Regulatory Improvement Bill

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister for Courts) Link to this

I seek leave for all the provisions of the Regulatory Improvement Bill to be taken as one question, and for the debate to be of no more than 3 hours’ duration.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) Link to this

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Committee stage of this bill. This will be the first of a number of calls I will be taking in this area, because obviously this bill had its genesis in decisions that were taken through a Labour Cabinet. In fact, the bill was introduced in my name prior to the last general election. Since that time it has been picked up by the now Minister for Regulatory Reform, and I place on record my congratulations to the Government on having a Minister for Regulatory Reform. It is an excellent concept. It is the same as the Labour Government having a Minister for Small Business. It is worthwhile having somebody whose single focus, pretty much, in that portfolio space is on small business. In the current Government, this concept of regulatory reform as being a significant driver for the Government is one that we support on this side of the Chamber. I was kind of a de facto Minister of Regulatory Reform because of the work that I did on the Quality Regulation Review.

A number of people who have spoken on this bill have talked about it being the outcome of the Quality Regulation Review. It is not the only one. It is only one small part of the Quality Regulation Review, which had a whole lot of different streams of work. One of those streams of work, even though it did seem to cause one Jonathan Young some angst, was the idea that I had spent my time travelling around different parts of New Zealand getting feedback from business. I found that to be the most enjoyable part of the review because it was something I was directly involved in. Some of the changes were made directly as a result of that one-on-one engagement. I found that there were really small things that were utter irritants to business, and removing some of the clutter assisted business to get on with their primary job. Not all of the provisions in this legislation fit within this category. I know that the Green Party members will be talking about the changes to the Conservation Act, so I thought I would comment on that one initially, but certainly I do want to come back in on some of the other issues as well.

We received very few submissions on the bill. I cannot remember the exact number, but there were very, very few indeed. [Interruption] There were 12 or so—a very small number. The issue that came up on the question of the changes to the Conservation Act was focused on a misreading of the bill and what it proposed to do. The argument that was brought to the Commerce Committee was that this would apply to leases. Of course, leases are not covered by the proposal; it is simply licences that are. Let me put on record what the response was from the Department of Conservation. It was the Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand that registered its opposition. It said that it opposed extending the term of permits to 10 years, with permits at present granted for a maximum of 5 years.

The submission questions the justification for the changes, particularly in terms of freeing time spent on processing permits, so more time can be spent on planning and environmental monitoring. The Federated Mountain Clubs considered that this was more about Department of Conservation prioritising than about business compliance costs, and it notes that most businesses obtaining permits are small, flexible businesses that do not require upfront investment to operate. It says that although they would benefit from greater business certainty by obtaining a longer-term permit, this does not outweigh the rights of New Zealanders to comment on the land’s management.

The response from the Department of Conservation was: “Over 300 new permits are applied for each year, with at least the same again being reissued each year. In obtaining a permit, significant staff and applicant effort occurs. Reducing the regularity for seeking a permit will reduce effort and cost and enable effort to be better placed in improved planning and management of concessions. Permits are granted for many activities, including some which require significant financial investment—e.g. aircraft landings, boating, guiding, grazing. A longer-term permit will provide greater certainty for investment in these opportunities. The Department of Conservation’s planning processes enable opportunity for public engagement on how public conservation lands and waters are managed over a 10-year period.”

Certainly, when we considered this matter at the select committee, it was felt that this was an issue that fitted within the purview of the legislation, but, more important, that the question of environmental protection and public engagement with the Department of Conservation over the estate was reasonably left to the broader planning role of the department, rather than requiring people to apply every 5 years.

Interestingly, I actually thought we had some information in here that we do not have, I say to the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Courts. I have not been able to find it in my notes since I realised that this would be a debatable issue in the context of this Committee stage. One of the pieces of information I think would be useful for the Committee, if the Minister could supply it, is how many of those 300 applications per annum are renewals and how many of them are challenged. If the reality is, as I recall the advice we got at the select committee, that almost none of them are challenged because they are ongoing concessions, then it would seem to me that we might be trying to make, dare I say it, a mountain out of a molehill—which is probably not fair to say, given that it was the Federated Mountain Clubs that raised the issue. Incredibly useful advice for the debate would be to know how many of them are normally opposed. My recollection would be that very, very few, if any, that are longstanding concessions in our Department of Conservation estate are in any way challenged by anyone, and have been a great opportunity for people to get engaged with our conservation estate, especially in terms of our tourism industry. It might be slightly different now with mining on national park land, but there we go; that is probably a debate for a different occasion.

The other issue I thought I would touch on was that there were a number of submissions in relation to the hazardous substances legislation, as well. One of the problems with the way the submitters came forward was that it appeared that they had not quite realised that the bill was not changing any of the GMO provisions in the legislation. So we ended up hearing a couple of submissions where people were genuinely concerned about something that genuinely was not happening. The commentary states: As nothing in this bill addresses or affects the regulation of genetically-modified organisms, as any changes to the regulation of such organisms is likely to be contentious, and as the purpose of this regulatory improvement omnibus bill is to address minor regulatory problems,”.

