Brown Peter: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8018] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I was very very interested in the speech made by Gordon Copeland the member who has just resumed his seat. I invite the member and his former colleague if he is serious about getting a petition on this to have the decency to come to the local MPs in the area where Larry Baldock lives because New Zealand First would be willing to promote that petition. We would be willing to promote it in Tauranga. I ask him to please tell Larry Baldock that if he wants to do something he should do it in a meaningful way. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask the member over there Mr Clarkson whether he knows—[ 
Interruption 
] Well there we are. We have three MPs—from both sides of the Chamber—who would welcome Larry Baldock coming to talk to them. Maybe I had better clarify it when I say “welcome Larry Baldock coming and speaking to us”. Perhaps I could say “welcome Larry Baldock coming and telling us about the petition”. 
I was very interested in Maurice Williamson’s idea. I think he was somewhat frivolous on it. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says no but let me just develop the idea because it was a damned good idea. Why single out Harry Duynhoven Dover Samuels and the other members he mentioned? Why not make it a statutory declaration for all of us—the 121 members? New Zealand First by majority vote at least will support that. 
Hon Member 
: Yeah right! 
PETER BROWN 
: Yeah right—by a majority vote we would support that. I would be surprised if we did support that seven to zero because as members might know there is a difference of opinion in New Zealand First in terms of this bill. 
Rodney Hide 
: Tell us some news. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member wants some news. If he were here a little more frequently he would know a lot more news. 
I want to talk about Judy Turner’s Supplementary Order Paper 95 because I know that Judy is a very sincere person and New Zealand First would—at least by majority—support her Supplementary Order Paper if she removed the requirement for 60 percent of enrolled voters to have to cast a vote for the answer “Yes” in a referendum. In fact that is just removing proposed new subclause (3)(b). If she made the provision to be passed by simple majority at the general election then I think she would get a significant number of New Zealand First votes. She would not get the total vote because some of my colleagues believe that it is a referendum too little too late and we also prefer referenda on the substance of the bill whereas this would be on the date. But I can tell the member that if United Future considered that then New Zealand First would be on board. We are compelled to vote against it as it is now because it seems somewhat hypocritical to say that it may be passed here in Parliament by majority vote but the public has to win 60 percent of its vote—it is one or the other. 
I also draw the member’s attention to the fact that if there is a general election United Future is bound to get 60 percent or more of the electorate voting one way or the other—absolutely bound to. So it is just a small change to delete part of the amendment in order to make it compatible with what we are actually doing and saying here. 
I listened to Sue Bradford’s response to that and I tell the member that when I saw her on television some years back in the protest line she certainly gave the impression that she wanted the public to have a greater say. Now she is in Parliament she is saying that we will speak for everybody: “We know more than you guys out there.” Well I say that that is a sad day for Parliament. The day that Parliament accepts the sort of philosophy that members know better than the people out there then we are going downhill. If the member shakes her head she should agree to some sort of referendum along the lines that Judy Turner has proposed and along the lines of my amendment—New Zealand First’s amendment—to Judy Turner’s amendment. 
We are talking about the commencement date. Taito Phillip Field has a number of amendments that in effect delay the commencement date. In theory we are not really comfortable with some of the rationales but we believe that the public has to have more say on this bill. So New Zealand First will be voting for every one of Taito Phillip Field’s amendments by a majority vote—a split vote. Indeed Colin King whom I saw was anxious to take a call also has an amendment that effectively delays the commencement date by some considerable time. New Zealand First is interested to hear what the member says is the reason because I think New Zealand First will be supporting that amendment by majority. I keep saying that because we are having a split vote.