Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I congratulate the member David Seymour for having had the bill pulled from the ballot the Regulatory Standards Bill. He identifies a problem that is a very real one in New Zealand in 2021—indeed it's been the case for the last four years ever since I arrived in this place. Not because I arrived here but because that coincided with the installation of a Labour-led Government and now a Labour Government.The problem with bad lawmaking as I say is very real in this building by which I mean Parliament and of course the executive wing of Parliament the Beehive—physically and literally the seat of Government—but of course Government agencies throughout the land who impose regulations and other secondary legislation that of course has great effects on people's lives. We don't need to tax our imagination too strongly to think of examples of bad lawmaking that this bill is certainly designed to resolve and improve. A classic case—perhaps the classic case—would be the ban on natural gas exploration that has led among other things to an increase in the import of poor energy solutions even from an environmental point of view—especially from an environmental point of view.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Can I ask the member to—[Gestures to the bill]CHRIS PENK: Thank you. Whereby of course we're importing more coal from Indonesia. So by way of example of the problem that the bill is designed to solve we can observe that there is a problem with lawmaking in this country at the moment. I would argue that the best possible solution to bad lawmaking is to have good lawmakers so in 2023 that's something on which I invite fellow Kiwis to join us in resolving in our own way.For now however the remedy that's before us tonight by way of this member's bill is a Regulatory Standards Bill to improve the lawmaking processes to add some certainty to add some rigour to the standards that should already be expected of this place but—as I've observed and as Mr Seymour has himself observed as sponsor of the bill—are all too often disregarded by the current Government at least. So it's probably no surprise that National will support the bill at its first reading. I suspect it may also be the final reading of the bill if the indications from across the House are anything to be believed.David Seymour: Never give up.CHRIS PENK: Never give up" is the exhortation from the member himself and look I'll take at face value that the bill might have the opportunity to proceed at select committee and so it would be worth sort of highlighting a couple of issues that we would look to thrash out at that stage or certainly examine if the bill were to proceed that far.So one is of course to examine the mechanism—the quality-control process if you like. Some of that is by way of establishing a set of principles—in other words giving power to the courts to declare whether the principles have been met and of course also to require certification along the way by various key players that the principles had been met.So worth looking at the principles. These are all very good and worthy as outlined in the bill. So key aspects such as avoiding the diminishment of a person's liberty personal security and so forth except as is necessary to provide or protect such liberty freedom etc. of other persons—classic libertarian philosophy but I also happen to think something that any right-thinking person would actually say is entirely sensible stuff. Of course subjective opinions might differ as to where we draw the line in any individual case. Value judgments are involved and the proposal of the bill is of course that we allow the court of law to make those judgments as well as the lawmakers in the traditional sense of the word the legislators in the executive of the day.So cost-benefit analysis as Mr Seymour points out is something that's been lacking in recent times—arguably over a longer period of time as well. But of course we would want to be careful in those certifications that the cost-benefit analysis not provide a right of veto to the Public Service by asking the chief executive of the public agency to certify before the third reading failing which you know there might be serious doubt as to whether the law proposed by a duly elected Government could in fact pass.So we don't say that it's perfect necessarily but certainly National supports the intent of the bill. We recognise that many people up and down this country whose lives personal and professional impacted by bad lawmaking would want to see a rigorous discussion in the constitutional context of greater protections enjoyed in overseas jurisdictions that we might benefit from here. So on that basis National supports the bill at least the first reading and we look forward to hearing further in the debate."