Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm looking forward to speaking to the motion in opposition.Can I just say that there wasn't any reason given by the Minister today that held any wait as to why we need a truncated select committee process. Basically the only thing that he said was Well this bill is basically the same as last time; therefore we only need 21 days." As my colleague Michael Woodhouse pointed out earlier the conditions surrounding this bill are entirely different than they were a year ago. There are so many more things to consider now than there were a year ago. We do understand that a year ago when we only had 10 days from the introduction of the bill to the legislation being in place that process needed to be quick and we were wholeheartedly on board with it. We were in a pandemic situation. We didn't have any clarity about what was going to happen. We are in a very different situation now—the conditions are very very different—and the one thing that strikes me from the Minister's speech today is he left out so much information that is going to be required at select committee and we are going to need a much longer period at select committee to consider these conditions that we are now in.The conditions that we had a year ago where we had our immigration case officers being at home where we had 350000 people on shore who needed their conditions of their visas varied and we had people who needed to leave New Zealand. Those conditions now are very very different. We didn't hear anything from the Minister today to shed any light on why he needs these two years so the select committee process that we need to go through is going to be required—a proper select committee process—to unearth all of these things. There wasn't anything said today about whether or not all of the immigration case officers are now working from their place of work. There wasn't anything today to indicate how many people are now on shore needing these visas to be extended—so all of that information we are going to need to require at select committee.I know that last time we held the select committee there were only 12 submissions. This time I have heard from—as Michael Woodhouse said there are three groups of people but I have heard from so many immigration advisers and lawyers who want to have a say on this bill who are questioning the reason for two years who are going to need time to put their submissions together. And here we are we're having another short time frame that was completely unnecessary. This can't have been a surprise to the Minister that this was going to run out. It's in legislation. As Chris Bishop said earlier the only thing that we can expect happened was that he just forgot about it and it wasn't until one of his officials said "Hey maybe we should do something about this." He went "Oh quick yep. We better put this through."Can I just say though while the reason he's asked for this short time frame is because the bill is significantly the same in his opinion as it was a year ago can we just think for a moment what would have happened if he'd got his way in Cabinet and there was no sunset clause and we were stuck with this shortened process? We would have had an entirely different bill. So it is only by the fact that he didn't get his way to have either three years or no sunset clause at all which is what he actually wanted. It's only by the fact that the Cabinet said no to that that he's able to stand up here today and say that the bill is much the same as it was a year ago. But actually that could have been very different and we would have been stuck with a very short time frame in order to get this passed with a significantly different bill.But as I said the conditions around this bill are very very different. Although Mr Greg O'Connor said that this Government is a victim of its own success—actually it's a victim of a Minister with his eye off the bill which is why we're here debating this motion to give 21 short days that we're going to have to sit over a break on Friday. For the members of the committee like myself who are constituent MPs who have meetings booked and events booked during that time it is going to be very difficult for us.I know that I have 10 minutes. I am not going to take that whole 10 minutes today because I'm sure everyone wants to get out of here and get home to their electorates but I would just like to finish by saying there was no need for this shortened time frame. The Minister could have brought this bill at the end of last year and we could have had a much longer process for those immigration officials for those immigration lawyers and for those migrant groups. I know that those split migrant families will want to come to the select committee. They're all working they're all under extreme stress and now they've got hardly any time to put their thoughts down on paper and come to a select committee. This is unfair on those stakeholders it's unfair on split migrants it's unfair on the visitors that are here or the Recognised Seasonal Employer workers that are here in this country to give them such a short time.Finally we oppose this motion not only because the Minister has dropped the ball but also for the fact that he is just very lucky that he didn't get his way in Cabinet—this bill isn't significantly different. The only reason that it is arguably much the same as it was a year ago is because his Cabinet colleagues turned him down on no sunset clause. But the way that the Minister has conducted himself around this has been short of what we would expect from a good Minister and we oppose this motion."