Brown Peter: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Brown Peter: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13498] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I compliment the previous speaker on his passion. We could feel it from over here. He made a lot of sense but the bit I do not understand about the whole thing is if this legislation is so urgent why did the Government veto my earlier amendments? If what Mr Peck is saying is true why did it veto my amendments? 
Hon Member 
: Money. 
PETER BROWN 
: Money the member says. Money money money—that is the old Abba song. I will play it to him one day. 
I thank the Minister because he has taken note of one point we made. He recognised that and acknowledged it publicly which is a small gain. It is not enough but it is a small gain. Perhaps Winston Churchill’s words can best describe New Zealand First’s attitude to this—and maybe Mr Baldock would like to take notice because I hear him castigating by implication my character. 
 Winston Churchill once said: “Never give in. Never give in. Never never never never—in nothing great or small large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” Those words describe New Zealand First’s attitude to families. We will not roll over and say we support families—and put it into practice next year. We will not roll over. 
That reminds me of a quote by another English Tory politician and it also describes United Future’s position very well. Chris Patten the last British Governor of Hong Kong once said: “In democracy everyone has the right to be represented even the jerks.” When it comes to United Future’s attitude to family I think that describes that party. 
I shall give United Future and the Committee another opportunity to recognise the worth of families. New Zealand First will be putting forward a new definition of families—namely the Craig McNair definition which I have here and I shall read it out to members because I know they are interested: “For the purposes of this Act family is defined as—(a) in which there is at least 1 adult member; and (b) in which the members have a biological or legal relationship.” For the benefit of Mr Dunne in particular I have to tell him that his No. 8 spokesperson was on Radio Rhema the other day actually giving some merit to that clause. Mr Baldock shakes his head. I have a tape of what he said. 
Darren Hughes 
: Table it. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will. It is not in the Chamber at the moment. However I can tell members that by the time we finish debating the legislation it will be here. I will have a transcript and I will tell members exactly what that member said on Radio Rhema. Outside this Chamber we call people hypocrites who tell the public one thing and the Parliament something different. However members are not allowed to use that term in this House. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I have listened to this speech with some interest. Generally I would give it the charity of my silence but to imply that my colleague is being dishonest is a breach of the Standing Orders of this House and you should pull him up on that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member. He is quite correct. I ask Mr Brown to withdraw that remark. 
PETER BROWN 
: I withdraw the implication of Mr Baldock being dishonest. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: He can’t do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will just withdraw and that will be the end of it. 
PETER BROWN 
: I withdraw. I am prepared to table the transcript— 
Deborah Coddington 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt but I seek your advice on this. You might not have heard but the Hon Peter Dunne was making what I would consider unparliamentary interjections on Mr Brown when he was speaking. Is it general practice that members can take a point of order when someone who is being fiercely interjected on responds with a comment about a person in that member’s party and then the same person who has been interjecting using unparliamentary terms wants that member to withdraw? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member. If the member did hear something she considered to be unparliamentary—and I certainly did not—she must raise it at the time. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I think I might be able to help the member. I think I said that Mr Brown was a sad old man who had forgotten more than he had ever learnt. If that is unparliamentary then I invite you to rule on it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. 
PETER BROWN 
: I assure the Committee that I am not worried about anything those has-beens say. They will be going to the scrap heap—big time. I have been insulted by the professionals—the watersiders and seafarers of this country. So there is nothing Mr Dunne could say that would worry me at all. I have seen and heard the lot. Mr Dunne has an opportunity to rectify— 
Katherine Rich 
: That’s not very Christian from a Christian party. 
PETER BROWN 
: Is it the Christian party? Oh no it is not Sunday! They are Christians on Sunday or when they are on Radio Rhema.