Alexander Marc: General Debates 
Alexander Marc: General Debates 
[Volume:610;Page:7446] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I want to reflect on the year since the election and on an increasing worry I have with the Government’s performance particularly in the light of some of the legislation that is coming through which involves a lot of political correctness. United Future signed an agreement to support the Government on confidence and supply but reserved the right to support or oppose its legislation on a case-by-case basis. Much of that legislation has been worthy of our support but there is a perilous tendency creeping into Labour’s agenda which is exemplified by ideas like the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill that will be debated later today. There is a tendency for Labour to move away from its traditional role towards a self-anointed role as our moral guardian and the more it does so the more fearful I become. Labour is starting to inspire confidence in the same way that the  
Titanic 
 inspires buoyancy. The trouble is that people voted Labour for its policies not its prejudices. People vote for a Government that will reflect what they think not tell the people what to think. While political correctness in Labour has increasingly become the norm I have seldom found it in the individuals I speak with outside Parliament. 
The smoke-free legislation is a classic example. The Labour MP promoting that bill has admitted that the Government will not make further changes to smoking laws for another 5 years. But what is it planning after that? Will it be a total ban on smoking? How else would one explain Labour’s refusal to contemplate United Future’s Supplementary Order Paper which simply allows a venue to meet an air quality standard set by the Ministry of Health? Surely it is about what we breathe not what habits people have. The real goal is not to protect bar workers from second-hand smoke but to stop people from smoking altogether. It is supposed to be a member’s bill but like the Prostitution Reform Bill Labour will undoubtedly be voting as a party to avoid having to squeeze out yet another well-thought-out considered and decisive abstention. 
I want to know how Clayton Cosgrove will walk into the Papanui Tavern and explain this bill to its patrons or the Hon Damien O’Connor in the local pubs in his electorate? Does he believe that this ideology dressed up in legislative drag will have any currency with the punters at the Blackball Hilton the Red Lion in Hokitika or the Berlins Hotel in the Buller Gorge? Is it not really about an evangelical bunch of ideologues who think they know better taking away freedom of choice from grownups? 
For each and every pragmatic solution it seems that there is now an equal and opposite Government programme. Take the recent move by Labour to adopt as Government policy a civil union bill that aims to make homosexual relationships as close as possible to marriage in the eyes of the law. Who asked the people of this country if they thought that the nature of marriage should be changed? If there is some pressing need for that someone in the Government had better tell the people of New Zealand. Last week the Ministry of Social Development released a report on the state of the nation. If members look up “discrimination” in the report they will find the results of a survey in which everyday people were asked which groups they thought were being discriminated against in New Zealand. The group that people thought were discriminated against the most were Asians followed by recent immigrants then refugees. Then came people on welfare Pacific people and people who are overweight. Finally well back into the pack came gays and lesbians. 
More reasonable people might ask themselves why these bills get precedence over the need to put more police on our streets or for the sick to get the treatment they need without having to wait for hours months or years on the waiting list for operations. They might also wonder why these bits of legislation come before the establishment of a national student database to assist in the prevention of truancy when that has been part of Labour’s manifesto for the last three elections. Guess what?—a pilot scheme for that will not be ready by 2005. 
 The answer is that Labour is not the party it used to be. There are some within Labour who think that minority rights override the rights of just about everyone else. Where are the demands for those kinds of radical social reform? Why are those so-called reforms being promoted ahead of measures that could benefit everyone? 
The Care of Children Bill is yet another example. There is no doubt that our guardianship laws need a radical overhaul but United Future will not support a bill that has clearly been hijacked by the thought police within Labour. Such an appetite for ideological purity is nothing more than a substitute for the inconvenience of reasoned thought. How is it that a father can be defined in such a sloppy way as to include the lesbian partner of a mother? Why after a month in a relationship with a custodial parent can a person apply for guardianship of a child? How is it that it takes 3 years in a relationship before one can claim one’s partner’s sofa under the Property Relationships Act but only a month to take on a pivotal role in a child’s life? 
What about the Corrections Bill which is yet another piece of legislation badly in need of an overhaul? 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to grant that member an extension of time so that he can continue and conclude his speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. That is not a point of order.