King AnnetteHon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I want to put to you two further arguments as to why this part of the bill should be sent to a select committee. Just before I do that I have to express my disappointment that we have been unable to get any answers to questions and this is the only time there will be questions asked on this part of the bill in the entire time. The public will not get to ask; only the Opposition will get to ask and we have failed to get our passing parade of Ministers who have sat in the chair to answer questions that have been put. I think that that shows a certain arrogance by the Government which has put up one backbench speaker to defend it and has given no answers. That is not good enough. There are two reasons why Part 2 should go to the select committee. We were told by the Minister there ought to be a review of the Public Works Act. The Minister Nick Smith has said that. Why is this part not included in the review of the Public Works Act? Would you not think that that was the first step of any changes? Rather than having an added-on urgency motion trying to pass it through all stages in a sticking-plaster way why would the Government not do a review of the Public Works Act which the Minister said needed to be done? The second issue is one that Kelvin Davis raised. Kelvin Davis said that the Māori Affairs Committee members are about to start looking at first refusal rights and they are going to consider it at the Māori Affairs Committee. First refusal rights—that is a piece of work they are doing. So why in looking at this would we not ensure that we join this up? You see there is no joined-up thinking here by the Government. It is all over the place. So we have got the Māori Affairs Committee looking at first refusal rights as they affect Māori I presume; we have the Minister saying we need to review the Public Works Act; and we have the hapless Minister for Building and Housing who comes in and puts in under urgency a quick little change—not very important at all. There is a way to go about this. We send it to the select committee. In the meantime the Government has work done on the review the Māori Affairs Committee does its work and we come back with a sensible proposal to this Parliament. We then ask the public of New Zealand—in fact maybe they would like to get the Law Commission to look at this but then we come back to the Parliament and back to the people of New Zealand and ask them what they think because this is not a good process and I am going to tell you why. I do not know whether other members have picked this up but at the very beginning of the day when we went to the Table to get the documents we rely on to debate this we were told that the departmental disclosure statement was not a tabled document—not a tabled document. What is that Table? I cannot understand it. If this is lying on the Table amongst all our bills all our Supplementary Order Papers and we are told that the departmental disclosure statement is not official and it is not tabled—it is a nonsense. So we are relying on to debate today a not-official not-tabled departmental disclosure statement. I want the Minister to tell us why we have to rely on a not-official not-tabled document to argue on Part 2 of this bill because that is what we are being asked to do. When you look through it you have to say that it is very very shonky what they have provided in this non-official non-tabled document. For example it says: Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform … on this bill?". Yes they said. Well no. There is no regulatory impact statement on Part 2 of this bill. Here is another one. It says: "If so did that RIA team in the Treasury provide independent opinion on the quality of these regulatory impact statements?". Well no. It did not. We got a Treasury paper and then they set about redacting anything that would have helped us understand it. You see what I am saying? This is just not good enough. This is not the way a Parliament should work. It then goes to say: "Has further impact analysis become available for any aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill?". No. This is what the non-official—"