Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): There are times when a shortened report back is not only necessary but appropriate. From time to time also this House will need to take urgency. I don't think last week's bill is a very good example of urgency but after this bill we will be considering the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill and that I think was a good example of where an appropriately consulted bipartisan approach was taken to a very speedy report-back date and the members—the Hon Maggie Barry Hon Nicky Wagner Matt Doocey—were all part of the process—Hon Gerry Brownlee: We had a Minister who knew what she was doing.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well there you go. I mean I suppose unlike the Minister in charge of this bill David Parker she probably did talk to the people that were on this side very invested in that. So there's no doubt that there are times when it is appropriate. Not only is this not one of those times; this is probably the worst use of a shortened report-back period since this process began. I can't think of a less worthy bill for a shortened report back and I'll explain why. Today is 19 December and up and down the country there are firms and businesses and companies and construction organisations winding up and probably winding down. I have no doubt that Mr Parker's former law firm is doing just that particularly in the Queenstown office where this bill is going to be so important to them.Now far be it from me as an accountant to defend the lawyers amongst us—and I'll probably send them an invoice for the two six-minute stanzas or part thereof that I will speak in their defence—but I actually think it is appropriate that hard-working professionals be they lawyers or be they conveyancers real estate agents chartered accountants immigration advisers and the lobby groups that represent them: organisations like the law societies Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment the Registered Master Builders Federation of New Zealand the Property Investors Federation. Who knows how many people how many organisations and individuals would be particularly interested in making a submission on this bill who are currently packing the factor 50 the cossies the water boards and the jet skis and they're thinking about where they should be going—paradise of course: Cromwell Queenstown Wanaka Lake Hayes or maybe the Coromandel. Mr Parker drops on them a bill that is so important so badly written—and I'll get to that in a minute—on 19 December and says We're gonna have a comprehensive report back by 20 February."So I'm doing a little bit of the math. The minimum time—the minimum time—for submissions to close I think would be Friday 12 January. Now that would be the absolute minimum. It's about 2½ weeks away. It is an unacceptably short time frame to be able to give this bill due consideration and make thoughtful submissions at the very best of times but those organisations are ready to shut up shop and do what I expect David Parker wants to do and that's go and have a break. Now I don't begrudge Mr Parker's break. He's obviously worked very hard. He probably deserves it but so too do the people who should be submitting on this bill and telling the Government exactly what they think of it.I'd describe that time frame in the context of the very best legislation that could be written. Bear in mind that the select committee also has a responsibility in this as well. I'd draw the House's attention to Speaker's ruling 104/2 from the report of the Standing Orders Committee of 2014 about legislative quality. It talks about "Parliament [being] the supreme law-making body in New Zealand but … operates within a larger constitutional framework. Our democracy requires respect for the rule of law and avoiding the arbitrary deprivation of rights and freedoms."—I would suggest including the right to make a thoughtful submission on bills—"Care should be taken to ensure that [the] proposed legislation passed by the House is appropriate … We encourage select committees to examine legislative quality issues with a particular focus on matters of constitutional and administrative law when preparing their reports on [those] bills."Well there is simply no opportunity whatsoever to do that with this bill and that would be if it was a good bill. Now normally when it's a bad bill the regulatory impact statement (RIS) has particular code in it where the officials are really telling the House that they don't much like it but they don't like to do that to offend the Minister. Well to be honest Treasury didn't bother this time round. They said it like it is. They said on page 5 "This has meant that there has not been any opportunity"—no opportunity—"to consult with private sector organizations or the general public to inform the development of this policy." No consultation. No exposure draft. No "What do you think about this?" They just landed the bill on the House and said "Guess what? Your Christmas is cancelled." Their Christmas is cancelled—zero opportunity to consult with the private sector. As such in the range of options measured the RIS always looks to what else we could do to give effect to the policy intent. Remember the Minister thinks it's a ban; we know it's not a ban but as such because "[The] analysis has been constrained by the Government's commitment to implement[ing] this specific policy."—nothing else—"… no other housing policy measures (for example policies that would support the broader objective of increasing the supply of residential property) … have been analysed or evaluated."So not only do we have a bad bill at a bad time of the year for the people who are most affected by this; the Minister says "Holiday's off." And I think the Hon Gerry Brownlee is absolutely right when he says "Let's amend this. Let's have a shortened report-back date but let's be sensible about the time of the year and the opportunity for those organisations to make thoughtful considerations." I don't agree that the scurrilous attitude that was portrayed by the Hon Shane Jones in his first reading speech is actually reflective certainly of the Minister responsible for this bill who basically admitted "Get over it—that's politics." He said "We've got the numbers. If the public don't like it they get a chance to do something about it in 2020." Word for word that's what he said. Well I would remind that member that the first poll after the election saw a 30 percent plummet in New Zealand First's support and most of it went to the National Party.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The member needs to come back to the motion.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The point I'm making Mr Assistant Speaker is that Mr Jones and his Cabinet colleagues treat the public with that level of disrespect at their peril.This is a terrible process. It's a terrible bill but that is the Government's right. They have every right to introduce bad legislation but so too do the public have a right to say what they think about that. In order to be able to do that they need time to understand it to gather their thoughts about it to make thoughtful submissions on it and then to appear before the select committee in support of that submission. It wouldn't be quite so bad if the imperative to get the legislation passed was as the Minister said. But as the former Minister of Trade had said the CPTPP—Hon Todd McClay: Just call it "TPP"; it's the same.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: TPP—it is easier. The alphabet soup has been signed will be ratified but won't come into force for anything up to two years. A two-year window we have to get this right and the Minister is saying that's not enough: we've got to get it in we've got to get it in the House six days before Christmas. We get submissions—who knows when—12 days into the new year and we rush as Mr Jones has admitted a superficial—just give the appearance of consultation and listening and then get the bill through. Well this is not the way good law is made. Frankly where the Green Party is on this I have absolutely no idea. I would very much like someone in the Green Party to take a call and say how those righteous indignant speeches that we got on any shortened report back have suddenly gone quiet quiet as mice on the one thing that I thought they would challenge which was an openness to people from overseas because they do that with refugees. They do that with other migrants but apparently "Johnny Foreigner" when he wants to buy a bungalow in Parnell—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The member's time has expired."