Turei Metiria: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: General Debate[Sitting date: 10 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11860. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):I want to start off my contribution this afternoon by thanking you Mr Speaker for the decision to hold a conscience vote on the Skycity bill tomorrow. I am distressed to hear the way that the National member Steven Joyce has treated the issue of conscience votes. When it has been agreed that a conscience vote should be held it is the right of each individual member to make the decision for themselves. It may well be that most members from a particular party decide to vote the way that their leader believes they ought to vote. There are lots of reasons why that may be the case. The nature of the vote and the fact of the vote are of less consequence than the right of each individual member to vote according to their conscience. That is the right that members have when the Speaker makes a decision as he has done.This means that Auckland now has the ability to take real action on the Skycity deal as well. Auckland people who are opposed to this deal now have a genuine opportunity to speak to their local representative from whichever party and say to their local representative: “We believe that this deal should not proceed and we would like you to represent our views when you vote tomorrow on this bill.” It is a genuine reflection of the democracy that allows the members of the public who are most affected by this issue—that is those who live in Auckland—to talk with their MPs their representatives in a genuine way to say: “We would like you to vote like this.” The Speaker has given those MPs the opportunity to reflect their constituents’ views—their constituents’ views. For that we are very grateful and we would like to see this continue through the whole process of this bill. Thank you Mr Speaker.Actually my contribution today was intended to be not so much on Skycity but on the issues of gender because the National Party has such a poor level of representation of women in Parliament. [Interruption ] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very difficult to continue my speech with the conversation that is being shouted across from one side of me to the other.Mr SPEAKER: Would members cease the interjections because it is distracting to the member who is speaking.METIRIA TUREI: Thank you. Why is the National Party lagging so far behind when it comes to women’s representation? Last term 29 percent of its caucus were women; this term it is 25 percent—one in four. It is lagging behind. Do you know what we heard from the National Government’s Minister of Women’s Affairs Jo Goodhew? Do you know what she toldMorning Report just this week—on Friday actually? People should be selected on merit alone said the Minister of Women’s Affairs. She said that New Zealand had a proud history of women succeeding on the basis of their competency. Is Minister Goodhew really saying that of all the women in the National Party only 25 percent are competent enough to be MPs? Is that what she is really saying? Does her attitude explain why it is that the Government has this miserable target for the private sector boards of having only 10 percent of private sector boards being women? Is that because the National Government’s Minister of Women’s Affairs believes that only 10 percent of women who are in business are competent enough to be on these boards? In terms of partners in law firms an area particularly special to my heart only 16 percent of women lawyers are partners. Does Jo Goodhew believe that only 16 percent of women lawyers are competent to be partners in law firms?The Green Party is very proud of its record of having a majority of women in our caucus represented in this Parliament because we believe that representation of women is absolutely critical. We believe that women do have all the skills and capacity to be representatives in this House for this House to be genuinely a representative democracy and we make sure it is possible—we make sure it is possible—unlike the National Party which is actively obviously excluding women from the opportunity to hold positions of authority in its party. There is no commitment in the National Party to any kind of representative democracy. It prefers a male-dominated elite to be making decisions and to be sucking resources to that male-dominated elite and leaving women leaving their children and leaving all of those others who are entitled to be represented here out in the cold. Thank you.