Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I understand that the hapless member for Epsom accused me of plagiarism in respect of Supplementary Order Paper 287 requiring that a national policy statement on urban growth be prepared. I have before me the record of the debate on the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill dated 6 September 2016 where this exact—this exact—provision is also found drafted by me. That particular amendment went down by how many votes?Hon Members: One. Hon DAVID PARKER: One. Who voted against it? David Seymour. What a—look I think that is what I would call a Nick-tastrophe". To be caught out with that level of duplicity coming here taking your salary as an MP for Epsom saying you stand for freeing up urban boundaries in order to increase land supply—which is necessary and we in the Labour Party agree with that to address one of the causes of the increase in house prices in Auckland. But to suggest that it is the Labour Party that is plagiarising is too galling even for me to accept. So David Seymour I have put in again the same amendment on the Supplementary Order Paper that you voted against last time and that you are now putting up in your own name. Perhaps you could take another call to correct the record. I have got another question for the Minister. I have read the Māori Party sell-out clause which gets its vote to take this bill across the line. I understand that it says that in order to get those members' votes you and the National Government are going to vote for this minor limitation on your wide regulation-making power and it says that you are not allowed to apply your regulation-making power to knock out "rules or types of rules that regulate the growing of crops that are genetically modified organisms." I want to ask the Minister if he is going to vote for this amendment or the Māori Party if it deigns to take a call what "the growing of crops" means. I presume it would mean GM maize but what about GM clover? What about GM ryegrass? If ryegrass is grown as a seed crop to plant more ryegrass maybe it is a crop—if it is a seed crop. But is it a crop if it is just being grown as pasture? I think once again the Māori Party—you know those members have never plagiarised me in the way that David Seymour has attempted tonight. But their incompetence on this issue is I think being shown through because they have been sold a pup. They have been told that they are satisfying the concerns of the anti-GE group in the Hawke's Bay by getting the Minister to agree to this amendment except that you can still have GM ryegrass you can still have GM clover and you can have other cultivars that I do not think are crops. So can the Māori Party please take a call to explain why it is supporting this appalling piece of legislation on the basis that it gets some derisory increased right of participation for Māoridom given that everyone in New Zealand has rights of participation under the Resource Management Act anyway and given that there are already meant to be agreements—and there are many agreements arising under Treaty settlements—that further enhance those rights. Why those members think they are justified in voting for this bill I cannot understand when they have not explained to the Committee what a crop is because it sounds to me like a crop is peas beans corn or—Rino Tirikatene: Pūhā. Hon DAVID PARKER: Pūhā—pūhā. There are plenty of other crops. But I do not think pasture species for grazing are crops. So Minister if you can tell me—we will be voting for this anyway because I do not mind any narrowing of these regulation-making powers that are overreaching by the Government. Any little thing we will take. But it does not make really any difference to the terrible bill—it is not a significant difference. We still will not be voting for the bill overall even if this amendment is passed. But I do make the point that the Māori Party has done in the eye the Hawke's Bay growers."