Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Speaker. As I indicated in the first reading contribution His Majesty's loyal Opposition will be supporting this piece of legislation. Normally in a second reading debate we have an opportunity as a House to reflect upon the submissions that have been made during a select committee process the thoughtful considered opinions of officials and advisers and a whole range of other matters that are usually the purview of a select committee. Well of course this evening we are sitting as a Parliament under urgency to pass a piece of legislation that is historic and significantly important in the lives and constitutional history of our country New Zealand. It's a one-in-a-70-year event and we on this side of the House think that it's appropriate that the day that is going to be known as Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Day will be passed tonight.There are a couple of interesting things and speakers in the first reading debate gave us the benefit of some of their personal reflections and experiences and I for one appreciate those. But it's probably important that we try and quantify in some way—for the sake of the record if nothing else—the significance of our late Sovereign lady's contribution over her 70 years. She was in her 71st year of reign as New Zealand's Sovereign. In terms of length of time served as a Sovereign she's only outmanoeuvred—outplayed if you like—by King Louis XIV of France who reigned for 72 years and 110 days. The difference between our late Queen and King Louis XIV of France was he took the throne at aged four. So a good number of his early childhood years he was not actually reigning as a full monarch. He died of course in 1715. That's 307 years ago. So that I hope for the sake of members put some sense of context into the remarkable contribution that the 70 years of Queen Elizabeth II's reign has meant in historic terms. What's interesting about not having a select committee process under urgency is that some of the normal processes of parliamentary scrutiny don't occur and I note that on this piece of legislation there hasn't been a regulatory impact statement or a supplementary analysis report prepared alongside the policy relating to the contents of this bill. People listening and watching may think that that's entirely appropriate but when we come to just looking at the clauses in the bill it's a pretty simple bill. Clause 6 really sets it out; it provides for 26 September 2022 to be observed as a day of commemoration in New Zealand" to acknowledge the "long and dedicated service of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to New Zealand. The day … is to be known as Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Day." That really just sums it all up because that's what this is about. Other speakers in the first reading debate have made it clear what their party's view is and we on this side of the House have made ours as well.There's an interesting little constitutional quirk: of course the royal State funeral for Her Majesty took place in London and at Windsor yesterday New Zealand time—in fact during our night time. And of course our own Governor-General along with a big group of other New Zealanders is in attendance in London for that service. So interestingly enough clause 2 of this bill provides that the bill "comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent." That's going to be just a little bit tricky because the Governor-General is overseas. But we have an interesting constitutional arrangement that sees affairs that are now taking place while the Governor-General is overseas. The Government Administrator the Hon Dame Susan Glazebrook will I'm sure be the person who will sign this piece of legislation and provide the appropriate Royal assent to meet the provisions. It's the Government Administrator who has actually been fulfilling the role of Governor-General in terms of investiture ceremonies at Government House over the last week or so and for that I want to acknowledge and thank her for stepping up to those important investiture ceremonies while the Governor-General is overseas representing us and the Crown at the funeral service.One of the aspects that wasn't considered during the first reading debate was the matter relating to the date 26 September. Now as it happens that date is also South Canterbury's anniversary day and under section 44 of our Holidays Act 2003 it says that when two public holidays fall on the same day employees only get one day off and that seems for the good people of South Canterbury a little bit unfair and a little bit like they may have been short-changed. But we do know that the local authorities have the ability to set and add to or change provincial anniversary day holidays and it's my hope—and I understand that it's a matter being considered by local Government officials in the South Canterbury area—that they may choose to move the date a little and make good of the intent of this piece of legislation. Now on this side of the House we are not without sympathy for the business people who will incur cost relating to this holiday—unexpected in many respects but we still think appropriate. Normally we would be saying "Well this is an imposition that is one that needs to be considered fully." It does; it absolutely does need to be considered fully. But we take our view after careful consideration and consultation with quite a few business people I have to say who will be inconvenienced to a degree—the vast majority of whom are prepared to make a sacrifice for this memorial day to occur. So there are a number of matters that have been traversed by other speakers in the first reading debate: we haven't had a select committee process; we don't have a select committee report; we don't have a departmental report; and I venture to suggest in this particular situation we don't need one. We understand the circumstances; we think it's appropriate; and on this side of the House we continue to support this piece of legislation at second reading."