Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard
BUSINESS STATEMENT
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today, the House adjourns until Tuesday, 9 November. In that week, legislation to be considered will include the second reading of the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill; the committee stages of the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill, the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees, Levies, and Costs) Amendment Bill, and the Education and Training Amendment Bill; and the third reading of the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. Tuesday’s sitting will be extended into Wednesday morning. Wednesday afternoon will be a members’ day.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update. Given that it’s now more than five years and four months since the Local Government and Environment Committee referred the Kermedec Ocean Sanctuary Bill back to the House, can the House now take it that it is not the Government’s intention to pass that bill, and, if so, will it discharge it from the Order Paper?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): No, the member can’t take that inference from that. It is a shame that the last Government made such a hash of it, which means it wasn’t in a position to pass when we became the Government. But I am confident that the Ministers in charge of the bill, on this side of the House, are doing a much better job.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: In response to that, Mr Speaker—
SPEAKER: Hang on, I just want to make sure that this has to do with the business of the House over the next couple of weeks. It’s Thursday afternoon. I don’t know whether to say we all want to go home or we’re acting up, but I just want to warn the member that we’ve had a sort of a question and a reply in a light-hearted way. If the member has a serious follow-up, then of course he can have it.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order, Mr Speaker. An interesting description of the Leader of the House’s reply being light-hearted, but it did have an unambiguous political statement in terms of the previous Government. If that now is allowed in the Business Statement, I think that would be an interesting development.
SPEAKER: Right, well, I think they always have been allowed. They’ve generally been allowed in response to what have been seen as less than deadly serious questions from the Opposition.
