Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the amendment which was going to be moved by me but was actually moved by Michael Woodhouse in the end—Hon Michael Woodhouse: We're a team.CHRIS BISHOP: We are a team here with a bit of nifty footwork—Hon Michael Woodhouse: It was very deft.CHRIS BISHOP: It was very deft. Anyway he moved the amendment. I want to make two or three points. The first is that an extra month is an eminently reasonable request of the House. It's eminently reasonable and when we were drafting the amendment we had to move quickly because this bill was dropped on us yesterday and we have to take urgency to introduce it. Totally outrageous the bill could have been—I don't really understand because the bill could have been introduced on a Monday and debated on Thursday or it could have gone to Cabinet last week and been introduced last week and then we could do it in normal time so the Government has made a boo-boo there. But anyway when we were quickly moving I said to Michael and I said to some other colleagues well let's go for a month. Because the Government clearly wants to get it through by Christmas and there's some things in the bill which sort of sound reasonable and we do want to invigilate it at the committee a bit so OK—let's go for a month. Because two weeks I think—I hope—if members reflect on it they will acknowledge that two weeks is just no time. I mean how can you really get to—this is a massive piece of legislation; it's just impossible to get to grips with it in two weeks. That's not reasonable.So 14 October is the motion moved by the Minister. It's been sent to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and it will have two weeks there. Our position is—not unreasonably I think—let's just take the extra month. We can get it through by Christmas. Parliament's not lifting until I think mid-December. I forget the exact date off the top of my head but normally it's about the 16th or 17th when we rise and we have the gallery party—that tradition started by Gerry Brownlee has been well-continued by Mr Hipkins and we thank him for that belatedly. So we can get it through by Christmas but an extra month is pretty reasonable. And I know the Finance and Expenditure Committee's got a lot on and Duncan Webb runs a tight ship I'm told—he's a bit of a hard taskmaster he's got them meeting during the recess weeks which to be fair not all committees do. They're meeting during the recess they've got the Zoom now and he's making good use of the functionality and my colleagues on the committee Michael Woodhouse and Nicola Willis have mentioned to me before there's others that have told me he runs a good ship and so I'm sure he'll do a good job. We're just saying take the extra month. So I just think as a matter of principle that's a good thing.Then I want to come to specifically—I've got to stop saying that word specifically—some of the things that I think people will want to get into that justify the extra time. The first is the area I talked about in my contribution on the bill which is the local electoral changes. Now I have put up on Facebook the powers that the Government wants to give itself. Man you would not believe the response—it is unbelievable. People are asking the question in the comments on Facebook—and on Twitter to be fair; I don't spend a lot of time on Twitter probably spend too much time as it is. But people are asking why?" Why does the Government want to give itself the power to delay the election without limit on a six-weekly basis all the way through 2023? Now I could understand 2022—because that's local body election year and the very difficult circumstance of level 4 maybe there's an argument that you can't even do a postal ballot although I'll come back to that. I think that even that argument's erroneous frankly—maybe but 2023? Are we seriously saying that the Government can arrogate to itself the power to delay the local body elections on a six-weekly rolling basis for over a year? I just do not understand the justification for that. Hon Michael Woodhouse: How does COVID get in the way of a postal vote?CHRIS BISHOP: Well that's a really good point Michael Woodhouse. It's an extremely good point. How does COVID get in the way of a postal ballot? We don't have polling day any more in local body elections. Some people think we should go back to polling day for local body elections. To be honest I'm actually one of them. I think that would actually raise the turnout rate. We went away from them on the basis that it would raise turnout. It did momentarily but now the numbers are way back below what they were so I think we should go back to polling day but that's beside the point. Some people think we should but the point is we don't and we're not going to any time soon. The Justice Committee's doing their inquiry. I think they actually recommended in the last triennial review that we should go back to polling day—it was certainly discussed.But the point is it's a postal ballot. And are we seriously saying that things are going to get so bad next year—I mean what does the Government know that they're not telling us? Are we seriously going to say that things are going to get so bad in 2022 that the Government wants the power to on a rolling basis—just to be clear the existing law says the Governor-General which is essentially the Cabinet can delay a local body election polling day or nominations day for six weeks and they can do that once. OK? That's probably about right probably about the right balance because you may have circumstances. But on a rolling basis all the way into the year after an election is just ridiculous. I'm sorry it's just ridiculous. I'm telling you now people are going to link—and they already have—they are going to link this power to three waters. And the other thing they're going to link it to is the Māori ward decision that was made earlier in Parliament this year.