So, again, I say to the Minister that it would be useful if the Minister puts it on the record that this is not an intention of this legislation and it never was an intention of this legislation. I understand that the submitters were utterly genuine in the submissions they were making, and possibly it was useful that they brought the matter to our attention just to show that this was an issue that will continue to be of importance across New Zealand. But in this particular case it was not an issue that required the attention of our committee, because the bill itself did not cross the line into the area of genetic modification.

Having made those opening comments, I think it would be useful to have some clarity from the Minister, and if we can get those additional points of information to assist the Committee in the debate, I think that would be very useful.

H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) Link to this

The Regulatory Improvement Bill is about reducing the compliance cost of doing business. At this stage I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel for the work that she did as the previous Minister of Commerce in reducing the compliance costs on businesses. She introduced this bill on 9 September 2008. People say imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Lianne Dalziel can be well pleased that Rodney Hide has taken up this bill and is progressing it through the House, albeit without any consultation at all. This bill is the result of 15 months of careful consultation between Government agencies and over 200 businesses. That speaks volumes about the consultation process that the previous Minister undertook to ensure that the whole issue of compliance costs was addressed.

I remember, some years back, introducing a private member’s bill to this Parliament. It was called the Paperwork Reduction Bill. The whole idea of that bill was to reduce the cost of compliance for small businesses. At the time the media made hay of the fact that members had to produce 21 copies of their submissions in order for that bill to go forward. The whole thing was concerned with the efficiency and productivity of an organisation. That is where Lianne Dalziel needs to be recognised for the work that she did. There was also the Productivity Council Bill (No 3), which was introduced in 1989, and I see that 21 years later the National Government has decided to do something about that matter.

This legislation, after 15 months of consultation between the Government and other agencies, is finally starting to happen. That is due in no small part to the work that our Minister of Commerce did when she was in office. The bill takes a broad view that looks at anomalies, inconsistencies, and duplication across the Government’s regulatory framework. As well as correcting errors, the Quality Regulation Review aimed to develop ways of ensuring new rules were efficient from a business perspective.

I can remember visiting a small business in the South Island some years ago, and talking about the issue of compliance. I said we were going to look at the issue, and the guy who was doing paperwork in his office in, I think it was Winton, threw it all in the air and said “Thank goodness for that!”. The issue of compliance is a longstanding grievance for small business. I put it to members that it will continue to be a longstanding grievance for small business, because of the amount of time and effort required in order to adhere to Government regulations. Again, Lianne Dalziel needs to be recognised and complimented for addressing that issue.

I quote Lianne Dalziel, who said: “The bill is an important part of the Government’s overall effort to ensure that all our regulation is necessary. Our regulatory frameworks as a whole must be of the highest quality if our businesses are to compete internationally and be as innovative and productive as possible.” That is certainly the whole aim of this bill, and it is one of the reasons why the Opposition will be supporting this legislation. Businesses are frustrated by having to provide the same information over and over again, in different categories. Today, that is still one of the problems that we face. One hopes that this legislation will go some way towards rectifying that problem.

When Labour was in office we also launched a 2-year trial of a business cost calculator in order to quantify the compliance costs of regulation. When you were the Opposition spokesperson on small business, Mr Chairperson Tisch, I guarantee that one of the things you heard from small-business owners was that they were concerned about the issue of compliance. It is an age-old issue. This bill attempts to do something about it, and I again acknowledge the work that my colleague did in bringing this legislation to Parliament. She is to be commended and congratulated for doing so, and I know that also goes some way towards the work that you did, Mr Chairperson Tisch, when you were the Opposition spokesperson on small business.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this

I take a call to deal with some of the issues that the Regulations Review Committee drew to the attention of the Commerce Committee during its consideration of the legislation. But before I do, I advise the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp, that my colleague Lianne Dalziel raised two issues with the Minister who was in the chair before him, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. I know that the officials will have made a note of those issues, but it would be good if he was cognisant of them. The first was whether, when he takes a call, the Minister could confirm the number of times that applications have been made under the Conservation Act in respect of the matters that are being dealt with by the legislation. The second is that I think it would be useful—

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) Link to this

I take this opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. This bill was dealt with at the Commerce Committee, which I am a member of. I thank the members of the select committee for the time that they devoted to this bill, and I thank the people who made on submissions on the bill for their time. In total 10 submissions were received, three of which were heard by the Commerce Committee. We received advice from the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Fisheries, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and the Environmental Risk Management Authority.

The Commerce Committee made two main changes to the bill. The first change related to the Designs Act 1953. The Designs Act provides for the restoration of lapsed copyright in a registered design in circumstances where the lapse was as a result of neglect to pay the renewal fee or to make the necessary application. The Commerce Committee recommended that in addition to allowing the restoration of lapsed copyright and registered designs, the bill should allow the restoration of lapsed copyright in design applications. The committee also recommended that the bill should give specific authorisation for the commissioner to publish bibliographical details of design applications.

The change to the Designs Act in the bill relates to its coming into effect on the earlier of the following: 12 months after the bill receives Royal assent, or a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. However, clause 14, which enables regulations to be made, should come into effect on the day after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent, along with the rest of the bill. It also recommends that the bill should give specific authorisation for the commissioner to publish bibliographical details of design applications, and that the bill, in addition to allowing the restoration of lapsed copyright in registered designs, should allow the restoration of lapsed copyright in design applications.

