Regulatory Improvement Bill

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) Link to this

I move, That the Regulatory Improvement Bill be now read a second time. In so doing I thank the Commerce Committee for its consideration of the bill, and I also acknowledge those who made oral and written submissions. The committee’s report includes some useful recommendations that I believe will improve processes and, importantly, reduce compliance costs. The bill provides an opportunity to improve the quality of regulation in New Zealand by recommending small but none the less very important amendments to nine Acts. As was indicated in the Minister’s first reading speech, the provisions in the bill came out of the Quality Regulation Review undertaken by the previous Government in 2006 and 2007. I thank the member for Christchurch East for initiating and championing the work that has resulted in this bill.

The changes proposed cover a diverse range of policy areas and legislation. They are all designed to improve the regulatory framework and to reduce the compliance burden on business. They are a move towards creating a regulatory environment that positively impacts on how businesses operate. Overall, the changes address regulatory duplications, gaps, administrative errors, and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation. Fixing them is a positive move towards a more prosperous and successful nation that is driven by the initiative and hard work of individuals. The Government is committed to a regulatory reform programme that ensures that new and existing regulations do not impose unnecessary costs on businesses, and do all that they can to address the barriers, be they big or small, that can hold back New Zealand business from reaching its fullest potential and greatest growth.

With the current economic challenges our businesses are facing, our goal to minimise compliance costs is more important than ever. As an omnibus bill it provides an effective and efficient legislative vehicle to fast-track small changes to legislation to fix problems. A single Regulatory Improvement Bill is an administratively efficient way of progressing uncontroversial but none the less important amendments that will have a positive impact for business. Similar bills aimed at improving the regulatory environment for business are intended to be a regular fixture on the legislative calendar.

The bill proposes amendments to 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, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995, the Weights and Measures Act 1987, and the Reserves Act 1977. I can tell from the Assistant Speaker Eric Roy’s interest that that is a piece of legislation dear to his heart, as a huntin’, fishin’ Southlander.

Most submitters were supportive of the bill, and the committee has not recommended any substantive changes to the proposals. I will outline the most significant changes that were recommended by the committee and the reasons for them. First, I will refer to the Designs Act 1953. The submitters who commented on the proposed amendments supported the proposals for amendment. The main change suggested by submitters was that the Act provide for the restoration of lapsed design applications. The submission was accepted by the committee, and the bill, as reported back now, provides for the restoration of those types of applications. The new amendments will bring the Designs Act into line with the Patents Act 1953 and with the Patents Bill, which is currently before Parliament, both of which include provisions for the restoration of lapsed applications.

The committee has also recommended the amendment of the commencement clause to make it more certain when the amendment to the Designs Act 1953 would come into force, the insertion of a clause that will explicitly authorise publication of bibliographical details of design applications so that the public is kept informed of applications being made, and the inclusion of clauses to allow the restoration of lapsed copyright in registered design.

The second Act that is worthy of some comment is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. The committee has recommended an amendment of clause 46 of the bill along with the insertion of a new clause. This clause amends the section in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that relates to incorporation by reference of material into regulations and other instruments. The clause was drafted in 2007 and differs from the Parliamentary Counsel Office’s proposed new standard clauses for incorporation by reference. The standard clause as prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel Office give effect to principles established by the Regulations Review Committee in its inquiry in 2004 into material that is incorporated by reference. In its 2008 report on the matter, the Regulations Review Committee recommended that such clauses be included in the Legislation Advisory Committee’s guidelines and enacted in a statute of general application so that they need not be re-enacted each time they are required.

The committee has recommended that apart from two exceptions, the bill be amended to conform to the proposed standard clauses. Those two exceptions are, first, that the mechanism in the bill for amendment to incorporated material by notification in the Gazette should be retained. In doing so, it has specifically safeguarded this mechanism with an express requirement that the material be brought to the attention of the Regulations Review Committee. The second exception is that the requirements for consulting on, and access to, amendments to material incorporated in the instruments involved should match the requirements that already apply in the Act for the instruments themselves.

