Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. The Minister struck a lovely tone but didn't actually give us any reason as to why this should be truncated. He basically said two things in that speech if I heard him rightly. One is that we've knocked this idea around a fair bit so there's been some sense of community consultation and the other thing was that the people who when the obligation crystallised in April—they're in a kind of a limbo. Neither of those pressed why there should be a less than four-month report-back stage. I guess it's difficult for me to stand up and now debate and say the reasons he gave were terrible because he actually gave no reasons. He just seemed to say We don't really think we need a six-month period."I think it's really important in this House that we note that a full select committee process is really really important so that we have both a good process and a legitimacy around what Parliament is doing and whilst we know that urgency and shortened processes are useful sometimes and appropriate—all Governments use them—they certainly have to be very clearly justified. I mean it's a little ironic to me that we've got a bill here which is extending time kicking the can down the road and we're doing it with a truncated process. With one hand we're saying "Oh we can adjust time frames and push it out. Everyone needs a bit more time." but when we're considering that very question we're giving the House less time. So that seems very strange to me and I simply can't accept in terms of the limbo question that it's problematic. You know we've all heard of the Fitzgerald v Muldoon case and we know that a Minister—and that Minister of course knows—can't stand up and declare that the law will be changed in the future and change behaviour now. We get that. But pragmatically speaking some months ago the Minister issued a press release and let it be known to the community that he was going to take a particular approach and that gave considerable certainty. That's why he did it—so that the sector could have certainty.Now there's no suggestion—and I couldn't imagine of all the Ministers of that Government that that one would go back on his word. We know that the sector has certainty around this so genuinely I just can't see it. It's like we could get the same result without any downside by giving the select committee either four months in which case we wouldn't be having a debate or the routine and regular six months which is what is normal and appropriate. It may be that the Minister will just round off and explain to the House why there is some particular urgency that means we need less than four months to get on with it. It would be useful if we could really put the finger on it because the select committee procedure is an important one and it does truncate. I accept that the bill does a whole lot of other things that people may take an interest in like small heated swimming pools and things like that. But it is a relatively technical issue in terms of earthquake strengthening and time lines and how we go about it so it's not likely that people are going to front up and give their personal reckons on what the issue is. They'll be substantive submissions backed by evidence. It is quite likely and I genuinely hope that the committee will be informed by submissions from professional people like lawyers who have been engaged in that space like professional engineers and like property owners and managers. Those people want to do a professional submission which takes time and it would be a sad day if because of a truncated time frame people who genuinely wanted to inform the House and give substantive and informed professional submissions didn't get an opportunity to because their professional lives were too busy or whatever.I understand that the Minister gets another opportunity to speak. It'd be good to say "Well it is urgent and here's why it's urgent." because at the moment what we've got is a risk that we're running of—I know the committee will do the best job it can—a lower-quality select committee procedure then would otherwise be the case. Look I'll leave it there. I know there's another bill that I'm very keen to speak on a little later on in this House but I'm sure some of my colleagues will want to speak to this as well. Kia ora."