Dyson Ruth; Macindoe TimSMOKEFREE ENVIRONMENTS AND REGULATED PRODUCTS (VAPING) AMENDMENT BILLInstruction to Health CommitteeDebate resumed from 11 March.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): When we were last debating this motion the Hon Tim Macindoe was speaking and should he wish he can take the remainder of his time which is nine minutes and 14 seconds.Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora Madam Speaker and indeed I do. As the saying goes And now for something completely different." I was just getting started as the lunch adjournment was taken on this motion so if I may just for the benefit of those who are listening who may not have been listening beforehand—this debate began approximately a quarter of an hour before the lunch adjournment. It is not a debate about the contents of the bill and I want to assure the Speaker that I understand that. The first reading of the bill has already been passed and my party has supported it. This is a response to a motion that has been put forward by the Associate Minister of Health Jenny Salesa proposing for there to be a truncated select committee process whereby the Health Committee would be required to complete their consideration of submissions in a much shorter space of time and to report back to the House essentially by a date before the House rises for the general election. I put that on record because as I say there may be people listening who won't understand that we are debating that motion. We are not debating the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill and its contents; that has already been undertaken. When I commenced my debate I was conscious of the fact that an interjection had been made just a couple of moments before which I think is drawing attention to one of the most important reasons why the House must not agree today to the proposal from the Associate Minister of Health for there to be a truncated select committee process.Hon Shane Jones: Trifling.Hon TIM MACINDOE: That is a particularly silly interjection from the Hon Shane Jones in view of the seriousness of the issue that I'm about to cover. I'd point out he wasn't in the House at the time that this was even raised and therefore for him to make such an interjection is most inappropriate. As we know the international COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak is developing at a rapid rate and just in the last couple of hours the President of the United States has announced a ban on all international travel from Europe to America. That is absolutely relevant to this particular motion because it suggests that the Health Committee may well be dealing with some extraordinarily important issues relating to the continued development of the COVID-19 outbreak over the next few months. Conceivably they will have a huge extra body of work to consider as a result of this international outbreak as it continues to claim victims internationally and here at home. Who knows what is to come? That's why I say to the Hon Shane Jones that his interjection was particularly inappropriate. Who knows what measures the Health Committee may be required to consider as a result of what is going to be proposed perhaps by the Government perhaps by the World Health Organization—who knows? As I say it's an unfolding situation. Their workload may become overwhelming and that is directly relevant in this instance because the Government is asking the select committee to truncate a select committee process that would normally be approximately six months from the start to the completion of the bill's consideration just at a time when their burdens may become more acute than we can ever remember. They may have to make that work in responding to the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak their absolute priority for the next few months and I do hope that the Government is listening. I do hope that the next Government speaker on this motion will respond. They may have to make that work an absolute priority. It is utterly unreasonable therefore to ask them to deal with this particular bill the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill in a truncated fashion. It has a lot of agreement—it doesn't have complete agreement—and while it's an important measure it is nowhere near as important as dealing with the coronavirus outbreak and whatever work that throws on to the committee. So I ask the next speaker from the Government to respond specifically to that point and it can't be avoided or trivialised Mr Jones. I hope you would acknowledge that point. There are some other points that I would wish to make in the time that is available to me. The first is—and this is the more conventional one but it needs to be dealt with all the same—truncated select committees should be avoided because it's poor process. We as a Parliament have a responsibility to give proper consideration to bills. That's why there's a very established framework that we operate under and a truncated process often leads to rushed and imperfect lawmaking. We shouldn't be prepared to do that and it's frankly arisen simply because this Government has been a chaotic shambles. They spent two years failing to deal with legislation in a timely fashion and suddenly now that they have a deadline of a looming general election and the date that the House will rise for that election they've suddenly realised "Good lord we didn't do anything for two years and now we can't get anything done because time doesn't permit." Well their ineptitude doesn't justify a truncated select committee process. The next argument is that this is absolutely an affront to democracy. It's closely aligned to the point that I've just made but it's an affront to democracy because members of the public have a right to be heard and to make their submissions in a considered fashion. I mentioned that there is broad support for this bill—that is true—but there is not unanimous support for this bill in this House. We know from the fact that the ACT Party is opposed that there may well be members or supporters of the ACT Party who would wish to be heard on the bill—perhaps more importantly some of those constitutional experts who frequently appear before select committees to express their concerns on constitutional abuses or the constitutional implications of measures. They too have a right to be heard and should be given the opportunity to do so in a timely fashion. It is not reasonable to say to busy professional people "Drop everything; do this in a hurry" just because the Government is out of control and it's lost all semblance of order and the ability to do things in a timely fashion. They shouldn't impose that on members of the public who have a legitimate interest. The third thing that I want to draw attention to—or rather the fourth if you include the opening point that I made about the burdens on the Health Committee—Hon Shane Jones: Making it up.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Making it up? "Making it up" says Mr Jones. It is really unbelievable that such imbecilic interjections are coming from a senior Cabinet Minister who ought to be taking this matter seriously. I hope that he's going to respond but if he does I hope that his response will be considerably more considered than this nonsense that we're having to listen to. The point I was going to make is in my capacity as the shadow Attorney-General and to draw attention to the fact that one of the things the select committee would have to take into account is the fact that there has been an Attorney-General's report—and the Attorney-General is in the House at the moment—a section 7 report concluding that the bill is inconsistent with section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and therefore cannot be justified under section 5. Now I acknowledge that there is precedent for the Attorney-General's reports under Governments of both complexions to be ignored. The Attorney-General has a job to do and he has done that and I acknowledge that with respect. The point I am making though is that the select committee also needs to take that into account. That would be factored into the report that they would send back to the House. It may well be that they would say "We respect the Attorney-General's conclusion but nevertheless we believe that matters of public interest override it and therefore we will continue." They've got to have the opportunity to do that work.Here we have a Government that is seeking to deny the select committee the opportunity to do their work properly. It would be remiss of me as the shadow Attorney-General not to draw attention to the fact that that's part of the mix here of what has to be considered. So I implore the Government to think again. This is not sufficiently serious a matter for it to be trivialised and pushed to one side by a Health Committee that may have a much more serious matter to grapple with if measures relating to the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak are put before them and dominate their work. Because you can be sure that if they are given that work to do they'll have to make that their priority. So I hope that the members of the Government say "Yes that's a reasonable point." even if they reject the other points that I've made to say "Yes that is a reasonable point. We must not do that to this committee at such a serious time of an international outbreak.""