SpeechHon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you Madam Chair. This is my first speech on this bill and I just want to take this opportunity to ask the member in charge of the bill to perhaps revise her desire to have this bill go through the House for her personal career prospects. This will be what she is always known as having passed and this is her opportunity to actually take it out now and reverse her decision. The Labour Party is not supporting this in any way or form to help New Zealanders. This will be known as a bill that that individual member has put forward in her parliamentary career. And it would be a disservice to her parliamentary career to have it really coloured by this legislation and to have her whole career based on this bill. So there is an opportunity for that member to withdraw the bill after this speech and to take that opportunity to save her political career because having plain language officers as the one thing that you're known to have delivered isn't really a great parliamentary career is it? Now it's probably more than some of the other Labour members have delivered I know but there is an opportunity for that member to remove that now because—as members have said—it is a farce this bill. Anybody listening to this debate this afternoon will be wondering why Parliament's actually debating this when there's much more serious issues that could be debated even on a member's day. But this is just a silly and senseless piece of legislation. As the previous speaker would say it's inane as legislation and that is true. The opportunity now is for the proponent of this bill to withdraw it to leave with some dignity and not to have their name associated with legislation like this that will not actually be of any good to anybody and will go down in her political career as—Hon Willie Jackson: Oh sit down.Hon DAVID BENNETT: —and no Mr Jackson I'm helping your colleague very seriously here. This is the kind of thing that you should be doing—helping your colleagues—rather than making them in a position where they have silly and senseless legislation and their names are attached to it. I'm sure that Mr Jackson could have found a much better idea that Rachel could have supported that would have actually then done something good in his portfolio for example.But in effect we are debating a bill that says you must appoint a plain language officer. It's just a farce. It's just crazy. There's no point in it. There's no reason for it. Who's to say that officer's going to make any difference on the ground to people actually being able to understand things? Then legally you've still got requirements you have to meet anyway. So it just doesn't make sense in any way.The member may smile and she understands that this is not a serious bill. But there is an opportunity for her to leave with some integrity to the dinner break if she pulls out of this bill now and just suddenly takes the opportunity to take awareness of what the public would be thinking of this legislation and save herself and the Labour Party from another part of grief. Because the Labour Party will be tainted as well by this legislation.Hon Willie Jackson: Say that again.Hon DAVID BENNETT: Mr Jackson is saying something over there which can't be heard because he's not—Hon Michael Woodhouse: It's not in plain language.Hon DAVID BENNETT: Is not in plain language—Hon Willie Jackson: I'm a quiet fellow!Hon DAVID BENNETT: And as he said he's a quiet fellow. But you know that's not plain language in the sense of this bill.The other part of it is the precedent that this legislation will cause for question time when the Prime Minister ducks and dives questions—are we going to get plain language answers now? Is that going to be the precedent that has to be set in this House when Labour Ministers are in trouble and they duck and dive and hide behind adjectives and don't say anything of any consequence?Are we going to then pre-require the Prime Minister to actually answer a question on the economics because this bill is being passed? Shouldn't that precedent actually apply then? Is that the reality?