SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise in this first reading of the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. Spoiler alert: we will be supporting this bill through to select committee.But it is quite remarkable that here we are dealing today with a bill which extends regulation powers. It is not remarkable in the fact that this Government might produce a bill that does but remarkable in the sense that this Parliament devoted attention just after question time to granting greater powers to make decisions outside of the complete Parliament in the face of what is an unprecedented crisis looming upon us all. In doing so the Leader of the House said that with that impending—some would call impending"; it's certainly more than a remote possibility that we might have to exercise such powers—the Government would shrink back their legislative programme to only elements that are essential. I find it difficult that anyone could argue that this bill today is essential to the functioning of this country.We could have been debating legislation that could have been introduced by the Government to give effect to its COVID-19 response package released this week. There will be elements in that package that will require legislative change—for instance the Government has signalled that it's going to change depreciation claiming on commercial buildings and in doing so Parliament will need to take some action. Why is Parliament not taking that action today but instead dealing with granting more regulation-making powers which take immediate scrutiny away from Parliament? How is this more important than that?Which brings me to this Government's propensity to govern through regulation: all too often—in fact in almost every bill that is now coming to this Parliament they are riddled—riddled—with regulation-making powers. It's like a pernicious weed that infests our legislation choking our democratic process and far too often constraining people and businesses in their everyday lives and their commercial activities; so why this suite of regulation-making powers?Look if the Government gets it right—and look some of us on this side are not too confident on that—these changes can help for more efficient and effective transport governance in New Zealand. That would not be a bad thing and we would support that—absolutely support that—but we shouldn't kid ourselves or the public despite the examples that the Minister gave that this is some minor level of regulation-making authority that you can have more than one sign on a post or the like. "A transport instrument"—to quote—"may define terms prescribe matters or make other provision in relation to any activity or thing including (without limitation) by listing standards controlling activities setting requirements procedures or means of compliance setting competency requirements or providing for exceptions." It is not a minor regulation-making power; the scope of how this could be used is both broad and deep.Now regulation is important in governing in New Zealand—it is important; there's no question about that. But what is important is that the scale the breadth and the depth of regulation-making powers are appropriate. So we want to look into this in the select committee—and thankfully this bill at least appears that it will get a full select committee process unlike prisoner voting which is only going to get three months and the public will ask themselves what the Government's motivations are behind shortening that select committee. But this one will get the default six months it appears. We will be looking very closely into just what those regulation-making powers are going to give the directors and chief executives and into just what extent it could be used. We will be questioning as to whether there should be some amendment to curtail it. If it is going to be used appropriately and doesn't having such unlimited powers to cause great concern then we would absolutely support something that helps to improve efficiency and effectiveness of our regulatory transport bodies.The other part that I just want to touch upon which we also have concerns about is the increase in size of Crown boards across the transport sector. Now if those increases are going to be used to add genuine relevant and specific skills that will improve the quality and governance of those boards then that is not a bad thing. But it is a natural worry across a Government entity that increasing the size of the board could just simply add bloat—just add numbers for the sake of adding numbers. And look it was a criticism of the last Labour Government that such positions were used to give cushy sinecures to former supporters presidents and others of the principal governing party in that administration. If that is what the outcome would be from increasing the size of these boards then we would be adamantly opposed to that—and all New Zealanders should irrespective of the stripe of Government of the day. It is not right. But if it is the case that these measures would be used to add genuine capability and skill that is materially relevant and would improve without question the governance of those organisations then that is not necessarily such a bad thing. And so we have the select committee process to inquire into that to ask very probing questions of officials to hear from interested stakeholders and New Zealanders and then we will arrive at a determination as a party whether we can continue to support this bill. I note some comment that it is simply a matter of small changes that don't quite meet the standard for a statutes amendment bill but which are a little more complicated than that and deserve and warrant their own bill. Well let's hope that that is actually the case. We'll look into it and if it is the case then I'm sure we can maintain our continued support. But without question we have some serious reservations and we intend to use the select committee process to delve into those. So certainly for the moment we will commend this bill to the House."