Little Andrew: Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10087. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): This is a—[Interruption] We can laugh and carry on as much as we like on a motion like this—it might be procedural—but these motions are very important. They raise a very important issue. When matters come before this House whether they are part of the Budget or the appropriations or whether it is through a more considered process putting a matter before this House putting a piece of legislation before this House and calling on this House and the members of it and those who sit on the select committees to give it consideration is a task that should not be taken lightly should not be treated with contempt should not be treated with conceit but should be given due time and accorded due process. That is fundamental—Shane Ardern: I knew it wouldn’t be a problem for this member to talk for 10 minutes about nothing.ANDREW LITTLE: —and whether you are from Taranaki - King Country or whether you actually care about issues in the area that you come from particularly social housing and the shortage of affordable housing which is an issue across the nation and everywhere from the dark hills of Ūruti to the lowlands of Christchurch and Dunedin availability of affordable housing is a big issue for New Zealand.That is why New Zealanders in their droves have come in behind supporting Labour’s policy of a new programme of affordable housing. It is because now through this Budget this Government is calling on this House to consider this issue in this admittedly scant piece of legislation that nevertheless the proper time and resources should be given to consider it. That means time for the officials to prepare theirinformation and their evidence but most important time for members to gather their information to give due consideration to the advice they are receiving and indeed to look at the legislation.It is just possible on any given piece of legislation that comes from the Government that with proper consideration and proper time given for that consideration members on the Government side might be persuaded that change is appropriate that improvement is possible and that a change might be made to the legislation that is better for the citizens on whose behalf we undertake this very important action. So we do not take this lightly. This is an important motion and we are opposed to it. We are opposed to this Government repeatedly now coming to this House with motions calling on shorter and shorter time frames to consider important legislation. It did it just earlier this week on the Government communications security legislation. It wanted a shorter time frame to consider that.These issues are important. We know how sensitive they are to the voting public because the public are in touch with our respective offices the electorate MPs and list MPs alike. They are writing letters to the paper. They are ringing up the talkback hosts on the various radio stations and they are saying that it is not right in a democracy in our country that we should have the institutions of Parliament treated in such a cavalier way. We are opposed to this because members in this House are entitled to demand that any legislation that comes before it is given proper consideration proper time and due process.It comes down to this and I said this earlier this week too. It comes down to the principle of the rule of law. We are a nation that ranks very highly in international comparisons and considerations of the rule of law. That is to say that we are regarded as a nation that respects the laws that we make the rules that we abide by the role of the courts but most important the way laws are made in Parliament which means—in this country—in this House. What happens in this House leads our reputation on that very important institution called the rule of law. And when we treat it with contempt when we treat it in such a cavalier sort of way then our international reputation goes down. Our international reputation suffers. It is not enough for some members to be invited on to international television shows to establish our reputation. That is not what we establish our reputation on. Our reputation is established for anything that counts on the way that we conduct ourselves the way we conduct our business as a nation but most important in this House—the highest court in the land in a Western democracy the ultimate source of law in a Westminster democracy.So we treat with considerable alarm and we look askance at resolutions like this that call upon us to act with a haste that is frankly rude and should not be tolerated if we are to do our job properly and discharge our responsibilities. This Government has demonstrated that it is a Government that has no hesitation in cutting corners when it comes to matters of due process. Its appointments to statutory boards are just one example of that but its treatment of this House is increasingly another example. We are getting these motions and we have yet another one tonight on an important piece of legislation on an important bill dealing with an issue that is of great importance to all New Zealanders. Now we are being told: “Rush through it. Don’t give it your best. Don’t give it your best attention. Don’t care that we’ve got an adjournment week”—2 adjournment weeks 3 weeks in fact it may even be 4 during the course of this bill. It is 4 adjournment weeks while this bill is meant to be being considered. “Rush through it and don’t care what the people want. Don’t care what citizens might think. Don’t bother giving them adequate time. Don’t even care about the NGOs that have a relevant stake in this matter”—the Darryl Evanses of this country and the Salvation Army and Habitat for Humanity; all those who might have something interesting to say about this; theterritorial local authorities which will have something worthwhile to say about this; and Local Government New Zealand. “Don’t give them the time of day. Treat them with contempt.” as it treats the members of the Opposition. That is the attitude of this Government and it is wrong and it is high time that it was called to book. That is the least we can do in debating this motion—make it very clear and emphasise our objection underscore our opposition and say that it is simply not acceptable anymore.We understand that at the time of the Budget there are invariably pieces of legislation that need to be considered in a hurry and that need to be considered under genuine urgency. This is not one of them. This is the opposite. This is an exception. This should not be given a rushed consideration. It should be given proper consideration as should be any important piece of social legislation. It may well be important for this Government to boast that it is giving the appearance of doing something but this is a bill that touches on an issue that affects not only the real lives and the material lives of a growing number of people who cannot get into their first home but actually it affects ultimately every New Zealander.If we do not have a housing market that makes housing accessible and available to people from all walks of life all backgrounds all levels of income then that is a market failure that does deserve the attention of this House. But if it deserves the attention of this House then it should be given the proper attention of this House. That means consideration by the select committee under the proper Standing Orders of this House which means proper consideration and proper time being given. It is totally objectionable it is utterly unconscionable that an issue like this—even at the time of the Budget even at the time of the appropriations—should be rammed down the throats of members of this side of the House; that it should drag in or cause undue and unnecessary inconvenience to those who do have the resources and the means to be consulted and to make a submission on it. That is unreasonable.It is not a good day for democracy in this country. It is not a good day for the conduct of this House. It is time to put a line under it and say we demand better management of this House and of important legislation by this Government. We will remain opposed to this motion.