Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Madam Speaker. The reason why I hesitated to rise to my feet was because I was quickly looking at my diary and trying to count out how many weeks the select committee then had to consider this bill. There has been scant information coming from the Government over what the select committee period is so I'm feeling very confident that there are members sitting behind me who are in fact making those calculations at the moment because one thing we do need to be assured of in the select committee consideration of this Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill is that there is a good and thorough consideration of the issues that are flagged and raised in the bill.So first of all to summarise if you like the provisions of this bill the purpose and intention of this bill according to the Minister Nanaia Mahuta is to support the development of and provision of housing on Māori land modernise the rating legislation affecting Māori land and support Māori land development. Another provision in the bill is that the ratepayer for multiple rating units of Māori freehold land—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member but we are just speaking to the referral motion. If the member could slide on to that debate which we're on.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Thank you Madam Speaker. I was attempting to give a little bit of context as to why the National Party is so very concerned that a decent period of consideration is allowed for this bill. So without delving too deeply into the detail—and I respect and understand your ruling Madam Speaker—there are within this bill a number of considerations that need to be given some considerable time. The bill is effectively about calculating rates amalgamating rating units for the purposes of rating allowing for separate title on multiple dwellings on Māori land so that families can access rate rebates. This is all good stuff if you like but it raises so many questions. And some of those questions are: is this bill not—and it is something that I will tease out in further debates—addressing the end of the problem of development of Māori land? And if I go back briefly to the purpose of this bill—supporting the development of and provision of housing on Māori land—the question is: if that is the purpose of the bill then I would have thought that the rating mechanism purportedly to achieve those aims should be undertaken at the very end of all the other processes of addressing the underlying issues that surround this.Kiritapu Allan: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): If the point of order is that the member still isn't addressing the bill that's my determination and I'd really encourage the member to at least make a passing reference to the bill. But that won't be enough to satisfy the requirements of the debate. The referral motion is what we're talking to not the contents of the legislation.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yeah. Just point of order if I may.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): It might be better if you reflect on whether that's a good idea first.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Oh clearly it isn't. So I will carry on thank you Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Excellent.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Thank you Madam Speaker. It's wonderful to have such a good understanding of the processes of this House.So the referral motion provides for a report-back date of 29 June this year and as I said when I got to my feet it just seemed to be a period—did anyone do the numbers?Maureen Pugh: Yes I did: 109 days.Hon JACQUI DEAN: 109 days—and I guess that's full days. And if I could I would calculate how many weeks that is and how many parliamentary sessions that is—therefore how many opportunities for the committee to undertake the type of work that it does post the referral of the bill to the committee. It is around the calling for submissions and the committee will need to give very good thought. This is a multi-faceted bill and the committee will have to give serious consideration of whether or not to invite submitters—and that happens occasionally in select committees. It has identified that there are certain groups who have a particular interest in the subject of the bill. Should the committee write to them and invite them to come and brief the committee and make a submission on that aspect of the bill? Should the committee then open for general submissions and put a notice out in the way that we do these days inviting submissions from perhaps the general public and other interested people—experts legal experts? We are often getting the Law Society making a submission. The consideration of this in what is quite a complex bill is going to take some time and with only 109 days which you condense that down to a number of times the committee sits then the question has to be raised and should be raised by the Opposition: does that give due consideration to the matters being raised? I hoped I'm not straying too far from—good it's very good; we're getting nods.So that is a concern because given the scope and nature of this bill it could well be that the sheer volume of submissions being made from Northland for example; from Gisborne for example—any place around New Zealand where people have a strong view and wish to have their say on the bill—the committee should then discuss and determine whether it travels to those places to hear the submissions and in fact with the ratepayer meet with the councils. One can't just consider a rating bill in my humble view without talking to ratepayer groups and there might be all sorts of ratepayer groups who have a view on this legislation—proposed legislation. The local authority elected members will no doubt have a view on it as well as will the view of council officials be very valuable in this because they are the ones who enact the rating legislation. What is the impact is part of the committee's consideration which is why I'm speaking to the 109 calendar days available. Why it's relevant to that point is the impact of some of the provisions: having separate rating units which will allow for rates rebate amalgamating dwellings into one rating unit to be rated as a whole—what is the implication for other ratepayers on that in the committee's consideration during the select committee period? So National is of the view that the full six-month select committee process is needed. It might be that the committee will want to travel and it might be that that travel has to occur on several different occasions and there are a number of times over the years when a select committee has determined to travel all over New Zealand to hear submissions. Now I wouldn't anticipate this to be exactly the case in this bill but certainly I would anticipate that there might be a couple of occasions where the committee can and should travel particularly in our new normal environment where travel could well become a little more challenging for submitters to come to Wellington to submit. I am of a view that if somebody can travel and wants to travel to be heard in person then the select committee should make every effort to bring that about and make that possible for people. If for example a member of the public or ratepayer group or a mayor or anyone—iwi—wish to be heard in person and it will challenge them to travel the length of the North Island or the length of the South Island to come to Wellington then it behoves the select committee to make every effort to travel to them. All of this to be condensed into 109 calendar days—and I haven't had the time to calculate how many select committee days that is but it is my strong view and the strong view of the National Party that this is a substantial bill. It does demand good close scrutiny.