The main concern for submitters on Part 6 of the bill was the change to the notification for applications to release hazardous substances from being mandatory to being at the discretion of the Environmental Risk Management Authority. The issue is really the balance between the benefits of public participation and the associated costs and delays. Reducing unnecessary costs and delays also contributes to innovation through the timely introduction of newer, typically less hazardous, chemicals. The change reflects the experience of the Environmental Risk Management Authority.

The reality is that of several hundred applications on hazardous substances that have been publicly notified since 2001, only 19 percent have attracted any submissions at all, and the majority of those submissions have come from both local and central government agencies. Only 4 percent of applications have attracted submissions from the public, with most of these being for veterinary medicines. The general concerns raised by submitters as to potentially harmful effects to certified organic producers and to trade are matters the authority would take into account in deciding whether there is likely to be significant public interest in a particular application.

There were a number of other submissions. Particularly, I should refer to two submissions, which sought amendments to those parts of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that address genetically modified organisms. However, nothing in this bill addresses or affects the regulation of genetically modified organisms.

This bill has been introduced under Standing Order 264(a), now 259(a). The Standing Order provides that a law reform or other omnibus bill to amend more than one Act may be introduced if the amendments deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a broad policy. It is intended that the bill will be divided into separate bills at the Committee of the whole House stage. I commend the bill to the House.

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

I rise to speak in the second reading of the Regulatory Improvement Bill, and it certainly gives me a great sense of satisfaction to do so. As the Attorney-General on behalf of the Minister for Regulatory Reform pointed out, I was the instigator of this approach to regulatory improvement in New Zealand through the Quality Regulation Review. The review looked at how New Zealand regulates, how Parliament regulates, and, essentially, what improvements could be made in the way we regulate to ensure that business was not facing unnecessary compliance costs. It was also to ensure that our frameworks were kept up to date, modern, and relevant and that they were risk-related.

I experienced the frustration of the hundreds of businesspeople whom I spoke to from one end of the country to the other. They expressed to me the sense of an overwhelming burden of regulation that was not matched by any comparable benefit that they could see. Business was saying to me that if there are going to be rules that govern our obligations—and business accepts that regulation is an important part of the business environment for confidence and all sorts of other reasons such as health and safety, to name two—they have to be risk-related. We have to look at what the risk is of this thing going wrong and what the benefits are that apply to the particular regulatory framework that is adopted. That very quickly said to me that we could have two sets of rules without offending the principle that one law should fit all. One size does not fit all when we put on our clothes, so I do not see why one-size-fits-all should apply to regulatory frameworks. In some instances, the risks are so minimal that to make the requirements of a larger entity apply to a smaller entity simply would not be acceptable. To take another line, if one is fundraising from the general public, obviously the regulatory obligations—the rules—will be much tighter than if one is just operating or borrowing from the bank, where the reporting requirements will be negotiated between oneself and the bank.

There are reasons why regulatory frameworks should be fit for purpose at all stages of the regime, and that fitness for purpose may require different rules to be applied at different times. I think this Parliament has got a little bit gun-shy of the phrase “regulation”. Regulation is just rules. Driving down the left-hand side of the road is a regulation. It is a rule of the road. It is part of the road code. If we did not have that rule, I would like to think that everyone would drive down the left-hand side of the road but it could be pretty Wild West out there if we did not have that rule in place. Certainly, I learnt that businesses accept the need for rules, but they ask the Government that the rules are kept relevant and are proportionate to the risk that their business poses in the particular situation. I agree with them.

The other problem I found when I went out and talked to hundreds of small businesses was that we ended up with a situation where the regulator will not tell people how to comply with the rule. That was the second-biggest complaint I had. An individual employer would ring up the Occupational Safety and Health Service and ask whether something was within the rules of health and safety, and the employer would be told: “I am sorry, but we cannot tell you whether that is within the rules, but if you breach the rules, we will be down there to serve you with a notice to tell you that you have breached the rules.” Well, I do not think that is good enough. I never thought it was good enough when I was a Minister. I think it is really important that we have the mechanism available to us as a Parliament to fix these things as they come up.

