Guy NathanHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thanks very much for an opportunity to make a call on what is a very important bill even though it's a very small bill. What it does is just a band-aid on an expiry date for South Island processors but the substantive point that I want to make is it's kind of interesting that the Government chose to put the House in urgency for this bill yesterday and then took it out of urgency last night and now we're back debating it not in urgency. So it is kind of bizarre and having the Leader of the House in the chair this afternoon it would be quite good to hear from him about his strategy because what I found rather ironic is there was no discussion with Opposition parties—that I'm aware of and I've canvassed it with my colleagues last night—from the Minister about putting the House into urgency for what is really just a small technical date change. I find it really hard to fathom that the House was thrown into urgency yesterday to debate a very technical change on this bill and yet here we are this afternoon now not in urgency.Mr Chair while you're referring me to refer back to the bill I'm happy to do that but here we are today now that this bill isn't so urgent as it was yesterday. I think had the Government not been so arrogant as to presume that we would just tick this through under urgency yesterday without making the full speeches that we made—and they were full of content not of rhetoric because we know how important this bill is to the primary sector and indeed to the dairy industry. So I would appreciate hearing from Mr Hipkins this afternoon as to why this bill was urgent under all stages yesterday and now suddenly it's not so urgent.What I would also want to hear from the Minister is why there couldn't have been a truncated select committee period. You would think for a bill that is significant to the South Island—there's probably 4000 suppliers in the South Island; certainly I would think there's 50000 jobs that are created in the dairy industry in New Zealand so let's presume there's probably 20000-odd in the South Island—it would warrant the select committee having a look at it. Yes Mr Hipkins will no doubt get up and say Oh it's just a technical one. It's a date change." but there're a whole lot of things that could have been included in this bill that we are debating in the committee stage this afternoon that aren't and those things are going to be swept off to a review.We spent quite a bit of time yesterday referring to the review. We finally heard from Minister O'Connor that the review is going to take 12 months but we didn't hear whether the review is going to be run by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) or Treasury or whether there is going to be any independence. He actually offered up to me yesterday—not you Mr Chair but Minister O'Connor—that we could choose to nominate people for a sort of panel or committee. Then he also went on to say that it would have been great if he could have brought the terms of reference to the debate yesterday because that would have helped the fulsome nature of debating this part that we are now debating in the committee but he couldn't do that because anyone with any dairy industry experience within MPI was focused on M. bovis cattle disease. I find that a little bit hard to fathom when there are about 2500 officials that work in the Ministry for Primary Industries.So concluding my contribution this afternoon we support this technical change in the National Party but it would have been good to have had the discussion prior to leading up to urgency yesterday because we saw that as a real sort of breach of our confidence on this side of the House that there was no—[Time expired]"