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those points might be correct however the member needs to argue them in the context of a shortened report back time which he's failed to do in the last couple of minutes.CHRIS BISHOP: So the point I'm making Sir is that there's going to be widespread angst about this. I just indicated some of the social media angst you're seeing already. There is going to be widespread angst about that and what that indicates is that there's going to be a lot of people going to want to make submissions. I predict—I'm going to say this right now—the select committee will be inundated with submissions in the next two weeks as the committee considers this bill and they're not going to be able to get to them. That is precisely the reason why the House should vote in favour of the motion moved by Mr Woodhouse to give the committee extra time. Just a month. Frankly even with the extra month—if we go through to 14 November—even then I'm not sure the committee would get through all the submissions which are going to want to consider the issue of the local body election issue in the bill.The other issue that the committee really needs to take its time over that justifies the extra time to get advice from the officials is the issue raised by Mr Seymour and also other colleagues in relation to the Property Law Act changes. Let's be very clear. This is quite nitty-gritty stuff. This is very tricky. Now when I was at law school I did not enjoy property law and the reason I didn't enjoy property law is because it is very complex. I was all about the public law arguing about rights and all that sort of stuff—that's for me; it's probably why I ended up in Parliament. But property law is very complex. Land law the rights of tenants commercial tenancies covenants all the stuff that I thought I'd forgotten that I haven't. All of that stuff matters and you've got to get it right. And this is retrospective legislation. That's the other point. I'm telling you now there are going to be potentially learned law professors and other scholars who are interested in this stuff who are going to turn up and castigate the Government for the retrospective nature of the legislation.Hon Michael Woodhouse: If they have the chance.CHRIS BISHOP: That's right if they have the chance. People are not going to be happy about this. Parliament does not retrospectively legislate very often and we only do so normally with a very good reason. The Government frankly so far has not—to be honest I don't think—pointed out a very good reason for the retrospectivity and so people are going to be upset about that. So there's going to be submissions. So firstly there's going to be a lot of submissions on that point just as a matter of principle and then secondly you're going to get the Property Council—I understand that they have some concerns around some aspects of it. The Property Council were going to submit small businesses are going to submit; there's an argument for some of the things the Government is doing. You're going to see a bit of debate either way. That's the point of the committee process. You go through the debates you hear the submissions and the committee comes to a determination as to which way it wants to go. That's all fine but the point is you can only do that on a committee if the committee can do its job. And 14 October is not anywhere near enough time.And I have not even mentioned the rest of the bill. There's 17 bills here. I mean the Climate Change Response Act delay in itself is actually quite massive. I haven't even mentioned that. I mean that's the issue—Hon Simon Bridges: Jacinda Ardern says it's the biggest issue there is.CHRIS BISHOP: That's right Simon Bridges says it's the biggest issue—you know the nuclear free might be the third generation. Well there's a delay to various aspects of it discussed by the Hon Scott Simpson. I haven't even mentioned that yet and I'm telling you now there are going to be some people out there—I'm thinking of Russel Norman from Greenpeace and others—Hon Simon Bridges: He'll be scathing.CHRIS BISHOP: He's going to be scathing I mean he's never happy about anything but he's going to be very unhappy about this. He's going to turn up and want to submit as well and he'll probably make a very lengthy submission—and I welcome that good on him that's his right—and the committee's going to have to go through that. Is it a good idea or not? The point is the committee's going to need more time than the bare 14 days. We're not being unreasonable here. Just give ourselves the extra month let the committee do its job and consider it properly.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. This debate is interrupted for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m."