The third thing I found out was that small businesses, in particular, have had an absolute gutsful of talking to the Government over and over again. Because we are all politicians, we think of the Department of Labour, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Courts, the Inland Revenue Department, the Occupational Safety and Health Service, and the Accident Compensation Corporation. All that the business people see is the Government. They ask why the Government is continually asking them for the same information over and over again. During the course of this review, I came up with one of those 10-second sound bite phrases that politicians love to create, but I thought that it absolutely encapsulated what businesses were telling me. It was: why cannot the many arms of Government extend a single hand to business? That is a really important question for this Parliament.

I hope that members on both sides of the House, Government and Opposition, would agree entirely that that should be our focus in terms of bringing down the weight of regulatory reform. I think that the only way that we can do that is through e-commerce—the ability for businesses to speak to the Government once and then for the Government to spread that information across its many arms. That is so easy to do now that we have the business reporting language. I note that in the next few weeks a guest speaker is coming here from the Netherlands, which has the world leaders on business reporting language. I will attend that event and I am sure that others in this House will as well. That, to me, is the solution for so many small businesses’ complaints about the nature of reporting to the Government.

The final thing that I was told did not come from businesses, but from the departments. What came back from the departments when we raised issues with them was that none of the issues raised were big enough to warrant their going to their Minister and asking for a bill on the Order Paper. They could not get up a bill to deal with this issue because it was not small enough for a Statutes Amendment Bill and it did not quite fit a Business Law Reform Bill. There was no mechanism for dealing with these little issues from different departments. The departments asked whether there was a way of getting these things dealt with in parliamentary time in a reasonable way without having to deal with them bill by bill.

Members can imagine in this case what this Regulatory Improvement Bill contains, and this is the first of the regulatory improvement bills. It has amendments to the Companies Act, the Conservation Act, the Designs Act, the Fisheries Act, the Gas Act, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act, the Reserves Act, and the Weights and Measures Act. As a Parliament, if we had to take up a first reading, a second reading, the Committee stage, and a third reading of a bill for every single one of those amendments, then we would be spending a lot of time making relatively small fixes.

My desire was to see the development of a Regulatory Improvement Bill where the theme of the omnibus bill—which the Minister just spoke of—would be an amendment to deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy. It was finally accepted by the then Clerk of the House that that was a single thread that could be accepted as that interrelated topic, and that was the improvement to regulatory frameworks. I had been to the Standing Orders Committee and had made the case to have the list of types of omnibus bills that can be introduced amended so that it included the Regulatory Improvement Bill, along with the Business Committee’s agreement to the Business Law Reform Bill’s introduction as an omnibus bill. I wanted to have this written into the list as one of the bills that could be proceeded with as an omnibus bill as of right, and I would still like to see that happen.

I am pleased that it has been accepted in this case, but it has to be agreed to by the Business Committee in order to be introduced as an omnibus bill. I think that we could do better than that. We could write it into the Standing Orders directly, and say that the theme of regulatory improvement is something that the entire Parliament—members on both sides of the House—is committed to. We could agree to do this every year. This would be so much easier. We could send out messages to departments every year to say that this is their chance to make it better for businesses through better regulation. I have heard the Government of the day say: “Better regulation, fewer regulations”. This is the best way of achieving that, where we do not have the departmental commitment on the small stuff. They are now sweating the big stuff, which is where their focus has to be. I commend this bill to the House, and I also commend making a subsequent change to the Standing Orders.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) Link to this

Thank you for the opportunity to make my first speech on the Regulatory Improvement Bill, at its second reading. I commend the Minister Chris Finlayson. He has shown a deft hand in regulatory reform as well as in Treaty negotiations and in the other portfolios that he holds. I also commend the Hon Rodney Hide, who first introduced this bill.

This bill is about cutting red tape. It is about reducing the bureaucracy involved in transacting business. It is a bill to be commended, because the single most important issue facing this country is an economic issue: an issue of productivity and of economic growth in order to provide for the opportunities and jobs that so many New Zealanders deserve. This bill will not solve all the problems relating to regulation; I think that we all acknowledge that. But it carries on the valuable work that the previous speaker, the former Minister the Hon Lianne Dalziel, took in pushing for regulatory reform. It shows that this Government is committed to helping businesses to get through these tough times.

