Seymour David; Tolley AnneDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Oh not quite Madam Chair. No—far too much of a renegade to gain a title like that. But I look forward to you voting very soon on the member's bill that I turned down becoming a Minister over in order to put it in the ballot. And I hope the people of Gisborne have been giving you their feedback on that particular issue.I rise to take a call on Part 1 in particular on the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). But I think it's worth revisiting a little bit of the procedure around the committee stage of a bill because we've been all over the show tonight. It is possible to be completely opposed to a bill as I clearly stated at the first reading that ACT is. It is possible to have taken a range of positions on a bill in previous readings and even previous bills of a similar nature and still come to the committee stage to debate the clauses and seek to improve the bill in the form of Supplementary Order Papers—amendments—to the bill. There is nothing illegitimate whatsoever about doing that. In fact it is a welcome procedure and part of the parliamentary process.So to all of those opposite who have been saying Why wasn't this idea or amendment of Amy Adams in previous bills?" what do they think the point of the committee stage is if not to improve upon where bills have been so far? Perfectly legitimate. And I've said and put on record in this House that this bill is an expansion of the entitlement culture that has destroyed just about every democracy since Roman times. And here we are again: constant expansions of entitlement purely in order to buy votes—not for any legitimate public policy purpose but purely to buy votes—thinking "There's a group of people here that we can take some money off and if we give it to another group of people we'll get more votes." And I think it's a real pity for New Zealand that a party founded on the values of thrift enterprise property rights some classical liberalism—being the National Party—has fallen into that trap tonight. If only the kinds of speeches we heard in the Address in Reply debate—from David Bennett for instance—was how the National Party actually thought.Nevertheless I digress. We are here to discuss specific aspects of the bill and in particular Supplementary Order Paper 3—and a most excellent one I have to say—which has been put up by Amy Adams. It's not often that I come here to this House representing the ACT Party to champion an idea that had its genesis in the National Party. I have to say it's normally the other way around. Nevertheless here we are tonight and I can't tell you—and I hope you'll give me another five minutes because it's going to take a while—how many ways let me count them that I agree with Amy Adams' amendment. It is a superb amendment and a profound amendment and I will try to put forward the case for it in ways that previous speakers have tried and come fairly close to succeeding at doing so far.And another aspect of this amendment is that I can't believe that the governing parties didn't think of it and didn't put it up. What is at the heart of this bill is something that we heard about at some length during question time today from the Minister for Women. It was about the idea that men and women should get paid the same amount for doing the same job and that is something that the ACT Party wholeheartedly believes in. The question is: how do we as a society actually get there? This becomes very relevant to Amy Adams' SOP when you consider the work of Claudia Goldin. Claudia Goldin is probably the top labour economist in the United States. She is a high-ranking professor of labour economics at Harvard University and she recently published an excellent paper that all people interested in the topic of the gender pay gap should be studying and it is called—Madam Chair this is very relevant to the topic of Amy Adams' amendment—[Time expired]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Judith Collins."