Cosgrove ClaytonHon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I am glad the ACT member took a call because although Labour is supporting these pieces of legislation to the select committee I am mindful of the last ACT member. In fact Mr Assistant Speaker you will recall this because you were in the Chair on 20 March 2012 when the last ACT member the Hon John Archibald Banks brought in a regulatory reform bill.And what this bill really is—let us be honest about it and this is not a criticism—is a patch-up fix-up bill of a number of errors across a whole host of legislation. It could well have been done through a Statutes Amendment Bill but it has been brought to the House on short notice dealing with issues like for instance—like I heard the Minister say—the Gas Act. I wondered at the time whether he had some sort of anatomical difficulty but I then looked at the legislation and found that there was indeed some need to amend the Gas Act.So I remember John Archibald Banks on 20 March 2012 who came in with equally flowery language—a great regulatory reform bill that was going to slash through compliance costs as the ACT member said and create efficiencies etc. etc. etc. And then I recall—and I am sure you do Mr Assistant Speaker because you were in the Chair—that that great contribution from a forefather of the ACT Party was that it actually repealed 31 spent Acts. I remember at the time—I am a lawyer but I had to actually look it up. I had to go and ask the Clerk what a spent Act is. It is basically a repealed piece of legislation effectively. Effectively it is dead it is redundant and it has no effect on any entity or any individual in New Zealand but it has not been repealed and John Archibald Banks' great regulatory reform bill—that is why I am a wee bit suspicious of this—was to repeal 31 Acts that effectively did not exist. So I have got to say that was a great contribution from the sort of godfather of the ACT Party as he came out of the political crypt via the disaster that was the then Auckland mayoralty back into Parliament.But putting those sorts of foibles aside I am glad the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regulatory Reform has again taken on a sort of Banks-like persona to come into Parliament and celebrate these wonderful pieces of legislation which—you know he has managed to clear the gallery. That is the extent I think of interest but I am sure there are some entities around New Zealand—those involved in gas distribution for instance—that will be hanging on every word from this member. So I suggest he goes back and has a look at the Hansard on 20 March 2012 to relive that great moment of the ACT Party making a contribution to Parliament.If we look though on a more serious note at the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill there are indeed a number of minor changes to the Financial Advisers Act in respect of the Financial Markets Authority and the collection of fines and to bolster the efficiency and recoverability of that via the courts; the Financial Markets Authority Act; the Financial Markets Conduct Act—a whole series of Acts. What we are here for is to amend and propel legislation to make life easier for those people and those entities that we serve. I will not take an extensive call because I think everything that has been said has already been said and I note that the Minister for Regulatory Reform in his eloquent address covered all the topics that the select committees—all three of them—will be focused on.But I just say it is a point—it is a serious point—that this legislation was not provided to political parties in due time and that it was provided on short notice and if the objective is to upgrade and amend and increase the quality of legislation which it is—and having had a cursory look at certainly my area which is the financial services area I doubt whether there is much if anything that is controversial around this apart from perhaps the housing area as Mr Twyford mentioned. With that being the case I think it is not smart politics but just smart process on behalf of the Government—if it was to be of a mind to have provided the legislation to political parties in due time given that I doubt whether there is a lot of politics in this; I doubt whether there is going to be a lot of controversy around this—but to allow political parties good time and good grace to look at the legislation and make appropriate contributions even if it is only in a first reading.So the Labour Party will be supporting the legislation and I am sure the select committees will give it due scrutiny but I have to say I just wonder whether this is the major priority of the Government—whether it is lacking in some ideas or lacking in some policy—if this is the highest-priority legislation that could be brought to the House or whether these particular changes could have been dealt with under a Statutes Amendment Bill.I remember when I was Associate Minister of Justice we had quite an extensive consultation process. The rule as I recall it from the old days with a Statutes Amendment Bill was that as long as there was no controversy as it were and nobody objected to a provision or a clause it would be dealt with in quite an efficient way. It was done with due notice—quite a bit of due notice; mid-year as I recall in the parliamentary year—so that political parties could scrutinise it carefully and that then enabled a Statutes Amendment Bill to go through Parliament relatively efficiently—without objection—to bundle up a whole lot of these things and get them done. So that is something the Government may wish to reflect on but we look forward to the select committee deliberations.Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.Regulatory Systems (Workplace Relations) Amendment Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.