Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. And can I just start by echoing Dr Kerekere tautoko to what she said; this is a real attack on the mana of the Health Committee which is chaired by Dr Liz Craig. And look I think it's fair to say that Dr Craig and I have had our differences over the course of the year. Frankly actually I don't really blame her for those differences. She's actually a very diligent and erstwhile chair of the committee. I actually blame factors beyond her control for our differences.David Seymour: Name them!CHRIS BISHOP: No I won't name them because I'll get into trouble. But she's a very diligent chair and this is an attack on her and the mana of the committee that I serve on alongside Dr Kerekere and other members. I think Dr Kerekere put it best: this is the paradigmatic piece of legislation in this Parliament to do with health reforms. In the Minister's own words it's a once in a generation. Every 20 years or so a Government turns around and does a big-bang reform of the health system and we've come up to the 20-year mark—here we go; this is this Government's attempt. In a funny sort of way it actually reverses stuff that Labour did the last time they were in Government which you will remember Mr Speaker from your time as a senior member of that Cabinet back in the Clark administration. We're sort of all the way around again to the abolition of DHBs which were established by the Clark Government. So it's a big-bang reform it's a massive piece of work billions and billions of dollars of assets and operational expenditure and capital expenditure every year and it's not going to the Health Committee.So one has to sit back and think: what is the point of the Health Committee if the Health Committee's job is not to consider the big legislative reforms that the Government has put before the Parliament? It actually is ludicrous when you think about it. And as Michael Woodhouse pointed out in his contribution is the committee structurally incompetent to deal with the health reforms? No. Have we proven that we can work hard and conscientiously on difficult pieces of work? Yes; we've just dealt with the abortion safe areas legislation which was a conscience issue people had very strong views on. We've just diligently sent that back to the House or are about to for consideration. We've just dealt with the drug-testing legislation which again there are various views around the House on—some people find it controversial. We have diligently worked our way through that. We've dealt with various things to do with medicinal cannabis over the last 18 months or so. Off the top of my head we have invigilated and investigated the Government's pandemic response.So this is not an incompetent committee; this is a committee that knows what it's doing with a second-term member of Parliament who is the chair—so someone who's been through the committee before knows what she's doing as the chair and has taken that experience into being the chairwoman of this Parliament in her second term. It's got a member in his third term—that's me. It's got Dr Shane Reti who's the deputy leader of the National Party and health spokesperson and a qualified doctor. In fact to be honest when you look across the Labour backbench—and I'm being very complimentary here about the Labour backbench—I think they're all doctors. You've got Dr Liz Craig; you've got Dr Gaurav Sharma who was a GP in Hamilton; you've got Dr Tracey McLellan who is not a GP but has a doctorate—I believe it's in psychology. Hon Member: Emily Henderson.CHRIS BISHOP: No Emily Henderson is not a member of the Health Committee. Emily Henderson probably wishes she was a member but she's not. This is just the Health Committee. You've got Neru Leavasa—he's a member. I think they're all doctors. So get this: the Government which has a whole variety of semi-talented backbenchers new to the Parliament who have health expertise who are doctors who know what they're talking about—the Government is not sending the big-bang health reforms to that committee; it's setting up a whole new committee! Well how ludicrous is that when you think about it? This is not an incompetent committee. It knows what it's doing. And it has specific expertise about the subject matter we're debating which is big reforms to the health system.Now in relation to the issue to do with the Māori Health Authority and the belief that we should have some special expertise on the committee that can easily be dealt with through the ordinary status quo. Labour has members up the wazoo on the committee—I think they've got six members. They're constantly coming and going! There's a variety of people coming and going during the committee meetings. That's totally fine. People bring on their own people. The National Party does the same. So the Labour Māori caucus who I know are very concerned about this can sub on to the committee. Again this is not a Government which has a shortage of members on the backbench—as we know only so well. We have 33; the Government has 65. That's double. There are a lot of new Labour Party backbenchers who can sub on to the committee including from the Labour Māori caucus if they wish to do so. It is just peculiar that we are going through the process of establishing a new committee.And when you think about it we do this on very specific occasions. I've gone back and had a look at when the Parliament does this. It's not used very often. We did it quite a lot in the first term of the last National Government. We did it for the emissions trading scheme we did it for the Auckland governance reforms and we did it for electoral legislation. So I would say they are an order of magnitude larger and justify potentially a special select committee. And the other thing is that they all have ramifications and aspects with the possible exception of the electoral law thing that crosscut multiple portfolios. So the emissions trading scheme—there's an argument you could send it to the finance committee there's an argument you could send it to agriculture there's an argument you could send it to environment. And that's the whole point; it cuts across so many different subject matter—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Government admin.CHRIS BISHOP: Government admin Michael Woodhouse points out. You know it cuts across so many different areas so Parliament has said Look this is just too difficult. Let's just establish a special select committee. " Fair enough. Auckland governance—same thing. OK look you can make the argument it should go to the Local Government Committee as it then was back in 2009. The Government of the day took the view that it was so big and so massive and there were so many submissions—and I remember being here I think at 11.30 one night on a Saturday debating an endless amendment moved by the current Speaker who was then—Hon Michael Woodhouse: 30000 SOPs.CHRIS BISHOP: 30000 Supplementary Order Papers. Those were the days! I wasn't an MP but I remember—SPEAKER: Order! Interesting history very important but not relevant.CHRIS BISHOP: Well I was making the point that in relation to Auckland governance that is an order of magnitude bigger than the health reforms.So Parliament doesn't do this very often and it needs a very good reason to establish special select committees. And I do not believe that the case has been made for that. This is not an incompetent select committee. This is a committee that knows what it is doing that has expertise on the committee provided by many members of the committee and they know what they're doing and it is just ludicrous that the Government thinks we need a special committee to consider big health reforms. We can do this job. That is what we are there for as a committee. The Health Committee is there to consider health matters. What does it say and what message does it send when the Parliament sets up a special committee to consider Government reforms to the health system but won't set up a special select committee for the global pandemic that we're enduring—COVID-19?I have moved on multiple occasions in a variety of different fora for Parliament to set up or re-establish a form of the Epidemic Response Committee—I prefer to call it a COVID-19 committee—because that is genuinely an issue that crosscuts across multiple different subject matter committees and is of an order of magnitude of significance and importance that I would say warrants a special committee. And the Government on multiple occasions in a variety of different fora has said no. OK; that's the Government prerogative. It's unfortunate actually but that's their prerogative. But yet here we are with the view that we need a special committee to consider the health reforms and the Health Committee can't do it. One of the arguments that the Leader of the House has made is that he considers the Health Committee to be adequate enough to consider the global pandemic. Well if the Health Committee is adequate enough to consider COVID19 which is of an order of magnitude more significant and more important than the health reforms then surely we are adequate and competent enough to consider the Governments health reforms? So we will not support this motion. It is not needed. Let the Health Committee do its job.SPEAKER: I am going to call Brooke van Velden but I am going to warn the House that the last speech and the one before it were both internally repetitive and with large sections of irrelevant material. This is a very narrow debate and I don't want to be hearing the same arguments over and over again."