Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's like David Seymour says regrettable. It seems to me that we have to be debating this motion advocating for Michael Woodhouse's proposed amendment to it for more time here. Of course just very briefly because I want to get to why more time is required and spend all my time on that but just to record of course for those watching at home the reason we are able to do this and debate this procedural matter if you like about time is because it's not the usual amount of time. It's very significantly less: weeks instead of what is it Michael Woodhouse? Four months.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Oh it's usually six.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It's usually six months I should say. So that is why we are in this position and on that narrow point we are able to make the case for more time than literally just on the Minister's say so submissions being heard if the committee decides to by 14 October.What Michael Woodhouse has proposed is not another five or so months to give us the normal time frame. So as I think he said himself he is being very reasonable with this amendment. He's not going for a longer period; he is simply advocating for about a further month. So instead of 14 October that would allow due consideration of this bill to 14 November of this year. Not a long time and actually frankly a bit like National's position on this bill where we're supporting but I think we've got very serious concerns I say I've got very serious concerns about Michael Woodhouse's amendment because it seems to me actually we could possibly should be arguing for longer.Why is more time needed? Well I'll give a few brief reasons. Actually there's a question of fairness or proportionality. This bill—I know the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I think they used to once be a level under my purview as a leader of this House for a short period of time. It would have taken months to draft. It would have taken months for the instructions and to get all of the offices to say what would be convenient for you to put in this bill and the Ministry for the Environment came back with their wish list and the Ministry of Social Development came back with theirs—months to draft and—Hon Chris Hipkins: Only under a National Government.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well under Labour it's a surprise they actually get anything achieved frankly but here they have brought a bill to the House so we'll give them that. Months to draft or to come up with weeks for submissions—that's a fairness thing to me. That doesn't seem fair. More than that it's just—point of order Mr Speaker. I'm trying to make some thoughtful points here and I just can't hear them because the member standing up has his back to us now. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thank you. It's tradition that one members don't turn their back on the House for any extended time and two having a loud conversation should actually go out into the lobby. I apologise to the member.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The second reason why more time is needed—again I suppose it's a fairness point or some would say it's around an issue that begins with h" but we don't use and that's this—David Seymour: Housing. Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Housing—well they don't mention that word either David Seymour but that's not—I want to stay on the point and purpose of this discussion. They have given themselves—that is the Government of the day and the Hon Chris Hipkins—in haste powers and they're going to go through this hugely truncated process to use at their leisure. These powers above and beyond the usual powers that would be in place are right through into 2022. So again I suppose it's—I mentioned the H word but it's another fairness point that I would make here.David Seymour: Fairness starts with "f".Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well that's true. But the third and most significant reason I give as to why more time is required is the simple but I think—and this is a very powerful point around the shared breadth of this bill and the complexity of its component parts. I want to demonstrate that in contribution. On the breadth I think it's 17 bills that are amended here and of course it is an omnibus bill. I'm not challenging that; that's something that the Government can rightfully do in a bill but they are—David Seymour: You learnt that in high school.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I learnt that in high school; it's something—I don't know. That's Climate Change Response Act Contract and Commercial Law Act Coroners Act Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act Criminal Procedure Act Gambling Act Land Transport Act Local Electoral Act Property Law Act Rating Valuations Act and so on and so forth. David Seymour: What years?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well no because I'm not filibustering here Mr Seymour. I'm actually making I hope on point points—David Seymour: Laser.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: With a laser-like focus on the issue.David Seymour: How many bills?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No no please please please please please. I've only got four minutes left and I want to use them on the things that matter.So it's the breadth of this bill. But allied to that and very much part and parcel—these aren't simple laws. These aren't the bee-keepers allowed to bee-keep laws; they are some of the most complex on our statute books.David Seymour: Has the member talked to the bee-keepers?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well they certainly didn't consult them in the making of this law David Seymour but they are the most complex laws and I want to demonstrate that with just three of them. The Climate Change Response Act and the climate change position here: well what this bill does and why it requires significantly more time is it amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002 by extending statutory time frames for key climate change policy decisions. Well that's euphemism for putting on hold the ability to do things on what I think is one of the most pressing issues of our time but what a huge swathe of New Zealanders see as the most complex and biggest issue of our time. Actually while I'm just on that think about the people who would have submitted on this. Young people consistently say it's the most important issue to them. It's their future; it's intergenerational. There's the climate action groups there's the various high schools and so on and that's before you get to the likes of the significant NGOs and individuals. I have a constituent Gray Southern in my electorate who is hugely dedicated to the sole issue of climate change and the international response. He would absolutely make a submission but if he does I think the reality is he's going to get three minutes if he's lucky if he's even heard on this. So that breadth that complexity and the significance of that issue means more time is required.The other example I wanted to use is the local body law and that issue. Well if climate change is complex and significant this literally goes to the democracy of New Zealand. And it's not some minor technical amendment that's being made. This is the power of the Government of the day to literally delay the elections. If for some reason—it doesn't actually state the reasons—they don't want to. They decide "Look 2022 kinda doesn't work for us. Tauranga sorry you're not going to have it. We'll keep Anne Tolley and her band of merry men to do their jobs."—at $1800 a day to Anne Tolley I might add not that I'm bitter. So just that issue alone would see submissions from the Tauranga Ratepayers' Alliance the taxpayers' unions just the Tauranga bit and several others are there as well that would want to be heard.The final one I want to mention is that very complicated—and I appreciate it's a point David Seymour spoke about in this contribution—intricate area of law: property law and commercial contracts around landlords and their tenants. And just those words—they are new words I believe. What is it "fair proportion" or whatever? They are not words that have ever been used before. And given that there are in some cases many millions of dollars involved with commercial landlords and tenants that should be something they should be able to submit on. It will literally see one way or the other millions of dollars of benefit to one side or the other. By the way it isn't always the tenant who is the poor one in the relationship. So these are all reasons why a period of a few weeks is not good enough.We ask and I agree with Michael Woodhouse wholeheartedly for another month so this can be done not properly but just a bit better actually."