When I go to visit the businesses in Maungakiekie in Auckland, two things stand out in terms of their issues with the Government. Firstly, those businesses that export their products have issues with the exchange rate. But the second major issue that faces small to medium sized businesses in this country relates to the regulations and compliance costs that they must face.

Our productivity growth was shown by the GDP figures released last week. We have had our third quarter of growth in this country in terms of our output, which is a positive thing. One of the stunning statistics shown in recent articles in the media is that our level of exports decreased for four consecutive years under the previous Government. We need to address that. I am glad that we had reference to dairy farming in the bill that we have just debated, because that industry is one of the most important sectors to drive growth for this country.

As the Minister has already said, the 22 amendments in this legislation have the broad objective of improving the regulatory framework. I will not go through each of those individual amendments, but in my third reading speech I will refer to some critical recommendations from our Commerce Committee. Overall, this is a bill that needs to be passed. It will provide for less regulation, or for better regulation—call it what we will—and it is a bill that the Government supports. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to it.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this

The bill before us implements a number of minor tweaks to nine pieces of legislation. In doing so, it makes our regulatory environment one that imposes fewer compliance burdens on New Zealand business. Labour supports the bill, because we believe that strong business is in the interests of New Zealand, and that is the belief that drove Labour to introduce the original legislation in 2008 when we were in Government.

The bill, as we have heard from the previous Minister of Commerce, Lianne Dalziel, is a response to the opinions of businesses on things that would make the regulatory environment easier for them to operate in. These views were communicated through a very wide-ranging consultation process, conducted by the previous Minister and her officials, which was known as the Quality Regulation Review. Over 200 businesses were consulted, and the changes to the nine Acts that this bill will affect are the result of that consultation process.

A wide range of Acts is affected: 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, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995, the Reserves Act 1997, and the Weights and Measures Act 1987. That is a good reminder of just how widely the statute book ranges over the interests of business, and of how it can impose compliance costs on them. The changes that are proposed to each of those Acts are small and relatively uncontroversial, I think, but, as expressed to Lianne Dalziel and her officials during the Quality Regulation Review consultation process, they are important because they are what businesses want. The changes are small but important changes, in order to allow the largely small and medium sized enterprises that were consulted to enjoy a more efficient regulatory environment that is fair to them, and easier for them to do business in.

I will give just a couple of examples of the sorts of minor changes in the bill that will have this effect. There is currently an inconsistency between the Companies Act 1993 and the Financial Reporting Act of the same year, and this inconsistency imposes a cost on business that is completely unnecessary. Under the Financial Reporting Act a company with overseas ownership may not be required to file audited financial statements, but under the Companies Act there is still an obligation in that situation for the company to appoint an auditor. That is obviously a discrepancy, and one that Parliament should reflect on, given that it results from two Acts that this House passed in exactly the same year. It is a systems issue that such an inconsistency could arise in our procedures, and could result in the sorts of unnecessary additional costs that are imposed upon business. Obviously, those costs are then passed on to the consumer and create inefficiencies and productivity glitches. So the minor changes to the Companies Act proposed in the bill, and confirmed by the committee, will fix this situation. They will basically put affected companies in the same position as the majority of other companies, which essentially can choose whether to appoint an auditor.

There are a couple of other examples of sensible changes in the bill. They can be found in the amendments to the Designs Act, the Gas Act, and the Weights and Measures Act. As far as the Designs Act—legislation dating from 1953—is concerned, there is provision for the restoration of lapsed copyright in a registered design, in cases where there has simply been a failure to pay the renewal fee or fill in the correct forms, thus causing the lapse in the right to use the design. Clearly, it is disproportionate for a company or an organisation to lose valuable intellectual property in a design simply because of a technical failure to pay a fee or register a form. This legislation will correct that area of the law; again, this is a small change but one that will be valuable to business.

The Gas Act 1992 will be amended to clarify that any regulations recommended by the Gas Industry Co. Ltd under Part 4A of the Act will cover gas to be used as a feedstock. That will clear up a previous area of unnecessary uncertainty.

