Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well thank you Madam Speaker. Dr Gaurav Sharma is a new member so we'll have to give him a bit of latitude but he may not have been aware—in fact it sounds very much like he wasn't aware—that we had a lockdown and select committees didn't meet. Select committees couldn't come to Wellington when we went out of level 4 actually. So the member might like to go and read his relatively recent history—Hon Gerry Brownlee: No he's happy being ignorant.STUART SMITH: Well OK. Yes perhaps he is happy being ignorant but we'll leave him with that.I think a lot of the speeches tonight have swung around the point of unconscionable conduct. You know I would think after Dr Webb's excellent definition there I've finally realised what unconscionable conduct is. It's promising to build 100000 homes and delivering 800 if you're lucky with a tailwind. That is definitely unconscionable conduct. So I'm glad we've cleared that up. However—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Not funding GP practices in a pandemic; that's unconscionable.STUART SMITH: Well that's right—or promising to do all the vaccinations; not having the vaccine. Promising that we're at the front of the queue and we're not; we're way down the back. [Assistant Speaker gestures for member to return to subject of bill] Well this is absolutely related to the bill because unconscionable conduct is a major part of this bill. I could go for 15 minutes on unconscionable conduct—given the look on your face Madam Speaker I will actually move on.But I think it is very interesting to note that Business New Zealand opposed this bill. And I think the last sentence in the piece that I've read is and I'd just like to quote this Despite exhaustive issues and discussion papers over time we still remain perplexed as to why these same issues keep coming up when no legitimate problem has been clearly identified." I think that's—Hon Stuart Nash: That's not true.STUART SMITH: Well it is actually true. I think everyone in this House would agree vulnerable people should not be taken advantage of. Absolutely agree with that. Vulnerable businesses should not be taken advantage of. I've been a businessman. I know what it's like taking out contracts. Is it a level playing field? It's never a level playing field. One will always be bigger than the other. The buyer depending on the product that you're selling is actually in a better position particularly if there's plenty of product around. On the other hand when there's not a lot of product around the seller is in a good position. And I know in the wine industry at the moment that's absolutely what's happening. Because of the short vintage buyers are now disappointing people they didn't have contracts with because they can't supply and they're choosing buyers at a higher price. So what—Melissa Lee: That's unconscionable.STUART SMITH: Well under some of the definitions we've heard tonight that might well be unconscionable even though it isn't in contract.I think what we have to also ensure we don't mix up here is unconscionable conduct and buyer's remorse and that is a very common phenomenon. People buy something they think they want it the next day they think "Oh no I don't really want that now." and we could end up in that situation with this bill. So we don't disagree on the definition that we don't want to see vulnerable people taken advantage of or vulnerable companies taken advantage of. But is this bill going to do it? Well according to Business New Zealand it's not going to do it. Also Consumer New Zealand although they supported it—they thought that the definition of unconscionable conduct to ensure the provisions work as intended and to avoid division about the meaning of the term as there has been in Australia.We only have to look over there to see the issues that we've had in this sort of legislation. I think we've got a lot of problems when we have these sorts of things coming through where case law will define at some point in the future what the definition is of unconscionable conduct. If Dr Webb is so certain on the definition of unconscionable conduct why didn't they put it on the bill? No answer.The reality—Dr Duncan Webb: Yield. Yield.STUART SMITH: I think the jack-in-the-box over there has had his turn. The real reason here is—in fact this is another act of unconscionable conduct. This bill had not been reported from the select committee. It could and should have gone back to select committee. Instead the unconscionable conduct of this bill will be to dump a whole lot of Supplementary Order Papers in the committee stage on the House with no forewarning with no proper process—Melissa Lee: Due process.STUART SMITH: —where we can—due process; that's correct. Where we can actually get submissions from the people it will affect—the people that will know out there–that's how good legislation is made. That's what we have a select committee process for. Our parliamentary system is built on that. But unfortunately in this Government—again unconscionable conduct—they have taken every opportunity in this case six months doing nothing then they dump something on in real haste to try and get it through ram it through without due process and we'll be back here fixing it. I guarantee it.Most of the legislation that's been passed under urgency in this House is shoddy. It has all sorts of problems and we'll be back here fixing it. The members on the other side all hanging their heads they know that's right. Well the new ones might not but the others do. And that is a waste of parliamentary time. It's a waste of the public's time because they'll be the ones that bear the brunt of poor legislation and we'll have to fix that up and I think that's really appalling process. So with that I condemn this to the House."