Hipkins Chris: Motions — Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board Notices 2010—Disallowances 
Hipkins Chris: Motions — Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board Notices 2010—Disallowances 
[Volume:672;Page:18652] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on this disallowance motion in respect of the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. Before I get into my substantive remarks I want to respond to one or two of the things the Minister for Building and Construction raised and to put out a few points of clarification. The first point of clarification is that all of the decisions on this entire examination of these matters by the Regulations Review Committee have been made unanimously with the support of Government and Opposition members on that committee. They have been entirely unanimous. The other point of clarification I want to raise is that the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board was given an opportunity to reply. It was not like the committee was considering the submissions in isolation without providing the board with an opportunity to reply. The board was certainly given that opportunity. 
The third point I raise is a disappointment that the Minister has informed us that the Government will vote against the motion because the Minister had several options open to him. One of the options was to engage with this process earlier. He was informed of the committee’s consideration of the matter. He would have been briefed by his officials. He could have intervened at an earlier point and made submissions to the committee but he chose not to do so. The second thing is if he was concerned about the timing of the motion coming to the House today then he could have dealt with it with an amendment in his name that would have delayed the issue regarding the competence requirements the professional development requirements and he chose not to do that either. Instead the Minister has chosen to throw out the recommendation of the Regulations Review Committee altogether. That is a very serious step for the Government to take. 
The Regulations Review Committee is a very very important part of Parliament’s processes. A lot of governing in this country is done by regulation without scrutiny by the House as a whole. We rely on a small committee to do that scrutiny function on behalf of the House. Therefore when that committee given the very narrow grounds it has under the Standing Orders to scrutinise regulatory decisions makes a unanimous decision to the House to disallow regulations I think that is something the House should take very seriously. I am very disappointed that even though the National members on the committee voted unanimously in favour of the disallowance motion the Government will now use its power to block the disallowance motion. The reason the committee made the unanimous decision to disallow these regulations is that we did not think the law had been fully complied with. Those are the only grounds upon which the Regulations Review Committee can do that. The grounds upon which the committee can do that are set out in Standing Order 310(2)(a) to (i). 
I acknowledge that a variety of concerns were raised by the people who first asked for the committee to consider the matter. A variety of issues have been raised by the Master Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers and by the board. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: You didn’t even hear most of them. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: They have corresponded. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: You didn’t ask for them to come before you. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I certainly concede that. They had the opportunity to make a submission. They could have put a submission to the committee; they did not. They could have put a submission to the committee but they did not. They have corresponded and they have raised some legitimate concerns. Having said that I think the step the Government is taking is the wrong one and I think the Minister would have been better to move an amendment. 
I will go back to the issue. Some legitimate concerns have been raised on both sides. The people who have raised concerns to the committee have raised them both within the committee’s delegated authority under the House and outside of the committee’s ability to investigate. For some of the concerns raised the Regulations Review Committee simply does not have the power to investigate them. That does not mean the concerns are not valid. It simply means the committee does not have the power to investigate them. The board itself has acknowledged that things could have been better. As both the Minister and the chair of the Regulations Review Committee have said the board is certainly doing very well at shaping up its act. The chairmanship of Hazel Armstrong has been commended from both sides. The board is getting its house in order. That is something we all acknowledge and welcome. Its history has not been flash and it is good to see that it is getting on top of it and that it is dealing with those issues. The issue from the committee’s perspective is that we can intervene only in so far as the Standing Orders allow. Many of the concerns raised with regard to decisions that have been made fell outside of the competence of the committee to examine them. 
I acknowledge the mixed views that exist within the industry itself. As a constituency member of Parliament I have been approached by people with very passionate views on both sides of the debate. It is not the role of the Regulations Review Committee to determine or pass judgment on the desirability or otherwise of decisions that are made under legislation. That is not within the committee’s ambit. The committee’s ambit is to ensure that the laws delegated authority and processes are complied with. The desirability or otherwise of decisions is a wider judgment. That judgment predominantly rests with the Minister concerned and the Government. If the Minister concerned or the Government is unhappy with the use of the delegated authority then they have the ability to influence that. The Regulations Review Committee does not. As long as the law has been complied with and the appropriate process has been followed then the Regulations Review Committee cannot intervene. It is important that the people who have made a complaint to the Regulations Review Committee and perhaps feel that we did not examine all of the aspects of the complaint are aware of that distinction. Our ability to investigate is quite narrowly constrained and confined. The committee looked at this matter very diligently within the constraints of our terms of reference and of what the Standing Orders allow. 
The final point I want to raise is that the onus really now rests with the Government. It is ultimately responsible now for what happens with regard to the board for supervising the performance of the board. I accept what the Minister has said regarding the performance agreement he has put in place with the board. I think that is a very good step. Again I acknowledge that the board does seem to be improving what it is getting up to. I also say to the members of the industry who are dissatisfied or unhappy with this regime that they need to raise that with the Government not with the Regulations Review Committee. I hope that the Minister will take on board any concerns members of the industry who are still concerned may want to raise with him. He is nodding so I am getting an acknowledgment that he will do that. That is basically all I had to contribute on this particular debate.