Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I'm pleased to rise on behalf of the National Party to provide our support for the motion and I shall do so forthwith—[Interruption] Now only one or two people in the House will laugh at that—it is definitely an in-joke with the Standing Orders Committee—but it does actually speak to one of the tensions that we have when we amend Standing Orders. I just want to touch on it. I think this is the third Parliament that I have been involved in the Standing Orders Committee process. One of the things that we often hear is that we're somewhat reluctant to change or that we are very conservative in our approach. We look for consensus or near-unanimity in our deliberations on it and that is exactly as it should be but I want to defend this sort of measured pace that we go at to change the way in which this place operates. One of the things we've heard in the valedictories over the last couple of weeks is a tremendous amount of respect not only for the traditions of this place but also for the support that we're provided by the clerks and Hansard and our public sector more broadly. I think we should be very proud despite the fact that we occasionally fall below a very high standard that actually this place works really well and it works well because we have a shared understanding about what the rules of engagement are and they are largely set out through the Standing Orders. One of the things the Leader of the House mentioned was a very good example of where a sessional order has been adapted into the Standing Orders—and we did so willingly—and that was in respect of the manner in which the committee of the whole House operates. But I would suggest to him and the House that that had its genesis in the last Parliament when one presiding officer the Hon Trevor Mallard—now the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard our Speaker—changed the way in which the committee stage went by requiring Ministers to answer good questions and if they didn't the committee stage would continue but expecting scrutineers of bills in the committee of the whole House to ask good questions and if they didn't the debate would be closed down. So while we've reached a point now where we have this much more interactive and really more meaningful examination of the bill it actually started I think in the last Parliament. So that's an example of why we need to make haste in a measured manner; I wouldn't say slowly because actually in the course of this place actually doing that change over say a Parliament and a half is actually a reasonable approach. I expect that the other what are on the face of it minor changes—for example to the hours of Parliament which we only really got a small change but we had a very wide-ranging discussion about what was possible. I think those ideas will continue to germinate in the 53rd Parliament and we may see some more bold changes to things like that. I want to also touch on two of the matters that the Hon Chris Hipkins raised. One is petitions and I really support the idea of having a petitions committee and a triage process. But I want to provide reassurance to members of the public that I don't believe that will result in a diminishing of the importance of petitions. It's one of the really really important parts of the Westminster system that the public can come and tell us what they think and what changes could be made. In my experience we treat them very seriously but there is a more efficient way in which we can do it. So in creating that efficiency it's important that we don't undermine the importance of the petitions process. The last thing I want to touch on is in respect of the shortened—which one was it?—15-hour Budget debate which now will free up what will be seven hours of debate time for non-Government business which is a good start. But I hope it doesn't finish there because actually if we are more efficient with the committee of the whole House process if we can better utilise this time with more meaningful debates then those meaningful debates can include what I know Westminster does and other Westminster-type Parliaments around the world do which is actually dedicate more time for non-Government business. I think that could well be a good thing. The last one I want to touch on—I don't think Minister Hipkins mentioned it—is the fact that Ministers are now going to be able to table their speeches and talk to them. So what we will have I think is a much more meaningful first reading debate as well and that will add I think to the lustre of the dialogue. Because Minister Hipkins is right: he has been critical that we are not always treating this place with the respect it deserves and the robustness of our contest of ideas and I hope that that's actually another measured step in the right direction. I want to conclude by thanking the people who supported us through this process not only the submitters to it but also the clerks particularly the two Davids Wilson and Bagnall but also you know the big team that was around them. They had a herculean task of organising the wide-ranging and detailed submissions that we had on the Standing Orders review and they did a tremendous job in difficult circumstances because COVID affected their ability to be able to keep things moving. But despite that—in fact even perhaps because of it—we have what I'm convinced is the best set of amendments to the Standing Orders in the five Parliaments that I've been in. I think that's a testament to the Clerk's team. So I just want to thank them on behalf of members of the committee and the House. With that I'm very happy to support this motion. Motion agreed to.The House adjourned at 11.39 p.m.