O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will vote in favour of the motion because some progress is better than none. This has been a long process it has been a very interesting process and it has been one that I think you could say has resulted in slow progress towards many of the things that a lot of us would have liked to see. But slow progress is better than none. The other thing that struck me about it was the I think unusually large number of submissions from members of the public. They were very interesting because it shows how the public sees the Parliament and how it works. So for that reason I was particularly interested in hearing those people and reading what they wrote. I appreciate their input and it is a little bit sad that some of their better ideas have not been incorporated. I would have to say that I agree with Trevor Mallard when he said that the reason for progress being much slower than it should have been is that the Government members and in particular Simon—yes yes Simon Bridges over there—said no so many times. He is the all-no-ing" Minister—not the "k-n-o-w-i-n-g" type; just the "n-o-ing" type of Minister—who said no far too often mostly because he actually did not understand or want to understand the reason why some of the better ideas were being put forward and I think that is very sad. We need consensus on this committee to make progress and he threw his weight around a little bit and made sure that not enough progress was made. I think that really is sad and I would like to see that change in the future. However I would have to say that the main thrust of New Zealand First's approach to this was to see that there were changes made as far as the standing committees were concerned. I am pleased to say that I think we got about 95 percent of what we sought. So we are pretty happy with that but there is one exception to that and that is why I say 95 percent. That one exception is—and I want to particularly emphasise it—that the Government was very intransigent when it came to the question of the allocation of chairmanships of standing committees. It was an absolute total no when that approach is utterly inconsistent with the principle of proportionality which has been used in other parts of the very same report—Hon Simon Bridges: Don't worry Denis we can make you a chair next time.DENIS O'ROURKE: —when it comes to allocation of members to committees in particular. Now Mr Bridges has just been interjecting with some more of his negative nonsense and that is to be expected. That is what he is basically there for and he did a good job of that so I have to congratulate the "all-no-ing" Minister for his input as far as that is concerned. But I did want to go through the rest of the report as far as the standing committees are concerned because there have been some major changes which we at New Zealand First very much approve of.First of all we approve of the reduction in the number of standing committees from 13 to 12 and we approve of the subject areas which have been rearranged as well. I think that this is a more rational grouping of subject areas than we have had before. It actually brings it significantly up to date and allows for better integration of those subject areas with each other and I will come to that again in just a moment.The other important issue as far as this is concerned was the number of members who would be allocated to the standing committees and with 96 seats overall to be provided it means eight per committee. That is the right number. It is difficult to decide what is too big and what is too small. It is important that they not be too large because then their effectiveness would be reduced and yet at the same time they need to be representative. The allocation will be on a proportional basis unlike the committee chairs Mr Bridges but nevertheless as far as the committee membership is concerned it will be on a proportional basis and that is good to see. It does mean of course that with 120 members even taking the Ministers out of that consideration there may be some members who will miss out on a standing committee. But of course they could still substitute in or substitute permanently or temporarily for other members so that is not such a big consideration.Turning to the grouping of the subjects in the standing committees for us this was quite a big issue because we actually found it quite difficult in the current term of Parliament to be properly represented at some of those committees and to have the right people there at the right time. I think this grouping will make that much better. So the first one is the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee which will as always be a busy committee that straddles everything from business development Crown minerals innovation broadcasting communications and so on—very wide ranging. When it comes to the second one the Education and Workforce Committee this is a very important change because in the same standing committee it puts industrial relations and also education training employment and immigration. These things are actually very closely linked. The most important link there is between education and training on the one hand and the workforce on the other. We in New Zealand First think it is very important in the future that there be more attention paid to the streaming of people through the education system into appropriate workforce positions with the appropriate qualifications.The Environment Committee is the third and that includes of course the very important issue of climate change. So that is going to be a busy committee as well. The Finance and Expenditure Committee is No. 4. No. 5 is the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. No. 6 is the Governance and Administration Committee which will now include local government which is currently inappropriately placed elsewhere and I think it will be much better placed in the Governance and Administration Committee. Its current grouping—the Local Government and Environment Committee—might have had some genuine relationships with each other but I think it is much better placed on that committee.No. 7 is the Health Committee and it is always going to be very busy. It is such a huge area to cover with health. In the Justice Committee there have been some major changes with the grouping of constitutional and electoral matters and also human rights justice and the courts but now also crime and criminal law police and corrections. Grouping those into the same committee is very intelligent because it actually means that the whole field will be covered and it will not be piecemeal between a number of other committees. So it is very very welcome to see that happening.The Māori Affairs Committee will continue to stand alone. It has always been a busy committee and I think it is going to be busy for years to come. The Primary Production Committee has the usual things in it but now it has got racing in it as well. There was some discussion about where racing should go. It could have gone in a number of different committees but I think it is probably quite well placed there in the Primary Production Committee. No. 11 is the Social Services and Community Committee and finally No. 12 is the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and that is going to be of course a very busy committee as well. So they are all going to be busy but now with better integration of the different purposes for which each committee will do its work. Industrial relations will no longer be grouped with transport and instead it goes up and into the Education and Workforce Committee where I think it is much better situated.We in New Zealand First as I have said are very happy with what we particularly wanted to achieve which was a reorganisation of the standing committees and we have seen that. We have seen a better grouping of the subjects for those committees. It will mean that we will all be able to work much more efficiently and effectively in those committees. For small parties in particular this will be a much better set-up.There are many other subjects that one could cover. Obviously I will not have time to do so. The only other one that I could perhaps mention is the recommendation for international treaties. I think that is a good step forward so that now there is a process for debating those and in return the first reading of the bill will be taken without debate. So the Government will not be losing any time but the Parliament will be more democratic and the public will be better informed for that process. We will be voting in favour.Motion agreed to."