The second main change was around the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, which enables the delegation of technical decision-making power by the Environmental Risk Management Authority to the chief executive and other staff of the authority, or other persons, and it enables applications to import, develop, or field test non - genetically modified organisms, or non-GMOs as they are called, in containment to be treated consistently with each other and with applications to import or develop low-risk genetically modified organisms in containment. It also enables applications for conditional release of low-risk non-GMOs to be treated consistently with applications for full release of low-risk non-GMOs.

There is a whole list of other things that this Act does. The changes proposed by the Commerce Committee include a recommendation that the provision in the bill amending section 141A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, which relates to incorporation by reference of material into regulations and other instruments, be amended to conform with new standard clauses prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel Office to give effect to the principles established by the Regulations Review Committee and its inquiry into material incorporated by reference in 2004. Those are the two main changes to the bill.

As I said earlier, this omnibus bill makes amendments to nine pieces of legislation, with the objective of improving the whole of the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business. The Acts that are to be amended are the Companies Act 1993, the Conservation Act 1987, the Designs Act 1953, the Fisheries Act 1996, the Gas Act 1992, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996—

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) Link to this

In relation to the specific questions asked by the Hon Lianne Dalziel, the officials have provided me with specific answers. Three hundred permits were applied for; they were new applications. In addition, there were 350 renewals as well. It should be noted that very few of the 300 new applications were notified, with the reason being that they were low-impact activities. However, I can inform the Committee that over a 2-year period 157 particular concessions were notified, but only 22 of those actually received submissions from, I guess, members of the public. The concessions were in relation to licences and leases.

STUART NASH (Labour) Link to this

I will talk a little bit about some of the provisions of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. It is good that the bill is being dealt with as one question, as each part relates to a different Act, so that decision makes a lot of sense and is expedient. I will give a little bit of background. As members have talked about, this bill came out of extensive reviews and consultation with industry representatives up and down the country by Lianne Dalziel and the rest of the Labour team. It is a very good bill that makes a lot of sense. It is common-sense legislation, which is what we are here to pass.

As mentioned, this omnibus bill amends nine Acts. Let us have a look at them; the first is the Companies Act 1993. The main provision under this bill is that under the Financial Reporting Act certain companies with overseas ownership will no longer be required to file audited financial statements with the Registrar of Companies. Those companies at present must appoint an auditor, under the Companies Act 1993. The provision makes sense. Most other companies may, by the unanimous resolution of shareholders, elect not to appoint an auditor, so the bill puts such companies with overseas ownership in the same position as other companies. Members of the Committee will remember that a number of bills have gone through the Finance and Expenditure Committee to tidy up a lot of this sort of legislation, as well. This bill will reduce the unnecessary compliance costs for those companies due to the inconsistency between the two pieces of legislation. If there is one thing that Labour has worked very hard for—and did work very hard for in its 9 years in Government—it is to reduce unnecessary compliance costs, and I think it has been very successful in that role. This bill continues with that, because as we know this was a bill introduced by Labour and the Hon Lianne Dalziel.

Let us now look at the provisions for the Designs Act 1953. As my colleague Charles Chauvel has mentioned, that Act is an old piece of legislation; it is about time it was amended. The bill provides restoration of lapsed copyright in a registered design, in circumstances where the lapse is a result of neglecting to pay a renewal fee or failing to make the necessary application. The Commerce Committee recommended that in addition to allowing the restoration of lapsed copyright in registered designs, the bill should allow the restoration of lapsed copyright in design applications, and that is becoming more and more applicable in this day and age of globalisation. A country like New Zealand needs to protect its intellectual property—of that there is no doubt. I know that my colleague Clare Curran is very hot on this topic, and no doubt she will speak extensively on this bill that is about to come before the House for its third reading.

The committee also recommended that the bill should give specific authorisation for the commissioner to publish bibliographical details of design applications. Again, that is another common-sense amendment. When I heard there were 14 votes against this bill being read a second time, I was not too sure why that was, because it is common-sense legislation. The bill makes it easier to do business; it simplifies and streamlines processes. As mentioned, this legislation has resulted from extensive consultation up and down the country.

I move on to the provisions about the Fisheries Act 1996. The bill provides for the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries to consider requests from commercial fishers to be granted catch balancing relief, provided that set criteria are met. That has the effect of allowing inadvertently incurred deemed value debts to be reviewed. Commercial fishers will benefit from a more timely and efficient consideration of their requests for the relief of debts that are inadvertently incurred through the end-of-year balancing process under the quota management system. The bill provides for delegation of the power to consider these requests to the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries, instead of the current requirements for ministerial approval. That is again another piece of common-sense legislation. It streamlines the process and makes it easier for businesses involved in fishing.

There is a provision pertaining to the Gas Act 1992. The bill clarifies that any regulations and rules that the Gas Industry Co. Ltd can recommend under Part 4A of the Gas Act 1992 will cover gas used as a feedstock.

