should stand. So, the regulatory standards Bill can remain on
the Order Paper for progress in sunnier
times. Thank
Order Paper for progress in sunnier
. The honourable Gerry Brownlee. Can I begin this afternoon
by congratulating
congratulating you as the first opportunity upon you taking
the chair. I 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. I'm sure that
you will, as you have sort of
started today to, put your own mark on the
way the House operates. I
wish you well in that. It really
surprises me, having listened to the speech
from the throne, and
the very condemning sort of tone
of anything the past Government did, that we've
got any legislation from the
past Parliament being carried over at
It seems to me that it would have been far more exciting if the whole
Order Paper had been dispensed with,
and the
Order Paper had been dispensed with,
in front of the House... With where is
in front of the House... With where
other side might actually get a 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 still on
the list
not unhappy. We think it is 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 his bill may
well
But there you are. Amazing what a new seat in this place will do for
Then there is the commentary in the speech about the need to do
something about pay equity in
this country. 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, give then the whole Order
Paper wasn't December penced with,
because there isn't a lot of legislation to
come in that
there isn't a lot of legislation to
have thought that 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
bill is still on the Order Paper. This is a
bill, sir, that creates the
ocean sanctuary and the determine
bill, sir, that creates the ocean
in the Kermadecs, a very large area internationally supported. New
Zealand lauded for making the
initial indications that he wanted
to turn it into a sanctuary. Not
supported in the
last Parliament. Sufficiently. Not
supported in the last Parliament.
could have gone through had the Labour Opposition then decided that
they were going to support
it.
But no, they didn't. We now have a situation where there is
enough bill in the House to pass the bill,
but we have a Government holding it on
the Order Paper so it never comes
up. It is going to end up a bill
like the Rodney Hyde
Bill that will sit there for years and years
or to as many years as New Zealand First
is part of the Labour coalition. I
have 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
Now, 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. That's right!
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
Because the Maori caucus in the Labour Party don't like
But the National Party and the Green Party could have achieved
it
sooner that 100 days. If you think about how all these things operate
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 they don't want to progress
to actually taken the whole lot
through. And then there would
be nothing for us to debate
about. There will be no question that
needed to be asked in the House or
a question that required
debate in the House. And as a prominent member of
the 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
do the Clarke saying they wish
Clerk saying they wish to discharge the bill. No debate. Gone. 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
are happy to be able to talk about a
course of action today. But we are number of the things that are on
here
number of the things that are on
Kermadec bill, which we found strange
Kermadec bill, which we found Kermadec
Kermadec bill, which we found strange that it is still
there. One of the things that's been taken
off is the health supplements bill. We
are wondering does that
is the health supplements bill. We
supplements, which can cause a lot of problems, as you know,
Mr Mitchell, can cause a
lot of
We want to make some conditions or the bill wanted to
make
That would able to legal sales of products, and also
regulate those products. I have only got to look at
the Jim bunnies on
products. I have only got to look at
the other side of the house. Mr Jones I know when you
take that supplement... Order! I think
that's going a little bit far.
Quite right. I have certainly never seen him there!
Quite right. I have certainly never
The point is why would you take away a piece of legislation
that will give people a degree of certainty
about what's in the product they
are consuming, they believe to be
there and particularly when you consider in the speech from the
throne that's 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. Then my
final comment would be on the extraordinary
decision to remove the income
tax sharing bill. If you think about
how that works
sharing bill. If you think about how
speech from the throne that talked about people paying the right amount
A reasonable amount of tax. That what bill set out to do was even
able people to split their
income in a house household where there was
only one income. So,
that the situation would be that they
got a better picture at taxation. 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 council
group, who are going to advise the
legislated for and then administered in this country. It isn't
something that should be laughed at,
I have got to say that it would be a
lot of
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 the
bill that would enable that in a
very
difference to fume rouse family incomes. We spoke before about the
process that's getting used here,
and I want 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 question bait
necessary because it's a question necessary
necessary because it's a question bait they need not have had.
To
To remove
To remove bills from the Order Paper, we wouldn't be
here right now, so, Mr Speaker, while you
may have a different view, sir, I can
tell you that this is
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.
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 the
Regulatory Standards Bill is not important to
this Government and goes off
the Order Paper, that the concept of
knowing what is in health products
is not important to this Government and
goes off the Order Paper and the
Taxation Income Sharing Bill
is of no interest to this
Government decide the fact they are
getting an outside body to come up
with the recommendations about
recommendations about future taxation, then I think there is
an obligation to tell
the people of New Zealand while 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. Clayton Mitchell. The
question now be put.
Clayton Mitchell. The question now
Oops!
We will just get that sorted out. Members will be able to tell that I
was unof a
generation that didn't bother going to their
graduations a I will work out how to
put on the begun eventually. The Hon Amy Adams.
Thank you very much for the
call, Mr Speaker. As other members have done,
can I begin by congratulating you,
sir, on your election
as the Speaker of the House. Thank you. I
know you will do the role well
and look forward to working with you and can
I congratulate the
Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley who will do
an outstanding job and the
new Assistant speakers from the
Labour benches. It is my first opportunity
to speak on the first day of the
52nd Parliament and it is
a pleasure to be back and I can