Brownlee Gerry: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:622;Page:18007] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That was a very considered speech from the Leader of the House. Many of the points he put forward in support of the motion seem on the face of it to be quite reasonable. The National Party however has decided not to participate in this process because we are most uncomfortable with the terms of reference. We believe they are the only terms of reference that currently exist as stated in the motion itself. I will go into those reasons in a few moments. 
I make it clear to the House that if the Government were to be more upfront about the intention behind the select committee we would be part of it. It seemed to me that in the Leader of the House’s speech where he hit upon the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi and the issue of where that sits inside our constitutional arrangements there was the seed of a new motion that may well see the National Party participate in this exercise. To that effect I will move an amendment to the motion later in my speech. 
I remind the House that in the year 2000 a constitutional conference was held in the Legislative Council Chamber. There was a compilation made of all the contributions at that conference which Colin James put together. I have recently taken the time to read through those contributions in order to get a bit of a feel for where New Zealanders’ thinking was about those issues 4 years ago. I think it is a shame that the Government if it were serious about looking at New Zealand’s constitution did not start with those fairly learned contributions that as my colleague Dr Mapp said—he was a major player at that conference—were most divided on the issue. 
Although this motion speaks of the constitutional development of New Zealand since 1840 that topic can be quite authoritatively found in that book put together by Colin James. The key elements of New Zealand’s constitutional structure and the relationship between those elements are thoroughly explored in those papers and the sources of New Zealand’s constitution are similarly dealt with. Perhaps the processes other countries followed in undertaking a range of constitutional reforms are not so well followed. So my question has to be: why put that in this motion if there were not ultimately some intention to move New Zealand down that particular track? 
There I think we start to lose the plot a little bit. Although I accept that the Hon Peter Dunne would be a fair chairman he has publicly stated his desire to see New Zealand a republic. So I have this view that if Parliament is to progress down this line perhaps there should be a discussion publicly and then the option should be put to New Zealanders in the general election to come. I think it is that general election and the comments made by Dr Michael Cullen about the Treaty of Waitangi that have caused the Government the most problems on this issue. 
I accept that the Government says it wants to do this in good faith but I look at a couple of other things it has done this year—supposedly in good faith. One was the review into race-based funding in Government departments agencies and entities. When that issue was first raised by Dr Brash earlier this year the Government’s first reaction was to deny it ever happened. It said there were no race-based funding arrangements in the New Zealand Government’s dealings with people. Then today a report was released that totally acknowledges the very vast extent of that type of policy making in the Government’s activities but there is no commitment of any real substance to do anything about those issues. 
We can also point to the issue of the seabed and foreshore proposals. The Government went around the countryside and spent millions of dollars in holding hui up and down the country. It then went through a very exhaustive select committee process only to turn up in the House once the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee reported back with what was effectively a new bill a 150-odd page Supplementary Order Paper that the House was supposed just to adopt and pass—which it ultimately did. Some of us voted against it but most of the people who wanted and who were on that select committee were party to that complete denial of the pleas of submitters to it and simply pushed through the legislation they wanted. 
I have also heard the Leader of the House Michael Cullen say that he would never tolerate a situation in which the will of Parliament was interfered with or overruled by people from outside. Members should correct me if I am wrong but did the Prime Minister not stand up in this House yesterday and tell us that over the recent debacle of the high salaries at Television New Zealand heads would roll? Did we not hear today that at least three directors have offered to resign—to roll their own heads—and that the Minister of Broadcasting has said that that would not be necessary? The Government has blown in the wind and done a bit of trumpeting but it will do exactly what it wants to do. 
We can ask the same thing of the Leader of the House with regard to the Supreme Court’s decision over the Zaoui issue. Parliament makes it very clear in legislation that bail is not available to someone who is incarcerated as a result of his or her being named in a security risk certificate. But the Supreme Court has decided that whatever Parliament wants is not good enough and it has granted the man bail. Well good luck to him it would seem. Those are two cases where Parliament’s will has been overruled in very recent times. 
Perhaps that is a reason for having a discussion about our constitutional arrangements. I get back to the real reason behind the Government’s wanting to set up this committee. I believe it wants to take the issue of race relations and the issue of the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in 2004 and beyond off the political agenda. 
So I want to move an amendment. It is that all the words from “constitutional arrangements” to “the committee to consist of” shall be removed and replaced with a motion that will read: “… to undertake a review of New Zealand’s existing constitutional arrangements and the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in contemporary New Zealand. The committee is to consist of 11 members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand Labour 4 New Zealand National 3 New Zealand First 1 Green Party 1 ACT New Zealand 1 United Future 1.” I will supply that motion to the House before we move on. If the Leader of the House is so upset that National is not being part of this new select committee surely National’s representation on it should be much more akin to its representation as the main Opposition party than the motion he is proposing allows. 
I wonder also just how serious the Government is about the results that come from this committee when an equal weighting in the committee’s work is supposed to go on the consideration of the steps that New Zealand might take were it to embark on constitutional reform. I fear that many of the steps have already been taken and the Supreme Court decision is no doubt a very significant step in that direction. I question whether the proposed nomination of Margaret Wilson to the Speaker’s seat in this House is part of that agenda because there is no doubt that Margaret Wilson has a republican view of New Zealand’s future. Although the National Party does not want New Zealanders not to discuss these issues I think it is very appropriate that we get right to the heart of them and that this House accept the amendment proposed by the National Party to the motion.