Norman Russel: Urgent Debates — Heather Roy—Ministerial Resignation 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Norman Russel: Urgent Debates — Heather Roy—Ministerial Resignation 
[Sitting date: 18 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:13218. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I stand to speak in this urgent debate. Many pressing issues are facing the country at the moment so it is somewhat surprising to be speaking in a debate on this issue. But here we are. MMP is a great system. It is a system that means there is diversity in this Parliament in a way that there would not otherwise be. That means there are people in Parliament whom one strongly disagrees with. It is fair to say that there are strong disagreements between the ACT Party and the Green Party. None the less we are both here because of the MMP system and although we have different views it is part of the respect with which we treat each other that we listen to those views. 
I think it is important that the smaller parties the MMP parties are in this Parliament and have a voice. It seems to me that today’s issue should be one of principle. It is not about Chris Carter or anyone else; it is about whether the ACT Party has the right to change its leaders. It seems to me that it does have that right and that it is the fundamental right of the ACT Party to choose who its leader and deputy leader are and hence as part of the agreement with National to determine who the two ACT Ministers will be. Although ultimately it is up to the Prime Minister to choose his Ministers as part of the agreement there has to be the give and take that allows the smaller parties to choose who their Ministers will be. So it seems to me that the ACT Party is entirely within its rights to choose who its leader is and to choose who its deputy leader is. 
We can argue that Mr Hide should have told the country why Heather Roy was sacked. Clearly there is an argument about transparency and openness and the country would like to know why one of the Ministers of the Crown has changed. The country would like to know why the ACT Party went through that change. I strongly encourage Mr Hide and the others within the ACT Party to be open with the country and to tell people why they chose to make this change in leadership. None the less I stand by the principle that the ACT Party has the right to choose its own leaders through its own process. I think that that is a fundamental principle. 
This is an opportunity I guess to talk about the ACT Party and its role in the Government as the finance Minister just did. It may be the case it seems to me that the ruckus that ACT has just been through may weaken its hand in Government. In fact ACT may find that it has a weaker hand in Government than it had previously. From the Green Party’s point of view because we disagree with ACT on a large range of issues—privatisation for example—that is not necessarily a bad thing. 
The ACT Party is very pro-privatisation. If we privatised some of our assets they would go into overseas ownership. Ultimately because it is hard to avoid that would increase the current account deficit and add to the economic problems New Zealand already faces. So if the ACT Party is strengthened during this process the problem will be that it adds to the privatisation agenda. 
Likewise as the finance Minister just spoke about the ACT Party tends to be the party for supporting inequality. It wants a tax system that maximises inequality. That is one of its objectives and one of its fundamental principles. The problem with a policy that supports inequality is that it is bad for everybody. Whether people are wealthy or poor a society that is more unequal is a worse society to live in. It also means that more and more of our resources would be used in the prison system because the more unequal a society is the higher the prison population is. 
That of course combines with another tenet of the ACT Party which is the so-called “tough on crime” policy. Basically that means locking up more and more people in jail for fewer and fewer crimes. That means— 
David Garrett 
: Fewer and fewer crimes—you’ve got that wrong Russel. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: That is quite right. The ACT Party is in favour of locking up more and more people for a wider and wider range of crimes—Mr Garrett is quite right. That means that more and more of the tax take would be spent on locking people up in jail. Because ACT wants to reduce the amount of tax that is taken but also wants to spend more and more money on prisons there would be less and less money for spending on everything else. 
If this process this ruckus around Heather Roy results in a weakening of the ACT Party agenda then that is possibly a good thing for the country. It seems to me that it would be a good thing for the country if we did not go down the ACT line of having more privatisation more inequality and more people in prisons. 
One of the other issues that Mr English touched on and is I think worth addressing is the deregulation policy that ACT—and to some degree National—has been pushing. We know that the leaky house fiasco which is costing our country something like $20 billion is a result of the deregulation that came with the Building Act of 1991. Had that Act with its deregulation ethos not come in a lot of people would not have had leaky houses and we would not have a $20 billion bill to repair those houses. One of the ACT’s fundamental tenets which it has brought to this Parliament is that deregulation methodology. It is in fact one of ACT’s strong points. The problem is that the 1991 Building Act has been very very expensive for New Zealand. 






 The other part of this change that is quite significant is John Boscawen becoming a Minister. Mr Boscawen has many strong views and they are honestly held views but clearly he does not want to listen to the science on climate change. He is a climate change denier. He does not want to listen to the science on climate change and it will be very dangerous for New Zealand if the executive is pushed in a direction where the science on climate change is more and more marginalised. 
Will the replacement of Heather Roy with John Boscawen mean that the climate change deniers have more influence in the executive? That will be one of the challenges. In fact the Government has weakened its emissions trading scheme already. It is not really coping with the increase in extreme weather events that is happening globally and that we need to prepare for and that situation will become even more dangerous if those who do not want to read the science or listen to the science have a bigger say in the executive. That is one of the other dangers in this particular change in the ACT Party. 
None the less I accept that the ACT Party was voted for by New Zealanders. It has the right to be in this Parliament. It has the right to choose its own leaders. Although I may disagree with it on many issues and disagree with many of the policies of the ACT Party I certainly respect its right to choose its leaders and to choose as part of its agreement with National which members of the ACT Party find themselves as Ministers in the executive. Thank you.