Reinstatement of Business

I move, That the following business be reinstated as Orders of the Day:

Bills

Autonomous Sanctions Bill

Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill

Conservation (Infringement System) Bill

Customs and Excise Bill

Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill

Education (Public Good not Profit from Charter Schools) Amendment Bill

Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill

Electronic Interactions Reform Bill

Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill

Employment Relations (Restoring Kiwis’ Right to a Break at Work) Amendment Bill

End of Life Choice Bill

Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill

Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill

Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill

Food Safety Law Reform Bill

Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)

Insolvency Practitioners Bill

Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill

Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill

Legislation Bill

Local Government (Freedom of Access) Amendment Bill

Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2)

Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill

Maritime Transport Amendment Bill

Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill

Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill

Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill

Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill

Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki Claims Settlement Bill

Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill

Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill

Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill

Sentencing (Domestic Violence) Amendment Bill

Sentencing (Livestock Rustling) Amendment Bill

Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill

Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2)

Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3)

Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngati Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill

Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill

Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill

Trusts Bill

Orders of the day for consideration of the following:

Report of the Commerce Committee on the Briefing on the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT)

Report of the Commerce Committee on the International treaty examination of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled

Report of the Education and Science Committee on the Briefing into the South Taranaki Reef Life Project

Report of the Education and Science Committee on the International Treaty Examination of the Regional Co-operative Agreement for Research, Development and Training Related to Nuclear Science and Technology, 2017

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Controller and Auditor-General, Annual Plan 2017/18

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Monetary Policy Statement, August 2017

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Briefing on the United Nations Security Council

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the International treaty examination of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Pacific Parliamentary Forum

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Border security: Using information to process passengers

Report of the Government Administration Committee on the Inquiry into captioning in New Zealand

Report of the Health Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, District health boards’ response to asset management requirements since 2009

Report of the Health Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Mental health: Effectiveness of the planning to discharge people from hospital

Report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Challenges facing licensing trusts

Report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Visit of the Justice and Electoral Committee to Australia, 27 to 31 March 2017

Report of the Law and Order Committee on the Report from the Office of the Ombudsman, A question of restraint

Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, The state of New Zealand’s environment: Commentary by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on Environment Aotearoa 2015

Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Climate change and agriculture: Understanding the Biological greenhouse gases

Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Investigating the future of conservation: The case of stewardship land, Update report

Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Inquiry into aspects of Auckland Council’s Westgate/Massey North town centre project

Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Local Government: Results of the 2015/16 audits

Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Taonga of an island nation: Saving New Zealand’s birds

Report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Briefing on the Independent Review of Māori Commercial Fisheries Structures Under the Māori Fisheries Act 2004

Report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Briefing on the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill

Report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Inquiry into whanau access to and management of Tupapaku

Report of the Officers of Parliament Committee on the Briefing on the Controller and Auditor-General

Report of the Primary Production Committee on the Briefing from New Zealand Beekeeping Incorporated

Report of the Primary Production Committee on the Briefing on the connection between international consumers and New Zealand producers

Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Activities of the Regulations Review Committee in 2017

Report of the Social Services Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Ministry of Social Development: How it deals with complaints

Report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders

Report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Inquiry into the future of New Zealand’s mobility

Report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Immigration New Zealand: Delivering transformational change

Special report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill, te reo Māori version

and that the following bills be reinstated before the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee:

Consumer Guarantees (Removal of Unrelated Party Lender Responsibility) Amendment Bill

Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill

and that the following bill be reinstated before the Education and Workforce Committee:

Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

and that the following bills be reinstated before the Finance and Expenditure Committee:

Friendly Societies and Credit Unions (Regulatory Improvements) Amendment Bill

Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017-18, Employment and Investment Income, and Remedial Matters) Bill

and that the following bill be reinstated before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee:

Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill

and that the following bills be reinstated before the Governance and Administration Committee:

Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2)

Thames–Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill

and that the following bills be reinstated before the Justice Committee:

Arbitration Amendment Bill

Courts Matters Bill

Crimes (Increased Penalty for Providing Explosive to Commit Crime) Amendment Bill

Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill

Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill

Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill

Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill

and that the following bills be reinstated before the Māori Affairs Committee:

Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill

Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill

Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill

and that the following bills be reinstated before the Primary Production Committee:

Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill

Racing Amendment Bill

and that the following bills be reinstated before the Social Services and Community Committee:

Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill

Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill

and that the following question of privilege be reinstated before the Privileges Committee:

Question of privilege on the action taken by Maritime New Zealand in relation to the managing director of Maritime Management Services Ltd following her giving evidence to the Regulations Review Committee

and that the following business currently before select committees be reinstated and allocated to a select committee by the Clerk:

Inquiry referred to committee

Review of the operation of the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015

International treaty examination referred to committee

International treaty examination of the Multilateral Convention to Implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting

New Zealand Bill of Rights reports referred to committees

Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the End of Life Choice Bill

Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Local Government (Freedom of Access) Amendment Bill

Petitions referred to committees

Petition 2011/51 of Andrea Newman

Petition 2014/30 of Jenn Hooper

Petition 2014/60 of Andrew Mark Judd

Petition 2014/64 of Paul Thomas and Andrew Peters on behalf of Families of the Forgotten Fallen

Petition 2014/69 of Wiremu Demchick and 2,111 others

Petition 2014/76 of Catherine Delahunty

Petition 2014/78 of Grant C West

Petition 2014/89 of Corinda Taylor on behalf of the Life Matters Suicide Prevention Trust and 1,740 others

Petition 2014/91 of Garth McVicar on behalf of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Petition 2014/94 of Aaron Cross and 129 others

Petition 2014/98 of Samantha Lenik

Petition 2014/102 of Nicole Thornton

Petition 2014/105 of Judy Richards

Petition 2014/112 of Dr David Clark MP

Petition 2014/114 of Kyleisha Jade Foote

Petition 2014/117 of Andy Espersen and 261 others

Petition 2014/119 of Bob McCoskrie and 22,334 others

Petition 2014/121 of Tara Jackson on behalf of the New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society and Helping You Help Animals

Petition 2014/123 of Shelley Maree Ward and 6,258 others

Petition 2014/124 of Fadumo Aden Elmi

Petition 2014/125 of Hamish Hutchinson

Petition 2014/127 of Kristina Paterson

Petition 2014/129 of Phyl Phipps

Petition 2014/130 of Grant Robertson

Petition 2014/132 of Ian Reddy

Petition 2014/133 of Stephen Lasham on behalf of Aotea Sea Scouts

Petition 2014/134 of Lucy McSweeney

Petition 2014/135 of Ann Ruxton and 3,596 others

Petition 2014/136 of Anneleise Hall

Petition 2014/137 of Grahame John Smith

Petition 2014/138 of Grant Robertson

Petition 2014/139 of Margaret Jean Dynes

Petition 2014/140 of Kath Bier and Steve Joll

Petition 2014/141 of Catherine Wallace

Petition 2014/142 of Lauren Jack

Petition 2014/143 of Rosie McRobie

Petition 2014/144 of Sue Moroney

Petition 2014/145 of Michael Gibson

Petition 2014/146 of Tamina Kolthoff and Jessica Munn

Petition 2014/147 of Niki Bezzant

Petition 2014/148 of Danielle Mackay

Petition 2014/149 of Laura O’Connell Rapira

Petition 2014/150 of Michael Brian Arthur Clifford

Petition 2014/151 of Poto Williams

Reports of Officers of Parliament referred to committees

Report from the Office of the Ombudsman: Report on an unannounced inspection of Spring Hill Corrections Facility Under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989

