Mark Ron: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
Mark Ron: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19350] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I am rising on behalf of my colleague Brent Catchpole who will be sitting on the select committee that considers this bill and hears submissions but I have a couple of things to say in reply to the debate that we have had—and let me make that very clear. 
Is this it? Is this bill the United Future party’s election winner? Is this the one that will move mountains bring the mountain to Mohammed and ensure that Murray Smith claws his way back into Parliament after this next election? Is this the issue? I have just heard the Minister of Labour in introducing the bill heap laurels and bouquets all over the United Future party which describes itself in its own words as a small party; I heard some unkind person say “small poodle” and that is the way it will be seen. I have listened to every word uttered by Murray Smith in support of this bill—as long and as boring and as well read out as his speech was. There was a time when people would come into this House stand on their own two feet and articulate their views without once looking at notes but not that man. He gave me a great detailed rundown on what this legislation will do by reading out his speech. He could have saved us all the problem of taking an unwanted Mogadon by just tabling the speech. 
But he did it and he did it because he truly believes that this is it—that this bill is the one thing that United Future has done for New Zealand that will save that party’s bacon. It is nothing. That party campaigned vigorously on such moral issues as traditional family values. It was going to stop prostitution in its tracks it was going to stop all the evils and the ills that are pervading New Zealand society and the Christian coalition and all its entourage leapt on board behind the United Future party. And what do they get? They get the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. One cannot even read the title without being bored to tears. This is it. This is the United Future party’s last gasp. I have only one thing to say to the United Future party: it should roll up its sleeping bags pull down its tents pack up its placards and go home. It is over. This House will not remember the United Future party for this bill. 
What it will remember is a Government that rammed legislation through—the Building Act—in a great hurry. What it will remember is that successive Ministers have sat in the chair during the Committee stages of bill after bill in urgency and ignored pleas for changes ignored Supplementary Order Papers and voted them down without ever once accepting constructive criticism from the Opposition benches. And only a few short months later we have to revisit the same legislation—passed under urgency—with the Government introducing a new bill that it wants to rush through in 8 working-days. The report back is expected to be tabled in this House in 8 working-days. 
Our spokesperson has looked at this bill and has said: “Fair go; if this bill will help some people out there who have been ripped off and raided who have had no assistance from the Government whatsoever in solving their problems and who have been forced to the verge of and sometimes over the top and into bankruptcy we will sit on the select committee and listen to it; we will support it going to a select committee.” But New Zealand First is looking for results and New Zealand First is looking for accountability because after all Prime Minister Clark promised us a new era of accountability. 
I listened to the Hon Nick Smith’s speech and he is quite right. We should look at the people who are behind this bill. Chris Carter has got this issue now but by golly is it any wonder we hear George Hawkins has had involvement in it—George “Halfway House” Hawkins the “Minister of Everything That Is Not Done Properly”. It is probably a good thing that some of these houses have to be demolished. We would hate to think that the occupants would ever have to dial 111 to get some help. Maybe that is the way people could get some help with their houses—dial 111 and say: “George I can’t get any response from the Government in solving the problem and now we’ve got this bill the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill”— 
Brian Connell 
: Scream loudly! 
RON MARK 
: If they dial 111 and scream loudly maybe George Hawkins will hear them. 
I have to make a couple of other points about this bill. Firstly this Government was notified of these problems in December and now we are rushing legislation through and asking for a report back in 8 days. That is not good enough. If an amendment comes forward—and I think there probably will be one from either the Hon David Carter or the Hon Nick Smith—then we will support it. 
Secondly it worries us in New Zealand First that this problem has been with us for so long and many promises have been made but the solutions have been long in coming and the Government has been short on delivery and we ask ourselves why. Why is this Government so tardy in dealing with the leaky buildings problem? Maybe I have the answer. I have learnt one thing about this Government: it has no time for private citizens who are independent and it has no time for private citizens who have the gumption to save money for a deposit to build a home. It considers them all to be rich. If they work they get no assistance. If they have children—and half the Labour caucus would not know what that is all about—if they save their money the Labour caucus is not interested in them. The Government views a lot of those people with nice flash homes as being rich wealthy and therefore not deserving of its protection or care. That is why we continue to see as recently as last night on  
Close Up 
 more of the sad stories unfolding and so few of those people getting satisfactory assistance and so few of those claims being addressed. Does the Government care? No it appears not. 
It seems that United Future cares. United Future would have us believe that it has spent the last 2½ years beavering away producing this bill. Well I simply say to United Future members that it is over they should pack up their poodle and go home and no one will remember this bill. The only thing people will remember is that for 5 years they waited in vain for meaningful assistance and meaningful help to rebuild their homes rebuild their lives and recover their lifetime investments—investments that they will never see. It does not matter about the protections that Mr Murray Smith talked about—the terms of the copyright who has the information or where it is accessed. 
There is great suspicion in New Zealand First that this bill is just another revenue-gathering exercise by this Government. It has a long track record supported by United Future of dreaming up new revenue-gathering methods such as the petrol tax which United Future approved by giving supply of money and by giving confidence in terms of the Budget. That is the bottom line for United Future. Those members can bleat on harp on pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves all they like but the sad reality is that everything this Government has done—or has not done—that New Zealanders will be asking questions about in the election has been made possible by United Future. The only thing those members will be able to stand up and say is that they provided stable Government. In other words they provided the doormat for Helen Clark to wipe her feet on every time she went into her office every day of every week of every month of every year that she was in power. I say: “Well done United Future!”. We thought it might have done something to stop some of the issues that were so dear to the Christian Heritage party. 
From the perspective of New Zealand First we will support this bill going to the select committee. We look forward to an adjustment right now in the report-back date so that there can be meaningful examination and so that we can get to the bottom of what this bill really means. But beyond that our support will depend entirely on what the final product looks like and entirely on how meaningful it will be in practical terms for those people who have invested their life-savings in their homes.