Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Look I hear the Hon—Hon Andrew Little: I thought it was Jordan Luck!CHRIS BISHOP: Ha! Great singer. Sadly not. I hear the Hon Tracey Martin's comments and I thank the Minister for her remarks in the House not just for her compliments on my new do but also her remarks I suppose exorting the National Party to support this legislation. We won't be doing that.The first point to make is that the National Party is not opposed to sensible reform in this area and I hear what the Minister says about this being a very tricky area being emotionally complex and difficult for families to deal with and actually the history of the reform in this area over multiple Parliaments actually not just in this Parliament and the previous Parliament but going back through the 1990s is of constant change and that's just a fact of life. The Parliament I think has struggled to find the appropriate legal regime to enable people to cope with family break-ups and the care of children and all of the emotional problems that that brings or emotional baggage that that creates in a way that is suitable for families but also for children. No Parliament or no Government can ever say that it's got it right and probably they never will be able to say that because of the nature of the area. But I think everyone approaches these things in good faith. The Minister of Justice in the last Parliament the Hon Judith Collins and then latterly the Hon Amy Adams certainly did that and I know that the Minister Tracey Martin and the Minister of Justice Andrew Little are approaching things in the same way.So let me just say at the start that the National Party is not opposed to sensible reform in this area but the reason we are opposing this bill is that we do not believe firstly the case has been made for change and certainly not—and this more important point—with this process. And I just ask three questions to the House in my contribution that I think the Government members speaking on this legislation need to answer. The first question is: what is urgent about this legislation? We're in urgency. It's a Friday and it's just ticked over 12 o'clock. What is so urgent about this legislation that the House has to sit in urgency to consider it? And members might say Well you know it's very important we look after our children and give effect to the reforms that the Government wants to adopt." But this has been something that's been on the Government's work programme for the last two and a bit years since the election. We've had the independent review the independent panel and we've had the recommendations. The Hon Andrew Little was sceptical in Opposition. So I accept that the Government wants to advance these changes. But what is urgent about it today in this week in May 2020? I invite Government members to explain exactly what that is.In terms of urgency the current Government members used to say when the situation was reversed in the last Parliament and National was in Government "What's the rush? Where's the haste? What's the point? Why are we doing this so quickly?" And it's not clear to me and it's not clear to my colleagues on this side what is urgent about this legislation. Why could this not have been advanced in the last 2½ years or at least last year or so or indeed when the House returns next week? This to me looks suspiciously like the Government using the cloak of the Budget to advance legislation. And I'm not so cynical as to say that Governments don't do that but they need a good reason to do that. And it's not clear to me that this is urgent.My second point is: why no select committee process? Why no select committee process? We're going through all stages. We're going to wind up this afternoon and tomorrow it will be law—or perhaps next Monday when the executive council sits and the Governor-General signs it into law. Why no select committee process? The Hon Tracey Martin actually I think undermined her argument in her contribution by quite rightly making the point that this is a very common—Hon Tim Macindoe: By admiring your hairstyle.CHRIS BISHOP: Well she admired my hairstyle—business in the front party in the back Mr Macindoe as you know. I know that Kieran McAnulty over there from the Wairarapa knows. This will be very popular in his neck of the woods.So why no select committee process? The Hon Tracey Martin made a very good point which is that this is a tricky area. It's complex and this is precisely I put it to the House the sort of area the sort of reform that you send to a committee to make sure you get it right. And I've got to tell you you know lawyers are pretty you know—very interested. I was going to say they're pretty concerned. The views will vary but they're pretty interested in this area. And this is precisely the sort of area of law that the Law Society and the family law section of the Law Society and others who practise in this field will want to submit on at the select committee as well as those involved in mediation and negotiation and those fields. That's precisely the sort of law reform they will want to submit on—and even for just a short period of time. I'm not someone who thinks that we need the full four or six months all the time. Sometimes it's not a particularly big piece of reform. This I understand is the first stage but sometimes you can send things for a wee amount of time. But to not send it to a select committee at all is I think something we need an explanation for as to why that is. So far we haven't had any. It was never mentioned in the Minister's speech and it certainly wasn't mentioned in Minister Tracey Martin's speech. Why no select committee?And the third point: why in the Budget? Why are we doing this under Budget urgency? So why under urgency altogether? Why no select committee? And why are we here on a Friday at Parliament putting this through all stages after—the Minister of Finance's own words—the biggest Budget in a generation with a $50 billion fund for the Government to spend as we respond to COVID? We're here on Friday afternoon putting through Family Court law reforms—they may be worthy; they may be not but you've got to say it's a little bit disjunctive with the sense of crisis around the economy. We're making some changes to tobacco excise and we're making sure that the Remuneration Authority can cut our pay and we've got some rinky-dink forestry scheme. That's what the Government is putting us into urgency for. And you've got to wonder—I just put it to the House that the sense of priorities is a bit odd. It is a bit strange and I think New Zealanders will judge the Government for that.So we're looking for answers to three questions. Why is this urgent why is it not going to a select committee and why is it being used as part of Budget urgency? And until we get satisfactory answers to those questions the National Party will be opposing it. Thank you Madam Speaker."