Dyson Ruth: Third Readings —Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Third Readings —[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15048. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I just want to make three points in my contribution to the third reading of the 35 bills arising from the Statutes Amendment Bill. The first is that Labour supports this legislation and I want to just acknowledge the process that the Associate Minister of Justice Chester Borrows undertook when getting agreement and understanding from all parties which is proper and appropriate.I also want to say that the Government Administration Committee took these issues—it is a large number of Acts that are amended 33 Acts—very seriously including requiring one clause of the original Statutes Amendment Bill to be removed. We did not consider it was appropriate as part of a Statutes Amendment Bill. So we did not just rubber-stamp it; we looked at it really carefully and I think that is a good thing to do.The first point is that Labour supports the legislation and we are pleased in the main with the process that it went through. I do not agree with the Associate Minister of Justice’s contribution and what I thought was a half-hearted attempt to defend the incompetence of Minister Gerry Brownlee the Leader of the House. I suppose he had to really. He would not have had much choice given the future career prospects if you just blatantly stay silent while the incompetence of the Leader of the House is exposed to everyone. But saying that this legislation needs to be put through under urgency because of the sale of liquor amendments is just nonsense. We have had them for weeks and weeks and weeks. They are not last-minute amendments. They have been well canvassed. We have had many many sitting days under ordinary time of Parliament when this could have been progressed. As my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard pointed out on Thursday mornings we have set times where we have extended sitting hours for bills that are agreed by Parliament and that time would have been an opportunity to progress this legislation. So it was a feeble effort from Associate Minister Chester Borrows. I understand why he tried to do it but it did not cut the mustard in terms of justifying the incompetence of Minister Gerry Brownlee and his House management.The final point I want to make is that there is a real risk when putting through bills under urgency that something will be wrong and it will be required to be corrected in the future. With the Statutes Amendment Bill that is pretty ironic given that this is fixing errors of the past. It does not matter who made them—they were made for a variety of reasons—but we should not risk making another mistake. In regard to Part 25 of the Statutes Amendment Bill to see it approved by the select committee but then to have the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 329 delete that part and then for the Government to vote against its own Supplementary Order Paper is very confusing. So I think that once again we see the risks of putting stuff through under urgency without proper consideration. It is a risk that I do not think we should take and it is certainly with something that is totally agreed by Parliament a risk we do not need to take. Thank you.Bills read a third time.