The Weights and Measures Act 1987 will be amended to provide that the control of LPG gas should occur only under the Gas Act 1992 and not also under the Weights and Measures Act. Again, that is an example of how, in legislating less than precisely and carefully, this House can impose burdens under more than one piece of legislation, which business then needs to comply with. We are now correcting that, but there must be thousands of other examples of this sort of problem in the statute book where we impose a burden on those who are trying to make a living and contribute to our prosperity, and we should take seriously the fixing of such problems. In that regard I recall the comments made by Lianne Dalziel in her speech. There is a real case for this exercise to be an annual one, in order to deal with the sorts of reforms that fall midway between Statutes Amendment bills, which come up regularly on a omnibus basis, and the full, substantive measures that clearly would not be justified in terms of the House’s time to deal with these sorts of glitches.

The changes that I have briefly referred to by way of example are minor but provide much-needed certainty. They are just a few examples of the sorts of practical, effective changes that Lianne Dalziel made sure were included in the bill, after many months of talking to businesses about the need for amending legislation and minor reform. The New Zealand business community and the New Zealand public deserve an honest representation of what this reform is about, and it is cheering to have heard Mr Finlayson, in his introductory words, give due credit to Lianne Dalziel for bringing this legislation before Parliament. It is appropriate legislation.

I will deal, though, with one comment made by the previous speaker, Sam Lotu-Iiga, when he referred to a decline in exports. In an earlier contribution, on the dairy industry restructuring legislation, John Boscawen referred to a breakfast that he and I were at earlier with European members of Parliament, in relation to climate change. One of the potential problems identified in that discussion was the potential for export barriers to be raised by certain trading blocs, as a result of the possibility of a perception arising in those different markets that others were not taking the issue of climate change seriously. Again, this provides an important reminder that all policy issues are interlinked, and we cannot simply assume that an action taken in one area will have positive action in another. We have to make sure that there is joined-up policy. This bill is just a small example of that.

As I have said, this is timely legislation; it is useful legislation. Although there is absolutely no justification for progressing the bill under urgency through its final stages, Labour will support its passage, because we originated the measure and because it is good law.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) Link to this

I will begin by picking up exactly where Charles Chauvel left off, with the principle in relation to urgency. The Regulatory Improvement Bill has been on the Order Paper for some years. It originated with the Quality Regulation Review in 2007, and it seems extraordinary to me that Parliament is now in urgency to consider its remaining stages. There seems to me to be nothing about the bill that would justify urgency. There is nothing urgent about the implementation of any of the detail of the bill, so it fails to meet the test of urgency for this Parliament. On that basis I register the Green Party’s objection to the use of urgency to progress the bill.

The previous speakers from both the National and Labour sides of the House have spoken about the background to not only this bill but this type of bill, and about the principle of examining existing legislation and regulation with a view to streamlining them both, so that the interests of civil society and of business are advanced without cost to the public. I guess the Green Party would lend its support to the principle that in situations where we can streamline legislation and regulation without cost to the public we ought to do so, and to the principle that an omnibus bill is an appropriate way to advance the necessary changes to regulation that are identified in that way. We support that principle.

In the first reading debate on this bill there was considerable discussion about the principle that such a bill should be uncontroversial, and I have heard the Minister the Hon Chris Finlayson repeat that principle in the House today—that this bill should be about uncontroversial measures. This is where the Green Party parts company with National and Labour on this bill. That raises an important constitutional point. Our Parliament has moved from the elected dictatorship of first past the post to an MMP environment, so the fact that National and Labour agree on the provisions of the bill does not make the bill uncontroversial. In the first reading debate I outlined the Green Party’s strenuous objections to several of the provisions in the bill. I raised some concerns about the changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and in particular I spoke about the proposed changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act, which seem to me to be entirely objectionable and not to fit the tests for inclusion in the bill—and I will speak some more about those matters. For that reason, the Green Party will continue to oppose this bill.