Report from the Office of the Ombudsmen: Report on an unannounced inspection of Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison Under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989

Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Commentary on He Tirohanga Mokopuna: 2016 Statement on the Long-Term Fiscal Position

Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Energy sector: Results of the 2014/15 audits

Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Inquiry into the Saudi Arabia Food Security Partnership

Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Managing the assets that distribute electricity

Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Managing the school property portfolio

Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Ministry of Social Development: Using a case management approach to service delivery

Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Reflections from our audits: Investment and asset management

Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, The Auditor-General’s strategic intentions to 2025

Report of the Ombudsmen, An investigation into the Ministry of Education’s engagement processes for school closures and mergers

Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Stepping stones to Paris and beyond: Climate change, progress, and predictability

and that the following petitions awaiting a government response be reinstated:

Petition 2014/15 of Anthony Roberts and 40 others

Petition 2014/51 of Gary William Roberts

Petition 2014/86 of Allyson Hamblett

Petition 2014/88 of Kim Robinson

Petition 2014/93 of David Shen on behalf of the Asian Pacific Charity Trust.

The reinstatement motion reinstates all but four of the pieces of legislation that were on the House’s Order Paper or before select committees in the last Parliament. Those bills that are not being adopted in the reinstatement motion are the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill, the Regulatory Standards Bill, the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill, and the Insolvency Practitioners Bill.

Can I, firstly, start this reinstatement motion by congratulating you as Speaker. I genuinely wanted to simply see on those Standing Orders the answers, and I know that you will be Parliament’s man. You’ll do a good job.

Can I speak and talk to what are many questions in relation to this reinstatement motion; effectively, questions about what’s in it and also what is not in it. And I seek to move a reinstatement amendment to reinstate the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill, because I think that’s an important bill, and I know you’re going to hear about that in due course from others. Can I also in that amendment seek to reinstate the Regulatory Standards Bill, because, again, I think that’s a bill that is worth it.

💬 Hon Member: Good bill.

That’s right, it’s a good bill. It achieves some good things that are not in this and that should be in it.

Look, I’d firstly make some, I suppose, procedural points about this reinstatement motion. I think it’s really important to make, firstly, actually a constitutional point—a point that I think is important in a Parliament to note—and that is: the last Parliament does not tell this Parliament what to do. And that’s why we need to do this. Actually, if you go back, I think, to the days of Muldoon, that was what happened. A motion was put at the end of a Parliament, and they were carried over—the bills. But here no longer do we do that, and I think that’s right. It’s conceptually wrong to do that, to bind one Parliament into the future.

Can I say that there are two, today, primary ways—just on the procedure of this, briefly—to do this. And, of course, what you can—I would suggest, should—do is, you should do a reinstatement motion that reinstates everything, particularly if you’ve got an Address in Reply debate later in the day, because actually it means there’s less to muck around with, and that’s the way to do it. Of course, what we’ve had here from the new Leader of the House is a situation where he has left things off rather than have them written to by the relevant Ministers, the Clerk, and of course that means that we’ve got a lot of interest in understanding why it is. Given yesterday, and some of the interest around that, I would be interested to know, actually, why the new Leader of the House did take those off—whether it was intentional to have a debate on these things, if he wants to talk about these things, or what the situation is there.

I also want to just ask some questions in relation to some of these bills and these matters that are in the reinstatement motion. I think one that’s important to talk about—it’s one when I was the Minister of Transport—is the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. It may not be a particularly high profile bill, it may not have got a lot of headlines, but it’s got some very significant things in relation to oil pollution and the issues there. Of course, I know well about that, having seen the Rena and issues as a local member of Parliament—fixed up a lot of that. So that’s an important part of the bill, given my concerns that that bill is not going to be progressed either fast enough and—actually, I wonder, given what I’m about to come to—whether it will be progressed at all in this Parliament. Because the other things in this bill—and there’s quite a myriad of things in it, but let me focus on two.

Firstly, in relation to drugs and alcohol, in a situation where in the workplace—right across transport, actually; in civil aviation, in land transport, but also in maritime—it’s dealt with specifically in this bill. In that area, my understanding is the unions oppose those clauses. They oppose what this bill is about in that area, because they don’t want to see that sort of scrutiny in the workplace. So I’m interested to know, because I think the Labour position was of that vein, whether that’s actually going to be put out through this motion, whether we’re going to see either that amendment—[Interruption]—sorry, what’s that? I can’t hear you—to this bill, or, if not the amendment then the continuance or lack of progress on the bill. I think these are things that it would be good to understand, either from the new transport Ministers or the Leader of the House.

And there’s another thing in the bill that again gives me reason to believe that, even though—because we know there are things that aren’t in this reinstatement motion: four bills. By the way, can I say on that, in relation to the two that I have not mentioned, we agree with that. We agree with that. It’s those other ones—the pay equity bill and the regulatory reforms systems bill—where we wonder what is happening there.

But back to this one. When we go through it, the other thing that is in it is a particularly interesting set of clauses around the Chatham Islands and, effectively, free cabotage and commercial freight there. While there probably is—there probably is—and to get them in and out, what this bill did was allow for competition in that freighting. Allow for competition, but again we know—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: New Zealand’s watching.

Sorry, what was that, Tracey Martin? I just couldn’t hear that?

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: New Zealand’s watching, Mr Bridges. Go right ahead.

That’s right. That’s right, and I’m just wanting to debate a reinstatement motion where a number of things are in—most is in—but there are some serious things that aren’t, and also ask some questions on some bills where I know that the position of the now Government, the then Opposition, was opposed to but yet they have reinstated. Clearly, they are not taking the position that I would have thought was the smart one, which is to do away with them by letters to the Clerk, so that it is in here. I just want to know, actually, is there a seriousness of intention of progressing it, given they opposed it before?

That other piece, as I say, is the Chatham Islands and that issue there where we were, under this bill, given issues—actually, the Hon Annette King raised it with me, because she was concerned about it; she couldn’t get her colleagues in the Labour Party on board, but she was concerned about it—that meant we were opening up for competition. But the unions—I think the Maritime Union, I think a number of other ones—were dead opposed because they saw it as potentially opening up competition internationally. So I do want to know on that whether that bill that is there—curious, given their opposition to it—is going to be continued in this Parliament; not only just seriously but seriously continued? Or are they going to take out some of those bits and just leave sort of the bare bones, really, of—I don’t know. Is it the drug and alcohol provisions by themselves, is it the oil pollution provisions, or is it all of these? So it would be interesting to know that.

I also think one thing that has gone through is an inquiry into the new mobility—I want to say, I do want to understand on that; really, it would be interesting—from James Shaw, Leader of the Green Party as a Minister outside of the Cabinet but really part of the Government, whether he is serious about that. Because I know in that area we did a lot of work in electric vehicles; a huge amount going on. And the rhetoric from the Greens has been that they will increase that, that they will continue to do that. Actually, we had a wonderful policy into the election to significantly increase the transport fleet in this area for Government: more electric vehicles. That’s being kept, so I am particularly interested in knowing about that.

