Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): For the benefit of that member who was able to use many many words where one or two would suffice let me make it very clear that the reason we are having this debate is because yet again that Government is making the rules up as it goes along to suit itself. And in this particular case the Government is calling for a shortened select committee process because it does not want to be open to the usual public scrutiny that a full select committee process would give to this bill. We on this side of the House say that in this matter relating to such a core issue of our electoral law relating to the conduct of referenda this is an appalling misuse of parliamentary process because these are the very issues that require a full parliamentary process a full select committee process the full six-month process. But of course the member asks why it is that we are here and talks about the power of Parliament. Well the very intent of the bill that we are looking at is to remove some of the power of Parliament. Parliament has historically been able to write the questions for referenda; to have bills which put those questions forward; to have the wording of those questions debated in select committee; to allow members of the public to share their wisdom their views their ideas on those questions and how they should be properly put. But instead what this bill does is it says No no. We are the Labour - Greens - New Zealand First coalition. We don't need to hear what the public think about the question because we know better than the public. We believe that we should have the right by Order in Council to set the question as we see fit. To by fiat decide what the question should be never mind that the framing of that question has such a"—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'll just encourage the member to speak to the motion not to the bill. We're debating a shortened report-back period not the actual bill and the member's actually debating the bill.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully to the previous contribution from Mr Shane Jones. He veered significantly from the specific issues around the time frame of the select committee and the exemptions from particular Standing Orders. I just ask that we take a consistent approach with other contributions to this debate. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): My ruling on that is that I'm the sole judge of that.NICOLA WILLIS: The reason we are having this debate is because the Government wants to ram this bill through a select committee process that has been shortened. We on this side of the House have views on why it is that it wants to ram that through and there is much speculation that could happen as to why it wants to ram it through. We would argue that the public should more than ever have the right and the ability to scrutinise what this bill does and how it differs from the conventional process for referenda. We argue that a shortened process will curtail the ability of members of the public to have their say on this matter. That is unacceptable because these are issues of great democratic intent. These are issues that go to the very heart of our electoral system and require full scrutiny through a full select committee process. It's actually telling that here we have a Government who are prepared to do what they need to do to satisfy the demands of their coalition partners ahead of allowing the public to have their say. We had earlier Minister Little speaking about why this referral motion was being put forward. We had him in his earlier speech on this bill talking about the fact that this would allow for full scrutiny. Well how can it be that full scrutiny will occur when members opposite are at the same time calling for a shortened process? What is it that is actually driving that need for a shortened process? What I would argue is that the reason Government members are wanting a shortened process is that in fact they do not want to open this up to the full and proper scrutiny that it deserves. They are embarrassed about what they are doing and they do not wish the public to have their usual rights of scrutiny and to have the usual time required. We've had the excuse offered up that things are all getting a bit tight in terms of when the next election will be and when the referenda are to be held. Well I would argue that it shouldn't be Parliament's punishment that we don't get the time for a proper select committee process simply because Ministers opposite were taking too long over coalition negotiations. Why should Parliament lose its right to scrutiny? Why in fact should New Zealanders? Why should members of the public lose their right to full scrutiny because Ministers on the other side have dilly-dallied have taken their time have spent too long in negotiations and not enough time opening things up for public scrutiny. Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I direct you to invite the person on her feet to acquaint herself with the necessary Standing Orders; they have absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the coalition Government or that period of negotiations. The Standing Orders are very explicit—a period "between four and six months". If it is not within that period of time and this probably looks like it's between three and three and a half then there is the ability to eclipse Standing Orders 191 192 193. The member needs to stop prattling on about the coalition Government formation because it's irrelevant and it's against the Standing Orders.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: No I don't need any help thank you. As I mentioned in the earlier ruling the member needs to debate the issue of the shortened report-back time and she has ventured off into other areas. Can I say also the debate's getting quite repetitive. But I'm going to go back to Nicola Willis and hopefully we'll get back on track. NICOLA WILLIS: The reason we are having this debate is because the Government has asked for a shortened report-back time for this bill. They have not offered sufficient reasoning or argument for that shortened period. There has been no sufficient explanation of why it is that the public should have their usual rights of submission reduced and so members on this side of the House are invited to speculate as to what the reason could be. So that is why I find myself asking if this is because we have a coalition Government that have taken too long to introduce the bill to the House and therefore we and Parliament have a shortened report-back time at the select committee? Members opposite could have introduced this bill months ago. They chose not to and the select committee will now pay the price with only three or three and a half months to scrutinise this rather than the usual four to six. Mr Speaker you know and we know that it does have a material impact. Those of us who have sat on select committees and gone through the submission process know that when it comes to matters like this there are those—potentially those from an academic viewpoint those who understand the constitutional significance of these issues those with subject matter interest or expertise—who wish to take time to submit their views to submit them in length to make sure that they are thoughtful and considered and who then wish to be before the committee and to make those make those views known in person. The minute we shorten that process it has a very real bearing on the ability of people to submit; on the ability of people to put those submissions together; the ability of them to come forward before the committee. So we are debating this motion because we think on this matter of all matters—given its constitutional significance given its bearing on electoral law given its bearing on democratic principles—there should be a full select committee process that allows for full scrutiny. So this is an abuse of parliamentary process. This is shortening the scrutiny of a bill that deserves more scrutiny than most and we oppose this referral motion."