Hodgson Pete: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2121] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I want to respond to some remarks made 10 minutes ago by the member of the ACT Party Mr Garrett and offer him an apology. I think I was one of those members who said that the ACT Party was libertarian. That was careless language. The member was kind enough to remind us that the ACT Party has a libertarian wing or a libertarian philosophy. We can probably agree that the ACT Party stands for personal liberty—as we all do—but more strongly than other parties in the House. Probably somewhere around that piece of language we can agree on what the ACT Party stands for. 
Mr Garrett also reminded us that the ACT Party does not know what to do. He said that in a very open and straightforward way and I wish to acknowledge that. But the fact remains that the ACT Party does not know what to do; it sets out to listen to the debate in the Chamber and then make up its mind which is a thoroughly legitimate thing to do and happens from time to time in the House. But in this debate the ACT Party has found itself on more sides than one. It is small enough that it is difficult to get a split or division within the ACT Party. I am not suggesting that is just within the caucus; I think probably it is wider than that. The member was generous—or frank—enough to acknowledge that within the ACT Party caucus there had been rigorous debate and I suspect that what he is not telling the Committee but what I am going to opine or propose is that within the membership of the ACT Party there are also some splits and divisions around the merits of this case. And so there should be. 
I want to repeat some remarks I made earlier on an earlier clause—clause 3—where I pointed out that the ACT Party had in my understanding of its management of itself over the years ever since it came to this House always been consistent. I suppose it is a bit like the Business Roundtable. It is always consistent. One always knows what the Business Roundtable position on this or that will be. In my instance I rarely agree with it and indeed I rarely agree with the ACT Party position on this or that. But there is consistency in the ACT Party position and in the earlier days the ACT Party was almost famous for it. It was famous for being a party of principle. [ 
Interruption 
] It was famous for taking a principled stand on this or that position. I respond to the person who purports to be the member in the chair that I am speaking broadly in response to the broad remarks from Mr Garrett. I just say to Mr Garrett that his party has always in my view taken a position that has been predictable and that has been based on principle. I have to say that it has been in my view almost always wrong. I have almost always found myself on the opposite side of some debate; but that is politics. 
The thing that troubles me about the ACT Party—and in a sense I am lining up the member over this—is that its principled position and coherence appear to be at risk now. I think the ACT Party needs to be very careful about its position on this legislation. It needs to be very careful in particular about whether it thinks a trade is worthwhile because a trade on this legislation with all the shortcomings— 
David Garrett 
: There has been no trade. I have said that 10 times Mr Hodgson. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member might have said it 10 times; regrettably his leader said on television precisely that there was a trade. So you see the divisions within the ACT Party that I am gently trying to lay out can now be laid out a little more assertively in response to the member’s interjection. He is right but his leader takes an opposite position. Sir Roger Douglas takes a different position again and Mr John Boscawen who recently resumed his seat took—in my view—a fourth position that is not the same as the member’s position. So we have the ACT Party quietly unravelling over this matter. 
It is important for the ACT Party to realise—if it wants to be a party of principle and it is sufficiently small to be so—that unless it operates on principle it will not make any progress at all. It is important for the ACT Party to decide whether the position it takes on this legislation is one of principle or one of convenience. Of course we can all agree that Chester Borrows has done the right thing in bringing this local bill to this House. He has done the right thing in bringing it into this collective—this House of Representatives—for getting it judged. We are the judges and sooner or later we must make up our minds. Best we do that on the basis of principle.