Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Those are the famous words of course from Sir Winston Churchill in 1947. The system is not perfect. However the proposed bill not only adds more red tape it actually creates a dangerous constitutional shift which we cannot support. I wholeheartedly agree with the Green member Golriz Ghahraman when she talks about the way that this bill would diminish public rights and collective rights over individual rights. Most of our kōrero in this House is about those very issues—competing rights; where do we draw the line?—and I note that Chris Penk the member opposite opportunistically used this opportunity to talk about particular lawmaking that he didn't agree with. However just tonight in this House we saw the fair residency bill which was originally introduced to the House by New Zealand First MP Mark Patterson it was in need of a fair deal of panel beating as was said by the Hon Michael Woodhouse who also sits on the Finance and Expenditure Committee with me. We did do that panel beating in select committee that is the purpose of select committee and it proves that we can get to very good outcomes through the processes that already exist.The bill that the member has put up seeks to either go along side or usurp—I can't quite work out which—the Bill of Rights which are based on human rights and Mr Penk again has talked about any right-thinking person agreeing with those principles. He also admitted that the devil is in the detail and that that would be for the courts. My point is that it is not for the courts to decide the devil in the detail. Those are matters for elected representatives not for appointed court officers. The other part that points to the danger of this bill is Mr Seymour's preoccupation with low productivity. I thank him actually the "Leader of the Opposition"—Mr Seymour—for being so up front about what he—David Seymour: Point of order Mr Speaker. As flattering as that comment is Standing Order 37 states the Leader of the Opposition is "The leader of the largest party … not in Government". The member should be more respectful of the Standing Orders in this House—much as I enjoy it. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes fair enough and I think the member should refrain from that in the future.INGRID LEARY: Apologies Mr Speaker. I must have been watching too much of the news. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't—no no no no. You do not get to respond. You take the ruling and carry on. INGRID LEARY: Sincere apologies Mr Speaker. I was referring to the member's obsession with GDP which is really about productivity and his obsession with individual property rights and no regard for wellbeing and the bill does really tinker with the constitutional shed. The system currently is not perfect. We have no written constitution; we have no second Chamber; we have the complexities of MMP; we have amendments available by Supplementary Order Papers which is also complicated; and there are questions over the perceived independence of Parliament from Government. However GDP and legislative quality are not causally linked. It can be to do with drafting issues it can also be through poor implementation or actually context can have an effect such as COVID. What the member is seeking to do is to enforce a cost-benefit analysis and efficiency on to the way that we look at policy making where individual property rights lord over everything else and where it is all about GDP. We are now in 2021 we've had several Wellbeing Budgets we have a Living Standards Framework and the bill oversimplifies the principles and it suggests that everything can be done tagged only to GDP and not these other important principles. It has no regard for the Treaty of Waitangi no regard for international treaties and it simplifies a notion of property. Property is not a clod of earth; it is a bundle of legal entitlements. There is a mythology that individual property rights are more absolute than collective rights and that is simply not the case and it is up for the members of this House to make those calls.I agree with my colleague Vanushi Walters. It's ironic that what the member is seeking to do with this bill is actually impinging on the sovereignty of Parliament. He is inviting policy to be determined by the courts and that undermines the balance of the constitutional power in New Zealand. I thank the member very much for writing to us to explain clearly the reasons for his bill and I'm afraid from me it's going to be a Dear John letter back to Mr Seymour. DEPUTY SPEAKER: David Seymour in reply."