Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): If this Parliament ever needed an example to show the shambles and the incompetence of this Government it is in respect of the motion that that member Peeni Henare has just moved.Let's be clear about what the Government's doing. Firstly in the 2017 Budget our Government provided for a tax cut for all New Zealanders. That would have provided an extra $778 for every superannuitant and what the Government did was patch up and invent this winter energy payment so that they could repeal that tax cut. Just coincidentally the amount of money that New Zealanders needed to be able to be warm in winter was $778.73—exactly what they would have got in the tax cut. Then somehow they come into the Parliament as my colleague said and claim the high ground.Here's where it gets worse. When they've had nine years in Opposition to sort their policy out they fumble together this policy and they introduce a bill into the House to introduce the winter energy payment except after they've introduced the bill after it's gone to the select committee it's such a botched-up mess that they table in the Parliament a 500-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). Then the Minister—Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought I would give the speaker enough time to make his point but this is clearly in my opinion in breach of Standing Order 290(3) which states that Any debate on the question for a motion under this Standing Order is restricted to the special powers or instruction set out in the motion." I would argue that thus far Mr Nick Smith's speech—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: "Dr" to you.Kieran McAnulty: —has been a commentary of the original bill. I apologise: Dr Nick Smith. It has been a commentary of the original bill rather than speaking directly to the motion.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I think you'll also find that that's the sole decision of the Speaker. There is a little bit of latitude but this is a narrow debate as I'm sure the father of the House fully knows and he will restrict his further comments to the motion.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the extraordinary part is that the Government is saying today that the select committee should have to report back this bill by 1 April. Now that's three weeks away. The Standing Orders as you well know—Greg O'Connor: From a man who won't let the select committee do their work.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —require the normal period of six months—the normal period of six months Mr O'Connor and you want three weeks. There is a provision in the Standing Orders that says that if you really want to speed the process up you can do it in four months. Is it four months that the Government wants the select committee to do its job in? No it's three weeks. Why should this Parliament trust this Government to get it right in three weeks when they've had two cracks at it and made an absolute hash of it? The only reason we're having this debate is because not once but twice the Government has completely stuffed up the detail of the law on this winter energy payment.Now members opposite have said that this is all about making sure New Zealanders are warm. Well I say: not quite. They're saying this urgency is required because of that. Actually I haven't heard a Labour member acknowledge that there's a new law coming into effect on 1 July this year that requires every rental property to be insulated—a bill that I put through this Parliament—or that our Government insulated 430000 houses during our term in office. So let's not Mr Faafoi have a game to pretend that the issue of warming up homes is not something which members on this side of the House take very seriously.But here's the important part: the provision for Parliament to consider at select committee this bill for only three weeks is for provisions that the Government wants to apply retrospectively. Now I just heard—and you will remember Mr Assistant Speaker—that we had this long argument from members opposite just last week that retrospective law was wrong and that retrospective law that tries to patch up things in the past should not be done. Well why is it that one week members opposite say retrospective law is wrong; the next week they come into the Parliament and say "Not only is it so right; Parliament and the select committee should only have three weeks to consider the extensive retrospective provisions that are provided for in this bill."?So I say to members opposite: sorry twice bitten now shy—"twice bitten" because this is the third attempt for the Minister to get this legislation right. They got it wrong the first time because they rushed it. They got it wrong a second time because they rushed it. Why on earth should Parliament a third time then say "Well let's rush it again."? We've got such a good track record. We botched it up the first time we rushed it we botched it the second time we rushed it and now members opposite say "Oh let's rush it again because this time—this time—we'll get it right." Members on this side of the House say "You keep getting it wrong. You're not learning the lesson. You need to take the time to get this legislation correct."Then I come to the issue of what sort of public submissions process can there be if the select committee has only got three weeks. I would like the next member to say what opportunity there is going to be for the public to have a say on this quite extensive bill—it's got over 30 clauses. What possible opportunity can there be for the public to have a say if the select committee is going to have only three weeks to consider its content? For those people that are affected by the retrospective provisions is it fair for Parliament to be saying "Well you're not even going to get a chance to have a say."? So we've gone from the Government saying one week that retrospective law is bad and that you shouldn't do it to next week saying that retrospective law is so good that we should power it through in three weeks and we shouldn't even give the public a say. Do members opposite really treat the New Zealand public and this Parliament with such disdain that they will not give them an opportunity to even have a say on the bill that's patching up their botch-ups?Do you know what this is really about? This is really to try and minimise the embarrassment for the Government. New Zealanders know that they're incompetent. New Zealanders know whether it be KiwiBuild whether it be the Provincial Growth Fund that it's just one botch-up after another and so too with the winter energy payment. The reason members opposite want this bill to be considered by the select committee for only three weeks—not to have any public submissions at all not to have time for very competent colleagues like Simon O'Connor and others on the select committee to really scrutinise this bill around—is because it will only show up the level of incompetence that is exhibited in this legislation by Labour having to have a third crack at trying to get its winter energy payment law straight. Parliament shouldn't have a bar of this process. We should not be in the business of covering up mistakes that are made by Government Ministers.This bill is in the name of Carmel Sepuloni. This is a Minister that only a couple of weeks ago had to do the extraordinary part of recommitting a bill. That was after it had been through its committee stage—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah we're not doing that bill; we're looking at this bill.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We are but this Minister has got form Mr Assistant Speaker. This is a Minister that keeps botching up her laws Hon Clare Curran: How many botch-ups did you have?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: She puts it through the committee stages—I'm happy to answer the question. I've been responsible for putting 50 bills through this Parliament—50 bills through this Parliament—and do you know how many of those bills I've had to recommit because I cocked up in the committee stages? Absolutely none. The Minister in charge of this bill her very first bill stuffs it up in the committee stages and has to recommit it and that is an embarrassment. We should not be having a bar of this process that enables her to be able to continue to hide her embarrassment and her sloppy laws.The last part that I want to deal with is the issue of arrogance. During the reading on this bill did we ever hear from the Minister "I'm sorry we got this wrong. I'm sorry that Parliament is having to waste its time a third time on trying to get the detail of this legislation correct."? Was there ever an apology to the Social Services and Community Committee: "Hey I'm sorry. We botched this up. You're going to have to have a third bite at the cherry and trying to get this right."? So I say to Government members: show a little humility for your stuff ups. Come down to this Parliament—and I see Clare Curran giving me the eyeballs. She should get to her feet and say "Yes we're sorry. We're sorry that we stuffed up this law. We're sorry that there are thousands of New Zealanders that have missed out on their winter energy payment because we couldn't get the basic detail right." Members on this side of the House would take a little bit of sympathy would perhaps be a little bit more cooperative on fixing up the Labour Party's mess if it just admitted that it got it wrong that it didn't listen to National when it tabled a 500-page SOP in a mad rush because then I might be satisfied that members opposite are learning from their mistakes. What we are seeing from this Government is not just one mistake after another but complete arrogance around the dealing with those mistakes and incompetence that just has them being repeated over and over again.This Parliament should not—should not—constrain the hearing of this bill to only three weeks. We should reject this motion."