Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand somewhat regretfully in favour of Michael Woodhouse's amendment. It's definitely what you call a second-best alternative. He's saying that a six-and-half-week select committee process might be the best we can get. I think that speaks to the quality of law making and the respect for Parliament that this Government and this Leader of the House really have. When he's challenged on his respect for Parliament he says Well other people were worse." Well that's got to be the lowest standard of leadership available—when things aren't going well find someone else who has done even worse. It's hardly inspiring and hardly reassuring from the Leader of the House.The reason I'm so concerned about this process being shortened by any length whether it's to two and a half weeks or to six and a half weeks—and it would probably be more honest to round it six or two; even the half's not quite there—is that even the Minister himself has admitted in question time today that he hasn't heard from the people affected. I asked Kris Faafoi the Minister of Justice the Minister responsible for Schedule 6 the schedule of this legislation that is being put together by the Ministry of Justice who he has asked about the commercial tenancy aspects of this legislation. Who did he consult? You might be able to make the argument that the consultation that took place before the legislation even came to Parliament could maybe make up for the lack of a select committee process. The Government's made that argument with the counter-terrorism legislation. They said "Look we don't need a full select committee process because we have actually done lots of consultation in the past. So we're not going to get so much new information from the select committee process." I think that's a bogus argument by the way. I think it is disrespectful to the institution of Parliament to say that just because the Government did its own consultation Parliament this House these MPs and its committees don't need to do their own consultation. I think it's a bogus argument but it's an argument that could be made—that at least the Government asked people before it introduced the legislation—but unfortunately we know that that's not the case. And here's Kris Faafoi only three hours ago in question time in this House saying "I don't necessarily want to rely on the impacts that the Government may think." Now we'll pass over various grammatical problems with that sentence and say that I think what Kris Faafoi was trying to say is that he didn't think the Government knew everything because he went on and his next sentence which is a little bit better constructed says "I'd also be interested in some of those people who might be impacted by this." Now I just want to help. I think what Kris Faafoi was trying to say is he was interested in the views of those people. If he was trying to say he'd be interested in those people as he literally said then that raises more questions about what sort of interests Kris Faafoi as the Minister of Justice actually had in those people. But let's assume he was trying to say he'd be interested in what sort of views that people impacted by this legislation might have. Well you'd think he might have actually gone ahead and asked some of them what would happen to people who were parties to commercial tenancy contracts—how would they be impacted by that?Well it turns out that he actually hadn't really done that. I asked him and again this is only three hours ago so it's fresh but it bears repeating: what consultation if any and with whom did the Government take on the commercial tenancy measures announced yesterday? He said that small business owners had talked to him and that they were feeling the impact of the Government's alert level measures and he's absolutely right—they are. But just because people are affected by one thing doesn't mean it's right to punish another group of people. The Minister then said that the Ministry of Justice met with the likes of the New Zealand Law Society and the Auckland District Law Society and he wasn't able to say that they had spoken to anybody who was a lessor. So when asked "Who have you consulted?" the Minister couldn't come back and say "Yes we've spoken to people who are actually the people leasing out their property." I think that's a real shame because we've got the Minister saying he'd like to hear other people's views but also that he hasn't heard from a whole half of this condition. So he's talked to the Law Society. He's talked to the Auckland District Law Society and I think it's worth talking to them. He didn't tell us by the way what sort of advice he got. I guess that will have to come out under an Official Information Act (OIA) request.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to remind the member what we're actually debating here.DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes Mr Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The comments that he's making—he needs to relate them to the shortened report-back time which he hasn't done yet.DAVID SEYMOUR: Well Mr Speaker with the greatest of respect I certainly have done that.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well you have not done that in the last—DAVID SEYMOUR: I—DEPUTY SPEAKER: No I'm not going to argue. I've made the ruling so the member should note it and carry on not comment on the ruling.DAVID SEYMOUR: Well Mr Speaker I make no comment on your ruling. I'm simply—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well just answering it is. So just carry on.DAVID SEYMOUR: OK Mr Speaker. The structure of my speech to date has been to point out that the select committee process might be forgiven in its shortness and brevity if the Minister had done a large amount of consultation on the law prior to its introduction to Parliament. I've stated that I don't think that that's a valid argument but nevertheless it's an argument that might not be made and so you see Mr Speaker the logic here is that I'm commenting on the lack of pre-introduction consultation on the basis that the Government might believe it was a substitute for the length of the select committee process. It's not especially difficult logic to follow but I thought I would restate it for you. The thing is that they haven't heard from anybody. They've talked to these law societies but they haven't heard what these law societies advised and I was making the point when you interrupted me Mr Speaker that it's going to take an Official Information Act request or other method to find out what that advice was. Now Mr Speaker here you go—the shortness of the consultation by the select committee means we won't get there because to get an OIA request there's 20 working days—four weeks—and the Government is proposing only two weeks. So logically we're not going to be able to find out what sort of advice was received that the Minister referred to in his answers to questions about the legislation. So I hope this is all making sense to you Mr Speaker. I certainly think it's a very important matter.Now Mr Speaker here's the next thing. This legislation has a huge effect on all of those people from the property side those people who are lessors. Now to give a sense of the depth of feeling that will not be properly considered hasn't been considered so far because he didn't say that he'd spoken to the Property Council and it won't have time to be considered at a two-week select committee because they won't have time to prepare their advice and if they do that there won't be time to submit and even if they did that there won't be time for sober consideration and even if they did that there wouldn't be time for the select committee to draft alternatives.Property law especially for a simple electrical engineer like me is pretty complicated stuff. [Interruption] Scott Simpson's saying a grammar education doesn't get you anywhere when it comes to property law. It's very tough stuff. But here's what people who are engaged are saying. Leonie Freeman the chief executive of the Property Council has said funnily enough "It's a great day to be a lawyer but a terrible day for property owners and tenants who've suddenly had their contracts changed without notice or consultation." That's what the Property Council are saying. Are they going to have the technicalities and the details that they're raising considered during this process? Well it wasn't considered during any kind of pre-consultation and there won't be time to consider it in the time that remains. She goes on—and I actually know Leonie Freeman; she is a very impressive and smart person—to say "What the Government fails to realise is that these property owners are the same people who are working hard to keep construction development and housing projects going. They've effectively dropped a bomb on their most vital industry." So is this select committee going to be able to consider the flow-on effects from this legislation on housing and construction? Of course they're not going to have time for that. That's why this motion must be defeated or at least amended."