So we’ve got a number of questions. Can I sum it up this way, both in relation to what isn’t here—and, as I say, I am moving that amendment to see two of those reinstated; significant bills—pay equity, but also in regulatory systems, bills that we think should be progressed. But also, with what is there, given the opposition—particularly those bills I mentioned; they’re the ones I am interested in—whether they will be continued. I note that when this came up in 2008, Michael Cullen and a number of other senior figures spoke and they made quite clear that it would be ridiculous to shut down this sort of debate, because it’s important there are those serious questions at a change of Government, where some equivocation is made, and that these sorts of questions are put at the start of Parliament like this.

I note, Mr Speaker, without drawing you into the debate, that you were one of those speakers. You made quite clear that several hours were necessary for the debate. That’s what you said in 2008, Mr Speaker. So I do think there are serious questions in relation to what’s there, but also what is not.

No, will members resume their seats. I’m on my feet. I’m just waiting for Mr Bridges. I thought the member purported to move an amendment.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I’m sorry, Mr Speaker. I move an amendment.

You’ve got to table it.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Yes, I’m going to do that.

Well, I’m waiting for you. Members will settle down please. Thank you.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I move, That the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill be reinstated.

The question was that the motion be agreed to; since then the Hon Simon Bridges has moved an amendment that the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill be reinstated. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the amendment. The Regulatory Standards Bill is an important part, or at least could be an important part, of New Zealand’s constitutional infrastructure, and I’m pleased that my colleague from the National Party has moved that the bill be reinstated. But I was a little surprised to hear the enthusiasm from his caucus colleagues saying that it was a good bill, because if it’s such a good bill, perhaps we could have advanced it up the Order Paper a little bit more in the past six years. Indeed, this bill has been sitting where it is on the Order Paper for so long that it is in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide, who hasn’t been here for 11 years.

But I have to say with some sorrow that sometimes the greater tragedy of the fifth National Government is not that it lost power but that we didn’t use it when we had it. This bill should be part of our statutes, and I hope that this Government will reconsider its position on the bill and advance it up the Order Paper. The way that members might like to think about it is like this: we have constitutional infrastructure in this country that arrived a little bit late in our history. The Labour Party—through the Constitution Act, for instance, and through the Public Finance Act—has played an honourable role in bringing about some of that belated constitutional infrastructure. We now have pretty good rules on our statute book when it comes to spending—when it comes to having fiscal updates at each Budget, and twice a year otherwise, before elections. Those are things that are important to our being a modern and sophisticated democracy. We have, through many of our statutes—for instance, the State-Owned Enterprises Act, which is also a Labour Party legacy, I might remind the members—pretty good rules around Government ownership—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am now going to ask the member to narrow his speech to the matter before the House, and that is the amendment. It is not an opportunity for a writing of the history of economic policy in New Zealand.

I was just coming to the end of that particular part of my address. But, if you will allow me, the significance of the Regulatory Standards Bill is that it does fit into that history, and that is a history that the Labour Party made a pretty good contribution to some years ago. The one area where we don’t have a good set of rules in our statutes is around the role of Government as a regulator. As a spender—pretty good rules. As an owner—pretty good rules. But as a regulator, it is still the wild west out there.

I happen to be a former Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regulatory Reform, which is my answer to the question “Tell us something about you that nobody knows.” frequently, but in that time we sought to put some of the principles that the Regulatory Standards Bill would bring into statute into the conventions of lawmaking in New Zealand. In fact, members who have entered Government will discover we installed some of them into the Cabinet Manual, which will be, hopefully, a welcome surprise for certain members and the schemes that they have. The reason that we did that is that it is not the amount that Government owns or the amount that Government spends that puts the most urgent impact on New Zealanders, but the way that Government regulates. Take, for example, something that might sound as innocuous as the Santa parade in Greytown, scheduled to take place in a couple of weeks’ time. I had the pleasure of speaking to the organiser of this Santa parade, who tells me it takes six weeks to organise. Two weeks are to contact the people, ask them to do the floats, arrange the order, and have everybody ready to go. The other four weeks are required for compliance issues for just about every matter—who has the food stalls, who is allowed to enter the road, who the marshals are—and each and every one has a fee imposed by local government. That is the source of real irritation from councils and other government departments to everyday New Zealanders.

It also lies at the heart of frustrations in just about every sector. We just heard in the Speech from the Throne that the Government seeks to allay bureaucracy in the education sector. They feel, and it’s something that is reflected in the feedback you get from many a teacher in our education sector, that teachers have to spend far more time explaining and complying than they do performing the real transaction of teaching kids. The ACT Party, of course, has a solution to that, but sadly the Government does not seem so enamoured of it. Nevertheless, in education it’s an issue. The Government wants to make most of its emphasis on housing, and so it should, but the fact of the matter is that the main issue in housing is that we are building half as many homes per capita as we were in the 1970s. Phil Twyford, he knows this—he knows—and the reason is not that we have somehow forgotten the technology that allowed us to build homes back then. It is not that we somehow have less land in New Zealand. The country is the same size—

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: Submit your Labour Party membership application now.

Well, I’m a little bit too intelligent for that, Mr Clark, but I’ll try my best. But the fact of the matter is that the real problem we have is the fact that there is far too much red tape and regulation, made by a series of Governments, that prevents New Zealanders from getting on with the real business of building businesses, homes, and families. They are hamstrung by too much red tape and regulation, often passed by this Parliament and the departments that we are supposed to hold to account.

So what would the Regulatory Standards Bill do about this predicament, this swarm of red tape and regulation that holds back New Zealanders in so many areas, from the classroom to the construction site to the Santa parade on the main street of Greytown? This bill would put in place a series of statutorily required tests on new regulations and new legislation, tests that should be commonsensical and second nature to anybody in the business of making dollars, who should be saying if we’re going to make the law, what is the problem definition. And the problem for Government officials can’t just be “The Minister wants us to do this.” They have to identify an actual market failure. For instance, they have to show that the game theory outcome of natural interactions is not Pareto optimal, or, in simpler language for some of the Labour members and the newer ones, you have to make sure that when all people do what is in their own perceived best interests, the result for everybody in aggregate is suboptimal. Problem definition is the beginning of proper lawmaking, and it’s required under statute by the Regulatory Standards Bill.

You see Clayton Mitchell out there—he is absolutely flabbergasted. He has never heard of “Pareto optimal” before. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that we need, having defined the problem, to produce a series of options and assess them using proper cost-benefit analysis. That is the second thing you do. If you have got a number of solutions for solving a problem, then surely the thing to do is to compare them on some principle basis. That would be required by the Regulatory Standards Bill.

But you might also want to ask yourself a number of questions about whether a particular regulatory initiative contradicts the principles and standards that New Zealanders hold dear. We just had our Parliament commissioned and heard our Speech from the Throne, presided over by a number of officers from the judiciary. The Regulatory Standards Bill asks whether a particular regulatory initiative contradicts the requirement that we respect the rule of law. It asks that we have our property rights respected. It asks that we have our freedom to trade respected.

