Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I also rise to oppose this motion of a shortened report-back date for this bill and I wish to canvass this in terms of the significance the importance of the select committee process not only to the legislative process in New Zealand but fundamentally to our democracy. I'll seek to do that in part by contrasting with our parent system where our own parliamentary system derives. I'll talk a little bit about what the implications are in New Zealand when we shorten our select committee process and also touch upon the conditions where Parliament and the people of New Zealand in the context of supporting our democracy might hold that it is applicable to shorten a select committee process in New Zealand.Now as all parliamentarians will know but perhaps people watching or listening might wish to be refreshed our system does derive from the Westminster parliamentary system. And while we see so much of that—DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's very interesting but—BRETT HUDSON: The select committee process Madam Deputy Speaker is key to this. So while we see many similarities there are key differences of which the select committee process in New Zealand is a bulwark against a lack of scrutiny of bills.In the Westminster system they have an Upper House. The House of Lords scrutinises legislation sends suggestions back to the House of Commons and they can go backwards and forwards several times. The Westminster system does have select committees and bills select committees but it is more the exception than the rule that a piece of legislation will have a select committee formed for it to scrutinise it in select committee the way we do in New Zealand. Rather instead in the Westminster system they tend to spend a great deal more time in the committee of the whole House going through that legislation clause by clause and then it will still go back between its upper and lower chambers.We are unicameral and so the select committee process in New Zealand has been developed specifically to ensure that legislation here can get the sort of democratic scrutiny that multi-cameral parliaments in other jurisdictions get from the nature of their structural differences. So to change the select committee process here—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to say to the member I understand the argument you're putting but you do have to relate it to the motion. So you need to tie it in to the motion because it's quite a tight debate. It's not a history lesson or a parliamentary lesson. Tie it in to the motion.BRETT HUDSON: Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. The point on the motion is that shortening the select committee process shortens the scrutiny of a piece of legislation. It fundamentally reshapes the application of our democracy to the specific piece of legislation. By default under Standing Orders with no motion a bill introduced and passed first reading will have a report-back date of six months following its first reading. That is designed to allow ample time for not only a notice and advertising of the bill to be sent out but for interested parties many of who tend to be organisations but also any member of the public who has some level of interest in the piece of legislation it allows them ample time to consider the legislation to construct an articulate position and to position that into the select committee to put across whatever considerations they have including quite possibly objections or proposed amendments. It then gives of course the committee sufficient time to hear from those submitters in person if that's what they wish to consider and reflect on what they have heard along with officials and to potentially make amendments. It is a deeply considered process that gives ample opportunity for a bill to be properly scrutinised.When Parliament passes a motion to shorten that report-back date we give New Zealanders less time to respond to the legislation we are seeking to pass less time to construct their arguments. And while they might still get an opportunity of some minutes in front of the committee they will be submitting on ideas or arguments that they've had to form in less allowable time. That risks the possibility that a piece of legislation simply won't get the scrutiny that it deserves.DEPUTY SPEAKER: But we're talking about this piece of legislation. This piece.BRETT HUDSON: And in this particular legislation we're talking about two months six weeks—six weeks instead of six months. The difference between the two is almost extreme. It is certainly enormous in terms of the opportunity for New Zealanders to adequately consider a bill which means 12 Acts and to construct their arguments or the considerations they may have around that including amendments or opposition or support that they may wish to put forward.The implications of that are that we risk passing legislation through successive stages certainly through select committee that is not as properly formed or articulated as it should be. The consequence which we have already seen in this term of Parliament as admittedly we've also seen in the past is legislation that comes back to the House during the term to be amended because errors were omitted or overlooked or consequences were not uncovered through that scrutiny and so the legislation went through and was enacted with either issues with fully enacting their political intent behind it or in fact just simply with drafting errors. And we've seen this recently. I'm not going to—DEPUTY SPEAKER: No you're not.BRETT HUDSON: We've seen it and members have canvassed instances—DEPUTY SPEAKER: You've had six minutes of a parliamentary lesson. I need you to talk about this particular bill. All those things you've talked about you must relate to this motion in front of the House not the general principle but this particular motion.BRETT HUDSON: What the governing parties are seeking to have this Parliament agree to is a motion that simply risks a poorly drafted bill being returned to second reading one that could well lead to further legislation coming back to this House before the end of this term. The bill does not require an early report back apart from perhaps a desire from the Government because of a lack of management on their part to undertake this bill these amendments earlier in this term. They've had 18 months or the best part of it. This bill could have been introduced pretty much any time after they formed a Government. They have chosen to delay it until now. They may have a desire they may even think there's some level of justification because of certain start dates that it might pass a little earlier than the default would otherwise be. But that lack of planning doesn't constitute a crisis for this Parliament to respond to. It's simply bad management on their part. I would contend that if we are going to therefore shorten the select committee process because of their poor management we just risk a poor outcome. And that's not good for Parliament. It's certainly not good for the people of New Zealand.So I just simply call on the Government to reconsider their motion to realise that the public deserve the full at least four months as one of my colleagues has suggested. But I would argue and contend the standard six months to adequately make their submissions on this to be heard and to have proper consideration of what they want to submit to Parliament on this particular bill.