Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8255] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Criminal Procedure Bill the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill and the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill and to the first reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. Wednesday of course is a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I have two questions to ask the Leader of the House today. The first relates to some potential business of the House. A report released at 1.20 today suggested that the Government is about to introduce electoral reform legislation to the House. Firstly I ask Dr Cullen what the time line is for that and whether he intends to discuss that bill with all other parties. 
The second matter deals with what appears to be a growing amount of speculation around Parliament that the Government will afford urgency next week to Sue Bradford’s section 59 repeal bill. I suppose that the natural conclusion to draw is that it would be very tidy for the Government to introduce an electoral reform bill and the section 59 bill under one urgency motion in order perhaps to take away some of the bad headlines it could expect from the latter bill. So can the Leader of the House simply tell us whether there is an electoral reform bill due any time will there be consultation with all other parties and does the Government intend to take urgency to pass the bill known as Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It would not be possible at the moment for Ms Bradford’s bill and the Government bill to be dealt with simultaneously as one is a member’s bill coming up on a members’ day and the other will be a Government bill coming up on a Government day. So that would be one rather large difficulty. 
Secondly of course it is the House that affords urgency not the Government. I would of course welcome support for any urgency in such matters. Thirdly obviously the National Party will be involved in discussion of any electoral reform bill that may be prepared because of course—that is called Parliament. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could the Leader of the House expand for the enlightenment of parties down this end of the House on whether those issues he was discussing with the National Party about an electoral reform bill will include legislation to prevent the sorts of things we have read about in the book  
The Hollow Men  
from ever being allowed to recur. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for his indications. In accepting that I am somewhat of a primitive in these matters compared with him I wonder whether I might put the question to him in a different way: does the Government intend to move a motion in order that Sue Bradford’s bill might pass under urgency next week? Further does he intend to consult with other political parties particularly the National Party prior to introducing an electoral reform bill also due imminently? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 On the latter matter the Government’s practice is to consult with parties sufficiently to ensure that it has a majority before introducing a bill. It prefers to have the votes to pass the first reading before it actually introduces a bill. Of course the National Party will have full input on any matters that might trammel its capacity to repeat its performance as outlined in  
The Hollow Men 
 at the subsequent stages of that bill. 
On the second matter again the Government would not move urgency on any matter unless it had the assurance it had a majority to support that motion. 
PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is Dr Cullen in a position to say whether if he does seek urgency on any matter he will go through official channels and party leadership or will he just approach individual MPs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We adopt a variety of processes. This particular bill of course is a conscience matter for those caucuses not operating a party vote. That complicates procedural matters in this respect. But I would certainly be consulting with either the leader of New Zealand First or the acting leader depending on when Mr Peters is available. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I ask the Leader of the House to clarify whether in fact it would be possible to do what Mr Brownlee has very kindly suggested if we got to legislation after 10 p.m. on a particular day. I think there might have been a suggestion from the Leader of the House that it was not possible but I have looked into it and I think it is a very good idea. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That would certainly not be the Government’s intention. If an electoral reform bill is introduced it will proceed through the normal channels—that is it will be introduced and lie upon the Table for at least 3 sitting days before it is afforded a first reading. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I am sure that many Labour members—probably 17—are surprised to learn that the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act is a conscience issue. But that is neither here nor there. The real point is whether we are now to assume that the Labour Government sees electoral reform in this country—and therefore the legislation that will follow from electoral reform—as just another suit in the hands it plays in order to stay in Government by appeasing its supporting parties. That would be utterly appalling. Such legislation should be considered by all parties. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that the member is now verging into the realms of matters for debate. I was not sure whether there was an issue there but maybe— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am happy to speak to the point of order Madam Speaker. Within my memory National in its past as a National Government has over the heads of a Labour Opposition passed electoral legislation that disfranchised large numbers of New Zealanders.