There are many provisions for the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. This bill enables the delegation of technical design-making power by the Environmental Risk Management Authority to the chief executive and other staff or to other persons. It enables applications to import, develop, or test non-genetically modified organisms, known as non-GMOs, in containment to be treated consistently with each other, and with applications to import or develop low-risk genetically modified organisms in containment, in terms of rapid assessment of low-risk organisms and the discretionary notification of other applications. As the Committee will be aware, all that this does is streamline a process. It brings up to date the practice by which we need to continue our competitive advantage in this area. The bill enables applications for the conditional release of low-risk non-genetically modified organisms to be treated consistently with applications for full-risk or non-risk genetically-modified organisms. It allows the Environmental Risk Management Authority to publicly notify hazardous substance release applications that do not otherwise qualify for rapid assessment under section 28A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and gives the ability to delegate non-notified applications to its chief executive. It enables test certifiers to issue a conditional test certificate for hazardous substance locations, where on reasonable grounds they consider the non-compliance to be minor and technical. The bill extends the purposes for which the approved persons, now including the chief executive of the New Zealand Fire Service, may search the register of test certificates to include emergency response planning purposes for hazardous substances.

Again, that is all common-sense stuff that has needed to be done. It is good that it will be done. As Lianne Dalziel mentioned, I think that it is agreed upon—by the two major parties, certainly—that this is the sort of bill that we will see in the House every year going forward.

The bill empowers Biosecurity New Zealand to recover the costs of conditional release compliance enforcement under the Biosecurity Act 1993. It removes duplication of reporting requirements in the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s statement of intent. An annual monitoring report extends the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s power to revoke test certificates on the grounds for revocation. The bill more closely aligns times to lay information for new organism and Biosecurity Act offences, Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act offences, and Health and Safety in Employment Act offences, respectively. It allows changes to material incorporated by reference to have legal effect and notification in the Gazette. It recasts the scope of standards that can be incorporated by reference. It aligns the Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act enforcement responsibilities for aerodromes, and extends the alignment for health and safety and Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act powers of entry and inspection to all agencies with enforcement responsibility under both Acts for places of work. Finally, it allows the incorporation of material via reference to standards, requirements, and recommended practices of national as well as international organisations.

There is also work on the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995. This bill removes the penalty regimes applicable under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act for non-payment of cost-recovery levies. Commercial fishers will now have greater certainty—which is what we are after in business; of that there is no doubt—and reduction of compliance costs around the penalty regime for debt repayment. The bill will remove the requirements under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act for the Ministry of Fisheries to charge all clients a 10 percent penalty fee when they fail to pay their statutory incurred debt within a prescribed time frame. The provision overlaps with the sanctions already provided by the Fisheries Act 1996. This duplication is both inappropriate and unnecessary. I think we will find that a common theme through this bill—and a common theme through the consultation process—is the inappropriateness of duplication. It is just red tape in the way of businesses driving forward. As I mentioned, it is good to see that Labour is the party that has put this bill forward.

Let us look at the provisions for the Reserves Act 1977. The bill provides for 10-year—currently 5-year terms only—licences over vested reserves. Licences under the Reserves Act enable licensees to occupy reserve land or to carry out an activity on reserve land.

There are provisions for the Weights and Measures Act 1987. The bill provides for the control of LPG in gaseous form to be under the Gas Act 1992 only, and not under the Weights and Measures Act.

As I have mentioned, there is a lot of good stuff in this bill. Let us hope that the Government takes the bill forward and that another bill is introduced this year. Next year in 2011 I have no doubt that a Labour Government will be producing a similar one as we continue the process of streamlining regulations and legislation to make it a lot easier for businesses and companies to do business in New Zealand and around the world. Thank you.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) Link to this

The member who has just resumed his seat, Stuart Nash, expressed puzzlement at the fact that votes are being cast against this bill, the Regulatory Improvement Bill. So I will start this first contribution on this stage of consideration of the bill by recapping that.

The purpose of this bill is that it is supposed to be a set of uncontroversial measures that are intended to address regulatory duplication, gaps, administrative errors, and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation. That is what the bill is supposed to be about. I have spoken, both in the first reading debate and in the second reading debate, about the set of changes proposed for the Conservation Act and for the Reserves Act. The changes there change two things: they change the maximum period for which concessions can be granted from 5 years to 10 years, and they change the provisions relating to public notification of the intention to grant such concessions. Neither of those is about any of those objectives for the bill. So, one of the reasons for the Green Party’s objection to this bill is that it contains provisions that are inconsistent with its objectives.

The second reason is that the proposed changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act are bad changes, and I will talk a little more about that in this Committee stage. The land administered by the Department of Conservation is land that is administered on behalf of all of us—on behalf of all New Zealanders. It is not the “DOC estate”, as it is sometimes referred to; it is actually the public conservation estate. It is administered by the Department of Conservation, but it is administered with the objective of protecting the conservation values that are in that land. I readily admit that there is land of varying qualities within that estate, but the department is protecting, and preferably enhancing, the conservation values in that set of land for all New Zealanders.

