Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Does anyone else see the irony in the current Government saying that they have to rush this through because they don't want to get caught out in the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)—whatever it is now—but also criticising the previous Government for saying that the provisions that they are seeking to work around here—they've not changed I might point out—could not be achieved.I think we've got to get back to the point here: that the select committee is going to be asked to do a lot of work in a very short period of time. I would refer the House to Speaker's ruling 102/7. This is a ruling that came out of the Review of Standing Orders: Report of the Standing Orders Committee September 2011 so it's quite current. At that time indeed the Minister now moving this particular shortened or truncated select committee process would have been active on that committee. It says: Select committees should have six months or more to consider most bills. There is no intention for the default period for select committee consideration of bills to be shortened and the Government should exercise due restraint when considering the truncation of the select committee process." So just think about that "due restraint". Is that being exercised in this case?A couple of weeks ago when Mr Parker went to Argentina to participate in the discussions in Buenos Aires there was an expectation or a hope that the CPTPP might get signed up a little bit sooner than it appears to be now. But that meeting did not meet all of the hopes and aspirations of others and it would seem that we are in for a long and protracted process before the 11 come to agreement on this comprehensive partnership.That's what I think causes us to think about whether or not it's appropriate that we take out firstly even just the legal holiday—I should say for the legal fraternity—that occurs in New Zealand over the next short while. We know that from about Thursday of this week through to around 20 January a lot of those professionals are not available to advise people who might want to make a submission on this bill. And then to expect that within a short four-week period the requirements that are set out for a select committee in the Standing Orders in this Parliament can be met—I think it's worth reflecting that each select committee to which a bill is referred examines the bill and determines whether to recommend that the bill be passed.Now this afternoon in the House we have heard Government members saying "It doesn't matter. We've got the numbers. It's happening." Well we've also heard the Minister say that the Government did consider putting this through under urgency but now the need for that urgency has dissipated. I would think that defaults us to a position where we go back to the Standing Orders and do things in an appropriate fashion.It also of course says that a report of the select committee on a bill indicates the committee's determination on all matters set out in the Standing Orders. So if you go then to Standing Order 293 it goes to the issue of opinions from other select committees. This is not a bill that stands on its own and has no effect on other activities inside New Zealand. Firstly it might be inappropriate in this debate to state that it is certainly a sledgehammer attempting to crack a nut—and all of the stats show that since the changes that were made about 12 months ago by the previous Government—but let's just consider for a minute the education workforce.We have at the moment our Government agencies out around the world particularly in English-speaking countries trying to recruit teachers to come to New Zealand. They will come to New Zealand on various types of visa and while the bill says that if the visa is appropriate then they might be able to buy a house here there is no discussion in the bill as it currently stands about the parameters of those visas. So I think it would be quite appropriate for the select committee to consider that and to ask the opinion of the Education and Workforce Committee about what they think might work not only just for education but—take that word "workforce"—the entire workforce of New Zealand particularly in the higher skilled areas where we are benefiting from people who choose to make a life here.Now the Opposition will immediately say "But oh we've covered that off in the bill so the committee doesn't need to take it any further." I think that is wrong. I think that is the sort of arrogance that often leads to mistakes.Then I think if this is going to be a bill that changes the parameters for foreigners being able to buy land here and allows for example the investment in rest homes or in retirement villages or in any other number of social service facilities that might be required around the country then surely the Social Services and Community Committee should have a view on that. I find it amazing that we can be considering a bill which the House will deal with shortly—brought into this House by the Hon Ruth Dyson—dealing with some of the concerns around the way those villages operate but it is also a bill that then enables foreigners to come and pretty much without any restraint invest in those particular facilities.Why wouldn't we have the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee look into this? We know that foreign investment is welcomed in this country—Mr Parker has said it over and over. I think there should be a consideration of what restraint this bill might put on that—not unreasonable.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The motion as to which committee this goes to has already been considered and voted upon. This debate is about the term of the referral.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Speaking to the point of order I refer the Assistant Speaker to Standing Order 293 which says that "The select committee to which a bill is referred may ask any other [select] committee for its opinion on the bill or … part [or] clause [or] schedule or other provision of the bill." I'm making a case in my speech this afternoon that they should be able to do exactly that.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes and I agree with the member. That's absolutely correct.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Thank you sir. So then there is the question about whether the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee should be asked for its opinion on this. I think that that is very much an absolute. We have significant arrangements in this country in defence ties with Singapore as we do with Australia. Singapore as we know are rightly aggrieved that they are apparently not in this bill to be treated as the Australians are. Yet they are very very close to us in so many ways and further they're looking of course to invest in the central North Island and that of course regardless of what Mr Peters said to the House last week will involve some kind of property investment. There is no provision for that sort of activity in this particular bill and I think a simple reference to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee would be a good idea.The Speakers' rulings of course are a very good guide to the House and I just want to talk to one that is relatively recent. Speaker's ruling 105/1 says that "[There are] implications for the quality of legislation of allowing insufficient time for the drafting of amendments and commentaries. We urge select committees examining bills to programme sufficient time for the drafting and consideration of amendments and for the subsequent drafting and consideration of commentaries." Now that seems to me a reasonable direction from the Speaker from 2011 but where does a select committee go if a Minister manages to persuade the House—and only by using the whip to get the full range of votes—that the select committee process should be truncated?The Hon David Parker this afternoon also said "Well if it looks like the TP—CPTPA is going to be extended a little bit further before we get a signatory"—Hon David Parker: T-P-P-A.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Look I don't know how many Ps are in it and I'm not sure how many Ts are in it. It is a wonderful trade deal which I do hope is signed off as soon as possible but it's not on the horizon at the moment. The Hon David Parker said "Well we could go to the Business Committee and ask for an extension of time." Why not do it the other way round? Let the select committee go to a reasonable period of time and then ask the Business Committee either to truncate it or—knowing that all the members on the committee will want in majority for that deal to be signed—for them to do the work a little bit more quickly on a more collegial and voluntary basis?So I want to move an amendment to the Hon David Parker's motion. I accept all of the aspects of his motion that talk about the time etc. by which committees can sit but I move That "20 February" be replaced by "19 April 2018".That way there will be plenty of time for a good bill to come out of this. It's pretty untidy at the moment."