van de Molen Tim; Rurawhe AdrianTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): This is another example of an arrogant Government rushing through legislation without giving the public the opportunity to engage in the proper process. We're seeing this time and again from this Government and it's simply not good enough. The Minister here is pushing through on behalf of the Government a condensed time frame on this select committee process simply because the Government's Order Paper is far too light—there's nothing in here for them to be debating—and that is not an appropriate reason to truncate a select committee process. You would think with the 280 working groups that cost $300 million that they'd be able to fill up their legislative pipeline by now and yet it's very empty and this process is an unacceptable way to try and fill that up. If we wind back to last year and the first effort at this bill it was an absolute debacle: pushed through under urgency no select committee process whatsoever no opportunity for the public to engage on what we've just heard throughout the course of this previous debate is a very important topic. Biosecurity is an important topic. Why were the public not given the right to engage on that? Well I suppose we should commend the Government. They've gone one better. At least they are having a select committee process on the second version of this bill—much more than they did first time around but it's still truncated. There's no reason to be doing this. Farmers should have the opportunity to submit on this. They should have the right to think it through in detail to conduct the full process and to not have an arrogant Government pretending they know best truncating that process yet again and slamming something through just so they have something to debate pre-Christmas. There's no consistency from this Government at all when it comes to these sorts of things. How can the public have confidence they know—or is it perhaps actually that the Minister doesn't have confidence in the Government members on the select committee which is why he's wanting to truncate it and maintain more control over this particular process? On this side of the House we stand by proper process. There's always an odd exemption where it is appropriate to speed up that legislative process—Hon Nathan Guy: Yeah Christchurch earthquakes is an example.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: The Christchurch earthquakes is a great example of that. This is not one. This is an example of where the public should be given the full and proper opportunity to consult to engage and to give their feedback. There will be implications for them as a result of this. Part of that will be additional costs. They need time to consider what that might mean for their business. Goodness knows farmers have seen plenty of additional costs under this Government already. They need to see how this will impact on them. Then you've got the trucking firms as well—what are the implications for them under these rule changes? We need to ensure that everyone can engage in this. This is a busy time of year on farms and for trucking firms as well. They need to have plenty of opportunity to canvass widely to consult their industry bodies to engage with the select committee process and to give some thoughts on that. So on this side of the House we do not support such a truncated process. We are constantly advocating—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member but it's come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.