Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): Yes.
Hon Peter Dunne: Will the Prime Minister confirm, notwithstanding the fact that this bill was originally introduced as Government legislation, that the Government members of Parliament will be able to exercise a conscience vote on this matter, and vote according to the dictates of that conscience, free from any undue influences?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, I can confirm that. It is similar to the situation of the Human Rights Commission amendment legislation in the 1990s, which was also a Government bill but a free vote was available on that.
Peter Brown: Is the Prime Minister aware that this bill is creating quite some anguish in New Zealand society, and if she does acknowledge that, will the Government support a New Zealand First Supplementary Order Paper that would provide for New Zealanders to decide whether they want such legislation by way of a binding referendum; if not, why not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes it is clear that there are divided views in society on this issue. No, we will not support a binding referendum. We had divided views on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in the mid-1980s. I doubt there are many members of this House who would want to go back to revisit and reimpose criminal penalties in that respect.
Dail Jones: What discussions took place between United Future and the Prime Minister with regard to the Labour Party's stated position in its election manifesto that it would introduce a Civil Union Bill, and what steps were taken by United Future to ensure that its support would only be given if there was to be no Civil Union Bill brought before the House, a bill that is continuing only because the United Future party supports the existence of a Labour Party in Government?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Labour Party, the Progressive Party, and the United Future party have a 3-year confidence and supply agreement, which has given stability to this Government and to the MMP system. The United Future party was well aware that the Government's position was that a bill would be introduced. The United Future party, of course, also has a conscience vote on this issue. It is not a matter of a collective vote by the party.
Gordon Copeland: I seek the leave of the House to table the agreement between National and New Zealand First in terms of their coalition, which states that they would provide stable government for New Zealand for a 3-year term, concluding with the 1999 general election.
Leave granted.
Ron Mark: In order to add balance, I seek the leave of the House to table the New Zealand First coalition agreement with the National Party, which is a considerably bigger document than the coalition agreement between the "Poodle Party" and Labour.
Mr SPEAKER: No, the member knows that he cannot use that sort of language.
Hon Peter Dunne: I seek leave to table an exchange of correspondence between the Prime Minister and me on 29 November this year, regarding the Civil Union Bill.
Leave granted.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware of any other incident in New Zealand's history when a member has pledged to fast to change the mind of the Government on such a bill, and can she advise whether withdrawing confidence might be a more effective way by which a member of Parliament might persuade the Government that this is not a route to proceed down?
Mr SPEAKER: The Acting Prime Minister has no responsibility for the first part of the question. The second part of the question is in order.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Labour, Progressive, and United Future parties entered into a confidence and supply agreement with a clear understanding that there were policy differences and that there were conscience issues, but that it was desirable to have a stable Government for 3 years. On the other matter, I could refer to the fact that it is a very good reason for taking some urgency next week so that Mr Adams, who is a good person, could be allowed to eat again.