These are things that should be on the statute book, alongside the very good constitutional frameworks this country has for Government owning things and spending taxpayers’ money. The Regulatory Standards Bill, sadly, has not made any progress in the past six years, but I’d put it to the new Government that it might be worth keeping around, because I know that a number of members of the new Government are sitting there internally nodding away. They know exactly what I mean, and they believe that this amendment should stand so the Regulatory Standards Bill can remain on the Order Paper for progress in sunnier times. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Can I begin this afternoon by congratulating you, Mr Speaker, at the first opportunity upon your taking the Chair, and assure you that I do respect the long history that you have in this House, and that’s not meant to be in any way derisory. It is a compliment, and I am sure that you will, as you have sort of started today, put your own mark on the way the House operates, and I wish you well in that.

It really surprises me, having listened to the Speech from the Throne and the very condemning tone of anything the past Government did, that we’ve got any legislation from the past Parliament being carried over at all. It seems to me that it would’ve been far more exciting if the whole Order Paper had been dispensed with and the 100-day programme laid out in front of the House so that the excitement that is non-existent on the faces across the other side might actually get a little bit of a lift.

I want to particularly ask a question at the start as to why the Leader of the House suggested that the Insolvency Practitioners Bill was being dispensed with when it is actually still on the list here? We’re not unhappy about that. We think it’s a good piece of legislation that should pass. I want to congratulate Mr Seymour for the commentary that he has just given the House, and I have to say to him that had his argument been so compelling a few months ago, it may well have passed. But there you are! It’s amazing what a new seat in this place will do for someone.

Then there is, of course, the commentary in the Speech from the Throne about the need to do something about pay equity in this country. Well, that’s something that I think can be easily supported, provided the provisions of it are going to be reasonable on those who have to actually work—to produce—to be able to make those extra payments. But it seems odd then that you would take a pay equity bill off the Order Paper without having anything to work on. Given that the whole Order Paper wasn’t dispensed with because there is not a lot of legislation to come in that 100-day plan, I would’ve thought the Government may have considered leaving this bill here as a base to work on.

And that really brings me to the most surprising thing here at all, and that is that the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill is still on the Order Paper. This is a bill that creates the ocean sanctuary in the Kermadecs, a very large area, internationally supported. New Zealand was lauded for making the initial indications that we wanted to turn it into a sanctuary. It was not supported in the last Parliament sufficiently. It could have gone through had the then Labour Opposition decided that they were going to support it, but, no, they didn’t. So what we now have is a situation where there are enough votes in this House to pass this bill, but we have a Government holding it on the Order Paper so it never comes up. It’s going to end up being a bill pretty much like that Rodney Hide bill that we heard about before, which will sit there for years and years, or for as many years as New Zealand First is part of the Labour coalition. I’ve got to ask the Green Party why they want to support that. If the Green Party seriously think a Kermadec sanctuary is a good idea, then why support a motion that ensures that it will never ever come before the House in this term?

I see a Green member down there shaking her head. I need to tell her how it works. As long as this bill is here in this shape, no member’s bill can trump it. So there is no other opportunity for the Green Party to get a sanctuary in the Kermadecs if this bill stays here, because the New Zealand First Party don’t like it, because the Māori caucus in the Labour Party don’t like it, but the National Party and the Green Party could’ve achieved it quick smart in a lot sooner than a hundred days.

If you think about how all these things operate in this Parliament—I think people need to know what the mechanism is. It could have been an easy thing for the Government to do, rather than picking out four bills that they don’t want to progress, to have actually taken the whole lot through, and then there would be nothing for us to debate about. There would be no question that needed to be asked in the House or a question that required debate in the House. As a prominent member of this House has said in the past, these are matters that should be debated. All that would have been required was for a Minister to write to the Clerk saying that they wish to discharge the bill and they’re gone—no debate. They’re gone. And it’s the Government’s programme.

So we are really quite perplexed as to why the Government has decided to take this course of action today. But we’re happy to be able to talk about a number of the things that are on here. I’ve just mentioned the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill, which we found strange that it’s still there. One of the things that’s been taken off is the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill. We are just wondering: does that mean that unregulated health supplements, which can cause a lot of problems, as you know, Mr Mitchell, will continue to be illegally sold? We want to make some conditions—or the bill wanted to make some conditions—that would enable the legal sales of genuine supplement products and also regulate those products. And I’ve only got to look at the gym bunnies on the other side of the House—Mr Jones, I know that when you take that supplement in the morning—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think that’s going a little bit far.

You’re quite right, Mr Speaker; I’ve certainly never seen him there. The point is, though: why would you take away a piece of legislation that will give people a degree of certainty about what’s in the product they’re consuming, which they believe to be healthy? There is a little inconsistency there, and particularly when you consider, from the Speech from the Throne, that there is now going to be quite an emphasis on encouraging the public of New Zealand to vote positively in the marijuana referendum that comes in the next three years.

My final comment would be on the extraordinary decision to remove the income tax sharing bill. If you think about how that works—and you have got a Speech from the Throne that talked about people paying the right amount of tax, a reasonable amount of tax—what that bill set out to do was enable people to split their income in a household where there was only one income. So the situation would be that they got a better picture, taxation-wise. I hope that the Leader of the House is able to indicate that this will be a matter for this outside pressure group who are going to advise the Government on how taxation should be, firstly, legislated for and then administered in this country. It’s not something that should be laughed at. I’ve got to say that there would be a lot of—

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: You’re the one we’re laughing at—you didn’t even laugh at it; you did nothing with it.

Well, no, I’m quite sure that there are a lot of families who would have benefited from this, and I can’t understand why it is that a Labour Government that is so keen on social equity wants to dispense with a bill that would enable that in a very quick smart order. It would, in fact, make quite a difference to numerous family incomes.

We spoke before about the process that’s getting used here, and I want to once again make the point that this is a debate that is clearly important to the Government and, therefore, should be given the time that the Government sees is necessary, because it’s a debate they need not have had. Had they simply used the process that would enable Ministers, through Cabinet, to make a decision to remove bills from the Order Paper, we wouldn’t be here right now.

Mr Speaker, while you may have a different view, sir, I can tell you that the substance of it would not have required the debate time that the Government clearly thinks is necessary, because of the way in which they have gone about this particular process. If there is some reason that we are not aware of that means that the pay equity bill has to go off the Order Paper, that means that the regulatory standards bill is not important to this Government and goes off the Order Paper, that the concept of knowing what’s in health products is not important to this Government and goes off the Order Paper, and that the taxation income sharing bill is of no interest to this Government despite the fact that they are going to get an outside body to come up with all the recommendations about future taxation, then I think there is an obligation to tell the people of New Zealand why those bills are not there.

But I do congratulate them for keeping the vast majority of the excellent legislative programme set down by the former Government. I know it will form the core of their work for some months to come.

I move, That the question be now put.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Mr Speaker.

Ah—[Gown slips from shoulders]—whoops! We’ll get that sorted out. Members will be able to tell that I was one of the generation that didn’t bother going to their graduations. I will work out how to put the gown on eventually.

