Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill

Members, we now come to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, the title and commencement debate.

Well, I think the name of this bill should be changed to the “Crown Pastoral Land Reform (No Need to Have a Committee Stage) Bill”. It was quite clear from the Minister’s speech before—they’re rattled, aren’t they? They’re rattled. I don’t know what’s happened there. Maybe they got a bad poll, I don’t know, but they’re all a bit prickly tonight. But the Minister’s spent quite a bit of time saying there was no need to have a committee stage—no need; it comes out of the select committee and it doesn’t need to have a committee stage. And then he has the audacity to have a Supplementary Order Paper himself. Well, I know he’s not a new member, but I don’t know, do they still run those classes for new members? Perhaps we can get him a bit of a refresher so he can understand how this works. And then poor old Duncan Webb, doing the voting, getting up [Member speaks with tired voice]: “65 votes in favour.” The poor guy, he needs a bloody Red Bull to vim him up a bit, you know. I think their attitude today says it all. It’s a poor bill. It’s got a poor name, and it needs to change.

Madam Chair, thanks very much. I would like to add to that, actually, in talking about debating the name of the bill, I think an appropriate name would be “To Remove the Inherent Value From All New Zealand Farmers Bill” because this speaks to the very thing that has eroded 150 years of trust in rural New Zealand. It’s an absolute disgrace. I think it’s an apt name for it.

The question is that clause 1 stand part. All those in favour say Aye, to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. A party vote has been called for. The Clerk will conduct a party vote. [Interruption]

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. There is a prescribed way of voting in this House and I hope that’s going to be taken into account in the vote count.

Thank you for pointing that out, the Hon David Parker.