SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well that speech from Dr Duncan Webb was so incoherent it's no surprise to me that Labour actually want to pass the Plain Language Bill probably to either improve his speech or shut him up.But I've got to say—oh where to begin? Look I'll start with the only positive thing I think that came out of Labour's contributions in the second reading debate and it came from the soon to be former member for Hamilton East Jamie Strange when he said he has faith in the Public Service. Well so do I. I have faith that they're able to follow guidance without the hand of the State the spectre of law hanging over the top of them.But worse than that in the face of 7 percent inflation a fourfold increase in kids living in cars 500 percent increase in ram raids 40 percent of our children not attending school regularly massive waits in healthcare and huge staffing shortages across the country this Government thinks we should set aside select committees and come to the House on a Thursday morning to progress a plain-language bill. That speaks to the priorities of an arrogant and out-of-touch Government.I must say that Naisi Chen criticising Simeon Brown was a bit rich. She criticised him as a spokesperson for this not attending a select committee once. Well I was jealous of Simeon Brown. I think that's a credit to him that he didn't waste a single minute because I didn't have the same luxury. I had to sit through hours and hours and hours of completely wasted time as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee sitting listening to submitters—nearly none of whom are going to be happy.The people that support the bill the people that Sarah Pallett talks about the disabilities community People First and the Citizens Advice Bureau—they wanted the Government to go further. So they're not going to be happy. The people who wanted te reo and Braille and sign language included in the bill—none of them will be happy. And certainly the very smart people who oppose this bill will be aghast that their measured but very plain-language submissions that said don't waste Parliament's time don't waste the select committee's time were completely ignored. They weren't just any old submitters; it was the Office of the Clerk the people who actually run this place and understand why and when and what good law looks like and they were pretty unambiguous. They said—and I'll find it—The requirement in the bill to ensure that documents are in plain language is not a clear legal requirement. That is because plain language is not an easily ascertainable standard." How ironic is that that the very definition of "plain language" is not plain? So we're passing a bill to improve language and nobody knows what that means. Ironic in the extreme.The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee recommended that the bill not proceed. They said—and I agree with this—"We consider [the] policy objective is best achieved more effectively"—more effectively—"through non-legislative means." And further to that " 'Legislation should only be made when it is necessary and is the most appropriate means of achieving the policy objective.' "I could go on. There were a number of them all saying "Good idea"—in fact Sarah Pallett and I agree on that too; that's another positive. Plain language is good; passing laws for everything is not. And that's what the legal experts said. I'm surprised at Dr Duncan Webb given that he is a lecturer in legal jurisprudence.So it's a waste of this House's time. It was a waste of the select committee's time. It was a waste of the submitters' time. It was a waste of the officials' time. Frankly this bill is going to be consigned to the group of bills that were passed frankly just to make up time on a members' day: lost luggage military manoeuvres repeal laser pointers and now we have plain language. So let's just say it in as plain a language as we can: this is unnecessary it's inappropriate it lacks any sort of a priority in the list of even members' bills and we should be getting on to better things. But no we won't; we'll be here next members' day going through a committee of the whole House trying to improve a bad bill and we'll continue to waste this House's time for no obvious benefit. Let's put it in the dustbin."