Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This motion before the House around the reinstatement of business is a small but important test as to the integrity of the new Government and whether it stands by what they said when they were in Opposition. I've reflected back on the Hansard of the motion for the reinstatement of business when Labour was in Opposition. There was a very good speech in which the members opposite now in Government said that it was essential—essential—that the Government put the case as to what bills were being reinstated as business. In fact members opposite in that debate—and I use the exact word—said it would be a disgrace a disgrace if the Government members were not prepared to get on their feet and justify the bills that they were wanting to have debated and those that would lapse.I note that we have not heard a single speech from members on the Government benches as to why the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill is being rolled over why the pay equity bill is not and why the regulatory reform bill is not being considered. So I put it to you that on this very small first test this Government is blowing its integrity in saying all those things it said—all those things it said—whether it be on an issue like this debate on the issue of the reinstatement of Government business. Are we not to believe what they said when they were in Opposition? What is the Government's explanation as to why eight speakers from Labour said previously that it was outrageous for a motion for the reinstatement of business to not be properly debated by members of the Government? Is there a single member on the Government benches that would quickly give an explanation as to why there is the change in position? The silence is deafening. There is no explanation. This is a Government that on the very first item of business has gone back on its word—of what is recorded in Hansard—as to what they said then were their very core values.I think it might be worthwhile to actually read elements of the speech in which they said it was very rare that it was inappropriate that it was wrong for this Parliament to pass a reinstatement motion without the Government clearly putting the case. So again I challenge members opposite. I ask members opposite: what's changed? What's changed from what you said in Opposition? Or are we to find that for all those lofty sentiments from members opposite members of the Green Party members of the Labour Party and members of the New Zealand First Party are on day one of the Government breaking their word on the very first motion before the House? It didn't take long. What an awful precedent for them to set on the very first debated motion—for them to do exactly the opposite of what they argued in Opposition. Are we to see the same flip-flopping on every other substantive issue? When are we going to get the flip-flop on tax? When are we going to get the flip-flop on fiscal responsibility? When are we going to get the flip-flop on the issue of education? On this motion the very first motion before the House we see a double standard. We see a going back on the Government's word.I particularly want to ask a question in respect of the important issue of the Kermadecs. I do note that that bill has been rolled over. I would love a contribution from the Green Party which introduced the first member's bill to this Parliament which I compliment them on. We on this side of the House strongly support the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary. We were disappointed that the previous Parliament was not able to progress that important Government bill. I would love to hear a contribution from Shane Jones as to whether the new Government supports the Kermadec Ocean bill or what sort of sneaky deals have been done behind the bike sheds shafting the Green Party on that Kermadec Ocean bill. That is an issue on which Mr Shane Jones and the Green Party should contribute during this motion to roll-over the House.I think members would also want to know with all those lofty statements around growing jobs why the members opposite have not given one single speech not one single word of explanation as to why they don't think creating jobs reducing poverty and growing the economy do not require a set of thought around regulatory review. Surely members opposite owe this Parliament a single speech as to why that regulatory reform bill is not being rolled over. I want to join with the very competent members on this side of the House Amy Adams Judith Collins and Nikki Kaye in challenging the Government: why is the pay equity bill not being rolled over? Surely this Parliament deserves at least one of the women Government members to get to their feet—just one—and give an explanation as to why the pay equity bill is not being rolled over in the motion to reinstate the business of the House.What we see from this motion is an awful start by the Government an awful disrespect to this Parliament—to not even be prepared to put up a single speaker justifying this motion which affects over 30 bills. Again I want to draw to members' attention to the exact speeches that they gave and why they are going back on their word that such a motion does require an argument and how they are setting such an awful precedent. The very last bill I would love to get an explanation for—and I note Mr Little is in the Parliament—is the healthy homes bill. We know the heathy homes bill is being rolled over. We know it is a dog. We know that it is actually going to—[Interruption] Actually it slows down. I would love to hear from Mr Little. Why do we want to slow down? The previous Government passed legislation that will require every home to be insulated by 1 July 2019. Mr Little's bill will slow that down by three years. I want to know why we would want to roll over a bill that is actually going to slow down the pace at which we make homes better insulated.Perhaps it'd be best if I just directly quoted members opposite. I read the words: But the idea that a Government when serious questions have been asked—some of them [the] very serious questions—" and no attempt has been made to reply and they've even gone to the point of moving closure is a contempt for the Parliament and an ineptness—an ineptness—from the Government right from the start not to respect the Parliament.Hon Member: Who said that?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Those words were in the motion to transfer business by a senior member of the House—a senior member of the Labour Party—a Mr Trevor Mallard. He said then for the Government to put a motion requiring the reinstatement of business without a single Government speech was a disgrace—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired."