Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you for that indication Minister Adams. Can I also just put on the record that in the Labour Party we were somewhat reluctant to agree to a single debate here. We wanted a part by part debate because this is a very serious piece of legislation governing all of our courts. But we were presented with the option from the Minister that if we agreed to a single debate we would remove the uncertainty as to whether we would get National's vote for Supplementary Order Paper 62. Having spoken with my colleague Jacinda Ardern and discussed the pros and cons of that actually this is such a fundamental provision in this bill that we thought we should bank that—that that was the most important thing that was going down at this Committee stage and we should get it through. I suspect that when the final votes come—well actually we already know that we have got the good support of New Zealand First and the Greens—we are going to get support from other minor parties like United Future and get it across the line anyway which is why the Government might have rolled on it. I do not know. The Minister shakes her head; she may not know either. That might be a little bit cynical of me.Jono Naylor: What clause of the bill is that? What clause of the bill is that in?Hon DAVID PARKER: This is Supplementary Order Paper 62 that I am talking about.Having put that provision in there in the Supreme Court Act you have got to consider what the effect of taking it out would be. Even if it was not necessary to put it in the Supreme Court Act—and arguably it was not; it was just stating what was the underlining position at law—its having been in there for Parliament to withdraw it in this iteration could actually change the law. So even if the original provision was not necessary to actually omit it from the replacement legislation for the Supreme Court and other courts below it in the hierarchy of courts would have meant that the law meant something different to what it meant before that provision was in there. That would in itself have created uncertainty that is best avoided.I agree that this provision is best sat in the Constitution Act but actually it is the same effect whether it sits in the Constitution Act or in this Act. It is of the same legal effect and it would be of the same legal effect to not have it—sorry that is not quite good English. The effect of not having it would have had legal effect whether it does not sit in the Constitution Act or it does not sit in this Act. It needs to be in one of these pieces of legislation. That is the most important issue in my opinion in this debate that we are having because by and large I think the Justice and Electoral Committee has done a very good job on the rest of the legislation and has reached agreements that I can concur with.I will say one final thing: equity and good conscience jurisdiction is going up to $5000 on the recommendation of the select committee but not up to the full amount of the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal which has a jurisdiction of I think $15000—it can be a bit more if people agree. I agree that the select committee has got that right. There is rough justice in the disputes tribunal. It is rough at times. You have got limited rights of appeal. It has an equity and good conscience jurisdiction which means it does not actually have to follow the law. Even its process protections are pretty thin compared with traditional courts. The answer to people who have got serious legal problems lies in the courts and I think we should be careful not to say: Anything goes; we will just throw the dice up in the air and see where it lands on the basis of how someone feels on the day on an equity and good conscience basis." We should actually make sure that our courts are accessible so that the rule of law can be applied rather than brushed over.With those comments I will take my seat. I am so pleased—I really am so pleased—that Jacinda Ardern's Supplementary Order Paper which I have also been advocating for is going to be passed."