Reinstatement of Business

I move, Government notice of motion No. 4 in my name relating to the reinstatement of business.

This is a routine motion that’s moved at the start of each Parliament so that the business of Parliament can be resumed where it was left off before the election. The only exceptions are the items of business that are defunct or that need to be replaced. By convention all members’ bills are being reinstated, select committees can resume consideration of bills referred to them by the House by the last Parliament. They decide what pieces of committee-initiated legislation business they may wish to continue with.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and the National Party will be supporting the reinstatement motion moved by the Leader of the House. Can I first take this opportunity, sir, to congratulate you on your election to the role of Speaker. I’m sure you’ll continue on in the tradition that you established in the last Parliament of fairness to both sides of the House and recognising that we are in a slightly unusual situation of a—for the first time under MMP—majority Government elected in its own right without any extra support needed to get over the line on confidence and supply. And that, of course, has implications for select committees and has implications for the way in which the House operates. But I’m sure you will, as someone who is a lover of Parliament and someone who realises the important job—constitutional job—that the Parliament provides in holding the executive to account, take that into consideration. I know that that is something that you take very seriously.

National will be supporting the reinstatement motion. It’s a slightly different situation to the last Parliament. In the last Parliament, we obviously had a change of Government, and the incoming Government wished to not reinstate some items of business on to the parliamentary Order Paper. And so there was quite an extended debate at that time. Members who were here will recall some extended debate on that. National will be supporting this motion but we do wish to make a few points about some of the business that is being reinstated.

The first is that we would like to know from the Government why the Autonomous Sanctions Bill is not being reinstated on to the parliamentary Order Paper—something that sat on the parliamentary Order Paper for three years in the last Parliament with no progress being made. And we look forward to hearing from the Government as to exactly why that is.

We also welcome the chance for potential progress on the Electoral (Integrity Repeal) Amendment Bill, which was a member’s bill drawn at the tail end of the last Parliament in the outgoing Rt Hon David Carter’s name. And we look forward to the chance for the Parliament to consider that. With the departure of a longstanding member—members will know who I’m talking about—the opportunity presents itself for the new Parliament to wipe from the statute book that repugnancy to our constitution and to this Parliament. There are parties in this Parliament who have been very keen to repeal that legislation, and now they will have the opportunity; that’s being reinstated as a member’s item of business.

We look forward to the Parliament considering things like the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill, for example, which the National Party pushed hard in Opposition and was unable to make any progress on. This Parliament has the opportunity to take up that issue with alacrity and with urgency.

We look forward to the Parliament discharging the petitions on the Order Paper better. If you read through the Order Paper and the reinstatement motion, there’s an enormous number of petitions—a point that I know you, sir, Mr Speaker, have noted—and the new Petitions Committee of the new Parliament, thanks to the new Standing Orders, will have the opportunity to deal with those petitions in a more timely manner. It is, frankly, unacceptable that select committees sit on petitions for two to three years. People who petition Parliament with members of the public have a right to expect that Parliament answers those petitions in a timely manner. Two years or three years is unacceptable. The new Parliament will have an opportunity to consider that.

On a final note, the Privileges Committee will consider the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill. This is not, one would say, a particularly sexy piece of legislation. It’s not something that the public out there listening probably are too concerned about. But—and I know the Attorney-General agrees with me on this—it is of fundamental importance to the future of our constitution and our Parliament, the issue of whether or not the courts are able to issue declarations that a law passed by this Parliament, a democratically elected Parliament, is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

💬 Hon David Parker: They already can.

That’s right, and the question for the Parliament is: what does Parliament do about that in response? We’ll be considering that at the Privileges Committee and it does raise issues to do with privilege and to do with our constitution, and we will be considering that. That is not a bill that I would urge the Government to proceed with haste on. That is a bill that requires due consideration.

So we’ll be supporting the reinstatement motion and members on this side may wish to make a few other remarks. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to speak to the motion, and particularly with a view to the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill, a bill that was introduced by the Hon Jonathan Coleman in 2016 and supported by his Associate Minister the Hon Peter Dunne. I ask the question: why did this not progress in the last Parliament? What hurdles were there there that are not here now? How quickly might we expect this to progress? We know on the campaign trail it seemed to receive significant support widely across the House, and so we might reasonably expect that this will progress rapidly.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Again, we would anticipate that any hurdles they might have envisaged have now been removed. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m rising to support the motion, but in doing so, I want to particularly make comment about the lack of progress on the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill, which has been reinstated under this motion. Now, that was a piece of legislation that was first mooted way back in the 51st Parliament: talked about in 2015, introduced to this House in 2016, unanimously supported at first reading across the House, and sent to a fulsome select committee—the Local Government and Environment Committee—chaired by none other than myself. It received a very fulsome and appropriate, detailed analysis at select committee, came back for second reading, and there it has languished.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

It’s languished there, Mr Speaker.

I listened carefully to the Speech from the Throne today. I listened carefully to see whether there would be mention in the Speech from the Throne of any progress or imminent speed and haste about the Kermadec ocean sanctuary, and there was—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m now going to give the member his second and final warning. This is a very narrow question, and it’s whether or not it should be reinstated. The speed in the past and the speed in the future is not part of that, and I’m pretty sure that member knows it.

