Mallard Trevor: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14437. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want in this part of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill and in this contribution to focus on National Party members and ask them to examine their consciences. [Interruption] Steven Joyce the promoter of the John Key casino extension giggles. He giggles at the thought of a National Party member having a conscience and I think that is disgraceful. He is not an experienced parliamentarian but most people know even if they have just read the history of the country that the National Party has a tradition of allowing its members to have a conscience vote. Members opposite say that we went to the election on the issue. Well I think that to a certain extent some of them did. Some of them did go to the election. John Key certainly went to the election on a convention centre. But I remind them of the people of integrity of the National Party of the past who notwithstanding going to the election on an issue had the courage to stand up and say no.I refer the members to Ralph Hanan. Ralph Hanan was a former Mayor of Invercargill from memory. He was a Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General in the Holyoake National Party. His party led by Holyoake went to the election in 1960 and promised to undo the suspension of capital punishment that had been instituted by the previous Labour Government. Ralph Hanan said: “Notwithstanding the fact it is my role to introduce this bill because that is my obligation as a Minister who is part of the Holyoake Government my conscience will not let me vote for it.” What that man did was he introduced a bill and he voted against it.I ask Jonathan Young where his conscience is. Mr Young knows absolutely that this bill and in particular the interventions in clause 4(2) are an area where the agreement which is not even specified in the bill—so what we have in here is a bill that specifies an agreement and says that the interpretation should be based on the agreement. But is the agreement available in the legislation? No it is not—no it is not. National has not even bothered because it is trying to keep it all secret. It is trying to say in clause 4(2) that this Parliament should interpret the agreement as overriding the legislation notwithstanding the fact that it is not prepared to put the entire agreement into the schedule of the bill.National has cherry-picked it. It has picked up a clause here and a clause there that it wants to have highlighted and it has made those in the schedule of the bill. But theimportant part of the agreement signed by Steven Joyce and initiated over drinks by the Prime Minister is not in the bill. I say to Jonathan Young shame on you.Jonathan Young: Website Mallard.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Since when in the history of the Parliament of New Zealand have you been told that you go to a website—according to Jonathan Young—for something that overrides a letter of the legislation? For goodness’ sake! What sort of “Mickey Mouse” Parliament are we talking about? Chris Auchinvole’s head is hanging in shame at the interjection. I would ask Jonathan Young how many people he is prepared to have die as a result of this legislation. One? Ten? Fifteen? How many extra people are going to be murdered as a result of not paying their debt? How many more bodies in suitcases of people who could not pay their debt are going to be found in the Auckland harbour?