Thank you very much for the call, Mr Speaker, and, as other members have done, can I begin by congratulating you, sir, on your election as the Speaker of the House. I know you will do the role well, and I look forward to working with you. Can I also congratulate the Deputy Speaker, Anne Tolley, who will do an outstanding job, and our two new Assistant Speakers from the Labour benches.

It is my first opportunity to speak, of course, on this first day in the 52nd Parliament, and it is a pleasure to be back. I can tell you that on this side we’re relishing the opportunity to be a strong and effective Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and I can assure this House that we will be fulfilling that role with some vigour as we hold the Government to account every day of this term.

The point on the reinstatement motion that I particularly did want to speak on and spend some time addressing, because I think it is a critical issue that deserves the debate of the House, is the removal of one of the pieces of legislation in particular, and that is the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill. I find it quite staggering, in the face of all of the multitudes of pieces of legislation on the Order Paper that Labour have spent many years opposing, and the New Zealand First Party have spent many years opposing, and the Green Party have spent many years opposing—so many pieces of legislation that they clearly oppose—that they would reinstate all of those but the one bill that sets out to eliminate and prevent discrimination on the basis of sex and help women get a fair deal in the workplace. That is the piece of legislation they want wiped. That is the one piece of legislation, of all of the bills they opposed, that they want wiped off the Order Paper in this House.

I do think it is important that the Government explain to the people of New Zealand why it is that they think that returning women to having no process to address their grievances—no clear structure to work their way through—and throwing them back into the morass, the uncertainty, the cost, and the delay of having to go through the courts, as the TerraNova case did, before they can make any progress at all, is a good idea. There’s been no word from them on that. Nothing in the Speech from the Throne talked about how they would replace it. Nothing sent any signal to the women in New Zealand about why throwing them into the uncertainties of the 1972 legislation is a good thing.

I think that the Government needs to tell the people of New Zealand, and the Leader of the House needs to address, why this piece of legislation is being wiped—not amended, not changed, not adjusted to fit the Government’s programme; they have that ability if they want to. This is a piece of legislation that was introduced in August of this year. It has been to a select committee. It is back before the House, and the Government has every opportunity to amend it if they are not happy with the crafting of it. That would give women a giant step forward in knowing how to address these pay claims with some certainty.

I do think we need to reflect to understand the context of the point I am making. This came from, of course, the TerraNova case. The TerraNova case spent 3½ years in the courts just to get to the point to decide that section 9 of the Equal Pay Act applied not only to equal pay for equal work—which is how it had been broadly understood to work for many, many years. After 3½ years the court was able to reach the one determination that not only did that Act apply to equal pay for equal work but also—and quite newly in the way most people understood it—that it applied to pay equity claims.

After 3½ years the court hadn’t even been able to get to the process of understanding whether that claim in particular had merit; if it did have merit, how you’d go about addressing it; how on earth you’d even start to understand which industries were comparable for the purposes of pay equity; how you would work through that process; and how the rights of the applicants would be protected.

This legislation is all about setting up those frameworks so that women who aren’t getting fair pay and aren’t getting appropriate pay and pay equity can address that without having to go through years and years in court to try to get that resolved. Again, let me just remind this House—because this is a critical decision we’re making here on the rights of women—that after the decision on the TerraNova case came out in 2014, the previous National-led Government did two critical things. The first was that we settled with the workers, through a long process of discussion and agreement—a $2 billion settlement that benefited 55,000 workers—but, critically, we also set up a joint working group to understand and to work on an agreed basis, chaired by now Governor-General Dame Patsy Reddy, to look at how these questions should be addressed. We understood that if it took 3½ years just to know that that Act applied, trying to get all of this resolved through court processes was an incredibly unfair burden to put on applicants, so the Government set up the joint working group.

That working group worked right across all stakeholders to come up with a framework that made sense, so that, actually, rather than having to approach each of these cases through a grievance methodology, it could be a normal employment bargaining approach, where any worker, group of workers, or organisation representing workers who felt aggrieved could go straight to the employer and start from a bargaining position and not have to rush off to court. Why would you not want to start, in the first instance, with the employees and the employers talking and seeing if they can resolve it? Why wouldn’t you start there?

What the Government is doing with this motion is compelling every hard-done-by woman, every underpaid woman, to go to court—get a lawyer and go to court—because we have removed the one piece of legislation that gave them the chance to actually have a process where they could work through this in a fair and reasonable way.

And this is from a Government that is quite happy to reinstate any number of pieces of legislation they don’t agree with, but when it comes to giving women the right to resolve their cases—why wouldn’t they just amend what is already there? If they don’t like it, amend it. But no, no, they’re going to wipe it. They’re going to start again with no indication whatsoever how that’s going to work, how they’re going to deliver it, and nothing at all in the Speech from the Throne to give women any indication of how that’s going to work.

I just can’t understand why a Government would do that, and we’ve heard nothing from them. I think the public of New Zealand deserve to know. If you’re getting rid of this legislation, why do you think it’s acceptable—you’re not doing it any time soon—to take this issue back years and not give people an opportunity and a process and a clear framework for making these decisions? We’ve heard nothing. We’ve heard absolutely nothing, and I think the Government and the Leader of the House need to tell those women why suddenly they’re not going to be able to progress the claims that actually a lot of work went into, through workers groups, through unions, through employers’ representatives, through that joint working group.

This was not a decision of the National Government; this was us accepting every recommendation of that joint working group because lots of people put hundreds of hours into making this work, and the Labour Government just want to scrap it. Now, I appreciate that they’re not going to agree with everything we did; that’s perfectly appropriate. But they could change it. Why would you go to square one? Why wouldn’t they simply use a Supplementary Order Paper process to adjust the framework to one that they are happy with?

They haven’t done it. It’s an outrageous attack on the rights of those women to be able to start a process with a clear framework. Instead, the message from this Government to the underpaid and the discriminated-against women in New Zealand is: “Go to court. We’re not going to help you. Go to court, get a lawyer, settle in for a long wait, because you’re not going to know where it’s going to go and we would rather impose all of that cost on women, on workers, on the underpaid who have been discriminated against in New Zealand than give them a process, give them a clear framework.”

I just think it’s outrageous, and I couldn’t sit through this reinstatement debate and not put to this Government that they do need to tell the public of New Zealand why they’re not capable of amending a very good framework. If they don’t like it, they can change it, but instead they’ve chosen to wipe it, scrap the process, ignore the joint working group, and leave the women of New Zealand with no idea how they’re going to go forward from here and no idea when this will come up in the Government’s agenda—and a long period of time to now develop whatever the Government are going to come up with, if anything. For all we know, they’re just going to stick with the Equal Pay Act of 1972 and leave it all to the courts to work out.

I don’t think that’s good enough and I don’t think it’s appropriate that the Government would simply put up a procedural notice of motion on the first day of this House without a word of explanation about how this going to help the women of New Zealand, because it quite simply won’t.

💬 Hon Member: Mr Speaker?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I can hear the member, but the Hon Judith Collins has been calling for longer.

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. Isn’t it wonderful to have such a wonderful fan base? And who said I can’t reach across the aisle? Mr Speaker, let me congratulate you on your election to Speaker. Can I also congratulate the Deputy Speaker, the Hon Anne Tolley, and the two new Assistant Speakers. I think it’s great, Mr Speaker, that you want us to be kinder and more caring, because everybody knows that there’s no one more kind and caring than me. And I expect I’ll continue to be kind and caring towards the Government, because, quite clearly, they’re going to need a bit of kindness and a bit of caring; a bit of pastoral care.

