Peters Winston: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Peters Winston: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17587] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 That was the weakest defence I have ever heard for denying the people of this country a say in their own affairs on a very major and substantial institution in our society. This referendum clause that my colleague is putting up is to ensure there is a check on this bill by the people of this country who are most affected by it. It is democratic it will establish a consensus and if the bill is right the people of New Zealand will say so. If the bill is correct the people of this country will say so. If the bill is needed they will say so. If the bill is desired the people of this country will say so—not a few temporarily empowered politicians who are shortly to go from this place. 
The Labour Party has the whip out on this issue and that is very clear. Labour will oppose the use of a referendum vote on this bill. That is very clear. My question and the question New Zealand First members are asking—all 13 of us—is: why is that? Is it because Labour members were sent here to make decisions and to govern as has been claimed by a number of members in the Chamber today? They said: “I was sent here to make decisions and to govern.” I want those members to cast their minds back to the Labour Government of 1984 to 1990. That Government sold off billions and billions of dollars worth of this country’s assets. All those members on the back benches then some of whom are now on the front benches sat there and did nothing. They would not even raise a finger to the catastrophe that was happening to the Labour Party and to our nation. Labour went out in 1990 with the biggest defeat ever. 
What do those members now say about the shambles of the State asset sales process that happened in those years 1984 to 1990? Do they still argue: “I’m sent here to govern. I am still here to make decisions.”? Well they thought that back then in 1984 too. They sold billions of dollars worth of assets—the people’s assets. They flogged off the taxpayers’ legacy to the highest bidder and particularly to the bidder that was foreign. If we in New Zealand First are prepared to accept the people’s will then why cannot they? If we in New Zealand First are prepared to accept what the people say in a vote then why cannot Labour? If we in New Zealand First can believe in the people’s voice then why cannot the Labour Party also believe in the people’s voice as it will be expressed in a referendum? If we in New Zealand First respect the people’s wish then why cannot Labour on this matter? 
I will tell members why the Labour Party has the whip out on this issue. It is because it knows that it would not win unless it brought in the jackboot of a whip’s decision in the party. That is what is going on here. The reason why Mr Barnett and his cohorts do not want a referendum across this nation amongst every adult voter is that he knows he would not win. So in short he believes in hijacking democracy. He claimed that we cannot have this referendum process until we get used to it. It reminds me of when I was at primary school and a lady sent a note saying: “Henry can’t go into the water until he learns to swim.” It is ridiculous; it is pathetic. We should expect that this Parliament would be able to produce members who are smarter than that. But the member puts up this lousy excuse and says: “But who would vote?”. He literally argues that only homosexuals should have the vote. In short he says that no other New Zealander can see the issue the way they do. Is that right? There are many members of this House who do see the issue in a much more sympathetic way than he does and they do not believe they should not be entitled to have a vote. 
There is no free vote for Labour in respect of this referendum and that is dramatically wrong. To say that this issue is too big for the people is to portray a myth to portray a sham to engage in an exercise in deceit and to engage in an exercise in duplicity. It is that simple. I say to Mr Barnett that if you believe you are right why not trust the New Zealand people? What makes you smarter than them? What makes your perception more correct than theirs? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is bringing me into the debate. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no this is about a referendum. If you do not understand that then I am sorry but you should read what my colleague has written by way of an amendment. He says to consult the people of this country. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is referring to the Chair. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well I am addressing the Chair but I will look where I feel like it with the greatest respect. I will have a lot less interruption from you with the greatest respect. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Why did you interrupt me? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The reality is that the member referred to the Chair on three occasions. I let the first two go without interruption. But I had to pull the member up on the third occasion. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: You said that I had to address the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is a longstanding convention that members cannot use the word “you” because it brings the Chair into the debate. I thank the member for raising that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I meant that enemy of democracy on the Government benches not you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you.