Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I too rise to speak about the proposal that's been made by the Government in relation to this report-back period for the select committee being considerably shorter than would ordinarily be the case. Like my colleagues the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the Hon Tim Macindoe I am fearful for the consequences of lawmaking in the context of a shorter report-back period but I offer slightly different reasons for that.The first is that there will be considerable interplay between the different branches of Government here. We've got legislative branches involved in relation to the New Zealand Supreme Court finding essentially in exactly this matter. We've got the Waitangi Tribunal which made its own separate report—again substantially in this place. So it will take time for the select committee to consider all these different factors interrelating and interconnecting as we consider the bill and its appropriateness in our broader constitutional framework. That's the first point.The second one is around the fundamental rights involved. Now that was a point that was well made by Dr Nick Smith so I won't rehearse the arguments that he's made in that of course but I will point out that there's a technical reason that the select committee will need extra time to consider the implications of the serious rights at play. That's because the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act establishes a mechanism where there is to be balancing of fundamental rights to see whether there is a justified limitation in a free and democratic society. That's something that the select committee should turn its mind to. It should not do so in a rushed fashion. The advice that it seeks and the consideration of Attorney-General's advice in that space should be done in the amount of time that it would reasonably be expected to take and not in a truncated fashion for the mere politically convenient reason that others on this side of the House have already spelled out.My next point is about certainty. This goes to electoral law in general which is to say that when we have electoral law not only should there be as far as reasonably possible bipartisan agreement—a point that has again been made very well indeed by the Hon Dr Nick Smith—but also from the point of view of insuring against a system whereby every three years with the change of Government or at least a change of Parliament that we're going to have different electoral law according to the numbers in the House at that given time.That's an argument in favour of the select committee—which is a split committee which does represent equally both sides of the House—taking its time to consider in a very careful way to ensure that we will be less likely to have the matter essentially relitigated quickly in the following Parliament and beyond.I'd also like to talk about the fact that with such a complex issue and one in which there are politically partisan interests the select committee is going to need a decent period of time to consider external evidence. If the select committee has the shortened report-back period as suggested by the Minister it will be inevitable that we fall upon our own existing views—prejudices perhaps. I don't use that word in the ugly sense but meaning merely the ideas that we already bring to the table.We should not shorten a process whereby we will have more reason more incentive to fall back on our pre-existing notions. Indeed we should spend the time as a select committee to consider the full range of views out there in the general public and to allow them the opportunity to make those views known to us first by way of written submission second by way of oral submission for those who wish to be heard—physically heard—in the matter.Also for those of us who then want to obviously consider and debate—which I would hope would be all the members of the committee. Those particular views again as I say go much further beyond our own views which of course if we were to rely upon our own views only then we could do away with the select committee process entirely. So on a sliding scale from taking the full usual period of time to taking no time at all we are in danger of erring very much on the side of the latter with the shortened report-back period that the Minister is suggesting and requesting today.A related point is that in this matter we will be judges in our own cause. Famously it was said that no man—to which of course we could update and say no person—should be the judge in their own cause. Well as politicians as those who are elected now and in many cases are seeking re-election at the next election the question of prisoner voting is one that is dear to our hearts. It is a matter of vested interest. Now that's not problematic as far as it goes necessarily except that the more time that we have to demonstrate as a matter of perception that we have understood the issues at play we have taken the time to consider them and to work them through the less it will look as though we are merely legislating in our own interests—whether that's the Government doing so as we may say on this side of the House but also equally I suppose it could be said any member of Parliament seeking re-election has an interest in the matter. So it is that a shortened report-back period would be inappropriate for that reason too.Yet another reason that we shouldn't have the report-back period shortened in the way that's being suggested is the complexity of the legislation. There are details that are actually really seriously important. The Hon Dr Nick Smith has touched on some of those. I myself in an earlier debate on the bill itself as opposed to this procedural motion talked about the subtleties around enrolment versus suspended enrolment versus automatic re-enrolment and so on. That's a key aspect of the bill that we will be considering: the complexity of the matter involved from a technical perspective upon which we will need serious official advice—advice which it takes time to seek to be given to consider and so forth. All these factors indicate again that we shouldn't have a shortened report-back period in which to consider the bill.Another point regards the current coronavirus crisis. I don't think it's too strong a word to use. I think that's generally acknowledged up and down the land and indeed on all sides of the House that the nation is in a period of crisis with regard to that. That was a point that was made very well by the Hon Tim Macindoe. But again I would pick that up and perhaps make some slightly different points in relation to that.One is the possibility that various key players in the select committee process could be subject to the need for self-isolation. Not only that they might be stricken with this wretched condition but also it might be that as a matter of precaution and public safety as well as their own that they are actually not able to be physically present at select committee hearings. That could affect our excellent advisers who need to give us the technical knowledge on how to inform the way that we proceed. It could affect submitters.Now admittedly submitters could continue to use the mechanisms available at the moment in relation to phoning in or being linked by video conference. But for members of Parliament that situation is not at all clear. So it might be that we need to take extra time if anything and certainly not less time to have the ability to programme an ability for us to hear all the different people that need to be heard not only the submitters of course but as I say the advisers and the MPs themselves.A more general point in relation to the coronavirus outbreak and crisis is that naturally the attention of many would-be submitters will be distracted in other directions. To give them less time to make a submission in that context seems totally illogical and I would say wholly inappropriate.My final point as a subheading of the coronavirus response would be that actually what we don't know in the justice select committee is what other more urgent business we might have to contend with in the next two months. As I say as others have said six months should be the ordinarily mandated report-back time.Mr Macindoe has pointed out quite rightly that we have a very full schedule of legislation which is pretty complex and involves some very fundamental rights. Of course he's quite correct to note that and I thank him for that. But I'd also add respectfully that we don't know what other things might come up specifically in relation to the epidemic or perhaps do I mean pandemic—in any case coronavirus. For example we've heard today that jury trials are to be suspended at least for a period of time. It's entirely possible indeed I'd say inevitable that in some way shape or form the Justice Committee will turn its collective mind to that. Again that's an argument in favour of allowing a normal period of time if not longer certainly not a shorter period of time for the Justice Committee to consider this bill.So like others on this side of the House I argue strongly against a shortened report-back period for this very important bill that has serious implications serious factors at play and deserves serious attention and serious time.