O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I want to talk about the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) too—in particular my own proposed amendments. I want to say straight away that I am a little sorry for David Seymour that my proposed amendment to delete all of the most objectionable parts of the bill is longer than his. Size does matter in this as my list is actually more complete than his was. So I am sorry for him about that. But I would remind him also that as I said in the first reading speech to this bill New Zealand First would never support what is now called the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe provisions—the iwi participation provisions in this bill. We are sticking by that commitment as stated quite clearly by the Rt Hon Winston Peters today.The other thing that my proposed amendment does is to delete clause 105 which inserts the objectionable new section 360D. I did want to refer to the exact words of that provision because I think it is important. What it says is: The Governor-General may by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister make regulations—to prohibit or remove specified rules or types of rules that would duplicate overlap with or deal with the same subject matter as is included in other legislation." The Minister has sought to argue that this is quite a narrow provision that is quite limited in the way it can be applied but in fact if you look at what the bill actually says the meaning of those words is actually quite wide. Regulations are available for many things not just in relation to genetically engineered crops but also would be available for a wide range of other things as well provided the Minister considers that there is some kind of duplication overlap or dealing with—"dealing with" how wide could you possibly get? It is a very wide provision and not nearly as narrow as the Minister argues.I also want to read new section 360D(4) because what that says is "Regulations made under this section may require that rules inconsistent with those regulations be withdrawn or amended …". The Minister tried to argue that all this was about is an ability to chop things out but he can require amendment. How far could that go? I am arguing that it could actually go quite a long way. Here he goes again. He is shaking his head as though what I am saying is not true but I have just read what the bill actually says and most people Minister do understand that the word "amended" goes a lot further than just a power to take something out. It can require something to be put in as well. So I think he is quite wrong about that and that is why New Zealand First will certainly move the deletion of clause 105.I want to go on to talk about SOP 286 moved by David Seymour because he very strangely in this SOP wants to add a new section 6(h). This relates to matters of national importance. What he is trying to persuade us to do is to believe that the protection of private property rights whatever that may mean in this context is a matter of national importance. He is also trying to argue that what he calls "the effective functioning of the build environment" is also a matter of national importance—the "build" environment; he has not even got his grammar correct. He goes on to say similarly that "the efficient provision of infrastructure" should be added to section 6 as a matter of national importance. These things simply are not at that level and he ought to know that. This SOP should certainly not be supported for those reasons. The last one "the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources including the benefits derived from their use and development."—these are actually duplicated elsewhere in terms of the management of national resources in the Act already. So that is a SOP that is not well thought out and should not be supported.Moving on however to David Parker's SOP which New Zealand First will support and that is the one relating to—"