Faafoi Kris; Borrows ChesterKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you for your guidance Mr Chair on the Committee stage of this debate. I do want to speak specifically to clause 138 and the new subsection that is inserted by the select committee. We have heard the benefits of what has been transacted in Part 4 in terms of retentions but I do want to point specifically to the date that is in new subsection (3) inserted by clause 138 which is 31 March 2017. The context is that the House sent this bill to the Commerce Committee with the usual 6-month period for the select committee to have its deliberations hear submissions—I understand the bill was presented on 18 October 2016. Six months from that date would have taken us to mid-April 2017 so that would be in about a month's time.The issue I have with that is the process where a select committee would have had to report back to this House after the legislation was actually required to be enacted. So the situation that the Commerce Committee was put in was that we had a report-back date of mid-April and these changes needed to be in force by 31 March. Now anyone at home who is doing the maths knows that is simply not going to work. A submission made to us by the officials—and I acknowledge them in the Chamber today—was that that time frame did not and could not work for what was expected from the industry. So in what I thought was a pretty poor and slack piece of planning and parliamentary process we as a select committee—and I acknowledge that I came quite late to the select committee process during this piece of legislation—were asked to truncate our select committee report period. Instead of the 6 months we were given essentially 5 months and 2 weeks. That might not excite too many people at home but I think that in terms of parliamentary process when a Minister sends a bill to a select committee if they want to truncate that select committee process period they have to seek leave of this House and it is a debatable motion. We can stand up in this House and say: Well we do not think that truncating that very important public scrutiny period under a select committee is warranted in this instance." It is a process issue but the Minister who presented the bill at the time could have said: "Look we need this in by 31 March; technically 6 months is going to take us beyond that. If you guys haven't got a massive problem with it—it's only 2 weeks—then we can live with that as long as you can." But that did not happen.I think we got to the silly stage where I think that—and I do not want to get the officials into any trouble—officials were being blamed for the fact that this had to happen faster than what was prescribed by normal parliamentary practice. So I would like to ask the Minister in the chair Jonathan Coleman: how did this happen? Because it is pretty poor planning I think when you have a piece of legislation that is pretty critical to be passed enacted and ready to go on 31 March and the report-back date says 2 or 3 weeks after that. It is not very good at all. Someone obviously does not have a calendar or is not planning things correctly when you get to the stage where in the very process that is meant to be 6 months you get the select committee being asked to truncate the process altogether.I think to put it mildly and diplomatically I put up a case that it was poor practice and I think that most members of the Commerce Committee agreed that it was not ideal. I do not think that select committees should be put in that position—after the fact to be told "Well we need this back by a certain date so whatever you're doing you have to shorten the process." and be given essentially less time for consideration and submissions on a bill to make sure that something is passed.We have no problem with what is being suggested in Part 4. I think it is pretty common sense. I think it is probably well overdue but in terms of what the deadline is for Part 4 in terms of the construction industry which is ready and waiting for this to be passed the parliamentary process was poor. I think the select committee was put under pressure to come back earlier than it was asked to and if the Minister in the chair or someone responsible for the bill can explain as to why that would happen I think we deserve an answer.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I call James Wood.Hon Member: Michael Wood.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Michael Wood—sorry."