Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): There we have it in what the Minister Kris Faafoi just said. He said Actually we don't need to worry about that part of the bill because it's going to be deleted from the bill." And this once again—this Minister sees this House and these elected representatives as a rubber stamp: "Don't worry about what the legislation being presented actually says because it's going to be removed"—how does he know that? Well presumably because the Government is now removing—Hon Kris Faafoi: Read the bill!DAVID SEYMOUR: Oh he just answered "Read the bill." Well actually the bill hasn't removed it. This is what was reported back from the select committee. And then Duncan Webb who—get this—is a law professor a member of the profession committed to upholding the rule of law says "There's an SOP that's going to remove it."Well let's just talk a little bit about how it works. Actually the law—or at least the statutes of New Zealand—are passed by a majority of this Parliament; until such a time they're just a bill. Now what Kris Faafoi has just said and what law professor Duncan Webb is trying to say is actually that we shouldn't debate what's in the bill because they already know that Parliament's not going to pass that part. Well I think that's an extraordinary admission about the approach that this Government takes to Parliament.What they're saying about this Parliament is that actually it doesn't matter what anybody else voted for—if you didn't vote for one of them then it doesn't matter; your voice doesn't count. It doesn't matter what Parliament debates and what it decides because we've already decided what the law is. Now that's an interesting model of governance and there's certainly countries around the world where that's a legitimate thing for a Minister to say because in their particular political system it's certainly true that the parliamentarians are just a rubber stamp.I think about our friends in Hong Kong—pretty tough time being in the Hong Kong legislature. Over there the bosses and overlords from Beijing say "This is what the Parliament's going to pass today." and lo and behold that is what the Hong Kong legislature does pass these days. But there's a problem with that: that's not democracy and that's why it's wrong to have a commencement clause that says "It doesn't matter what happens in the debate it doesn't matter what happens in the bill; actually we think it's going to be OK because we've already decided what Parliament's going to do. Parliament's a rubber stamp; Parliament's a formality."Well that's not how representative democracy works but who'd be surprised when you've got a Minister of Health who thinks it's unfair to point out that he's breaching the rules set down for the Speaker for the public health and protection of members of this Parliament. That's what this clause is about and that's why if this Government was committed to democracy if this Government was committed to a representative Parliament that is the highest lawmaker in this land then they would take out the part of clause 2 that says "We're going to make this law come into effect maybe before it's even passed." They would say "The law only comes into effect after the Parliament passes it after the representatives of the people that they work for pass the law. It doesn't come into effect whenever we say it does because we already know what Parliament's going to do."—because Parliament is beneath their respect.This is really an appeal for the members that are the most important in this—actually the Labour backbench. They might be thinking "You know why are we here?" Well if they can't stand up for their rights and their duties as elected members if they are just here to be part of a 65-strong rubber stamp they might ask themselves why they came here. You know there's lots of jobs out there a lot of them better paid—maybe not for them. There are a lot of jobs out there with greater privacy and better hours and less getting on flights that they could have had that would probably be better for their work-life balance and many aspects of their lives than being part of a 65-person rubber stamp.So I just say: if I was a backbencher in Labour I'd be thinking "Why am I here?" And I'd actually be starting—oh where are they all actually? Fair enough maybe that's the problem. Scott Simpson is just pointing out all the empty seats. Thank you very much."