Bridges Simon; Mallard TrevorHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Can I firstly start this reinstatement motion by congratulating you as Speaker. I genuinely wanted to simply see on those Standing Orders the answers and I know that you will be Parliament's man. You'll do a good job.Can I speak and talk to what are many questions in relation to this reinstatement motion; effectively questions about what's in it and also what is not in it. And I seek to move a reinstatement amendment to reinstate the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill because I think that's an important bill and I know you're going to hear about that in due course from others. Can I also in that amendment seek to reinstate the Regulatory Standards Bill because again I think that's a bill that is worth it.Hon Member: Good bill.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: That's right it's a good bill. It achieves some good things that are not in this and that should be in it.Look I'd firstly make some I suppose procedural points about this reinstatement motion. I think it's really important to make firstly actually a constitutional point—a point that I think is important in a Parliament to note—and that is: the last Parliament does not tell this Parliament what to do. And that's why we need to do this. Actually if you go back I think to the days of Muldoon that was what happened. A motion was put at the end of a Parliament and they were carried over—the bills. But here no longer do we do that and I think that's right. It's conceptually wrong to do that to bind one Parliament into the future.Can I say that there are two today primary ways—just on the procedure of this briefly—to do this. And of course what you can—I would suggest should—do is you should do a reinstatement motion that reinstates everything particularly if you've got an Address in Reply debate later in the day because actually it means there's less to muck around with and that's the way to do it. Of course what we've had here from the new Leader of the House is a situation where he has left things off rather than have them written to by the relevant Ministers the Clerk and of course that means that we've got a lot of interest in understanding why it is. Given yesterday and some of the interest around that I would be interested to know actually why the new Leader of the House did take those off—whether it was intentional to have a debate on these things if he wants to talk about these things or what the situation is there.I also want to just ask some questions in relation to some of these bills and these matters that are in the reinstatement motion. I think one that's important to talk about—it's one when I was the Minister of Transport—is the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. It may not be a particularly high profile bill it may not have got a lot of headlines but it's got some very significant things in relation to oil pollution and the issues there. Of course I know well about that having seen the Rena and issues as a local member of Parliament—fixed up a lot of that. So that's an important part of the bill given my concerns that that bill is not going to be progressed either fast enough and—actually I wonder given what I'm about to come to—whether it will be progressed at all in this Parliament. Because the other things in this bill—and there's quite a myriad of things in it but let me focus on two.Firstly in relation to drugs and alcohol in a situation where in the workplace—right across transport actually; in civil aviation in land transport but also in maritime—it's dealt with specifically in this bill. In that area my understanding is the unions oppose those clauses. They oppose what this bill is about in that area because they don't want to see that sort of scrutiny in the workplace. So I'm interested to know because I think the Labour position was of that vein whether that's actually going to be put out through this motion whether we're going to see either that amendment—[Interruption]—sorry what's that? I can't hear you—to this bill or if not the amendment then the continuance or lack of progress on the bill. I think these are things that it would be good to understand either from the new transport Ministers or the Leader of the House.And there's another thing in the bill that again gives me reason to believe that even though—because we know there are things that aren't in this reinstatement motion: four bills. By the way can I say on that in relation to the two that I have not mentioned we agree with that. We agree with that. It's those other ones—the pay equity bill and the regulatory reforms systems bill—where we wonder what is happening there.But back to this one. When we go through it the other thing that is in it is a particularly interesting set of clauses around the Chatham Islands and effectively free cabotage and commercial freight there. While there probably is—there probably is—and to get them in and out what this bill did was allow for competition in that freighting. Allow for competition but again we know—Hon Tracey Martin: New Zealand's watching.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Sorry what was that Tracey Martin? I just couldn't hear that?Hon Tracey Martin: New Zealand's watching Mr Bridges. Go right ahead.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: That's right. That's right and I'm just wanting to debate a reinstatement motion where a number of things are in—most is in—but there are some serious things that aren't and also ask some questions on some bills where I know that the position of the now Government the then Opposition was opposed to but yet they have reinstated. Clearly they are not taking the position that I would have thought was the smart one which is to do away with them by letters to the Clerk so that it is in here. I just want to know actually is there a seriousness of intention of progressing it given they opposed it before?That other piece as I say is the Chatham Islands and that issue there where we were under this bill given issues—actually the Hon Annette King raised it with me because she was concerned about it; she couldn't get her colleagues in the Labour Party on board but she was concerned about it—that meant we were opening up for competition. But the unions—I think the Maritime Union I think a number of other ones—were dead opposed because they saw it as potentially opening up competition internationally. So I do want to know on that whether that bill that is there—curious given their opposition to it—is going to be continued in this Parliament; not only just seriously but seriously continued? Or are they going to take out some of those bits and just leave sort of the bare bones really of—I don't know. Is it the drug and alcohol provisions by themselves is it the oil pollution provisions or is it all of these? So it would be interesting to know that.I also think one thing that has gone through is an inquiry into the new mobility—I want to say I do want to understand on that; really it would be interesting—from James Shaw Leader of the Green Party as a Minister outside of the Cabinet but really part of the Government whether he is serious about that. Because I know in that area we did a lot of work in electric vehicles; a huge amount going on. And the rhetoric from the Greens has been that they will increase that that they will continue to do that. Actually we had a wonderful policy into the election to significantly increase the transport fleet in this area for Government: more electric vehicles. That's being kept so I am particularly interested in knowing about that.So we've got a number of questions. Can I sum it up this way both in relation to what isn't here—and as I say I am moving that amendment to see two of those reinstated; significant bills—pay equity but also in regulatory systems bills that we think should be progressed. But also with what is there given the opposition—particularly those bills I mentioned; they're the ones I am interested in—whether they will be continued. I note that when this came up in 2008 Michael Cullen and a number of other senior figures spoke and they made quite clear that it would be ridiculous to shut down this sort of debate because it's important there are those serious questions at a change of Government where some equivocation is made and that these sorts of questions are put at the start of Parliament like this.I note Mr Speaker without drawing you into the debate that you were one of those speakers. You made quite clear that several hours were necessary for the debate. That's what you said in 2008 Mr Speaker. So I do think there are serious questions in relation to what's there but also what is not.Mr SPEAKER: No will members resume their seats. I'm on my feet. I'm just waiting for Mr Bridges. I thought the member purported to move an amendment.Hon Simon Bridges: I'm sorry Mr Speaker. I move an amendment.Mr SPEAKER: You've got to table it.Hon Simon Bridges: Yes I'm going to do that.Mr SPEAKER: Well I'm waiting for you. Members will settle down please. Thank you.Hon Simon Bridges: I move That the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill be reinstated.Mr SPEAKER: The question was that the motion be agreed to; since then the Hon Simon Bridges has moved an amendment that the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill be reinstated. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.