Hide Rodney: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hide Rodney: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17422. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party rises to support this legislation because we favour free trade. We favour free trade in goods we favour free trade in services and we favour free trade in that most valuable commodity of all—a person’s labour and ideas. Therefore we favour this legislation.  
The ACT party is totally perplexed by Mr Peter Brown’s speech. On the one hand the Minister of Foreign Affairs says that New Zealand First opposes this legislation this free-trade deal with China because it is not quick enough—it will take 10 years. Then Mr Brown the deputy leader of New Zealand First comes to the House and says that New Zealand First opposes this legislation full stop because it is free trade. Well where does New Zealand First stand on this? Maybe its members need to check with some of their funders about what Winston Peters is saying and square it with what Peter Brown is saying because it is very very clear that New Zealand First MPs do not know who their funders are they do not know what has happened to the money they do not know what the interests are— 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was an inference of corruption in that comment—a comment that that member makes about me in the House because his courage matches the colour of his jacket. I suggest that he make it outside the House and feel the consequences. What he has said is totally out of order and when you ask him to get back to the debate I suggest that you also ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr Jones. There was an instance there. I ask the member to come back to the debate and I ask the member to be careful. I ask Mr Jones to be careful too because he has challenged a man’s courage. So it has gone both ways. Would the member please come to order and debate the issue. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am happy to debate the issue. I am not worried about Mr Dail Jones questioning my courage. I would be happy if he had the courage to ask Mr Peters a few basic questions— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
RODNEY HIDE 
:—like what happened to the $100000. That is what we would ask if we were talking about courage. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are now being challenged. You asked Mr Hide to get back to the point. You have the right to terminate the member’s speech at this very moment because he is challenging your ruling. I ask you to exercise your authority. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I will take that into consideration. The member has been warned once and the next time I will have no option. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. My issue with this legislation is New Zealand First’s position on it and that was what I was actually debating before I was so rudely and unforgivably challenged intellectually by Mr Dail Jones. My point was that there is an inconsistency between what the New Zealand First leader is saying and what Peter Brown is saying. That was my point.  
There is another irony in all of this in respect of New Zealand First: it is voting against this legislation. If we think about it for a second we see that it is odd having a Minister of Foreign Affairs of New Zealand who is opposed to trade. Imagine being a Minister of Foreign Affairs and opposing trade! Well Mr Peters got around this by saying that he did not oppose trade but that he opposed the legislation because it did not go fast enough. But here we have Mr Brown coming into the House and saying that he opposes this legislation because he opposes trade with China. Well which is it? Why is New Zealand First voting against this legislation?  
I wish to draw another irony to members’ attention and I will do so in a most careful way—in a very very careful way—because I would not want to stray and I hope that I will be picked up if I do. The ACT party agrees with free trade in everything bar one thing: political favours. We do not believe that political favours should be up for grabs. We think that men and women should be able to sell their ideas their labour their goods and their services. But no politicians no Governments and no Ministers should be able to sell their policies a Government favour or a perk. That is where the trade stops.  
The way we deal with that is that yes we have free trade and we will watch for any whiff of a problem with trade of that nature like an overseas person saying that he or she will do some trade with New Zealand and that he or she will put $100000 in a lawyer’s account. What did he put it in? It was not an account and it was not a trust; he just gave $100000 to square a bill. That is trade. That is absolutely on the money. It was trade from an overseas person with New Zealand because New Zealand was $100000 better off. 
What the overseas billionaire was buying was legal services. I agree that he should be able to do that. The problem was with the nature of the legal services being bought. Those legal services were being bought to try to dislodge an MP in this House and to overturn the will of the people of Tauranga. That is what the trade of legal fees being paid from overseas was for for which the trade internationally is perfectly legal. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I listened with interest to the two previous points of order and your two previous responses and most notably to your final response that if it happened again you would have no option but to terminate the speech. I believe the time for that has arrived. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that it might be the Labour Government’s view that the time to terminate my speech in this House has come. But one would hope that a Minister in trying to terminate an Opposition member’s speech would point to the Standing Order that I have breached that states that I have to stop talking in this House because I am actually elected to speak on this legislation. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I thought that the member was speaking to the point of order rather than continuing with his speech. The particular point I was referring to Mr Assistant Speaker was the fact that you had previously warned the member not to stray from the substance of the legislation and in particular not to transfer into matters to do with party funding issues. In your last ruling on that matter Mr Assistant Speaker you said that if it happened again you would invoke the Standing Order that the member referred to earlier. Quite clearly the member has gone back to the same material. Previously you have ruled that that was inappropriate and I seek your advice as to what action you wish to take. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that I was not discussing party funding. If I were discussing party funding then I would be out of order. But we have no lesser authority than Mr Peters and the Prime Minister Helen Clark saying that the $100000 trade that the overseas billionaire paid to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I point the member to Speaker’s ruling 25/5: “It is not only the right but the duty of a member who can show that there has been anything in the nature of bribery or corruption on the part of other members to bring that matter before the House in the proper constitutional way but a member must not make veiled suggestions during the course of debate.” The member has been warned and his speech is terminated.