Plain Language Bill

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s not my style normally to be flippant about titles and commencement dates, but I’m going to suspend that principle for this flippant bill, because I think the title should be amended to “The Rort on the Taxpayer Bill.” What we just heard through the votes against my Supplementary Order Paper was that Rachel Boyack, the sponsor of the bill, does not believe her own rhetoric. She doesn’t believe the research is going to show that there is a positive cost-benefit to this bill. She doesn’t believe money will be saved. She doesn’t even believe that no extra expenditure will be required, because, if she did, she would not have opposed the change in Part 2 that stopped the taxpayer being rorted.

So let’s be honest about what this is. This is a rort on the taxpayer. It is a fraudulent, negative waste of time, and that’s another suggestion for this bill, “The Complete Waste of the House’s Time Bill.” But more than that, I think this is “The Rachel Boyack Banana Skin Bill”, because Chris Hipkins has thrown the banana skin in front of Miss Boyack and she’s going to slip up, because nobody in the spirit of lost luggage and military manoeuvres repeal, no career in this House is advanced by the sorts of nonsense legislation we are debating right now.

There are many other things I think it should be called: the “PLO Bill”. Mr Brownlee decided these plain language officers would strike terror into the hearts of public servants up and down the country. So why not use the acronym? Because PLO is a terror organisation and these people should be—I would be terrified of them if they came my way. So there are a number of ways in which we can call this what it actually is, and it’s a euphemistic waste of time and the title should reflect it.

As far as the commencement clause goes, my colleague Simeon Brown will talk about this as well, I’m sure. But we have wasted this House’s time for long enough. And as Mr Bishop said in the first reading speech, the first thing the next National Government will do, or at least it will be very high on the list of priorities, is put a bonfire under the unnecessary regulations and laws that this Government has passed. And top of that heap is going to be the Plain Language Act.

So there’s a way to avoid that even being necessary and that is to delay the commencement of the Act until 30 days after the next general election, so the Act only comes into effect if Labour forms the next Government.

💬 Hon David Bennett: No chance.

No chance. That’s quite right, Mr Bennett. But also what that will mean is this House will not need to waste another minute of its time debating this stupid legislation, even if it is to get rid of it. So let’s delay that. That will actually give—and I think Ms Boyack would agree—the 100,000-odd public servants who are terrified of the clipboard-carrying, hi-vis vest - wearing people that are going to come running around—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: The Webster Dictionary is further along.

Spoken with such ratiocination, Mr Brownlee, I must say; there’s some plain language for you. We can avoid the unnecessary bureaucracy and the waste of this House’s time by delaying the commencement of the Act when it now seems certain that it will be passed. Shame on the Labour Government for supporting this member’s bill, but we can waste no more time if we delay the date that the Act comes into effect until 30 days after the general election.

If the Labour Government is so confident in its ability to win the next general election, why would they worry about that amendment? They should support Mr Brown’s amendment as a show of confidence in their ability to be successful for a third term. And if they oppose that amendment, then the writing’s on the wall for them. They know they’re—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: You never know, eh, you know.

—on the exit queue. Mr Jackson does. A number of them are dusting off the CVs and looking on the Seek website. Poor old Mr Rosewarne—he was only here for five minutes; I’m sure he would have been a good MP. But never mind. If he’s confident, he should support Mr Brown’s amendment.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break, and the House will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Members, when we broke off for the dinner break, we were debating clauses 1 and 2.