Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): As members on this side of the House have said this bill is really a clarification. But what concerns me today and what I've heard is the climate denial coming from the other side of the House. We heard the ACT Party describe climate change as a topic which is around being bad" and "naughty"—absolute denial of the up to $14 billion worth of damage done to New Zealand recently through the cyclones and weather events. This legislation is really about creating some fairness because at the moment it's complex. There's between—Hon Judith Collins: Point of order Madam Speaker. Nobody on this side of the House has said what that member just said we said. None of us have said that. So is that acceptable that that member can stand up and say something entirely wrong against us?INGRID LEARY: Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker. I inferred from what I heard in the House a level of climate denial. I think I am able to make that inference. Hon Gerry Brownlee: There is a provision in the Standing Orders which I'm sure you can get advice on which does make it clear that if an accusation is made against a member they may stop the proceedings of the House and respond to that accusation. No one in here has said anything about the climate change situation that would suggest that they are in denial of it. If a member makes their own analysis of someone's speeches to suit their own narrative then in fact that would become a debating matter. But without attributing it and saying "I have heard" that is an accusation against members on this side of the House that is unacceptable.Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order. Thank you Madam Speaker. These aren't points of orders. These are debating points. No single member was singled out. This is a delaying tactic which shouldn't be tolerated.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This was actually the point that I was about to make as the Speaker that's sitting here in the House. It was actually a debating point and I did not hear the member refer to any particular member. Can I just ask the member though in the rest of her speech to make sure that she doesn't carry on in a similar vein.INGRID LEARY: Thank you Madam Speaker. I just turn now to the principle of retrospectivity. I absolutely take the point that legislation shouldn't be retrospective usually. There are some exceptions and that is where there is inherent unfairness. Currently if people are paying a levy of 5 percent versus up to 20 percent simply by virtue of when they obtained their licence that is inherent unfairness. And in my view that justifies being able to pass law to make it fairer.I do worry when I hear the enthusiasm for the extractive industries from the other side of the House around needing more extracting of fossil fuels. I reference that with the announcement recently by the ACT Party that they would reverse the zero carbon Act if they were in Government. I just remind viewers of that.When I look at who benefits from this levy it is not the Government; it is the taxpayers of New Zealand who benefit from targeted support and from the public good that this Government delivers. Today we've heard about that being for people in my electorate some hard-working parents being able to save up to $133 a week so that they can get their two-year-olds into childcare return back to work. That's going to be a huge help to mothers. This is the point about [Interruption]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! I know that there are members on one side of this House that are not really in agreement with this member or the bill but I actually would like to hear what this member is saying and other members of this House will also have an opportunity to debate this by giving a speech. INGRID LEARY: Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm flattered that the Opposition are listening so carefully to what I have to say! This simple technical bill has elicited a huge emotional response which is really interesting. I go back to what my colleague Naisi Chen said: this is a clarification. It's about making the system fairer for those in the business so that one set of business people are not paying a levy that is different to others. It's also about clarifying that discoveries cannot happen before 1986 which is perfectly rational. It's a good bill; I commend it to the House."