Because if I look at this notice of motion about what is being continued, all I can see is a Government not ready to govern. I see a Government that does not have its own legislation. I see a Government that is desperate to keep in such fabulous bills as the Autonomous Sanctions Bill. Everybody, in the election campaign, was waiting for that one. They were also desperate for the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill—what an amazing bill! The Food Safety Law Reform Bill—well, I’m sure that’s very worthy, but what I think is missing is, of course, the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill.

All the way through the election campaign, when did we ever hear any of these three parties forming a Government say that they were going to be against employment pay equity and equal pay? When? When did they promise that? Having just heard the Speech from the Throne—which I thought was an amazing rendition of, basically, a wish list for utopia, because clearly New Zealand has been a terrible, ravaged country where nobody’s fed and no one’s got a house and it’s all so difficult. But, actually, what I didn’t hear, I didn’t hear about world peace from the Speech from the Throne, and I particularly didn’t hear that this Government no longer believed in the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill.

This bill is not just a bill that’s been languishing on the Order Paper—not at all. This is actually quite a recent bill, brought in by my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, by the National Party, which was then in Government along with the ACT Party and other parties. What actually happened was that we had, after two years of work, through a working group with unions, with employers, with people who just work as employees, and businesses—we had all of that, and we came up with recommendations that our Government, when we were in Government, accepted all of. So that bill is not just, as I said, languishing on the Order Paper. It was actually sent by this House in the previous term of Parliament to a select committee, and that point hasn’t been made: it’s actually been referred to a select committee. There have been submissions that have been sent in—asked for; sent in—on that bill.

And so what this new Government is now saying to the women of the world working in areas where they may not be equally paid—or, certainly, their work not valued equally. As someone who has spent most of my life working in male-dominated work—except, of course, here, because nobody thinks that this place is a male-dominated place—what I’ve learnt is that you’ve got to have a working relationship with an employer in order to bring about change but also to give to employees the right to ask. I understand that Labour, in opposition, didn’t like the thought that an employee could go and talk to their employer themselves. What they wanted is for Mr Andrew Little’s mates to have to go in there to heavy the employer. My answer to these people is—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

—New Zealand is a place of small business. Small businesses do not expect to have a big union boss coming in to tell them what to do in their workplace, but they should, I have to say, start to get used to that concept. Most people working in New Zealand are working in small businesses. So you’re talking about people in one-, two-, three-, four-person businesses, not great big public service organisations who have the ability to stand up against a union, to be able to foot it foot-to-foot with the union, and to actually stand up for their rights as well and to keep their business going. And that’s one of the problems with the Labour Government: they don’t understand that most business is small business.

I’d like to hear what New Zealand First thinks about this. They’ve been trotting around the regions trying to be the party of the regions—I have to say, the regions didn’t vote for them and they rejected them soundly; and very good, the regions—but, actually, they need to answer why is it that they want to give all this power to unions, and at the same time say to the women employed in the businesses, “Actually, you can’t make decisions about yourself; you can’t do anything. You can’t stand up to your employer, you can’t go and speak to them without going to court, without getting a lawyer, without getting a union involved.”

Why can’t these women make up their own minds and go and speak to their employers themselves, with support, in order that they can actually determine their own outcomes and lives? Why are we going down this track, from a Labour Government, of having a paternalistic attitude towards women? Women are not children—not unless they’re under 16. They’re not children, and should not be treated like that. Actually, most people in business should be able to have a relationship with their employers and their employees that enables them to discuss these matters.

You shouldn’t have to, as an employer, disclose all of the income of all of your other staff in order to justify their pay. That is a massive breach of privacy, and it is something that people shouldn’t have to do in small businesses. It is not OK for that to happen.

It is also not OK for an employer to have to justify every single reason why somebody is paid one salary and another paid another, because it can actually be incredibly demotivating for someone to find out that they didn’t have particular skills in a particular area or that they couldn’t actually come out with the outcomes for clients. Those are the sorts of things that a small employer can sit down with an employee and talk about, but without a great big union thug standing over them, pushing them around, picketing them, destroying their businesses—because that’s exactly what the Labour Government wants.

Why is it that New Zealand women are now going to be asked to wait for years more for the new legislation to come into the House? It’s taken two years of intensive negotiations and intensive consultation right across New Zealand, right across business, right across employers, and with the unions as well—it’s taken two years. And what we’re seeing today is that this new Labour-led Government—this Labour - Greens - New Zealand First Government; this new Government—is happy to say to New Zealand women, “Go take another two years, honey. Go take another two years because you’re not going to be man enough to stand up for yourself.” That’s what they think about New Zealand women. Well, I’ve got something to say to that Government—that Government—and it is this: New Zealand women will stand up for themselves. They don’t have to be treated like children, and they are quite capable of talking to their employers. And, actually, the day that employers and employees stop talking is the day that the business starts to break down.

I actually think that these Labour Government members do not understand that employers do not have little horns on their heads. They’re trying to actually make the profit that pays the taxes that, as we’ve heard from the Speech from the Throne today, are all about taking money off people who earn it—taking money off people who dare to make profit—taking money so it can be spent.

One thing I’d say, just to end, is that my colleague the Hon Steven Joyce was quite wrong when he talked about the $9 billion fiscal hole. He should have said the $30 billion fiscal hole, which is what I saw today.

I move, That the question be now put.

💬 Hon Members: Mr Speaker!

Yelling at me doesn’t help, Dr Smith. I must say that I am quite tempted, but I think we’ll have a contribution from the learned former Attorney-General.

Mr Speaker, can I begin by congratulating you and making a few observations. I am delighted that you’ve resisted the temptation to acquire from the Rt Hon David Carter that very odd fur thing and that you’re wearing a black gown. I do think that now that the Chief Justice has ditched her full-bottomed wig in favour of that rather odd outfit that the Supreme Court judges were wearing today, you should borrow her full-bottomed wig, because I think you would look very distinguished. I also observe I’m delighted that you’ve changed the Speaker’s procession back to what it was in the old days.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Not quite.

Well, I certainly hope you will. But other than that I won’t make any further nice comments, because if I made too many nice comments about you, Mr Speaker, you’d know I was being insincere and you’d refer me to the Privileges Committee.

But I’m very interested in one piece of legislation that I hadn’t expected to be reinstated—but it has been, and I would be very grateful to hear from the Leader of the House about the future disposition of the bill—and that is Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, because when the 51st parliament came to an end in August, that bill was in its committee stage. There are about 16 parts of the bill; I think we had debated about eight, and I’m hoping that the opposition to the bill was, if you like, political theatre rather than substantive opposition. Certainly the former New Zealand First member of Parliament Pita Paraone observed to someone that he thought it was a good bill but the opposition was political, and I certainly hope that is the case, because I say to this House, and to the Government in particular, that this represents the most fundamental reform of Māori land for many, many generations.

