Parker David: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 New Zealand has very few constitutional protections against bad law. We have only one House of Parliament. Once a law is passed here there is no Upper House of Parliament conferring protections upon New Zealanders against bad law. We do not have a President who can veto bad legislation. One of our most important protections is the select committee process and the select committee process has been deemed so important by this Parliament that at the end of the last Parliament we changed our Standing Orders. We in this Parliament recognised that through truncating the select committee process we undermine good lawmaking.  
One of the reasons why we normally have 6 months for select committees— 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: You didn’t support it going to the select committee. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We did not support the bill the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill going to the Primary Production Committee because we opposed the bill—correct. Any bill that goes to a select committee should have the benefit of the full 6 months if it is contentious especially if it is important especially if it is opposed by the Opposition and especially if it is opposed by part of the dairy industry.  
Going back to why Parliament changed the Standing Orders Parliament recognised that the select committee process is one of the most important protections for New Zealand against bad lawmaking. If you have a bill at a select committee for 6 months you have the opportunity for submitters to properly get their heads around the issues. You have the opportunity for them to lobby other people who should be interested to get their committees to go through their monthly meeting and put a submission in and you have the opportunity for them to lobby the media and to explain to the media why it is that there are fundamental flaws in legislation that is being proposed. That is why if this Parliament uses its powers to override that normal protection that is to be found in the 6-month period to report back legislation once it goes to a select committee this Parliament deems it so important that we should have a special debate on a motion to truncate the period—because we are undermining one of the very few protections we have in our country against bad law.  
In terms of why it is important in respect of this specific piece of legislation we are dealing with the exporter essentially of 25 percent of New Zealand’s exports. There are major flaws in the bill which relate to— 
Louise Upston 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My understanding from the Standing Order you quoted before is that the member cannot talk about the principles of the bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am not going to uphold the point of order. I think the member is inside what the Standing Order says—at this point. It is not a “get home free” card. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am not going to repeat my first reading speech but there are at least three large matters dealt with by this bill all of which are contentious. The first relates to how milk should be priced from Fonterra to others. I have not had an opportunity to speak about that— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Now the member is— 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am not going to. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! The member is now getting outside that framework. I think he was doing very well till that point. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to make is that this is a very complex piece of legislation that deals with 25 percent of New Zealand’s exports. There are lots of angles to this that need to be explored by both submitters and the select committee itself. I was evidencing the fact that in the first reading debate I got the chance to deal properly with only one of them. There are two other issues in this bill that are as significant if not to me then to other people whose opposition to this bill is on different grounds from my own.  
For Parliament to be asked to truncate the normal select committee process from 6 months to 3 months—to halve it—does no justice to the proper consideration of what is probably one of the most important economic decisions that will be taken by this House of Representatives in the next 3 years. As we have heard in the debate already there are aspects of this bill that people think are of enormous effect to our largest exporter. To truncate the process from 6 months to 3 months is exactly why Parliament changed the Standing Orders to allow members of Parliament to highlight to the public and to the media what it is that Parliament is being asked to do.  
We are being asked by National to truncate this from 6 months to 3 months and the only justification we were given by Mr Guy as he moved the motion was that Fonterra wanted it by that date. Well there is a national interest here that goes beyond Fonterra’s interest. We in Parliament are responsible for the future of the New Zealand economy. Yes the interests of Fonterra are important. Yes the interests of individual farmers are important. But there is a wider New Zealand interest that we in this Parliament are responsible for.  
Mr Guy I am completely unconvinced by your suggestion that because Fonterra wants this bill through by 1 June we should be putting aside normal processes when we know that halving that period of time means that those people who are opposed to this legislation will not have the normal period of time to campaign. They will not have the normal period of time to go and see their local MP to go and see other farmers who might be concerned about it to go and see the newspapers and to get the issue up in the media.  
Given that we have very few other protections in this country against bad law I say that this Parliament should vote against this motion to truncate the period from 6 months to 3 months. We should stand for the proper protection of the New Zealand economy and the proper protection of New Zealanders and we should have a full select committee process so that it can give the normal 6 weeks for advertising. Mr Deputy Speaker you will be aware that normally 6 weeks is the time that is allowed for people who are submitting on legislation to have time to gather their thoughts and to consider the legislation.  
This legislation was tabled in the House only in the last week. They will not understand the detail of it yet. They need 6 weeks of that 6-month period to actually say what they think about the legislation and then they need to have sufficient time for those people whose submissions have been put in to actually come to the select committee to put their case to say what is wrong to say what should be changed and to say what they agree with—to support it if they want to.  
Then the select committee needs to have the time to get considered advice from the departmental officials as to what the right policy position is and the various parties need the time to take that to their caucuses and have a discussion about the issues. In this time there should be background meetings between the different interest groups and different caucuses happening—all these things take time. Then parliamentary counsel need proper time in order to go about their job of drafting amendments to the legislation which will no doubt be necessary.  
All of this takes time. That is why we normally allow 6 months for a select committee to properly do its work. For one of the most significant pieces of legislation on the economic front that will be passed this year probably during the term of this Government to have that process truncated from 6 months to 3 months is very poor practice. 
 What is it that the Government wants to push through without proper scrutiny? Well I suggest that it is indicative of the fact that there are provisions in this bill that are unwise. The longer this debate goes on in the media and in front of the select committee the more apparent it will become that the Government is at risk of making a serious mistake. The less time that we have as an Opposition to identify and to get through to the various people who are interested in these issues the detail of our concern the more apparent it will be.  
We do not have the benefit of ministries working 24 hours a day. We have to do these things ourselves with the benefit of some advice at the select committee and perhaps some advice that we get from the Parliamentary Library and from other interest groups that come in to see us. If we have a truncated process we do not have the time to actually properly draft the amendments that are needed to this legislation in order to protect the public interest that we in this Parliament are guardians of.  
We are not here for the farmers alone. We are not here for Fonterra alone. We are here for the broad range of New Zealand interests including in this case 25 percent of New Zealand’s exports which go out from the dairy sector.