O'Connor Greg; Webb DuncanClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to our final debate clauses 1 and 2 the debate on the title and commencement.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well we've obviously got the title there: Clause 1 Title This Act is New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Act 2024" but it doesn't really give much away does it? We know there's a lot more going on under the surface. Perhaps the appropriate title for the Act—and we could always put an amendment on the Table—would be the "David Seymour Vanity Regulation Ministry Establishment Act" because that's what's really going on here. Or maybe it's the "We Don't Want to Know Independent Opinion Act" because that's the other thing that's going on.It's really disappointing that what we've got here is a piece of legislation where the National Party has allowed the ACT Party to shuffle off to one side an independent voice for the very thing that the National Party claims it's in favour of which is productivity. We heard a whole lot of kind of wandering speeches last night with the general theme that the National Party is keen on better productivity and better industries and from the member for Tukituki more apples but overall and in general it seems to be that the National Party like the idea of an independent voice which enhanced productivity in New Zealand. But here what we have is the quashing of one of the independent thoughtful voices we have in respect of productivity in New Zealand. So maybe this bill really should be the "ACT Party Wins Bill" or better still the "ACT Party Wins Again Bill" because that's really what we've got going on here. In terms of this bill being a simple repeal bill it's actually a lot more than that because it's really—a better title might be the "Lack of Productivity Bill" because that's what's going on here. The Productivity Commission—and we heard this time and time again yesterday—has done some fantastic work. Now the real criticism was that Government wasn't obliged to respond and pick up that work but the fact of the matter is that it's there and it's a resource to be used and it has to be said that Government—and Parliament as well—looked carefully at those reports and was challenged by them. But we know that that party—the ACT Party—doesn't like to be challenged and the National Party likes to go along with the ACT Party. So maybe it should be the "Please Don't Challenge Us Because It All Gets a Bit Awkward Bill". But the real point I want to make here is that in this bill the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill there's a lot more going on. What we have going on is the replacement of one ACT idea with another ACT idea because the leadership has changed and every ACT leader likes to leave a legacy. This ACT leader thinks that his legacy is going to be the "Kafka ministry"—I mean the ministry of regulation which no doubt another ACT leader will come along and squash with another commission or ministry of some sort or other to leave their legacy as well. So in terms of the title of this legislation I put to the Minister why doesn't he call it what it really is: the "David Seymour Vanity Act"?"