There was a Ministry of Primary Industries report that said if we can get the legal settings right for Māori land, then it is potentially worth $8 billion to the Māori economy. Even if it was only worth $4 billion, it would be worth the effort. That is why, at the request and the urging of the late great Api Mahuika of Ngāti Porou, as Associate Minister of Māori Development I began the process of reform and we established a group of experts, including the now Governor-General. There were any number of hui and consultations around the country. Almost unbelievably, there were about seven or eight exposure drafts, which I, as the former Attorney-General, approved of and there were very valuable discussions.

The fact that it’s in the reinstatement motion gives me hope, because it’s such an important topic. I would like to think that, in the words of the Prime Minister, “there could be a bipartisan approach to dealing with this issue, given that it’s so well advanced”. So I would very much like a commitment from the Government that it will be progressed. I’d like to know how fast it’s going to be progressed and what, if anything, can be done to ensure that we can get unanimity on this hugely significant subject.

Secondly, I’d like very much to know what the attitude of the coalition partner is. As I said, Pita Paraone had made that remark to someone that it was a good bill and opposition was purely political. Mr Jones, as the Minister for Regional Economic Development, has quite an exciting programme for doing all sorts of things with Māori land to help it achieve its potential. But the reality of the matter is, I can say to Mr Jones, if he wants to plant all those trees on Māori land under the current settings, he will have one hell of a problem: it won’t be possible, because the 1993 legislation is far too restrictive.

I would be most grateful to hear from Mr Jones just how he would propose to do it under the 1993 legislation, and I say to his colleagues in New Zealand First, “Now the election is over, let us forget about the purely political opposition to this bill. Let’s see what we can do to knuckle down and if it needs improvement, improve it, but none the less get it into law as quickly as possible, because it’s going to be of so much benefit to the Māori community.” When I think of what Treaty settlements have done over the last 25 years, it certainly has been a very positive development for our country, but it is nothing compared with the potential for economic development through reformed Te Ture Whenua Māori legislation.

These are important questions. As I said, when I first read the motion for reinstatement I expected to find that the Te Ture Whenua legislation would be taken from the Order Paper, so I’m really pleased it’s there. But these are critical questions that I would invite honourable members on the other side to address.

The other piece of legislation—and I say this to my successor, Mr Little—concerns the Tauranga Moana legislation. There are important overlapping claims up there, and I think he will do a good job in sorting them out. But before the election, both Ngāti Ranginui and Mita Ririnui’s iwi were very much opposed to that legislation being progressed because of what they saw as unjustified incursions into Tauranga Moana territory by Hauraki iwi. I hope that that legislation will be able to be progressed very quickly now that the election is over, and I hope that he will be able to get together with his former colleague Mr Ririnui and with Charlie Tāwhiao, who organised all sorts of protests against the Hauraki deed of settlement, so that that deed of settlement can be concluded as quickly as possible, the seven or eight deeds that are currently in the system can be concluded, and that we can then get that Tauranga legislation through the House.

So those are simply the matters that I wish to raise as a former Associate Minister for Māori Development. I have to say I invested a lot of time and effort in reforming Māori land law. I always remember my former colleague the former member for Bay of Plenty the Hon Tony Ryall, when I first raised this, saying to me, “You’ll fail. You’ll fail because everyone fails to reform Māori land law.” He was like a parrot on my shoulder.

But, I have to say, we’ve come so far. It would be a dreadful tragedy for Māori and for this House if we were unable to progress that very important piece of legislation, and I hope that, given that it is reinstated back in the committee stage, and, as I said, Part 7 or 8 has been looked at—notwithstanding all the sound and fury that took place in the period leading up to the dissolution of the 51st Parliament—we’ll be able to sit down and work this out because, as I said, I come back to two final points: first, that the 1993 legislation is not fit for purpose and, secondly, that this bill, if enacted, potentially with appropriate inputs, is worth many billions of dollars to the Māori economy. It’s worth the effort. It’s worth a bit of consultation between Government and Opposition so that this prize can be achieved for the benefit of all Māori.

Mr Speaker, can I start by congratulating you on becoming Speaker. I do want to clear one thing up. A very long time ago we were due to race each other around Lake Taupō, and I’ve never been able to say this to you, but it is not correct that I threw myself off a bicycle and broke my leg to not race you. I do know your cycling prowess, and I hope that you have the opportunity to cycle.

Secondly, can I just acknowledge what my honourable colleagues the Hon Judith Collins and the Hon Amy Adams have talked about in terms of pay equity. I was, the other day, with one of the leaders in this movement, and I think it is a very sad day that one of the first actions of our woman Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, is to remove this piece of legislation with the motion that we have before us. There have been comments made regarding the lack of women in the executive, and I just think that we should reflect on that.

The second thing, though—I do have two specific bills that I have direct questions for the Leader of the House on, and I think he needs to answer them. He is the Leader of the House, but he is also Minister of Education. My questions relate to the education portfolio. The first one is regarding the Education (Public Good not Profit from Charter Schools) Amendment Bill.

Now, just to give you a bit of context—this is a very important point. I actually believe the Government has made a significant error here. You see, in the Speech from the Throne by the Prime Minister, she was very clear. She said there would be no charter schools. Now, let’s remember what we’re dealing with here. We are dealing with a thousand children in New Zealand, some of which are our most disadvantaged children. They’ve had a history of not achieving. And we heard from the Prime Minister what a caring, kind Government she would lead, but this is one of the first acts: to, potentially, get rid of a charter school. But the question that I have for the Leader of the House is given that the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party campaigned on repealing the legislation, why do we have a bill—even though I don’t agree with this bill—that actually keeps partnership schools and amends them to be not-for-profit, because the Government’s been clear the legislation will be gone, and it feels like that would be a redundant use of the Parliament’s time, to have a bill that amends potential legislation that’s supposed to go.

So it’s either a genuine mistake, or the second option is that this is part of a secret agenda to ride roughshod over the review that the Minister has said is happening. So we had this awkward situation over the weekend whereby I had conversations with these schools who are worried sick, who found out in the paper that their schools may not go ahead. Mr Hipkins told journalist Jo Moir—a very good journalist—that they would not go ahead. They found out—they didn’t have any conversations with the Minister or the ministry, and then he backtracked. So is this legislation—and I think the Leader of the House needs to be really clear. It’s fine if he says it’s a mistake. We’ll all agree to take it off the Order Paper. But he has said there’s a review happening. This bill rides roughshod over that review, so I would like to hear from the Leader of the House.

The third option that is potentially happening here, which I think is really concerning—and I’ve had a text from one of the partnership schools just recently about this—is that this is going to be used as a vehicle before Christmas to get rid of these partnership schools without due process. The Government promised a case by case negotiation for these schools—and this is a very important procedural point. We need to understand these points from the Leader of the House, because there are those three options there.

Anyway, look, can I move on to another piece of legislation in the motion. So the other one is the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. Now, with regard to this bill, which I think has previously been in the Hon Ruth Dyson’s name, what’s very clear to me—and, again, I know the Government’s had a lot to deal with and they’re very busy and there’s just the potential that they missed this thing out, but this bill is clearly redundant. I know they weren’t watching in June, but we already have implemented, in the last Government, the code of ethics, and that was consulted with the education profession. It’s already done. So I would argue this bill is redundant, and it’s a waste of the House’s time, and we need to hear from the Leader of the House. I know that, you know, it’s been a very rushed period, but we’ve potentially not only got a bill that amends a piece of legislation that they want to get rid of, but we’ve now got a bill that is redundant. So I think we need to hear answers from the Leader of the House and the Minister of Education on these issues.