The principal Act sets out, in effect, a hierarchy of values. This is important to understand for the context in which the proposed changes to the Act will take place. The paramount set of values in the hierarchy of values in the Act is about the protection of the conservation values—that is, the natural biodiversity and indigenous biodiversity of those places, including all of the indigenous animals and plants, and the ecosystems within which those animals and plants live. The Act is protecting and preferably enhancing those. That is the paramount objective of the Act. The second level down is about recreational access. The Act sets out to encourage New Zealanders to have recreational access to the places that are being protected on our behalf, but the recreational access ought not to occur at the expense of the conservation values. Then the third tier down is about allowing for tourism and other commercial activity. That commercial activity ought not to occur at the expense of either the conservation values of these places or New Zealanders’ recreational access to them.

One of the ongoing critiques of the performance of the Department of Conservation, and of the performance of successive Governments in conservation, relates to the blurring of recreational access and commercial activity—that the hierarchy intended by the Act is not always respected by the process. What we are now faced with is a set of pressures that are on the department, and, indeed, on Governments of any hue that should hold that conservation responsibility, related to the increasing threats to biodiversity and to the conservation values that we are trying to protect and enhance. In the face of this, the Government has made a number of decisions that have compounded that problem and have, in fact, made it worse.

In the Prime Minister’s statement to the House at the beginning of this year, the section that dealt with the environment and conservation was entitled “Unlocking resources”. That is directly germane to this bill, because this bill is about commercial activity that occurs in the public conservation estate. The Prime Minister’s statement was code for a new approach to the conservation estate that says it is not a set of land, biodiversity, and conservation values that is protected on behalf of all New Zealanders; it is a set of resources that could be exploited for commercial gain. What he is doing with that statement is reversing, or undermining—“undermining” is probably a good word for it—the hierarchy of values set out in the Act.

Just over the last couple of days we have seen the attacks on water conservation orders and the proposals for mining in schedule 4 lands, which are the practical application of the Prime Minister’s intent. That represents an expropriation of land and resources that are held and are owned by the public, in common—an expropriation for private gain. That is directly relevant to this issue of concessions, because the Government has created a set of drivers that will require the department to be looking for more and more revenue. It has cut the budget for the Department of Conservation by $52 million over 4 years, at a time when the pressures on the conservation estate are increasing. That has led to a Department of Conservation that is now looking for more and more opportunities for creating revenue, so we are starting to see pressure placed on the department to make inappropriate decisions about concessions. They are inappropriate decisions: decisions that actually put the revenue stream ahead of the conservation values that are to be protected.

Under the existing law, a 5-year maximum term for concessions at least provides the public with some protection, but proposing to increase that term for concessions creates the risk that bad decisions—decisions made by the department for the purpose of revenue rather than for conservation values—will be locked in not for 5 years but for 10 years. The bill goes further in potentially compounding that by stating that in those cases where the concessions extend for a 10-year period, the public will not even necessarily get to have a say about that.

I am grateful to Lianne Dalziel for addressing these conservation issues in her first intervention in this Committee stage. I think that it is probably the first time in our discussion of this bill that anyone besides me has done so. I am grateful to her for doing that and for posing that question. I am also grateful to Minister Mapp for answering that question. Unfortunately, that information provides us with a retrospective look at what has been occurring in regard to concessions, and I am saying in this intervention that it is essential that this Committee takes a prospective look—again, “prospective” may be a particularly appropriate word to use in the context of this debate—at what this Government is doing with the conservation estate. I would encourage the Committee—

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) Link to this

I will take only a very brief call. I was listening to the previous speaker, Mr Hague, and I would like to correct one statement that he made. New section 17T(4), which is to be substituted in the Conservation Act by clause 7, clearly states: “Before granting a lease, or a licence with a term (including all renewals) exceeding 10 years, … the Minister must give public notice of the intention to do so.” As I heard Mr Hague, it was suggested that that would not be required. It is actually a legal requirement that public notice would have to be given for all leases and licences exceeding 10 years.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this

The House has agreed to take all of the parts of this bill together as one debate; therefore I seek leave for members to have an unlimited number of calls on all parts, without there being any change to the agreed time limit for the debate.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) Link to this

I ask that the member repeat that. I was on the telephone and I did not hear the start of the request.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this

No problem. This is probably a discussion that occurred just before the member arrived in the Chamber. I seek leave for members to have an unlimited number of calls, without there being any alteration to the overall time limit for the debate.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) Link to this

We are debating the Regulatory Improvement Bill, which makes a number of amendments to a number of Acts. Stuart Nash outlined the Acts earlier this morning, and they include the Companies Act, the Conservation Act, the Fisheries Act, the Gas Act, and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I will focus my comments on two particular Acts: the Designs Act 1953 and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995.

In relation to the Designs Act, we note in the commentary on this bill that its provisions have been drafted to come into effect on the day after the bill is given the Royal assent, with the exception of most of the provisions that are changes to the Designs Act. When the bill first came into the House, there was a provision for the changes to the Designs Act to become effective on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council or the date when the Governor-General gave the Royal assent, but there was no fixed time for that. That time provision could have dragged on for a number of years. In fact, we heard a member of the Labour Opposition mention this morning a particular instance whereby it took some 8 years for some regulations to come into force.

