Tisch Lindsay: Sittings of the House 
Tisch Lindsay: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:628;Page:237] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to bring some decorum to this debate and to bring members back to what we are actually debating. 
Simon Power 
: Stand tall! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Stand tall—right. This debate is about the hours that Parliament will sit for the rest of this year and for next year. But do members know of any occupation where one has to ask Parliament the number of hours one will work? Do members know of any occupation where people have to talk about how many hours they will have to work in whatever industry they are in? I bet Mr Clarkson would not say to his staff: “I wonder how many hours we should work to achieve what we want to do.” 
Bob Clarkson 
: We’d go broke! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The member would go broke. But this Government is saying here tonight that it will limit the opportunities to pass some legislation—that it will have to front-foot the hard decisions that have to be made—because things are going to get tough and the economy is going to turn on it. 
What do we have? Instead of being here to debate those very issues—the fundamental things that we all came here for—instead of being able to debate what is good for the country and to be able to hold the Government to account Government members are saying that no they will limit the number of days that we will have that opportunity. When we look at the programme for the rest of this year that is in the Government motion we notice only about 55 hours of parliamentary time are left this year. That is time in the Chamber. It is only 55 hours because one of those days will be a members’ day. By the time we take out the Government orders of the day and we look at the members’ days we see we have only 55 hours left of parliamentary time. 
But mark my words I bet that on Thursday 15 December this House will rise early. It will rise early because Government members will want to be home for Christmas. They will want to be home to do the Christmas shopping; they will not be here. I bet that Government members will not be here after about 4 o’clock on Thursday 15 December; they will have their planes booked. They will be out of here and everyone should know that there are only 55 hours in total left this year in which the Government should be passing some legislation. 
Let us look at next year. Here is the programme which has 87 days. But we can take out the members’ days. Everyone has talked about there being 29 weeks left but what about the members’ days that are included in that list? Well there are about another 10 of those so we are down to about 77 days. I did some numbers and do members know that there will be about 500 hours of debating time in this Chamber? That is all. There will be 500 hours of time yet we all want to be paid for 40 hours a week times 52 weeks of the year which is 2080 hours if my maths is right. But we will spend about 500 hours in the House. That cover 29 weeks but if we divide that 500 hours by 40 hours a week it is 12 weeks. That is only 12 weeks of House time next year. 
This Government is shonky it is shabby and it is absolutely lazy. Its legislative programme is a disgrace—an absolute disgrace! I am looking through the Order Paper at some of the bills we should be debating—for example the Geographical Indications (Wines and Spirits) Registration Bill. It is a ripper that one. We probably will not see the first reading of that bill before Christmas and it is the sort of legislation that should be in the House before Christmas. But here we are with only a few days left and we know that within those few days there will be an adjournment. We had 6 weeks of parliamentary time from the time that the House started through to 15 December—6 weeks. Out of those 6 weeks 2 weeks have been taken up with protocol we have 1 sitting week next week and then there is an adjournment. I would have thought that we could not afford to have that sort of downtime and that any business would have thought—Mr Clarkson’s business for instance—it could not afford such downtime. But no we have an adjournment coming up in a week’s time and then we will have 2 more sitting weeks in the House. Mark my words we will be out of here on Thursday 15 December by 4 o’clock. 
I would have loved to debate bills like the Geographical Indications (Wines and Spirits) Registration Bill. What about the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill? I think it will be a ripper as well. It is a good one I know but when will it come up? It probably will not come up for months looking at this Order Paper. Then we have the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. Well I do not know what that one is about. Those are first readings. We cannot progress anything until we get rid of those first readings. Yet there they are sitting on the Order Paper and this Government says that it will have a week’s adjournment coming up shortly and that those bills are not important. If they are not important why are they on the Order Paper? Why is legislation introduced if it is not important? Is it put there just to fill up the blanks? I do not think so. I think that those bills are important enough to be given serious consideration and that we should take them seriously. 
Looking at No. 12 on the Order Paper I see it is a classic: the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—the waka-jumping bill. Now we know what that one is about. My team would love to see that one debated before Christmas. We would love to see it debated before Christmas because it will really ring-fence some of the parties including a party that now sits on the Government benches. That bill is designed to ring-fence and put in a little catchment because that party’s leader is very scared that someone in that party will walk. That legislation lapsed at election time but here it is at No. 12 on the Order Paper solely for New Zealand First’s benefit—the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that Barbara Stewart is keen on that one. I know that she will take off. She will get into the debate when it happens and I look forward to hearing Barbara Stewart make her maiden speech on that point. 
I said that I would bring some decorum to this debate because it is important. At No. 26 on the Order Paper is the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. That will probably be about the Kyoto Protocol which is the $1 billion blunder this Government has made. I cannot wait for that bill to be here but where is it sitting? Its second reading is down at No. 26. We know the reason there will be so many adjournments. The new Minister of Energy David Parker will need all those adjournments to regain his energy because he will get a hard time in the House at question time. That is the other reason why there will not be a full programme. With our seven questions—six questions on 2 days and seven on the third day—and a hundred supplementary questions a week this Government will be under so much pressure that it will wish it was not sitting at all. 
This Government is lazy and shonky and this legislative programme is an absolute disgrace. I do not know of any other occupation that has to come to Parliament to find out how many days and hours it will work. I know what Government members are after. They do not have a full legislative programme and it is an absolute insult to the integrity of New Zealanders to think that this is a part-time Parliament because that is what this motion is really about. 
A number of bills are worthy of comment. There is the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill concerning the protection of community standards. It should be debated and it should be out there but unfortunately it is at No. 31—that is not counting members’ orders of the day and there are certainly a few of those: for example the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill and the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill. Those ones are out there but unfortunately because this Government does not have the capacity or the will to have a full legislative programme they will be delayed. Members should be here in the House and being paid for what they do—that is what New Zealanders put us here for—but this Government wants to limit those opportunities. It is an absolute disgrace that that should happen and we will be voting against this motion.