SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. My question to the member is in relation to clause 5 of Part 1. Now it's a very simple clause and it says this: This Act binds the Crown." Now my question—I have a couple of questions about this. Firstly they seem like pretty straightforward words—Simeon Brown: What does "bind" mean?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well that's right; what does "bind" mean? Who is the Crown? But most importantly did the member follow the process that is set out in the Cabinet Manual before an Act to bind the Crown? The reason I ask this is that in 2002 under the previous Labour Government very clear expectations were set—as articulated in the Cabinet Manual and in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet guidelines on this—and they say among other things this: "In July 2001 the Cabinet agreed that all Cabinet papers seeking policy approval for proposals that will result in Government bills must address the issue of whether the proposed Act is to bind the Crown." That's Cabinet papers.But the overarching requirement is that it—Cabinet—will make explicit decisions on whether draft bills should include a provision stating that the Act will bind the Crown. So only Cabinet can decide whether this Act binds the executive and the Crown. I would love to know whether or not the Cabinet Legislation Committee sat around that big table on the eighth floor of the Beehive and said "Yes this is a great idea; we should be bound by this bill when it becomes law."Simeon Brown: Well it's Chris Hipkins' bill so I'm sure he would've been—Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well that's right Mr Brown. Chris Hipkins is the true villain of this piece the architect of this nonsense piece of legislation. When he was a bright young thing—probably in a Minister's office in the Clark Government giving education advice I think he was—he probably thought "I know I'll come to Parliament; my life's work will be complete when I can pass a bill that talks about requiring plain language officers to be introduced."I may sound flippant but it's very important to know whether the member has sought Cabinet approval through the Cabinet Legislation Committee that a piece of legislation this House and this committee is now debating has gone through Cabinet. And if it did were they unanimous in their support? I'm sure it went through the Labour Party caucus but in order to bind the Crown it's very clear that Cabinet needs to give it the tick. There are obviously because we can't sit without them Ministers present in this Chamber; perhaps Mr Jackson or Miss Radhakrishnan—Hon Member: Willie will get up.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yeah here we go! And here's the folly of all of this. We now have a bill which says "This is an Act that binds the Crown". And the Act will do anything but bind the Crown because there's nothing binding about it. There are no consequences for non-compliance with this legislation. There is no expectation that there be consequences if one of the 88 Government entities and departments that will be bound by this—Simon Watts: Eighty-eight!Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That's right Mr Watts; 88 Government departments in an Orwellian move. Winston Smith would be pleased with this. He probably in his wildest dreams could not have written a bill quite this mad. The Act will say it binds the Crown but the Crown is not bound to do anything. There are no consequences for non-compliance with this legislation. So I get back to my central question: did the member sponsoring this bill go through the process required by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that before an Act becomes law and binds the Crown Cabinet needed to approve it?"