The Commerce Committee, of which I am a member—I have to say that I did not play a large part in this bill’s deliberation; nevertheless, I am a member of that committee—was concerned to ensure that there was some certainty. An amendment was put forward and Labour members have spoken at length on that this morning. There was a provision that notwithstanding the balance of the bill, for which all of the other changes were to come in immediately, the changes to the Designs Act were to come into effect on the earlier of two dates: the Governor-General giving an Order in Council, or the date of a year after the bill receives Royal assent. The reason for making that change was to provide certainty. In the commentary, the select committee said that members of the public need to have certainty, and there should be only very rare and exceptional circumstances when we do not provide that certainty or when it is justifiable not to have some certainty and not to set a date for provisions to come into effect.

That set my mind thinking as to when else we would have those rare and exceptional circumstances. I went back to the passing of the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill last November. We were told in this House that that bill would be based on the Australian scheme, that the officials could make all the regulations they wanted, and that they would have more than sufficient time because all they had to do was copy the Australian regulations. Well, I realise I should keep the debate to the particular issue of the Designs Act, but the point I am making is that that Act deals with copyright and designs. Therefore, it was considered that a year should be more than sufficient time to make those regulations. It is not surprising that a year was thought sufficient because the regulations that were to flow from the emissions trading scheme legislation all had to be made in 6 months. That should not have been a problem, because we were copying the Australian legislation. The only problem was that there was no Australian legislation—no Australian legislation, at all—so now we are going where no country has gone before.

That leads me to my next point concerning the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995. This Regulatory Improvement Bill makes some amendments to that Act. The primary purpose of those amendments is to remove the penalty regimes applicable under the Act for non-payment of cost recovery levies as they are already provided for in the Fisheries Act 1996. We are making amendments here to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995 to ensure there is not a duplication of penalties.

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister for Regulatory Reform) Link to this

I first acknowledge the Hon Lianne Dalziel, whose work the Regulatory Improvement Bill is; and I am carrying it on. One of the things that I have noticed as a Minister is how much work that has been set up carries over from one Government to the next. I have been the fortunate beneficiary of Lianne Dalziel’s efforts, so I thank the member for that.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this

I rise to take a call in the Committee stage, just a 5-minute call. A number of speakers have already referred to the part of Lianne Dalziel, or should I say, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, in this bill. I think in one 10-minute speech there were 13 references to Lianne Dalziel, which is a fair few. The reason for that is the Hon Lianne Dalziel has had a lot to do with this legislation. Given the importance of her role, I should make it clear that it is Lianne Dalziel, with “Lianne” spelt with two “n”s—it can be spelt with one—and not the other version, which is “Leanne” Dalziel.

H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) Link to this

All I can say about regulatory reform and the Regulatory Improvement Bill is hurrah! At last something is being done. It was initiated by the previous Labour Government and the Hon Lianne Dalziel. It is good to see—

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister for Regulatory Reform) Link to this

I will take a brief call to answer the Hon Ross Robertson’s questions. Yes, it certainly is the Government’s intention to carry on the work of the previous Labour Government in this area. I will be introducing a further bill in the coming months. I suggest to that member that if he has particular areas that would suit being reformed that constituents have brought to him, or that have come to his attention, he should write to me and we can look into it and include it in that legislation. The only thing I would note is that they will not be called regulatory improvement bills; they will be called regulatory reform bills. I do not know why, but that is one of the things that happens. So we are continuing this process.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this

I too rise to speak in support of the Regulatory Improvement Bill and acknowledge the work of my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Like others, I will probably mention her several times in this 5 minute contribution; I am sure I will not be able to reach the heights of David Parker, but that should not be taken as an indication of any less esteem in which I hold my colleague. This is an omnibus bill that makes amendments to nine pieces of legislation, with the objective of improving the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business. It was introduced by the Hon Lianne Dalziel.

I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rodney Hide; that is something I do not often do, but do I want to acknowledge that he has recognised the work undertaken by the previous Government and by the previous Minister of Commerce, Lianne Dalziel. I think it is important to acknowledge that, because often it is said that Labour does not support business in this country. The fact that this bill is here is a very clear example of the contrary: that, in fact, Labour does support business in New Zealand, and that we have worked very hard to improve the regulatory environment that business operates in. I know for a fact that the Hon Lianne Dalziel, in her previous capacity as Minister, was absolutely passionate about improving the environment for business. I came across her in that capacity in a number of ways myself prior to being in Parliament, both as a member of the Small Business Advisory Group and as the secretary of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. Just as people do not necessarily believe that Labour is business-friendly—incorrectly, as it transpires—likewise, people often do not recognise that the trade union movement has a very real interest in ensuring that our businesses are successful and that they do not face unnecessary regulatory impediments. It is about having successful, good-quality businesses that people can work in.

I shall talk about one of the submissions to this bill. The bill was a result of a quite extensive process—a process of 15 months of talking with people, identifying barriers, and recognising that when businesses deal with various Acts of Parliament and various agencies of Government they do not necessarily see them as separate agencies; they often see them as a single entity: the Government. “I’m from the Government. I’m here to help you.” was one of the catchcries.

