Chauvel Charles: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 30 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:10194. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I also rise to make a short contribution in this third reading debate. Let me start by saying that it is pleasing to see the Regulatory Improvement Bill finally pass into law. It has had a rather more than necessary protracted gestation period. 
I will make a couple of process points though notwithstanding the substantive support for the legislation that members on this side of the House are expressing. First of all there cannot be justification for dealing with these sorts of matters in urgency. They are minor and they have been languishing on the Order Paper for a long time. They simply ought to have been dealt with in ordinary parliamentary time and if this House continues to rush these sorts of measures through under urgency we will continue I am afraid to undermine public confidence in our legislative process. That is something that I think all members should reflect on. 
The second issue I wanted to deal with by way of a bit of criticism was the way in which the matter was dealt with in the Committee stage. I took the time in the Committee stage to rehearse the three concerns that have been pointed out to the Commerce Committee by the Regulations Review Committee which I have the privilege to chair. First there was a commencement issue. Secondly there was an issue around whether a section to be inserted in the hazardous substances legislation was satisfactory given that it differed from the existing provision but did something relatively similar and there was no explanation about that. Thirdly there was an issue around incorporation by reference—an important issue about the public being able to know what the law is. 
On the first two issues I think there was a satisfactory resolution. On the commencement issue the Commerce Committee clearly listened to the concerns and dealt with them. On the second issue—the discrepancy in procedures issue—although there was not an express explanation by the Commerce Committee one of the Ministers who took the chair in the Committee stage Mr Mapp sought to explain the matter. Mr Hide did on the advice of officials seek to explain that further. But there was really no attempt by the Minister in the chair to address the third issue—the issue of whether the extensive changes to the incorporation by reference procedures were satisfactory. Given the Minister’s expressed passion for good law and appropriate regulation I would have hoped he would respect the parliamentary process a little more than simply declining to take a call on that issue and make an explanation as to whether he thought the changes were adequate. 
This is legislation that is supported by the Labour Party. It is legislation that owes a lot to the efforts of my friend colleague and bench mate Lianne Dalziel and I will join the chorus of praise and support for her as that has obviously become traditional in this debate. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: You could go a bit further. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I could go further as Ruth Dyson suggests but canonisation is not within the power of the House according to the Standing Orders so we had better just leave it where things sit. 
Although I express support for the legislation and a degree of pleasure that this appears to be likely to become an annual exercise because it is a good thing to do from the point of view of efficiency and good law it is disappointing to have to express the sadness I have that we are dealing with the matter under urgency on a completely unmerited basis and we did not really get the sort of respectful and careful consideration of the issues that the rhetoric of the Minister would lead us to believe we should have had in the Committee stage.