know what we know from this book that I hold in my hand, The Hollow Men. This book will forever—
Anne TolleyI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought we are actually debating the Statutes Amendment Bill. I know there is a wide range of topics to debate, but Dr Brash is not in the bill. I ask the member to stick to the bill.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
Mr Deputy Speaker, with your being far more learned than me and many members of this House, I value your view. You would know that this is a very, very wide-ranging debate, and that the member has mentioned a specific proposition—an amendment within the Statutes Amendment Bill—and has built his own arguments around it. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would counsel you to consider that the senior Opposition whip’s proposal is completely out of order. She should read the Standing Orders.
Christopher Finlayson Link to this
The only thing that the Minister said that was vaguely sensible, Mr Deputy Speaker, was that you are more learned than him. The reality of the matter is that what the member is addressing is an argument about electoral funding in the context of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. It is way beyond the scope of that legislation. That issue is properly dealt with in the context of a debate about electoral funding and the Electoral Act 1993.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
I thank those members for raising those issues, and each member, in a small way, is correct. But I am more inclined to think that the member who was contributing was correct to use whichever or whatever examples he wished to illustrate the points he was making, and that is what he was doing.
Eric RoyI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a well-known convention, and several Speakers have made the ruling, that points of order will be heard in silence. In fact, the very member who has been on his feet is one who has called the Speaker’s attention to that convention. During the point of order that was taken, while the senior Opposition whip, Anne Tolley, was on her feet, he made a statement that was quite unseemly and also inappropriate, given that points of order should be heard in silence.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
Yes, I wish members to take note of that. Thank you for raising that, Mr Roy.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Noting that this has been a deliberate attempt via spurious points of order raised by honourable members of the National Party to break up my speech because I was clearly hurting their pride, I take exception to the fact that Mr Roy, a man who has been an Assistant Speaker and for whom I have great respect, has now cast an aspersion upon me by claiming that I made an unparliamentary, improper suggestion or statement, which I absolutely refute. I would ask him to withdraw and apologise.
Firstly, I did not say anything other than that it was an inappropriate comment, because it was out of order. For your information, Mr Deputy Speaker, the member said: “They don’t like it, do they?”. That was what I was referring to. Secondly, it was inappropriate, because it was made while a point of order was being heard.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
That is correct, so I will not have any further comment about the inappropriateness of that being raised as a point of order. It was correctly raised. I did hear it and it was during a point of order. I chose not to take any action, but it was correctly raised.
I refer to Part 7, “Charitable Trusts Act 1957”, and—by crikey, I will repeat this point—we know when we really are getting to the core of some of these National MPs, because these are the very tactics they use. I appreciate the ruling of the Speaker, and I appreciate the fact that some people recognise that that series of points of order was designed simply to shut me down and stop me from speaking about something that will haunt the National Party for a long time. National was once a great party; a party that was once led by the Rt Hon Keith Holyoake from Pahiatua, from whence I came. It was my home town.
But Part 7 of the bill, relating to the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, is here. It was Nicky Wagner from the National Party who raised a specific reference to the charitable organisations and churches that will benefit from this amendment.
I do not think that people who sit on the select committee and analyse this bill will be very impressed by the fact that when we look back over the recent goings-on of the National Party—as are highlighted in The Hollow Men, the title of which should include women, as well—we can see there is a need for more amendments than those we are looking at now.
If I turn the page to Part 9, I see it amends the Civil Union Act, for which the National Party indicates its support. The honourable Chris Finlayson has just raised a point of order to try to shut me down. It is interesting that the Exclusive Brethren, who funded the National Party campaign, are totally against civil unions. Members of the Exclusive Brethren came into our offices to campaign and lobby. They took the names of every MP who was going to vote for the Civil Union Bill, now known as the Civil Union Act 2004, which is now being amended, in part, by this Statutes Amendment Bill. It is ironic that the Exclusive Brethren gave $1 million to the National Party campaign through the back door to get Mr Chris Finlayson here!
The member tells me to grow up. Well, it is just something that we point out, is it not? I can tell Anne Tolley, the retread MP who is back again after a short duration—after what is called a sabbatical—that the Exclusive Brethren came to the offices of MPs around Christchurch and lobbied vigorously for people to vote against the Civil Union Bill. The National Party has members of Parliament who are openly gay, and they should know that the people who funded National’s campaign lobbied against them—against their human rights, their lifestyle, and them as individuals. But here we are, making a slight amendment to the Civil Union Act. If the National Party and its financial backers still oppose that legislation, maybe they should not allow that provision to sit in the Statutes Amendment Bill.
Another part of the Statutes Amendment Bill deals with endangered species. Is that not ironic? I am frantically looking for that part of the bill, because there is an endangered species on the political landscape. I want to find that part to see whether it includes National MPs, because the fact of the matter is that once people read The Hollow Men to its fullest extent and understand the level of duplicity, complicity, hypocrisy, underhandedness, and wheeling and dealing of some members of the National Party, then a lot of the MPs who are voting for the first reading of this bill are destined to become an endangered species themselves.
An honourable member of the old school of the National Party whom I know—a person I consider to be a mentor—[Interruption] Anne Tolley can laugh at the Hon Bert Walker if she likes, and criticise him, but Bert Walker is a man whom I classify as someone with old National Party values. I put on the record that the members who are laughing and tittering like schoolgirls, who think that is something to be proud of, who think that National members are not an endangered species—if they have any doubts about it, ask where Don Brash is now; he is gone—can laugh and titter now, enjoy their time in the House, reflect upon their individual honour and integrity, and ask themselves whether this is the party they really feel comfortable with, or whether they are truly members of an endangered species, soon to become extinct in 2008.
I had thought this was quite a boring bill, that it should pass with little comment, and that we would probably say what needed to be said in the third reading. But one cannot ignore some of the comments made by some of the National speakers when those comments are balanced against the actions we have observed over the last 12 months.