Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I cannot commend this bill to the House. I have been having the interesting experience this evening of trying my hand at whipping. I'm learning a few things about how to regulate a caucus and I think they apply to this bill. One: need to stick with systems that are simple systems that are tested and there's no point trying to invent rules when they aren't necessary. My friend Ms Brooking referred to a thesis which was on this very bill in its previous incarnation called Tinkering in the Shed". Conversely Mr Seymour referred to this bill as part of the evolution of Parliament. I think that the only evolution that this bill represents is the sort that is produced by tinkering in the shed. Frankenstein would come to mind except that I think Frankenstein was constructed of a number of dead bodies whereas this seems to be pretty much the same dead body as Mr Hide's bill from 2011. Now if it isn't Frankenstein and it does appear to be the same body as 11 years ago then maybe we're back with the Neanderthals. I do realise that a week is a long time in Parliament. I'm not quite sure what 10 years represents when you're going to try to revive something that was dead in the water then. It is somewhat surprising also to find that the members opposite are actually supporting this bill because it was so comprehensively panned in its last incarnation by—let's just check this out—I think it's the Legislation Advisory Committee the Office of the Clerk and the Regulations Review Committee as well when they submitted to the Commerce Committee. It does seem to me that when people who are excited enough about the prospect of regulation review that they are prepared to sit on the Regulations Review Committee actually do not want and refuse to recommend a bill that is going to give them more opportunities to review regulations then Houston Mr Seymour has a problem!I am however going to commend him for one thing and that is recycling because we are in the era of climate change and so it's really nice to see the ACT Party get on board in at least one respect. This isn't evolution. This is pretty pointless with respect. It's fascinating really also because here we have the member who earlier this evening was proposing a flat tax rate partly on the basis of simplicity I believe and what he wants to do now is complicate the process of lawmaking. It seems a little odd I have to say. So let's have a look at the reasons why the 2011—oh sorry the 2021 predecessor—bill was comprehensively panned because they were very very good reasons and those reasons have only gotten stronger in the intervening 10 years or as we say it in Parliament millennia. The changes that we have had in the last 10 years have addressed the original concerns and they do it better than this bill ever will. We have the Cabinet Manual which now makes changes and checks required for Government bills. We have the disclosure statement where Ministers must explain the policy and process reasons behind the proposed bill. The principles that govern a disclosure statement under the Cabinet Manual are far more inclusive than those that are involved in this particular bill. Furthermore they're slightly more inclusive in the sense of the other Acts that they take note of such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the Human Rights Act the Privacy Act the Legislation Guidelines and the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee the Cabinet Manual and—oh my goodness—the Treaty of Waitangi. Who would have thought that it might be important in selecting the principles to take into account when you review your legislation that we might look at the founding document of this country? Not Mr Seymour apparently. Conversely what they are interested in as some of my colleagues have pointed out is property rights and property rights in the sense that they're not provided for in other legislation. Despite Mr Seymour's statement that this is a bill about principle it's not. It's a stealth attempt to get policy into the Government and it is unnecessary pointless and frankly a zombie bill."