Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Well I'd like to rise in opposition to the Minister's motion about a shortened report-back date of 27 July. When you look at it for those listening normally the submissions process is about four to six months. This has been rammed through in a bit over 30 days and it really makes you wonder: what have they got to hide? The Minister the Hon Kieran McAnulty started his contribution in the first reading saying This bill comes to the House in good faith; the amendments are in good faith"—but by the way we're going to scurry it through because we don't want you to look at it too closely. And that really concerns me.That's why I think my learned colleague Simon Watts is right on the button. He speaks on behalf of the public to say "Let's extend it out to 9 November 2023"—because why would you not give this due diligence especially when you take the words of the Minister's own officials? Look in the regulatory impact statement because it's just been such a shambles let's be honest: "Constraints on timing have limited the amount of research and analysis in the development of options. As a result of these constraints officials are continuing to work with Ministers and the sector on the impacts of a 10-entity model on transitional arrangements for local government during the establishment period." So even the officials are acknowledging that because of constraints of the poorly held legislative process timing of this bill even they are concerned that the analysis has not been put in place.Why would we not then double down with the submissions process to encourage all those who maybe have some technical expertise to submit as well just to double check and make sure that what the Minister's got—what he thinks is the right model—is the correct model because as has been pointed out there's real concern on this side of the House. This bill is not only amending legislation that's only recently been passed—with us the Opposition calling it the "back-down bill"—but in fact is going to amend two bills currently before the House and that's why I think it needs a full submissions process for the oversight and for the public to have their say.Then the final point I'd make: this bill kicks out the implementation date by two years. If we have extended the implementation date by two years why are we truncating the public submissions time frame? It actually doesn't add up because what's going to happen is that if they get it through there are going to be errors and there's going to have to be workarounds. What we know is that they're rushing this through for political reasons.There's actually a lot of public interest in this bill. There were thousands of submissions on the first bill—that actually is not good enough because we're now amending it because they finally listened to the public and they felt that electoral pressure. But there's a lot of public interest. The Government is trying to ram it through and talk about it as little as possible. I think in due process when you look at those points that I've raised—around the officials concerned in the regulatory impact statement the public interest in this bill and also this bill amending two bills before the House and the extended implementation date of two years—it's only right and I'd call on the other parties in this House this afternoon to support Simon Watts' motion of giving the public a say. And why wouldn't we do that—extending the date out to 9 November 2023? Thank you Madam Speaker."