Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to participate in this very important debate in opposition to the motion and if the motion is to pass then I am in favour of Dr Jian Yang's amendment that would at least give the public another month to make a submission on this bill.It's important to recite and remember how this Parliament works and why it works for the benefit of New Zealand when we come to a debate such as this. We are a country where people believe in and follow the rule of law. People follow the law in New Zealand because if they didn't we would have chaos we would have no security of our property and in particular we would have no security of our person. One of the reasons people follow the law is that they believe in the due process of this Parliament in making it. They follow it voluntarily which is another great benefit.By and large we don't rely on the police or punishment for people to follow the law in New Zealand. If we had to do that we would be a police State and we'd be a very inefficient society. In New Zealand we rely on people following the laws made by this Parliament because even when we as citizens disagree with the law we know that it's been made well.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but you've had two minutes and it's more than overdue for you to refer to the instruction to the committee please. It's a very narrow debate.DAVID SEYMOUR: Madam Speaker I am referring to the instruction to the committee to reduce the amount of time that people in this country have to submit on the making of this law. In particular the reduction in the submission time that the public has undermines New Zealanders' faith in the law. As I was saying people voluntarily follow the law even when they disagree with it because they know that in this country it is made by representatives who are servants of them and who listen to them during a public submission process.Now I have sat on select committees—at least four different select committees in the last 5½ years including being a permanent member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for that entire period—and I know that it is nigh on impossible to hear from New Zealanders in order to properly process their submissions and opinions in three months. The reason for that is that a series of things have to happen.First of all we have to give notice to the public that submissions are required. The public have to take time and most people have lives jobs kids and homes to run. They can't drop everything immediately because this Parliament has made a request for submissions. So after they receive a submission New Zealanders have to make time to consider their views and prepare a submission and get it ready to be sent to the select committee.Once they've done that they might hope to be heard by the select committee. That often involves for many New Zealanders who don't live in Wellington travelling to the capital to appear in person if they want to be heard. If New Zealanders need to do that well not everybody has unlimited access to free flights from Air New Zealand like members of Parliament. People often make quite a sacrifice to present to select committees.I remember people who came to speak to the select committee—the Education and Science Committee as it was at the time—about the partnership schools kura hourua legislation.000000ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Can I just give the member a second opportunity to speak to the instruction to the committee. Give it your best shot Mr Seymour. DAVID SEYMOUR: I am outlining why it is so important that we do not shorten the time for submissions by the public. Now if that is not in line with this motion to shorten the time the public has to submit on a bill then I'm not sure what it is that we can debate about on a motion such as this. I'm illustrating that with examples of the sacrifices New Zealanders make to come and submit that they may not be able to if this motion passes. I'm not sure how else it is that I can address the motion. So let me tell you what these people had to do. They were asked When is your flight to Wellington to make a submission?" And the person who asked them—it wasn't me; it was another former member I might add—was rather embarrassed because they said "You know we don't have flights. We've caught the bus from the Far North." That's what they did to come and speak to this Parliament about a matter affecting them.That's the practical reality in a democracy for people who want to participate in the process of parliamentary democracy. If we reduce the submission period for feedback from the public on this bill people in positions like that will be disenfranchised from democracy. That's what's at stake. Then if people have been able to make submissions the next thing that has to happen on a select committee—and I've been on a few; not as many as you Madam Speaker but a few—is that as members of Parliament if we're doing our job we have to think about what the public have said. None of this is radical; it's just what should happen. That takes time because as you know members of Parliament also have a lot to do and they need to put aside time to read the submissions to cogitate on them sometimes to get other advice and then to deliberate as a committee and make sure that the public's opinions of the law being made have been given due respect because it's only when we give due respect to the public that they in turn respect this Parliament and follow the law voluntarily. As I've argued in this speech it's critically important to the wellbeing of our society.But for everything I've just said about why it is wrong to shorten a select committee process it can sometimes be justified to ignore it and the circumstances are not difficult to imagine. One day when I was early in my time in Parliament it was discovered by accident that it was illegal to issue speeding fines in a large part of New Zealand. We had to move quickly. We couldn't have a six-month deliberation on whether we should ban speeding on the Kāpiti coast because it would have been the Indy 500 up and down State Highway 1 if we hadn't acted quickly. In that instance Parliament did act quickly. So there are times when it's OK for Parliament to act quickly but that's when there is a specific reason why and without going into the bill itself I see no reason in this bill for us to reduce the amount of time it takes. The Government has had almost three years to move on this issue and it hasn't. They clearly don't believe it's urgent but for some reason they want to legalise prisoner voting right before an election. Now I've used the first nine minutes without getting to my main topic which is this: we live in extraordinary circumstances. People up and down this country are in a great deal of uncertainty. I just went to Thorndon New World at lunchtime and you can't move in there. People are not focused on making laws right now. People are focused on survival on business continuity on certainty and on making sure they've got enough food in their pantry because they don't know what's going to happen next. If there was ever a time for a Parliament to start rushing through legislation this has got to be the most inappropriate time that we have ever seen. I think this Government has a leadership role in New Zealand at the time of the coronavirus crisis and it could start showing that leadership by stopping rushing through legislation in an undemocratic fashion. So I challenge the Government to withdraw this motion; make this law properly like any other; and if not then at least support Dr Jian Yang's amendment to give people at least five months for a normal select committee process."