Hipkins Chris: Taxation (Land Information and Offshore Persons Information) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Taxation (Land Information and Offshore Persons Information) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4827. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very happy to take a brief call on this referral motion—a debate that we have in Parliament relatively rarely these days and I think that is a good thing. In fact up until 4 years ago we never would have had the debate on these matters. I think it is important when they do come up that we canvass whether in fact it is valid to have an earlier report-back date but also whether the powers that a select committee is being given—because in addition to truncating the report-back date this motion also gives the committee additional powers—it is worth us considering whether those additional powers are warranted.I was involved in the review of the Standing Orders in 2011 which made this change to the Standing Orders. A lot of thought was given to whether these motions should indeed be debatable. I want to quote briefly from the report as to the reasons that change was made because I think they summarise some of the arguments against voting in favour of the motion: “The truncation of the select committee process can have serious implications for legislative quality and confidence in the legislative process. … [I]t also affects the public perception of Parliament especially when submitters are required to prepare submissions in a short time and hearings are compressed.” That was the unanimous view of the committee so it was not just one party arguing it; that was the view of the whole Parliament—that we wanted to avoid wherever possible the truncation of the select committee process. The report goes on to say that although 6 months is the default it can be reduced to 4 months without debate—but the report did not want 6 months to necessarily be a constraint either. That was actually the finding of the report: that the select committee process should take as long as the select committee process should take.What is important in that is that we do not have a minimum select committee time frame either. So although a bill is referred to a select committee by the House there is absolutely nothing to stop that committee reporting back early where the legislation can be adequately dealt with in a shortened period of time without the need for the House to mandate that it must report back within a shortened period of time. As my colleague David Parker has pointed out this bill has some complexity and so it should take the time that is necessary for it to deal with those issues. It can report it back early now without the need for this referral motion if it finds that in fact it does not need any additional time.The Standing Orders Committee noted that the Government should exercise due restraint when considering the truncation of the select committee process and the reason these motions are debatable now when they previously were not is forexactly that reason. If it takes up additional House time then it is going to discourage the Government from using them and that is important.The other point that I want to make is around the powers that the select committee is being given. One of the powers that it is being given if this motion is passed is the power to meet while the House is sitting. My colleagues Phil Twyford and David Parker have talked about the complexity of the bill and the need for people submitting to be able to get their heads around the bill before they put their submissions before the select committee. There is also a need for the members on that select committee to be able to get their heads around those issues of complexity as well—Hon David Parker: And time for submissions.CHRIS HIPKINS: —and time for them to adequately hear the submissions that are sent before them. The power to meet while the House is sitting actually in my view makes the select committee process much more complex and much more complicated for the members and it does actually in some ways inhibit the ability of the members to constructively engage because it means that they are going to be balancing other priorities. Members will find themselves having to speak in the House leaving select committees and coming and going from select committee hearings.One of the things that I find select committee submitters do often complain about is that they feel like they were rushed through the process and they were not actually listened to and I think that that is heightened where they see members coming and going from the meeting during the time that they are making their submissions because they feel that they are not being given the respect that they deserve. I actually think that is a valid criticism. When select committees meet while the House is sitting the odds of that happening are much higher than if the select committee meets during its regular time. I think that there is a case for that to happen sometimes and we do that regularly with an extended sitting of the House where we are doing Treaty settlement bills for example but those bills are non-contentious in the sense that they are well supported around the House and so we will allow select committees to meet during that time because we can arrange for the swaps and so on to happen so that the select committee work is still covered.Again it is not a case of saying it should never happen but we should be very cautious about hearing controversial issues in a select committee—and this will almost certainly be controversial—when the House is sitting and when members have other work responsibilities that they are trying to balance. It will infringe upon their ability to adequately engage with the detail of the submissions and the detail of the legislation—which of course I am not going to go into here because I am not allowed to—but you know it is important that the members of the committee do engage in the detail and do get their heads around it and that is why making sure that they have adequate time to do that is very important.I want to finally quote again from the Standing Orders Committee in concluding my remarks because I think that this really sums up the nature of the whole issue: “Reducing the number of bills that are subject to shorter deadlines for select committee consideration will be an effective way of enhancing legislative scrutiny and thus improving the quality of legislation in New Zealand.” We have a job as members of Parliament to scrutinise the legislation that comes before us. Truncated select committee processes are a barrier to that happening. We also have a responsibility to ensure that the legislation is quality legislation lest we find ourselves back here as we regularly have in recent times correcting legislation that was pushed through in a hurry that was not done properly that did not get the scrutiny it deserved and that therefore stood in need of correction. We can avoid those things by making sure that we follow the principle that the Standing Orders Committee was articulating of giving the bills all of the scrutiny that they deserve and that means not truncating and constraining the power of the select committee but giving it the time that it needs.