SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. Given the vagaries of politics and the fact that the electorate that I stand in is pretty red this could be the last contribution I make to this House so it's rather appropriate that it be about the rules of this place because I have I think over the years gained a reputation for being one of the rules guys". So it's somewhat appropriate.I think this is the third Standing Orders review that I have participated in and a clear pattern I think has emerged over those years not just for those but I think for previous Standing Orders reviews and that is what I would describe as the "make haste slowly" approach to the review and improvement of our Standing Orders because we start this process with so much optimism and then we end up sort of grinding down to some marginal improvements that on reflection could've been so much better.I have to acknowledge the clerks on this issue because I think David Wilson and his team David Bagnall and Gabor Hellyer particularly have done a gargantuan job of distilling the very very good submissions that we had listening carefully to the arguments on both sides of any change and then coming up with things that I think in their hearts they would agree could've been so much better.I was more optimistic than most in this process when it started nearly 18 months ago because it was at that time I think the case where there was about a 50:50 chance that either main party could lead Government—I'm very confident that the balance has shifted in that time.Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Thank you!Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: But in the past—nice try Dr Webb!—I've been party to conversations not just with my own colleagues but with others where the conversation will go something like this: "Well that's great when you're in Opposition but once you get into Government you wouldn't like that Standing Order." I thought when we started this with a 50:50 chance that either side of the House could lead Government we may have made more progress than we actually have. I'm a little disappointed that we haven't but that is not due in any way I think to the efforts of the Standing Orders Committee who I agree with Mr McAnulty have done a very good and collaborative job; the amazing work of the clerks; and I want to also acknowledge my own researcher Carlos Webster who helped me distil a number of those complex issues down.I just want to touch on two really important things that I think we could have done much more on. The first one is the scrutiny of the executive. We all agree—and I have Mr Hipkins' words ringing in my ears who was a member of this committee before his elevation to the Prime Minister role—that the scrutiny of the executive particularly in Estimates reviews is very poor and I'm not sure we've made as sufficient an improvement in this Standing Orders review and recommendations as we could have. My retort to that though is that Opposition members particularly become quite frustrated by the lack of meaningful inquiry and answer in a very very short period of time. One of the hopes that I had was that we would extend the time for executive review scrutiny of the executive through Estimates and annual reviews and we weren't able to do that. I remain hopeful that that can happen in the future.The second is in the hours of this place where I had hoped that we would get to fewer weeks and longer weeks because that's family friendlier I think for those who travel from out of Wellington to be here and also that the carbon footprint would be reduced. We have made some changes at the edges and they will work but I think we can and I think future Standing Orders Committees should continue to review that particularly given the trend that we've seen on the use of extended hours where when extended hours came in in 2014 more than half of them were used for Treaty bills and non-controversial things like statutes amendment. Now they are simply what they say on the tin—a way of the Government extending the time that they have to push through legislation however controversial. I don't think that was the intention of extended hours. We had an opportunity in this review to have fewer weeks but more hours in a year so that the Government could get through its legislative programme in a more orderly fashion and we haven't quite got to that but nevertheless there are improvements in this.I think in terms of scrutiny of the executive if I might just jump back to that we've seen two very good exceptions to a general rule of select committees breaking down party lines. One was in the Finance and Expenditure Committee in its report on one of the three waters pieces of legislation where there was a pretty strident criticism of changes being made to bills that hadn't been put through the committee. And of course I think it was the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that reviewed the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill and actually unanimously agreed that it shouldn't proceed. Now that could be seen as a slight on the Government but actually I prefer to see it as very very good select committee work that didn't fall along party lines. It's a rare thing and I hope it happens more often in the future.Thank you to you Mr Speaker for your chairmanship of this committee. I think it was very well chaired—a lot more listening than talking which is your style—but I think that belies the wisdom that you brought to that process a process that's better for your chairmanship.With that I wish those who will be tasked with the responsibility of running this place and our democracy under the new Standing Orders the very best. It's probably not going to be me but that's OK—I won't even be watching! Cheers."