One of the submissions made to the Commerce Committee, chaired of course by the Hon Lianne Dalziel, was made by the Motor Trade Association on one of the provisions. The submission was particularly about the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and significant changes have been made to that legislation as a result of this work. In fact, in Part 6 of the bill, members will see a significant raft of changes to that Act. The submission of the Motor Trade Association talked about the fact that collision repairers and service station operators frequently come up against hazardous substances and, where appropriate, businesses obtain the necessary site and approved handlers’ certificates as required by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. However, the association advises its member organisations to keep their stock of hazardous substances below the trigger points for licensing. That is a sensible, common-sense arrangement, and enables them to work out the appropriate risk-management practices in their workplace.

I am now coming to a point the association raised, which, I think, is an important one for the Minister to note. It raised the concern that two territorial authorities had decided to require businesses to provide them with inventories of substances below the trigger points listed in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. When questioned about that, businesses were told that the authorities were requiring businesses to provide such a list in terms of the Health and Safety in Employment Act. The select committee process followed through with that particular concern of the submitter, and members were told by officials that the points raised by the submitter were valid. However, they relate to operational matters and they have been referred to the appropriate agencies, where they are being addressed at an administrative level. The reason I am raising this is that I would like to know from the Minister whether that has been done, because one of the issues around regulation is not just the law but the operation of the law. So, Mr Chair, can I just—

RAYMOND HUO (Labour) Link to this

I rise to support the Regulatory Improvement Bill and I endorse the comments made by my learned colleagues who spoke earlier.

When we look at the bill and its contents in this Committee stage, I would like to acknowledge the current Minister for Regulatory Reform, the Hon Rodney Hide, who is responsible for this bill, and I thank him for carrying on with the good work initiated by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I acknowledge the two Supplementary Order Papers dividing the bill into the nine separate bills.

I had the pleasure of sitting on the Commerce Committee, with its wonderful chair, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, deliberating on some of the main provisions. I take this opportunity to thank all the submitters, the businesses, and the membership organisations that contributed their time, energy, and ideas to this bill.

The New Zealand Institute of Patent Attorneys made a very good submission—a very helpful submission, should I say—particularly in relation to the Designs Act 1953. The bill provides for the restoration of lapsed copyright in registered designs in circumstances where the lapse was the result of neglect to pay the renewal fee or to make the necessary application. The Commerce Committee, under its wonderful chair, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, recommended that in addition to allowing the restoration of lapsed copyright in registered designs, the bill should allow the restoration of lapsed copyright in design applications. The committee also recommended that the bill should give specific authorisation for the commissioner to publish bibliographic details of design applications.

In its submission, the New Zealand Institute of Patent Attorneys said that it agreed with the intent of the bill to provide restoration of lapsed design registrations and that it also believed that the bill should be amended to provide for restoration of pending design applications that had lapsed. Looking at the bill itself, I say, as I said earlier, that to some extent the bill is more important than the content.

The bill was introduced initially by the Hon Lianne Dalziel in response to the Quality Regulation Review. The final report was released on 5 September 2008 after a 15-month review. The Quality Regulation Review addressed regulatory barriers to business growth. It was a broad review that looked at anomalies, inconsistency, and duplication across the Government’s regulatory framework. As well as correcting errors, the review aimed to develop ways of ensuring that new rules were efficient from a business perspective. The review established that when businesses deal with the Government they do not see discrete agencies such as the Inland Revenue Department, the Accident Compensation Corporation, or the Department of Labour’s Occupational Safety and Health Service, they see a single entity—namely, the Government. Accordingly, businesses were frustrated by having to provide the same information over and over and over again to different agencies.

Labour looked at the regulatory framework, and at how new regulations are made, from a business perspective. As well as this bill being introduced, the regulatory impact analysis regime was strengthened to ensure that future regulation properly identified the problem and looked at potential options for resolving it. Thank you.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) Link to this

I want to pick up, not exactly where I left off, but where the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rodney Hide, left off in his discussion of the proposed changes to the Conservation Act. He referred not so much to the specific objectives of the Regulatory Improvement Bill in terms of removing gaps, duplications, errors, and inconsistencies, but, rather, to the broader purpose for which those were to be removed—in other words, to improve the environment for business. He used two words in respect of the proposed increase in the maximum length of concessions from 5 to 10 years. He said it would make the process more efficient and more contestable.

Well, it has been a while since I studied economics, but it seems to the Green Party that the effect of increasing the term of concessions is not so much to improve contestability, for example, but to reduce contestability. The effect of a concessionaire having his or her concession extended for a further 5 years—again, I emphasis for the House that there is not necessarily any public input at all—is to make it very much more difficult for competitors and those who might wish to test the concession to have a viable go the next time. I am mindful of the work of the Commerce Commission in respect of laboratory services for the Otago and Southland district health boards. The Commerce Commission had the very strong view that, in that case, the sole contract that was proposed for an extended period would have a chilling effect on competition and on contestability by shutting out competitors; that when it came to the end of that contract it would be difficult for other potential competitors to be in a position to make viable bids.

So what this bill proposes is anti-competitive. It seems unusual for the Green Party to be making that point in a House where normally either National or Labour is making that point, but it seems that we need to, because no one else is doing it. I think we would call the bill monopolistic.

