Woodhouse Michael; Mallard TrevorHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I move That all of the words in the motion after the word called" be replaced with "the Epidemic Response Committee to inquire into hear submissions and report on the Government's response to the COVID19 outbreak that the committee consist of 11 members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand Labour four New Zealand National four the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand one ACT New Zealand one and Te Paati Māori one that the committee be chaired by the Leader of the Opposition or her delegate and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196."This Parliament does need a special committee; it just doesn't need the one that the Minister moving the motion provides. We have been going through a very very concerning pandemic and this Government is much more interested in shuffling the decks on the Titanic of the health system that they have overseen and run into the ground and then decides that one's ethnic background is important enough to set up a special committee but the pandemic is not. Well I disagree and I have had experience of special committees. I was the deputy chair of the Epidemic Response Committee and I can confirm as most of the people who were in the House in the previous Parliament know that special committees do have a place and have an important role to play. Derek Cheng of the New Zealand Herald reported shortly after that committee got up and running that if one looked at question time one would get a pretty jaundiced view of Parliament but looking at the Epidemic Response Committee that is the best democracy in action. It was actually quite a pity having not concluded the business of that committee for the Government to send a Minister down late one night and decide that the committee should be quietly deconstructed and disappeared. So let's look though at the arguments that could be put forward for a special committee. It might be for example that the Health Committee has such a volume of business that it cannot cope with a significant reform bill that is before it and that's certainly been a reason for setting up a previous special committee in the last 20 years or so—I think the ACC legislation around 1999 or 2000 went through that. Very helpfully the clerks of the committee have just recently published an indicative work plan for the Health Committee; it ain't that busy. I'm not being critical of my colleagues who I know work very hard on that committee but they have basically two items of business: it's the annual reviews of the entities that are the responsibility of the Ministry of Health—Chris Bishop: That's going to be good.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: So that'll be good. That's pretty standard business as usual and a plethora of petitions which are important to the petitioner and potentially to the Parliament but certainly not time bound. They have one bill—one bill—before it which will be deliberated and reported back in the next couple of weeks. So it's hardly a case of the committee being so busy.Now sometimes there are things that transcend the scope of a committee. I think abortion legislation had that. It had health elements it had justice elements—it had a number of elements and that was an appropriate thing to do. I look at the Standing Orders at Standing Order 189 "The subject select committees and their subject areas are"—and do members know what they say about the Health Committee? It has one word: "health". So the Health Committee has one role: oversee health. So if we look at the bill what does the bill do?Matt Doocey: Oh it might be a health bill.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well it's pretty controversial but it's not that difficult. Mr Doocey has hit the nail on the head. He's a genius; Waimakariri residents are very lucky to have him. It's a health bill—ta-dum! It reforms and eliminates the 20 DHBs and a number of other structures and it establishes—wait for it—Health New Zealand. Matt Doocey: Oh it's in the name.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I know it's a revelation! And of course it establishes a Māori Health Authority—Health Authority. Now the fact that it has the word "Māori" in front of it and that it will be focused on that very important element of reducing and eliminating inequities in our health system does not in and of itself warrant this course of action. There were a number of other courses of action that could have been taken. The Health Committee and the Māori Affairs Committee actually convened jointly last year to consider the progress of the Government's plan for Smokefree 2025. I think it was the first time possibly in history—the parliamentary history—that two select committees were joined together for that purpose and it went very well and it was encouraged. I'm not sure if it was actually in the Standing Orders report of that Parliament but indeed I recall having conversations about that being a good practice and which should be encouraged. Why on earth that wasn't considered for this rather than what Mr Seymour has described as a potentially dangerous divisive and precedent-setting step simply beats me. There was also the possibility which goes on every single week that people with a particular interest or expertise in the subject before the select committees get subbed on to the committees.Hon Members: Oh!Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I know. Who knew? Who knew that a member of the Māori Affairs Committee could go on the Health Committee? Well apparently that was beyond the wit of the Leader of the House and the Minister of Health who have decided that that's not the approach that they'll take. And as well as not actually looking at that they're not very good at maths because of 11 members of the committee the National Party is being asked to consider and vote on having two of its members on the Health Committee. I wonder what they thought that would be: one from the Health Committee; one from the Māori Affairs Committee? The maths does not stack; there should be at least three National Party members on this committee. I think the only other—I may be wrong—committee with 11 members already has three: that's the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Health has 10 currently and three of those members are National Party members so why on earth would the Health Committee be replaced by a special committee with increased numbers but fewer National Party members? I don't think it's actually a mathematical problem the Government has with National Party members; I think it's another problem. But the biggest problem with this is the incredibly poor signal it sends to the public of New Zealand that the Government believes that we are a House of Representatives and we need to look like the community we serve but to consider that only certain people of a certain ethnic background or colour or culture can consider empathetically a bill that isn't actually dedicated to that purpose—it has a much wider purpose and that is the health of all New Zealanders—and can only be considered by a committee with a requisite number of people of a certain ethnic background creates an incredibly concerning precedent. I must say in my wildest dreams I never thought I would be speaking on a motion such as this. And it isn't hyperbole or overstating the fact that when Martin Luther King Junior said that we should be judging people on the content of their character not the colour of their skin he was referring to the risk that this in a Western democracy would be creeping insidiously into our Parliament. Hon Andrew Little: What did Martin Luther King say about the Treaty of Waitangi because you haven't mentioned that once in your speech?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well oh I see OK—so now Martin Luther King isn't a good enough for Andrew Little. Apparently Andrew Little knows better about race relations than Martin Luther King Junior does. Well that sums it up. We need a committee all right. We need special committees to report on very important issues in this country; it's just not this one.SPEAKER: Order! I'm going to call Dr Elizabeth Kerekere but before I do that I'm going to indicate that we will continue debate on the motion and not on the amendment because it has not been tabled. I want to say as it was read my inclination is that it is not in order but I will consider that during the next speech."