McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Assistant Speaker thank you very much. It is concerning to come before the House so soon before every member goes off for a holiday to effectively rush through a piece of legislation that's been rushed in its drafting for reasons that we now hear from the Minister responsible the Associate Minister of Finance are actually no longer valid. That's of course because when the Government first announced that they were bringing this legislation before Parliament within the first 100 days they said they needed to do so because of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA). Since then some very minor changes were made—with the exception of quite a significant change to the name of that agreement but for simplicity let's just call it the TPP agreement. We've just heard from the Minister responsible who's introduced this bill that actually he believes it's important I suppose based upon the advice that he's had but not shared with the House in the debate earlier nor with the public nor with members of the committee nor with anybody that would want to submit on this bill. He hasn't shared the advice as to why there is such a rush to get it through. We've now heard from him that actually it's only before the TPP agreement enters into force that it is an issue for the Government and for the legislation. I would love to hear from him in response to why he will or will not support the amendment proposed by the Hon Gerry Brownlee about why he believes we need to rush when there is no date for the signing of the TPP agreement there is no date for Ministers to come back together to work through the issues of that agreement and there is no real clear indication that the day afterwards actually six of the remaining 11 TPP countries will ratify it and it will enter into force. The original agreement when signed in New Zealand almost two years ago was ratified by only two countries one before the US pulled out one just after the US pulled out. After two years there were only two countries that had ratified and the deadline in the original agreement was that it had to enter into force within two years.Now if there was a proposed provision in the amended TPP agreement which largely is the same as the one signed in Auckland then I suppose the case could be made. We at least would be able to say to the public to all those who want to submit but may well not be able to because of the very tight time frame and the holiday festive period—for members of the public more than members of this House—if there was a date that they had proposed or they had released when they last met a month and a half ago then we would perhaps be able to consider this and take it more seriously. But there isn't. There isn't a time line for signature. There isn't a suggestion that there will be a drop-dead date. In fact the Minister has said six out of 11 countries need to ratify it.I predict two things. The first is that I don't think the TPP is going to be signed because I think Canada has decided they don't want to do it. So we're rushing for something that won't happen. But this is important because the sole reason that the Minister responsible has given is that we need to rush because of some legislation. So the likelihood of it happening or not is important when it comes to the House deciding whether or not we should vote to allow an extremely short period of time for consideration. That's the first thing. The second thing is that even if it was signed it could be a year or more. So what the Minister is doing is coming to this House and asking us to cut short the democratic right of members of the public to submit—large and small up and down the country—the right to put in a one-word submission to the committee or a well-thought-out detailed submission to the committee and ask to come before it.What I want to speak to is: how many days actually if it is 20 February is it reasonable for us to consider can be worked through? Well if the committee this evening or tomorrow calls for submissions—if this evening or tomorrow they call for submissions—there are just five working days left in December. Whilst the Minister responsible could well be sunning his speedo-clad frame on a Pacific Island beach Kiwis are expected to work between Christmas and the New Year. Now let's say that 20 January is the date when submissions will close allowing just one very short month for the committee to hear from all of those submitters. I expect there will be a lot because there's not that much detail here. But 20 January would mean that there are just 13 working days in January for people to submit whilst the Minister Mr Parker could well be convalescing on the alpine slopes of Switzerland whilst he's at Davos talking up the importance of trade and open trade liberalisation. That would leave a very short period of time for the committee to consider this detail in total.If we accept Mr Brownlee's proposal by putting it out to 20 April—Hon Members: 19th.Hon TODD McCLAY: —19 April—from the point that's currently proposed to when Mr Brownlee is proposing would actually be more working days available to the public and the committee. So 41 days until submissions close and the committee has to report back is a very very short period of time. And indeed this is an important piece of legislation. Other members have spoken about those that will play a professional role in providing submissions to the committee and many of them will be hearing for the very first time not that this bill has been coming to the House—that was well signalled—but that there is a truncated process. And when they wonder why they're actually either going to miss the deadline or going to have to decide to cut short their breaks with their families come back to work and try to get the information that they need to pull those meetings of stakeholders together to put together a well-thought-out submission to the committee and ask to be heard on it—the challenge that they will have is they won't have been given a solid reason for it other than the Minister deciding he wants to put it through.So the real questions for this House in debating or deciding whether or not to support this motion on behalf of the Minister are: is there good reason for this to happen; is it reasonable; and is there urgency? Is it reasonable for us to say to the public that actually with something so significant to them—when the officials themselves in Treasury have said they really don't know what's going on and we'll have to take some more time—when they come before the committee they too are going to feel that the time frame put upon them to give the advice that they need that the committee will demand is also cut short. And all that members of the public will hear is that the Minister is pushing it through and maybe if in the end the reason he's here—TPP—is not going to be signed he could ask the Business Committee for some more time. Well that's not going to work for the public who now have been told you know this is of such urgency that they must rush it through in the way that is being proposed.We have seen on many occasions if one reads Hansard—and Government members when they're in Opposition would say it time and again and whilst I wouldn't always agree with them in this case absolutely I would—rushed legislation is not good legislation. It means you always have to come back and fix unintended consequences. Now I don't want to go into those unintended consequences here; that is something that the committee would do but it's only possible for the committee to do it when the officials can give them correct advice No. 1 and No. 2 when they get to submit questions to the committee often after receiving submissions and considering them and I think there will be thousands of submissions on both sides of this debate to the committee. After they've heard from submitters they get to raise these points. So I'm not sure that the committee will be able to do its job as well as this House needs it to as a result of the short time frame and the Minister honestly has not given a genuine reason why there is such a rush.At least the reasons he's given he's now said actually probably are not the case. If he was to go back to the Business Committee early next year and ask for more time it would be too late for the submitters who have already worked hard and put in their submissions. I really ask: if there is no date for the TPP to be signed—there is absolutely no clarity at all about when if ever it could enter into force—what is the rush now just before Christmas?The final point I want to make here is that actually probably what's very important for members before they vote on this motion and more importantly vote on the amendment that Gerry Brownlee has made is what could well be going on really. If there is no rationale because of that deadline for TPP what's really going on? Well I've been hearing there has been a not straightforward process when it comes to the Government getting the legislation together. I would hazard a guess there's a lot of disagreement around that Cabinet table. The committees would be all over the place. I would imagine not a single Government department has said it's a great idea and if that is the case then actually more time is needed not less time is needed to make sure that any unintended consequence is moved out of the way. This shouldn't be rammed through just because of dodgy coalition politics.