And, finally, I just want to finish on partnership schools to remind this House why it is very important to be debating this motion and this particular piece of legislation. The detail of this legislation, and the text that I just got from Vanguard Military School, is that it, effectively, is a piece of legislation for one school. Every other school does not make a profit. So what the Government is saying is that it’s a good thing to use up the House’s time for a piece of legislation that affects and wipes out one school, and I’ve just had a text from Vanguard Military School saying exactly that. The Minister is, effectively, putting up a piece of legislation, if he wants it to continue, that wipes out one school.

Why is this happening? I hope that it’s a mistake, and I hope that he can give us some clarity, because we have more than a thousand children, and their parents, who are desperate to know what is happening. We don’t know the detail of the review. We don’t know who’s doing the review. We don’t know when it will be finished. We’ve asked questions about this. We also don’t know what it means in terms of the cost to the taxpayers. These people have contracts. Not only don’t we know what the cost will be but we have members on the other side of the House who have previously made very significant, bold statements about the need for these schools to continue. This is children’s lives at risk, and they need to know. Parents are asking me. They are saying, “We’ve only got a few weeks left in the school year, and we need some form of clarity about what is happening. Are we turning up to school next year?” This is really significant for those thousand children.

So, again, I just want to finish by saying we heard from the Speech from the Throne about a kind and caring Government that wanted to combat child poverty. But one of their first acts is to put before the Parliament some legislation that wipes out Vanguard Military School and really puts at risk the futures of a whole lot of vulnerable kids.

I move that the motion now be put.

💬 Hon Members: He got it wrong.

Order! I’m on my feet. I think someone could possibly, for the member, write out the appropriate wording.

This motion before the House around the reinstatement of business is a small but important test as to the integrity of the new Government and whether it stands by what they said when they were in Opposition. I’ve reflected back on the Hansard of the motion for the reinstatement of business when Labour was in Opposition. There was a very good speech in which the members opposite, now in Government, said that it was essential—essential—that the Government put the case as to what bills were being reinstated as business. In fact, members opposite, in that debate—and I use the exact word—said it would be a disgrace, a disgrace, if the Government members were not prepared to get on their feet and justify the bills that they were wanting to have debated and those that would lapse.

I note that we have not heard a single speech from members on the Government benches as to why the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill is being rolled over, why the pay equity bill is not, and why the regulatory reform bill is not being considered. So I put it to you that on this very small first test, this Government is blowing its integrity in saying all those things it said—all those things it said—whether it be on an issue like this debate, on the issue of the reinstatement of Government business. Are we not to believe what they said when they were in Opposition? What is the Government’s explanation as to why eight speakers from Labour said previously that it was outrageous for a motion for the reinstatement of business to not be properly debated by members of the Government? Is there a single member on the Government benches that would quickly give an explanation as to why there is the change in position? The silence is deafening. There is no explanation. This is a Government that, on the very first item of business, has gone back on its word—of what is recorded in Hansard—as to what they said then were their very core values.

I think it might be worthwhile to actually read elements of the speech in which they said it was very rare, that it was inappropriate, that it was wrong for this Parliament to pass a reinstatement motion without the Government clearly putting the case. So, again, I challenge members opposite. I ask members opposite: what’s changed? What’s changed from what you said in Opposition? Or are we to find that, for all those lofty sentiments from members opposite, members of the Green Party, members of the Labour Party, and members of the New Zealand First Party are, on day one of the Government, breaking their word on the very first motion before the House? It didn’t take long. What an awful precedent for them to set on the very first debated motion—for them to do exactly the opposite of what they argued in Opposition. Are we to see the same flip-flopping on every other substantive issue? When are we going to get the flip-flop on tax? When are we going to get the flip-flop on fiscal responsibility? When are we going to get the flip-flop on the issue of education? On this motion, the very first motion before the House, we see a double standard. We see a going back on the Government’s word.

I particularly want to ask a question in respect of the important issue of the Kermadecs. I do note that that bill has been rolled over. I would love a contribution from the Green Party, which introduced the first member’s bill to this Parliament, which I compliment them on. We on this side of the House strongly support the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary. We were disappointed that the previous Parliament was not able to progress that important Government bill. I would love to hear a contribution from Shane Jones as to whether the new Government supports the Kermadec Ocean bill or what sort of sneaky deals have been done behind the bike sheds, shafting the Green Party on that Kermadec Ocean bill. That is an issue on which Mr Shane Jones and the Green Party should contribute during this motion to roll-over the House.

I think members would also want to know, with all those lofty statements around growing jobs, why the members opposite have not given one single speech, not one single word of explanation, as to why they don’t think creating jobs, reducing poverty, and growing the economy do not require a set of thought around regulatory review. Surely members opposite owe this Parliament a single speech as to why that regulatory reform bill is not being rolled over. I want to join with the very competent members on this side of the House, Amy Adams, Judith Collins, and Nikki Kaye, in challenging the Government: why is the pay equity bill not being rolled over? Surely this Parliament deserves at least one of the women Government members to get to their feet—just one—and give an explanation as to why the pay equity bill is not being rolled over in the motion to reinstate the business of the House.

What we see from this motion is an awful start by the Government, an awful disrespect to this Parliament—to not even be prepared to put up a single speaker justifying this motion, which affects over 30 bills. Again, I want to draw to members’ attention to the exact speeches that they gave and why they are going back on their word that such a motion does require an argument, and how they are setting such an awful precedent.

The very last bill I would love to get an explanation for—and I note Mr Little is in the Parliament—is the healthy homes bill. We know the heathy homes bill is being rolled over. We know it is a dog. We know that it is actually going to—[Interruption] Actually, it slows down. I would love to hear from Mr Little. Why do we want to slow down? The previous Government passed legislation that will require every home to be insulated by 1 July 2019. Mr Little’s bill will slow that down by three years. I want to know why we would want to roll over a bill that is actually going to slow down the pace at which we make homes better insulated.

Perhaps it’d be best if I just directly quoted members opposite. I read the words: “But the idea that a Government, when serious questions have been asked—some of them [the] very serious questions—” and no attempt has been made to reply, and they’ve even gone to the point of moving closure, is a contempt for the Parliament and an ineptness—an ineptness—from the Government right from the start not to respect the Parliament.

💬 Hon Member: Who said that?

Those words were in the motion to transfer business by a senior member of the House—a senior member of the Labour Party—a Mr Trevor Mallard. He said then for the Government to put a motion requiring the reinstatement of business without a single Government speech was a disgrace—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

I move, That the question be now put.

Yes, I’m quite convinced that the House is in a position—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

I hope you’re not going to test my judgment, Mr Woodhouse, because you know that you can’t.

No. I would just point out two things. Apart from the obvious energy for continuing the debate and what has so far, I think, been extremely intelligent, I was the architect of the piece of legislation—

No. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. The House is in a position to make a judgment as to whether it agrees with Mr Woodhouse and wants to hear him or not.