McKelvie Ian: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
McKelvie Ian: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4957. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Anyone who listened to the last speaker Denis O’Rourke would realise what a complicated task Mike Sabin and I have had getting to grips with the work of the Regulations Review Committee because he totally confused me. But I also want to just thank both of our team leaders in Katrina Shanks and certainly Charles Chauvel for enlightening us as to what this bill the Legislation Bill is all about as we clearly were not part of that select committee at the time this bill came into the House. 
I want to comment on the time that this bill has taken to come through the House because I think we have to realise as a House of Representatives that we are here for ever. We come and go as individuals very quickly but time is here for ever. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not necessarily. 
IAN McKELVIE 
: No some of you have been around a fair while actually. But it is worth remembering that this legislation was last reviewed in 1908 so I do not have great difficulty with the 104 years it has taken to come back to the House. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I remember it well. 
IAN McKELVIE 
: I am not surprised given the last speech we just heard. I think the key really is to improve the public’s understanding of legislation. I think that one of our great tasks as parliamentarians and as lawmakers is to ensure that people understand the laws we make. I think it is also important that we put laws in plain English—in other words they are easy for people to get a grasp of. I think this bill from that perspective is really important. 
I was amused to find mentioned in the commentary on this bill talk about thematically going through things. I had to look up the meaning of “thematically” because I did not know what it meant. I found out what it meant in the end and actually when you think about going through things thematically it is probably a better way than going through them in order of clauses. My understanding of a lot of the legislation that we put through this House is that it is very difficult to follow clause by clause because the clauses are not necessarily done thematically. I think there is some sense in going through things thematically so I was a bit intrigued with that. 
I suspect that there are nearly 1200 different laws governing our country and we need to know those laws and we need to understand them. If we do not understand them as people in our communities we have great difficulty fitting into society. So for this to happen as I have said already we need to ensure that they are well written and clearly espoused by our lawmakers. Our lawmakers are of course us. 
I am going to read one line—or a bit more than one line—from some notes I have got here because I think they espouse the whole reason for this Regulations Review Committee and the reason for this law. It says that it preserves the independence of the Parliamentary Counsel Office which is responsible for ensuring so far as it can that the primary legislation enacted by Parliament and secondary legislation made by the executive reflect the fundamental concepts inherent in the rule of law and that legislation passed based on legal principle is effective and clear and can be accessed easily by the public. I think that really captures the basis of what this Legislation Bill is all about. That is really important. 
The bill also does away with three of those nearly 1200 current Acts and merges them into one. I think that is positive as well. So without going any further into the Legislation Bill’s parameters because they have been well covered this morning I have great pleasure in supporting the movement of this bill through the House.