Thank you, Chair. I will draw the attention of the members to what it says in clause 52 now:
A regulation made under subsection 51(1) may incorporate by reference any document, regardless of its source, either as it exists on a particular date or as it is amended from time to time.
Since it says “any document” and “regardless” of where it came from, we are suggesting that we should add:
ment as it exists on a particular date, provided that the person or body that produced the document is not in a material conflict of interest.
That states the obvious: accepting any document from anybody, regardless of where you got it from, to do, now, changes “by reference” rather than by gazetting it.... If you're not telling folks, “Well, we're not taking this stuff from you because you actually have a material conflict of interest when it comes to this”.... Doing it “by reference” actually expedites the process, so you don't slow it down. According to what folks are saying, they don't want to have that happen. I think this is a protection for “by reference” rather than a hindrance. Our friends may tell us at the end that they don't intend to have a conflict of interest from folks when we get material. I would simply like to have it stated that way, that we won't put ourselves in a conflict of interest when it comes to doing the regulation “by reference” rather than the other way, where it was gazetted and folks had opportunities to make presentations.
I'm not saying they won't be consulted. The consultation process through the reference part may indeed happen because it was asked for, but this is a simple attempt not to find ourselves with the potential charge of, “You know what? You allowed this person to do this and clearly here's the reason they did it, because it was of benefit to them, and them alone, and you actually took it from them.” So it speaks specifically to material conflict.