McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. You know I think on the whole as has been mentioned earlier today members' day is a day that demonstrates that Parliament works together where it can. This is a good example of that. There were reservations about this bill expressed by this side of the House when it was introduced and they were articulated in the contributions from my colleagues at the time. But we did indicate that we supported and understood the intent of the bill and that we would support it at first reading to get it to select committee to thrash it out a wee bit more. There are other examples that come to mind. I see members on the other side of the House who have come to this and had their member's bill drawn from the ballot. Again we wanted to get that to select committee to see if we could address the concerns that we've got and maybe look to improve it. I think on the whole unless there's a fundamental opposition to what's being proposed you should always look to do that.I look at my friend and colleague Todd Muller there who's had a couple of bills up: one around cooperatives and one around sunscreen. The cooperatives is one example where we went to select committee tried to thrash it out and unfortunately despite appreciating the intent and appreciating the expertise of the member couldn't quite get it there. Then the sunscreen one is a good example where again we wanted to thrash it out and now we are supporting it. I think of an example of a bill from Ian McKelvie that came and once we—Todd Muller: Point of order Madam Speaker. Oh look I just wanted to correct the speaker. I didn't want to stop him in full flow. He tends to be almost engaging when he starts becoming at full flow. But his reference to the cooperatives bill not achieving the support of the House is actually incorrect. It passed with unanimous support after a third reading and indeed Mr McAnulty was a key part of ensuring that eventually the Labour Party saw sense in what was being discussed. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you. I call on Kieran McAnulty to continue his very good speech.KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you very much and I see that Mr Muller fell for my trap and he corrected the record and gave me praise—so thank you for that. Got him in one. So as I was saying this House cooperates whenever it has the opportunity to do so. I was giving the example which is relevant to this one because I think it's important to point out that wherever possible political parties do actually work together a select committee.One good example of that was Mr McKelvie's bill around making the rustling of livestock a crime. It was unfortunate that it was just the way in which the bill was drafted and the member conceded this himself. I worked really closely with him and went to the Minister and said We've been advised that this is out of scope in what it intends to do and we can't do it. Perhaps we might be able to include it in some of the Government's work to actually achieve it." The Minister agreed and we actually got there. So the reason I'm bringing this up is I genuinely believe that again unless there is a fundamental opposition to what's being proposed for members' bills there will be effort put in to get it across the line.For Lawyers and Conveyancers (Employed Lawyers Providing Free Legal Services) Amendment Bill that was the intent: express some concern we voted for it at first reading to get it to select committee and as the chair of that select committee has demonstrated time and time again and most notably with the conversion therapy bill that passed last night she is a very good chair and wants to ensure that at every step throughout the select committee process people have their say and those views are considered and where possible amendments are made. I acknowledge the contribution that she made to this debate because I think she spelt it out very clearly that there was that intent to make it right.But at the select committee stage it became clear from submissions from the likes of the Law Society that there were concerns around whether this bill as it is written would achieve what it hoped to achieve and what we would like to actually support it to get there. And they couldn't quite work it through and that's a shame because I think if you look at the Government's track record over the last four years around supporting access to legal advice and justice—I'm thinking about the support that came to community law centres almost immediately upon getting elected in 2017 we all I think recognised the contribution and support that community law centres give to our communities. I just think at the top of my mind now the numerous examples that the community law centres in the Wairarapa electorate have given to countless people in the community around guiding them through legal advice and the justice system. We recognised that funding for them was frozen over many years and swiftly provided a 20 percent increase in funding for them. So this isn't some issue where there is such a fundamental disagreement as to what actually needs to occur. Community law centres were ultimately at the centre of many of the arguments in favour of the intent of this bill. You look at Budget 2020: further support of $7.7 million over four years in a funding boost to community law centres.But ultimately you've really got to take into consideration the submissions that are given to select committees when deliberating on a bill. What it came down to was as has been mentioned by other speakers the submissions we received indicated that the bill as it was written was not likely to achieve what we had hoped it would and I think what the sponsor of the bill hoped it would. You know it's no secret in this House that Chris Bishop and I actually get on pretty well. We don't agree on everything but we co-captain the parliamentary cricket team with aplomb I think.Hon Members: Ha ha!KIERAN McANULTY: Yes that's right and we will defend our honour against the diplomats later this month. But in this instance we just couldn't come to an agreement and that is regrettable. But often despite that there's the opportunity to support a bill even if it doesn't quite achieve all your objectives. It's not quite the case here. It's not a case of achieving all your objectives; it's a case of achieving the objectives that were set out in the bill when it was introduced and it's our genuine and sincere view that it doesn't. So then we were essentially tasked with the proposition of supporting a bill despite agreeing with the intent when the advice was that it doesn't actually achieve that. As parliamentarians you've pretty much got to suck it up and say "Right—well it doesn't achieve what it says it's going to achieve. We don't believe therefore that it's good law—with the greatest respect to the sponsor but we don't and therefore we can't support it."So my much more learned colleagues have articulated that better than I but I just wanted to take the opportunity to stand in support of what they were saying recognise the work that's gone into it both from the bill's sponsor but all parties that are represented on that committee and also the officials that helped get to this point because ultimately yes we are here to represent our electorates and the party that brings in list MPs etc. but we're also parliamentarians and at the forefront of our role is to make good legislation. Ultimately we came to the conclusion that this bill would not achieve what it hoped. We didn't consider it was worthy of further support but I think it's fair to point out that it was given its best shot."