SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I wasn't going to speak on this particular motion but in the complete absence of justification from the Government I feel it's important that I do. Now in current circumstances we're all going through quite an environment of change and adaptation. I do note that Alanis Morissette was due to perform in Auckland but has had to postpone her concert so it's over to me to say on her behalf isn't it ironic? Isn't it ironic that in Opposition that lot were lions defending the democratic principles of a six-month select committee process? Isn't it ironic that in Opposition they were the defenders that New Zealanders should have every opportunity to have their say on any given piece of legislation and they would roar in Opposition should the Government have proposed any shortening of that process?Well there are three items I want to talk about as to why this House should oppose this motion for a shortened report back. The first is our constitutional conventions the second is the absence of any justification from the Government as to why this should be shortened and the third is a new factor which has emerged over the course of the debates this evening principally from that side.So we'll start with the constitutional conventions. It is true of course we don't have a fully written constitution but that just makes the conventions of this House that much more important because if we sacrifice those we have no written pillar to fall back upon. We are not necessarily unique but we do shine through in Westminster-based parliaments particularly that which we are born from that we place almost every bill that comes through this Parliament before a select committee to scrutinise that bill and to allow public input. For instance in the UK they don't. They form special committees when they want to scrutinise specific pieces of legislation. They of course have a second house—the House of Lords—whose job is to do a great deal of that and to recommend back to the House of Commons ideas for change. We don't have that. Instead it is a well-established convention that instead in almost every single case legislation that comes before this House will be sent to a select committee where not only a subcommittee of Parliament will scrutinise it but where they will hear from interested parties and individual members of the public to give their views. To change that should require very special reasons because to change it is to undermine the democratic conventions that have been established over time in this Parliament.That brings me to my second point which is a complete absence of any serious-minded justification from the Government as to why that constitutional convention should be abridged in this case. The Minister's defence when he introduced the bill of a shortened process was that people have already discussed this. Well here's an absolute indisputable piece of fact: the public have not discussed this bill. They may or may not have traversed in any given inquiry or other commentary over the two and a half years this Government has sat on its hands over this matter. They may or may not have discussed any idea about the franchise and prisoner voting. But it is only when the Government introduced this bill that they had the opportunity to consider and submit on the bill as it is. It is not the responsibility of the public to anticipate with some great precognitive powers what the Government is going to do and the exact shape of what they might do will take. Instead the Government proposes the legislation and at that point the public can comment on it.So for the Minister to stand in the House and give one reason—one reason—to shorten the process being that they've already talked about prisoner voting completely misses the point that the public until now have not had the opportunity to have a say on the specific measures the Government is proposing. Instead of giving them the opportunity to have that say they wish to take that away from them by a process which is about three months give or take a week here or there.Look under current circumstances we cannot even guarantee the public how much time Parliament or a select committee may in fact be able to meet to hear what they have to say. It is foolhardy of us to be shrinking down a process when in the midst of what is happening around the world and in our own country we cannot give a certainty to the public that we will be able to meet often enough to give them an opportunity in such a shortened process. It is wrong. It is something this House should not accept. I do accept and acknowledge that in circumstances where the Government is able to prove a case to show that it is worthwhile or evidence that sufficient debate on the specifics of their bill has already taken place that a process could be truncated. They have not done so. It is inappropriate I argue for us to accept that as a justification in this instance to shorten from what is the constitutional convention in New Zealand of a six-month select committee process.It will be over to the public to judge for themselves as to why they might think this is happening because of course there's an election we presume still in about six months' time. So the public might think that the reason this is being rushed through is the Government is trying to scavenge up a few more votes to keep itself in power. Now that is not something for us to judge. It is certainly something for the public to judge. The behaviour of the Government in truncating the process may have a very very solid bearing on the decision the public reach on that particular matter.The third point that I want to raise as to why I think we really need to ensure that we have a full six-month process on this is that parliamentarians in this House tonight have shown—some of them will be committee members for the Justice Committee not on this side I might add; it's the other side—that actually they require more time to come to terms with the broader New Zealand law and how it affects consideration on this bill in the context of the law as it currently stands which is that prisoners do not have the right to vote.I heard a lot of comment about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and an adverse finding from the Attorney-General. What appears is that no member over that side of the House with the scant majority they've managed to cobble together with a three-headed hydra of a Government—no member it appears on that side of the House has actually read the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or at least they skipped over section 4. If they were to read section 4 they would know that the bill as it was a member's bill that was passed and received that report—that Parliament is not bound by that report. In fact section 4 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is explicit that Parliament has the right to legislate law that contravenes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And yet member after member speaking tonight said that somehow the fact that there was an adverse finding meant that that bill was never valid should never have happened and should be repealed.So that third reason of why we need more time is because those members need to be educated under the current law of New Zealand which they're actually obliged—the rule of new law in this country is that the Government and all entities follow the law in New Zealand. Well they don't seem to understand it. Now if they don't understand it then any rushed process is going to lead to a lack of proper consideration both in the context of what they're wanting to do but more importantly in the context of what already exists and why and the absolute sovereignty of Parliament to have made the decision that it did which has stood now for a number of years. I'm going to finish now but I'll just say that if this was important enough to this Government they would have taken action early in coming into power. They didn't. We're six months out from an election. There's only one reason they're doing this and it is not good for democracy in New Zealand.