Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this motion. The reason I oppose it and the reason ACT opposes it is because the benefits of this rushed select committee process do not outweigh the costs. The benefit actually it turns out is not even a benefit. The result of bringing forward the select committee report-back time to a time only five days away two working days away for submitters—the effect of it is just to make sure that this law is retrospective. So even the benefit of this motion is actually a cost. If we're bringing forward this select committee report back and we're taking away the opportunity for people to submit in order that this law can apply to elections that people have already participated in or decisions people have already made that is retrospectivity. We talk a lot about retrospectivity in this House and why it's wrong for us to make laws that affect things that people did in the past and I think it's a very important principle that is actually worth dwelling on and keeping alive in our community. It is absolutely critical in a free society that people are able to understand what the laws are and how they can follow them and if they choose to break the laws what the consequences might be. It allows people to plan their futures without concern for arbitrary coercion by another or others. That's a really important value. When this House makes retrospective law what we're saying is You can make a decision today to behave or act in a certain way but the rules can change on you tomorrow." When we say that to the New Zealand public we're saying "You can't freely plan your future." and we're actually in a very real way taking away people's freedom. That is something that I think a lot of people on the other side of the House—because I come to the maiden statements of as many members as I can to hear what really is on people's minds and how they really think. I know that people like Shanan Halbert and Michael Wood and I would say Willie Jackson but I'm not so sure. But you know let's go to the guy from Christchurch Central Duncan Webb. I know they didn't come to this House to make retrospective laws. I know that they're fundamentally good people who came along to this House to try and uphold good principles and make New Zealand a better and freer place to live—possibly even Willie Jackson deep deep deep down—and I think they should be asking themselves "Am I supporting this motion to make retrospective law? Why? Did I raise it in caucus? Was I heard? And if I didn't feel I could raise it what am I here for?" That's the question I think people actually should ask themselves. Really it's a very important question. That is the retrospectivity element. The effect of this rushed process is actually just to make this law retrospective—that's why we're rushing it—and if that's the benefit then actually it's a cost. But the real problem here is what we lose. We lose the opportunity for any kind of sincere consultation of the New Zealand people to make a law. If you want a working example of how this happens I go back to the arms amendment Act in April 2019. That legislation was passed with a nine-day select committee—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Relevance David Seymour—come back to the bill. DAVID SEYMOUR: Madam Speaker this is actually not about the bill. It's about the motion to refer or for the select committee to come back more quickly. I'm addressing that and I'm addressing what happens when we rush select committee processes and if you're telling me—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Mr Seymour it is relevance though but can you please refer it to the motion of this bill. It's not about the arms legislation. DAVID SEYMOUR: Madam Speaker I'm very much referring to the motion about when we report back from select committee on this bill and if you're telling me that we're not allowed to use examples from this House—from the real world—to make our points then I don't know how people are supposed to debate. I mean I think using examples is a reasonable way for people to debate. Wouldn't you agree Madam Speaker? OK thank you. So the example I'd like to use is that this House has actually had recent experience of rushing a select committee process. It was the arms amendment legislation back in 2019. The outcomes are outcomes that I predict will come true for this legislation as well and there are really three. If we don't give people the opportunity to properly be heard then what happens is number one we actually miss out on the wisdom of those submitters because I know it's probably difficult for some people to believe but every now and then not all the wisdom in New Zealand is contained within 120 parliamentarians. Sometimes there are people out there in the public who actually know things that we don't and that's why a lot of politics in representative democracy is about listening. We're not going to have the opportunity to listen with this motion because if we're supposed to report back by 15 February—well let's think about it. Today's 9 February you've got 10 11 12 which is Wednesday Thursday and Friday and then you've got a weekend on 13 to 14—you know some of us hope to be busy on 14 February. Who knows? Then on 15 February the select committee has to report back. So in practice there are going to be two days that the select committee can actually hear submissions from the public. So the select committee is not going to get to listen to the public in any practical sense. That they're going to call for submissions receive them read them and hear people's views in two days—it's not going to happen. The people are not going to be heard and no new information is going to be brought along. But the second thing that we can learn from the arms amendment bill back in 2019 that's important is that actually when people are heard they have more respect for the law. There are a lot of laws that I don't particularly agree with in this Parliament's past. One of the reasons I stood for Parliament and got elected was to try and change some of them funnily enough. But I respect them and I follow the laws of New Zealand because at least I believe that they've been well made in a process that treats people with dignity hears people's views and is inclusive. The problem with making laws that don't do that—that don't hear people—is that people are less likely to follow them and that may be why the Government banned 300000 centrefire semi-automatic rifles and somehow only collected 60000 in. That's a classic example of what happens if a law is not made well—people don't seem to respect it. The final thing that proper lawmaking does is it actually builds cohesion and inclusiveness and unity in a community because people feel that actually the law is being made in a community that includes them. Now we heard—and I think potentially it should have been pulled up for bringing the House into disrepute—a member here saying that the people who submit will be racist. I don't think it helps for us as members of Parliament to actually attack people who want to come and submit and share their views with us. I don't think that's going to help race relations in New Zealand for anybody. But even putting aside those very regrettable comments from the Māori Party I think that it is unhelpful to effectively say to New Zealanders "We are not interested in hearing your views." I think that is a terrible thing to say to New Zealanders. It reduces the inclusivity of this community. We saw it with the arms amendment Act in 2019. We had person after person who came to a subsequent select committee when there was another bill that did have a full submission process who said they felt they had been marginalised and excluded from our society by the way that they were treated. So I'd put it to the members opposite some of those that are sitting here thinking "Is it really worth it to rush a law through to say to the community that 'We don't want to hear from you.' to miss out on the wisdom of people out there who might have helpful suggestions and to make our society just that little bit more divisive just a little bit more exclusive?"—is it really worth it in order to make a retrospective law because that is what's on the table? The costs and the benefits—in this case even the benefits are actually a cost. For that reason thoughtful members on the other side I know are thinking this is the wrong thing to do. To bring something forward by three years—one electoral cycle—when we've had 20 years to do it and to erode New Zealand's democratic traditions like that is absolutely not worth it and is something that frankly I think they'll be a little embarrassed about when they look back on their careers in years to come. Thank you Madam Speaker."