Webb Duncan; O'Connor Greg; Swarbrick Chlöe; Bishop ChrisDr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all parts to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. I call Chris Bishop.CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Point of order. I seek leave for the document that the member has just noted the cost-benefit analysis by Sapere economic agency to be tabled for the sake of this debate.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The member can't seek leave on behalf of someone else. If the Minister had been reading from the document—Hon Dr Megan Woods: I don't have it with me.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): But the honourable member tells me she wasn't so the call goes to Chris Bishop. Point of order Chris Bishop.CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order. I was unaware of discussions between the parties therefore I seek leave for all questions to be taken as one. Sorry. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. Chris Bishop.CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I have two simple questions—I want to say thank you to Chlöe Swarbrick for saying one of them that I was going to ask—the first question is: did the Government give consideration to an extension beyond 1 July 2025? We are dealing with Part 1. Was there consideration given to a further extension bearing in mind that this bill extends it out to 1 July? So I suppose the question is: why specifically was 1 July 2025 chosen?Then the second question is an interesting one which is I've gone to the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) website as I do often and I've gone to look up the regulatory impact statement for the bill which is all fine and you've got to scroll all the way down through the guff anyway you get to the time line—and this is on the healthy homes standards—and my question is: why is the HUD website advertising that the law has changed when it hasn't? So here we go 1 July 2024 Kāinga Ora … and registered Community Housing Provider (CHPs) houses must comply with the healthy homes standard." Well that's not the law. The law as it is at the moment is 1 July 2023. So this bill extends the time line to 1 July 2024 but the bill is not law yet by definition. We're in the committee of the whole House stage. And in fact the commencement date is the 26th. And I heard the Minister in her first reading speech say that it's expected to you know pass through tonight although given this shemozzle of an issue we may not be; it may be tomorrow—although of course it's still Wednesday in Parliament's time but real-life Thursday you never know. We could still be here at midnight you never know.Brooke van Velden: It's still Tuesday.CHRIS BISHOP: Oh it's all still Tuesday. It's a good point. Good point. Thank you Brooke van Velden. It's been a long day. Anyway the point is this: so the website says 1 July 2024 Kāinga Ora homes and communities registered CHPs must comply on 1 July 2025. Except those things aren't the law—they're not the law. I accept they're going to be the law probably at some point in the next day or so and then it will go off to the Governor-General Dame Cindy Kiro and she will sign the bill into law and it will receive the Royal assent and the commencement date for the bill is the—actually I just want to say it's normally the day after the Royal assent but the commencement date for the bill is actually 26 November which is Sunday. That's all fine but it's not Sunday and in fact the bill's law hasn't passed. It's not the law. So my question is simply this and I see the member's checking off the website which is good which is fine. But I'm staring at it right here in the time line 1 July 2024 all Kāinga Ora houses must comply with the law. Now I accept the world is not going to fall apart on this issue but this is untidy—this is untidy.And you know I don't want to get all constitutional lawyer on the House but you know Fitzgerald v Muldoon I have it in my office. My friends gave it to me framed A2 size Fitzgerald v Muldoon. It's in my office. And of course that stands for the simple proposition that Parliament makes laws not Governments. And it was Mr Fitzgerald a civil servant of some standing in Wellington in 1975 who rocked up to the High Court and said "Excuse me Mr Muldoon you can't just unilaterally declare that people should stop making contributions to the Labour Government's superannuation scheme" because of course these were the days when Parliament didn't sit till June of each year which sort of seems incredible to look back on now. But of course those were the days when the farmers had to go through the first part of the year. And I think also frankly if we're honest Rob Muldoon quite liked ruling without Parliament around. But Fitzgerald turned up and said to the court "Mr Muldoon can't do that." And he was right because Parliament in this country is Sovereign not the Government. So look I accept that this is not on the scale of Fitzgerald v Muldoon but the principle is the same. So why has the website been changed before the law has been changed?"