SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well thank you Mr Chair. I have three questions for the member in charge of this bill but before I do I think the comment in our interjections on the bits that were in Part 2 highlight the folly of this bill—that is this is a bill to provide for guidance. Actually what we should be doing is just providing guidance through the Public Service Commission on what plain language is because there's no absolute requirement to follow the guidance. That's why they call it guidance. So my first question to the member in my examination of Part 1 of the bill is: given that this bill was in the ballot for the thick end of about 12 years why is it that there wasn't a departmental disclosure statement there wasn't a regulatory impact statement nor was there a cost benefit analysis—no advice—to support the consideration of the bill? So why were those 12 years wasted? My second question to the member is: does she have regard for the organisations like the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee like the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the New Zealand Law Society? And if she does why was their advice not followed? Because going in order the LDAC the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee recommended the bill not proceed. It said that Legislation should only be made when it is necessary and is the most appropriate means of achieving the policy objective." Now if those guidelines were being followed what the member in charge of the bill is saying is everything has to be by law and that the most appropriate means of implementing a policy is to just pass a law. We know that not to be the case. Certainly LDAC knew that not to be case because they said "Don't do this." The Office of the Clerk used very coded language but his office was very clear that there were problems with this bill and that it shouldn't proceed. He said that the requirement in the bill is uncertain and without consequence that the lack of a consequence for non-compliance undermines the intent of the bill and that plain language is not—in the writing of the bill—a clear legal requirement. So that's my second question: why if she has any regard for those organisations was the advice not followed and the bill not put in the bin? Now I was a member of the Governance and Administration Committee and I should just preface my third question by saying this: when the member in charge of the bill talks about what the select committee decided it has to be very clear that it was the majority of the members of the select committee because while we engaged in good faith and generally we have a good rapport across the Governance and Administration Committee this was a waste of time and National members can't get that time back and don't support any of the conclusions that the select committee came to. But I want to go to the interpretation section of the select committee's commentary. Obviously the interpretation is in Part 1. I note for the committee members that there are seven references in the section on interpretation that are concerned about interpretation and definition. So in a bill sent to a select committee specifically designed to set an expectation for documents to be written in plain language the bill was a mess. The select committee said "We believe the term 'intended reader' could be problematic … [We suggest] the definition would be better framed ... We also note that 'plain language' may differ depending on … the audience … [and] readers may have for example varying levels of understanding … We also consider that it is impractical to require that the intended reader must be able to easily understand the document after 1 reading." So we dispensed with that requirement altogether. Definitions are not specifying which guidelines are being referred to. This could create interpretation issues. The committee considered that mentioning "tax returns" could cause interpretation issues. The whole bill designed to improve plain language couldn't be understood and is basically being rewritten. So my third question is this: if it's so hard to interpret plain language in the bill that the member is sponsoring why are we not throwing it in the bin?"