Hide Rodney: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Hide Rodney: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:622;Page:18011] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 That was Mr Dail Jones of New Zealand First. I fear that those “nodding heads” might have been people nodding off to sleep. I am a little surprised by Dail Jones’ contribution where he said I think that it would be a waste of his time to turn up to the select committee. If that is to be the measure that that member applies to what he does or does not do around Parliament he will have a lot of spare time indeed. I have to say that I am also a bit surprised by the National Party’s reasoning for not turning up to this committee. Its reason is that its members do not agree with this committee and they do not agree with where it is going. Well that is part of the feature of being in Opposition actually. Large numbers of bills go through this House that we as Opposition MPs are vehemently opposed to. There are select committees sitting on legislation that we do not agree with but we turn up in order to improve the legislation and to take part in the debate and because we live in hope of convincing our Labour colleagues they are wrong. But the idea that when we see something we disagree with we somehow pick up our toys hop out of the sandpit I have to say is unparliamentary indeed. So the ACT party will certainly be taking part in this select committee and we will have Mr Stephen Franks as our member. 
There is nothing more important than the constitutional arrangements of a country—nothing. Like it or not the Government has set up a select committee to have a look at those arrangements. I think that it behoves us all to take an interest in what that select committee is up to. Let us just think of the things we will be considering. We will be considering the rules within which the Government operates and in particular the protections that citizens have from the Government. If we look at our constitutional arrangements we see that they have sort of grown up in a haphazard way and that is so particularly in the last 20 years. We have as some sort of constitutional principle now some partnership between Maori and the Crown but what that partnership is has never been explored in a consistent and considered way. 
I think of New Zealand First which has wasted many many hours of this Parliament’s time in trying to explore in question time what are the actual principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—principles that infest large sections of the legislative make-up of New Zealand. Dail Jones has asked questions Winston Peters has asked questions and they have got nowhere. But they are very important questions. This select committee is the precise place at which New Zealand First should turn up and start exploring what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are what they mean to the Government and what they mean to New Zealanders. But no New Zealand First has said it will not turn up. Why? Because Dail Jones thinks it would be a waste of his time. Well he could be right. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When is this member going to resign? When is ACT going to get a decent leader? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is always lovely to get Trevor Mallard’s positive contribution! It is always wonderful when Trevor Mallard shakes himself awake and puts forward an intellectual contribution to a debate about the constitution of New Zealand. I just say to him that the TVNZ board is not sitting over here. We are actually doing OK.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: At 2 percent? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Trevor Mallard says 3 percent. Well I remember when Helen Clark was on 2 percent and Trevor Mallard was running around trying to do the numbers to keep her in place in her party and things turned out right. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And it worked. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It did work. So I tell Mr Mallard to hold his breath just wait and he will be surprised at what can happen. The ACT party had the opportunity to participate in this select committee. Trevor Mallard probably does not like that but the Hon Dr Michael Cullen was very pleased. I wrote him a letter with the help of my colleague Mr Stephen Franks and I have to say we had a very good meeting with Michael Cullen about our concerns and what we would like to do in the committee. Our particular concern was whether the committee would be adequately resourced to do the job because this is a big job and if we are going to be involved we want it to be done well. 
We raised other concerns. We asked what limits were there on Parliament’s ability to take away a person’s property. To be honest I suspect there are none. So this Parliament could decide with 61 votes to deprive any New Zealander of his or her private property. I suspect there are no constitutional limits on Parliament’s ability to come along and deprive someone of property. That is a serious deficiency in our constitutional arrangements. So we said to Michael Cullen that we would like to explore that issue in the committee. I would have thought the National Party would be keen to stand up for private property rights and try to get some protections in our constitutional arrangements so that a Government with a bare majority could not turn up in Parliament and deprive people of their property rights. 
Another of our concerns is the ability of Parliament to overturn contracts. We know that a Parliament with 61 votes can overturn any contract that it likes—no compensation required. Mr Franks and I suggested to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen that we would like to explore that issue as part of these constitutional considerations because we believe there should be limits on what Governments can and cannot do; and the constitution is the place to sort that out. We see the ACT party as having a positive impact on this select committee. 
Another of our concerns is the current excess taxation of New Zealanders. ACT has stood up and complained about excess taxation. The National Party has stood up and complained following our lead about excess taxation. New Zealand First has stood up and complained. Likewise United Future has stood up and complained. So we were interested in what sort of constitutional arrangements could be established that might constrain a Government’s spending and constrain a Government’s ability to raise taxes—again with a simple majority of 61 votes. 
I have to say and I think my colleague Stephen Franks will agree that Michael Cullen was very open to our asking these questions as part of this committee. Why? Because it will be a committee of Parliament. Now I do not think that Michael Cullen shares our view of what the constitution should be and I do not think we share many of his views but we are in our Parliament and we will be turning up and putting forward our views and asking our questions. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen accepted that. So it behoves us all to take part in the parliamentary process and to represent the views of all New Zealanders. I am disappointed that the National Party and New Zealand First in some hissy fit over what a committee might do what it might come up with what particular process it might follow have decided they will not partake but would have allowed this select committee to be entirely run by the Government if it were not for the ACT party and the Greens. They are the only two parties that will be standing there aside from the Government asking the tough questions. 
Gerry Brownlee might scoff but who is doing it if it is not us? Because the National Party is not turning up New Zealand First is not turning up. I see Dr Cullen in the Chamber and I ask him how many times have we heard New Zealand First members in this House get up and ask questions about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and what they mean—principles that infest all our legislation going back years? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I don’t know. 
Jim Peters 
: They don’t know. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: That is quite right but the New Zealand First Party has a golden opportunity to get on the select committee and actually do some work to discover what it might mean to discover the implications yet Dail Jones says: “Oh no it would be a waste of my time; to hell with that.” I say: “Shame on New Zealand First and shame on National for not accepting your parliamentary obligations!”