I want to talk in the time I have remaining about several of the other downsides. Sure, there is an upside; there is a small increase in efficiency for the business that happens to be successful in getting the concession. It is a small upside. On the other side, for the department there is a reduced cost in administering it. On the downside, we have the monopolistic effect of a chilling of competition. We have the fact that there will be increased pressure from other businesses that have been shut out of that process wanting to apply for concessions in other parts of the conservation estate. In terms of determining appropriate conditions, we have the difficulty of predicting at the beginning of a 10-year period what all of the effects may be over that 10-year period. There is a mid-term review, but my submission is that it is inadequate.

I am particularly concerned about the fact that the public are shut out of the process. In response to the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp’s contribution earlier on, can I say I am very much aware that the bill provides for concessions in excess of—exceeding—10 years on which, yes, the public will have the right to have a say, but anything up to 10 years is solely at the discretion of the Minister. I believe that that is inappropriate and inadequate.

I say that in the broader context of the pressures on the department around concessions that I referred to earlier. We are already seeing decisions being made by the department for commercial reasons. It is a small point, but the Cathedral Cove concession stand earlier this year was a concession that served no conservation purpose at all. It was a concession that was given purely for revenue. If we are starting to see conservation values such as the untouched nature of that place being comprised for revenue in a small case like that, what will we see in more important places with more important conservation values? We have seen the department allow commercial eeling of threatened long-finned tuna in national parks. What was the reason for that? Again, it was revenue.

We are in an environment where the Government has starved the Department of Conservation of cash—a $52 million reduction in funding over a 4-year period—at a time when the threats to our biodiversity, the threats to our natural values, and the threats to our public conservation estate are greater and greater. That leaves the department in a totally invidious position, because it has increasing demands on its budget on the one hand and decreased revenue on the other. That means that in its new business development strategy it is looking for ways of developing new revenue streams. This bill, which extends the time of concessions to 10 years, without necessarily any public say at all, provides an avenue for the department to pursue. The temptation will be great to grant concessions under this new provision, in order to obtain revenue. Longer periods will be more lucrative; there is more in it for businesses from longer periods. The risk is that the objective of the Conservation Act of preserving those fantastic, treasured places for all New Zealanders living now, and for all of those to come, for their inherent biodiversity and conservation values but also for their recreational access, will be compromised by that process.

In summary, this bill in respect of the changes to the Conservation Act and to the reserves legislation is bad law. They do not fit the objectives of this kind of bill, but also they set a set of objectives for the department that are at odds with the purpose of the Act and with the purpose of that public conservation estate, and they should not proceed.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this

I will take a short call on the Regulatory Improvement Bill to finish the matters that I started dealing with earlier. I will do this for the benefit of the Minister in the chair, Rodney Hide, who had Mr Mapp substituting for him at that point. There was the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms issue and the issue of the commencement of the legislation, which was by Order in Council originally. Then there was the matter of incorporation by reference, in respect of Part 6. The Minister has not been able to be here for the entire debate, so I will tell him that in respect of the commencement issue, there has been a satisfactory resolution. There was a provision that stated that the legislation would come into force on the earlier of either 12 months after its receipt of the Royal assent or on the proclamation of the legislation by Order in Council. That concern of the Regulations Review Committee has been resolved satisfactory.

In relation to the issue of section 42C(3), to be inserted by clause 28, the Minister has said that one procedure deals with genetically modified organisms, and the other deals with non-genetically modified organisms; therefore, that is the reason for the difference. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has given that explanation, but I think it would have been helpful if the legislation, on its face, had reflected that more explicitly. However, I will not take the issue further.

The final point I will raise is the issue raised by Part 6, which comprises the amendments to the hazardous substances legislation in respect of incorporation by reference. This is the last of the three matters that the Regulations Review Committee raised with the Commerce Committee, in a very eloquent letter from Mr Macindoe dated 1 September. He will appreciate that I am taking up the cudgels on behalf of the committee, in this regard. The issue is very simple: with these hazardous substances and new organisms standards, the legislation allows for international sets of documents, agreed to by supranational organisations like the European Union, to be incorporated, basically wholesale, into New Zealand law. An obvious issue arises; how do ordinary New Zealanders know what the law is on any particular occasion if a regulation says, for example, that standard 6.8 of the Council of Europe on x, y, or z is now the law of the land in New Zealand? On that issue, the committee clearly made some extensive amendments to the legislation, which may well be satisfactory in terms of requiring that the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment make available any gazetted material that is incorporated by reference, by way of a hazardous substances and new organisms standard. It seems that, on advice, the committee has gone through and taken pains to deal with that issue in new sections 141B to 141I, to be inserted by clause 46A.

My question for the Minister in the chair is whether he thinks that the provisions are adequate, given the high standards he thinks that the legislation should comply with. The specific provisions I am referring to, for the Minister’s benefit, are, firstly, new section 141D(3): “Material that ceases to have effect does not cease to have legal effect as part of a notice of transfer in which the material is incorporated by reference.” I have to say that that is a very odd provision. New section 141F(5) states: “A failure to comply with this section does not invalidate regulations that incorporate material by reference or a group standard or code of practice that incorporates material by reference.” There are similar provisions in new sections 141G(6), 141H(4), and 141I(2). In essence, these provisions say that it does not matter if all those notices and information requirements are not complied with; the legislation or the incorporation by reference remains valid. I want to hear from the Minister, if he is willing to take a call on the issue, whether that is good enough.