Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): Thank you. The previous speaker has put to this House that there should be a shortened period of consideration for this bill and I stand to oppose that motion because it is my view that this is exactly the sort of issue that requires thorough examination by a select committee.What we have here is a piece of legislation which seeks to retrospectively validate fee setting by the Teaching Council that has been found by the High Court to be unlawful. Now the reason that the High Court was even hearing this case was that the teachers' union the Post Primary Teachers' Association was so concerned by the fee-setting behaviour of the Teaching Council and was so unhappy with the lack of responsiveness or action taken by the Teaching Council when those concerns were raised that it took a motion to the High Court—SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'm going to interrupt the member. This is the narrowest of motions around the length of time and the circumstances in which this select committee should sit. Nothing to do with the substance of the bill is part of this motion.NICOLA WILLIS: OK. So Mr Speaker I thank you for your guidance. This is not a bill that should have a shortened process for hearing submissions because actually every teacher in New Zealand should have the opportunity to submit on this bill should they wish to. Because it actually affects more than 140000 of them who currently pay registration fees. I'm concerned that a shortened period for this select committee will preclude submissions being heard to their fullest extent will preclude the committee from seeking the views and guidance from the range of entities that may be affected by this decision and most importantly what I'm concerned about here is that a shortened select committee process may remove the disinfectant that sunlight can provide when decisions of this sort of made.A shortened select committee process as members of this House are aware means that there are fewer opportunities for members to diagnose why this has happened fewer opportunities for submitters to bring forth their views on why it's happened. I think this is a case where actually a select committee process that is thorough that is full that takes the full time period would allow for the disinfectant that sunlight can provide.In particular what we know that a shortened process of the sort that the Minister outlined implies is it implies that there will be a shorter period between submissions being called and submissions being made. That is hard on submitters. It just means that they've got less time to get their thoughts together. It means if they hear—they might not hear for a week or two until after submissions have been called that they're happening and then they have to go and find the time to write them. And I put to you: the people who we want to submit on this bill are some of the very busiest people in the country. They are teachers who are spending a lot of time in the classroom who are then spending time preparing for the classroom who often have families of their own that keep them very busy. And what we are doing by allowing this motion to shorten the report-back period is we're allowing for a much shorter time in which those submissions can be got together.Then what we are doing potentially is we are shortening the period in which the committee can actually hear from submitters. And I've seen what that means. I've sat on select committees where because you have a shorter period in which to hear submissions you have to make some really tough calls about who can be heard and who can't be heard. I'm concerned that this could lead to a situation where we don't hear from people who are personally affected by having to pay a higher fee to the Teaching Council.So I think it is incumbent on members of this House to see that democracy does its job which includes putting sunlight on poor decision-making. A shorter report-back period curtails that opportunity and I stand in opposition to it.