Thank you, sir. The question really is: if no progress was made in the previous Parliament, what hope and prospect is there for progress in this Parliament? I’m heartened, to a degree, that the new Government has created a Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. I hope that that Minister can give this House some degree of certainty about progress on what is an important piece of legislation that the public of New Zealand and the environmental movements and the NGOs are very keen to see progressed. It wasn’t progressed previously, and I’m hoping that we will see a degree of urgency, a degree of focus, that was not present previously.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this motion and I think it’s a very good thing that the Government is, without dispute, taking all business from the previous Parliament into the 53rd Parliament. I note a couple of issues on the Order Paper. There is one petition that stands out from all the rest because practically every petition is, I guess, précised by the number 2017, meaning that’s it from the Parliament that began in that year; there is one petition in the name of Lucy McSweeney, which has 2014 before it. Lucy is an Epsom electorate constituent who has been doggedly, determinately, and quite deftly campaigning for better attention to mental health in schools for over four years since her petition was first lodged. It’s now been reviewed by a select committee and is on the Order Paper awaiting a Government response. So I certainly hope on behalf of my constituent Lucy McSweeney that she’s going to get a fulsome and proper response from this Government, after petitioning Parliament for four years.

I would also note something about the amount of business, particularly the amount of Government bills that are being continued into this Parliament. I wonder how many of them will be progressed, because this year, for circumstances largely beyond our control in this House and around the world, the House has not sat for very many days. And yet, despite the election being behind us and the country returning to level 1, we’re scheduled really to only sit for four full days for the rest of this year, post-election. One has to wonder what the value of some of this business that the Government is bringing forward into the 53rd Parliament is if they didn’t have the alacrity to at least sit another week while most New Zealanders will still be working—

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: He wanted us to sit less! He wanted us to sit less!

—in the second-to-last week before Christmas. And I hear the barracking from Chris Hipkins; the problem is it’s his Government that is lacking the bills here and they’re going to have to come up with some new ideas.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m giving the member his final warning to get back to the subject. And I will warn the Leader of the House not to encourage irrelevancy.

I have to say that—thank you for that, Mr Speaker, and certainly, I was very focused before Chris Hipkins interrupted. I certainly hope—

💬 SPEAKER: That’s misleading.

—that the Government—ha! Well, Mr Speaker, it’s a matter of opinion and debate, and I happen to disagree with you on that one. But I certainly hope that the Government will soon augment this business brought forward into the 53rd Parliament with business that it has a greater value in and a higher priority for than it’s shown to the business that it is bringing forward for which it’s only prepared to sit four full days this year. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Speaking to the reinstatement motion, I wish to draw members’ attention to a member’s bill that is to be reinstated, and that is the Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This side of the House wishes to welcome the reinstatement of that bill and note the importance of it. That bill was introduced to this Parliament by departed member Nikki Kaye and was the result of significant consultation with apartment dwellers, body corporate managers, and others who have been affected by legislation which is no longer fit for modern purpose. I know that there are members opposite who will also welcome the reintroduction of this bill. The Hon Grant Robertson, on the campaign trail, spoke fulsomely of the need for reform in this area, and I would encourage the Government to take a constructive and pragmatic approach in progressing this member’s bill at the first opportunity, at its first reading, rather than taking an alternative, more political course of introducing their own bill.

The reason I make that argument is that this is an area that is overdue for reform. If we are to address housing—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member is now getting into the substance of the bill, which is outside the remit of this—

Sure.

💬 SPEAKER: When I stand, the member sits, and she is now on her final warning.

So I would encourage the Government to support this member’s bill, and I would just note my hope that we don’t needlessly frustrate its progress by requiring a Government bill to be introduced instead. I would note our support for progressing this constructively at select committee.

I move, That the question be now put.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, we have a very experienced member who I’m sure will be able to make a relevant contribution—more than has been the case recently.

Well, I thank you for that compliment, Mr Speaker, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you do give me some kind of warning along the way.

While the National Opposition supports the reinstatement of this business, we do express concern about the Autonomous Sanctions Bill not making the list, and the reason we do that is because New Zealand has had a strong independent foreign policy for a very long time. Certainly since 1984, it has been something that New Zealanders have been very proud of. What this bill would enable is for New Zealand to, on its own, issue sanctions where international organisations—the United Nations, particularly—have not been able to move to do so. We know that happens. Under section 41, it’s not always easy to get everyone to agree on everything, and there is, of course, the sanction on the UN Security Council as well.

So it’s a concern to us that in a week where we have seen the Government—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to interrupt the member, and I think he’ll know the reason for it. We’re debating a matter which is before the House at the moment, not a matter which is not before the House. The fact that a bill is not part of the motion is something that could have been remedied, but members have chosen not to.

Well, at this point.

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry?

At this point.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, if the member actually has an amendment that he’s speaking to, he should have moved it and tabled it.

Well, my apologies, and thank you for the instruction.

I move, That the Autonomous Sanctions Bill be added to the reinstatement motion.

💬 SPEAKER: That the reinstatement motion be amended by the addition of—

Thank you. Your words will do mine. Thank you. The reasons for it are because it enables the Government to make decisions independent of other countries. I’ll say again: in a week where we’ve seen New Zealand join with others—the Five Eyes particularly—to augment a statement that New Zealand had already made, it seems to me that without the bill on the statute book, we are abandoning our independent foreign policy status. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I’m being relatively slack here in that it hadn’t been tabled. Is there any debate on that? There is none. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

The question now is that the motion is agreed to.

Motion agreed to.