Hide Rodney: Reinstatement of Business 
Hide Rodney: Reinstatement of Business 
[Volume:628;Page:34] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to support Jeanette Fitzsimons. The principle not to pick and choose but to carry the business forward that was decided by the previous Parliament is not a bad principle. In fact ACT has a bill in the motion that was brought forward by a colleague and I certainly appreciate the fact that the Government of the day has accepted that bill and put it forward. But with that comes the responsibility that we should carry all the bills forward. If we start picking and choosing members who have put forward a bill because they have had the luck of the draw as it were and the members of the public who have got excited about a particular bill and who have made submissions would get chopped by the Government of the day. That certainly does not seem right. 
It is also not the case that the motion calls for a vote of confidence in the Government. If it were I would not be voting for it. It is clearly not a confidence vote. 
I was very interested in my colleague Georgina Beyer’s comments. I think it will be interesting to debate some of the bills in the motion. 
John Key 
: You voted for Ann Hartley. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Absolutely! If National Party members wanted us to vote for one of their colleagues they should tell us that they will put someone up. It is a courtesy of Parliament I say to Mr Key that if one puts up a colleague and wants that person to win one goes around and asks people to vote for that person. I also point out to the National Party that it is all very well to blame Mr Peters for not voting for or supporting Mr Simich for the Speakership but Mr Peters never had the opportunity to have a vote. If the National Party wanted to put up Mr Simich as a Speaker they should have done so. If its members had asked us to vote for him we would have done so. It is a basic parliamentary procedure that if one wants someone to vote for something one must go around and ask for the vote. I say to Mr Key that one should not take it for granted. I thought that would have been obvious. 
To return to my previous point I think it is a good principle to carry business forward. It will not always be the case and I would hate to see it become an automatic convention because if there is a major shift in Government there could be a lot of bills that would unnecessarily occupy a Government’s time. But I will be interested in the debate on the bills in the motion. 
We heard a most passionate speech from Georgina Beyer in favour of the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill in which she said that it was for her to decide whether this bill would be debated. I agree with her and I thought it was very presumptuous—maybe the reporting was wrong and I look forward to the Prime Minister explaining that—for Helen Clark to have gone around saying that the bill was dead before Parliament had even met to have this debate. Only Parliament can kill that bill not the Prime Minister. So I support Georgina Beyer’s promoting her bill. I do not think I will vote for it but I want to hear the debate and the arguments. 
I listened to Mr Peter Brown and I think it will be an interesting Parliament. We heard Peter Brown say that he did not get any bauble of office. 
Simon Power 
: He got nothing. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He got nothing. Then he looked to the back bench of the National Party and asked how many of those members had read those bills. I hope that none of them have because I do not know what they have been doing if they are sitting down reading those bills. But if it is all right for Peter Brown to ask questions of the back bench of the National Party maybe we could ask Mr Brown when he first learnt that Winston Peters would be the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Labour Government and whether he agreed with that. 
Peter Brown 
: I can answer. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: When did he first learn? 
Peter Brown 
: Do you want a date? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes. 
Peter Brown 
: I can’t remember the date but it was in the discussions that took place. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Maybe Mr Brown will come down in the opportunity that he will have in this Parliament and explain to members the precise process by which Mr Peters explained to him that he would take the bauble of office. 
Given that Mr Brown is in an expansive mood maybe he will answer another question: did he believe the speech Mr Winston Peters gave in Rotorua? He cannot answer. There is a stunning silence. Mr Peters campaigned on his honesty and integrity but even his deputy leader did not believe the speech that the Rt Hon Winston Peters gave in Rotorua as part of the election campaign. He sat there like a stunned mullet when I asked him whether he believed the speech. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member is firing questions at me that I am only too willing to answer. But I am bound as he is by caucus conventions—although I accept that he has a caucus of two and I have a caucus of seven. But I can infer from the honourable member’s comments that he thinks Peter Brown was not terribly happy about the speech that was delivered in Rotorua. In fact Peter Brown did try to influence the decision that was made. He failed and he is an honourable member. He sticks exactly to the caucus agreement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order it is a debating point. [ 
Interruption 
] It might be very interesting but it is not a point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No I thought that was the best point of order of the session. As I understand it Peter Brown did not agree with what Mr Peters did. He knew that he could not believe the speech that was given in Rotorua even while it was being given. 
Peter Brown 
: I never said that. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well he never said that he believed it did he? I ask the member whether he believed the speech in Rotorua when Mr Peters gave it. 
Peter Brown 
: Am I allowed to answer? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please sit down. The series of questions produces the irresistible temptation in members to respond to them but this is not the appropriate forum in which to do that. The member can ask the question and continue with his speech. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I said the member can continue but I am merely saying that Mr Brown was seeking my guidance. For the assistance of the House I would point out that we are not having a question and answer series across the Chamber. There can be interventions and there are from time to time. I am not denying that Mr Hide can ask those questions. I invite him to continue his speech after the member’s point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You may have considered advising Mr Brown that he could seek the leave of the House to engage in that sort of banter as Mr Hide rather forensically questioned him— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is also not a point of order. Thank you. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 54/4 which states quite simply that based on a House of Commons practice it is possible for a member to yield to another member and to answer any question that he or she asks in the course of debate. That is exactly what has occurred it is completely within the Standing Orders and we should allow it to continue— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is an academic point. There has not been any request to yield. I ask the member to continue his speech please. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am not yielding anything. If Mr Brown wants to take a call he is most welcome to do so. If Nick Smith wants to yield his time he is most welcome to do so too. It is not as if much time is needed; it is just a yes or no answer. Did Mr Brown believe Mr Peters’ campaign speech in Rotorua at the time when he gave it? 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the issue of relevance has already been referred to today. I fail to understand how these rhetorical questions from Mr Hide are relevant to a debate around a motion for an amendment put forward by Mr Brownlee. I do think you need to rule on relevance in this regard. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I ask Mr Hide to continue please and I remind members of the motion before them. If members could address that as specifically as they can that would be helpful. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The issue—and I thank Mr Donnelly—is the reinstatement motion. The issue of whether New Zealand First is part of the Government and whether it has accepted the baubles of office came up. Mr Brown himself referred to the baubles of office and to how he did not get any. Mr Donnelly did not object to Mr Brown’s claim that he did not get any baubles of office. I think the country knows that Mr Brown completely missed out on getting any baubles of office. 
The country also knows that Mr Brown did not believe the speech that Mr Peters gave. He did not believe it for a second. I asked him a straight question. We also know that Mr Brown absolutely opposed Mr Peters’ taking of the baubles of office. Mr Peters’ own deputy opposed it and his president opposed it. It is no wonder Mr Peters is telling the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that he cannot do any work right now because he is busy quelling a rebellion in his own caucus and party. In fact that is what he is doing now. He is on the phone to Grey Power trying to hold his party together. I have this statement from Mr Brown. ACT supports this motion going through. 
Mr Brown is the person who first of all as Mr Peters’ deputy tried to persuade Mr Peters not to go back on his solemn promise to the people of New Zealand and accept the baubles of power. Then the very next thing after Winston Peters took the baubles of office Peter Brown said that he was an Opposition member and wanted to sit on the Opposition benches. That is where Peter Brown and Mr Peters wanted to be seated because they said they were not Government MPs but Opposition MPs. 
Peter Brown 
: That’s right. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Brown is saying that he is an Opposition MP. I ask Mr Donnelly whether he is an Opposition MP. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Just like last time. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Those members are saying that they are Opposition MPs. 
I thank Dr Cullen for reinstating all these bills. It will be fascinating to debate each and every one of them and to see just how this Parliament goes.