I want to talk some more about the principle on which this bill is based, because, again, I have heard the Minister the Hon Chris Finlayson repeat in the House today the statutory basis, or the Standing Orders basis, for this kind of bill. He has again cited Standing Order 264(a), which has now become Standing Order 259(a). That states that an omnibus bill to amend more than one Act can be introduced if “the amendments deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy”. The Government, in the explanatory note of the bill, claims that that single broad policy is to improve the regulatory framework and reduce the compliance burden on business. Then it goes on to further elaborate on that broad objective.

For example, it states that the initiatives in the bill address “regulatory duplication, gaps, administrative errors, and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation that collectively create unnecessary compliance costs and uncertainty for business.” The Government states: “In keeping with the scope of the Review they”—the measures—“target poor implementation and administration of various regulatory frameworks.” The explanatory note of the bill then goes on to talk about how “these many small gains can make a larger overall impact in removing barriers to economic growth.”—I will not debate the desirability of economic growth, although that is a live debate in this House—and again uses rhetoric about transformation.

The Government claims that this bill contains a broad suite of measures to address all those goals, that they are uncontroversial, and that for that reason they meet the test set out in Standing Order 259(a). The Green Party is strongly opposed to the changes in the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act, and that means the bill is not uncontroversial. I note the Government’s intent to split the bill in the Committee of the whole House into separate bills, but at this stage, during the second reading debate, the bill stills fits under the umbrella of Standing Order 259(a). I will submit to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, at the conclusion of this speech, that in fact the bill does not fit the test required by that Standing Order and should not proceed.

The concerns that I talk about in this debate are ones that I raised during the first reading, and it is disappointing to me that the Commerce Committee did not consider the issues that I raised at that point, because the problem that I am raising today could have been dealt with at that time by the select committee. In my first reading speech I offered the Green Party’s cooperation to all sides of House to deal with those problems, and it is a disappointment to me that the offer was not taken up.

I will talk in particular about the changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act, because they do two things: firstly, they raise the maximum period of a concession from the current maximum of 5 years to a maximum of 10 years, and, secondly, they also provide for there to be discretion not to publicly notify such concessions. I say neither of those measures in fact meets any of the objectives set out in the explanatory note of the bill or required by Standing Order 259(a). Most of the provisions in the bill do meet the test of being regarded as implementing a single broad policy—in this case, the broad policy of improving the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business—but neither the changes to the Conservation Act nor the changes to the Reserves Act meets the test. Neither of those is about that, at all. In fact, those changes are about other measures that the Government has chosen to put into this omnibus bill. Therefore they fail to meet the test, and the bill should be ruled out of order on that basis.

The increase in concessions—for example, moving the maximum period for a concession from 5 years to 10 years—does not improve the regulatory framework at all. Sure, it probably reduces the compliance costs for the particular business that has that concession, but it actually increases costs and creates barriers to good business practice for every other business. Also, it creates problems for the New Zealand public, because the New Zealand public have an interest in the conservation estate, and that interest is not well served by that increase in the concession period. I will talk about that during the Committee stage. I will wind up my speech at this point, but I will immediately take a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Regulatory Improvement Bill does not meet the test set out in Standing Order 259(a), which requires that the amendments in such an omnibus bill “deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy”. The specific changes that are proposed to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act do not fit within the broad policy objectives set out in the explanatory note of the bill of “improving the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business.” That is not what the changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act are proposed to be about. Therefore, the bill—because all of the changes in the bill are currently still under the umbrella of that Standing Order—does not meet the test and should be ruled out.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) Link to this

There is a very clear chronology in terms of how these matters are actually dealt with. The question of an omnibus bill meeting the requirements of the Standing Orders is addressed at the introduction of the bill. The House has now accepted that the provisions in this omnibus bill meet those requirements. In that respect, the member’s point of order is not upheld.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this

It is my pleasure to take a call this morning on the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I will address some issues that the previous speaker, Kevin Hague, talked about. The first is about urgency. This Government is about action, and urgency is part of that action. It has been said before that this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper for a significant period of time, so if we are serious about getting legislation through, sometimes we need to go into urgency to do it. A bill like this does not have a high priority on the Order Paper, and it can sit there for a very long period of time. For those businesses that rely on changes in regulations to update their regulations and keep them relevant to the environment they are in currently, because we are in a business environment that changes very, very quickly, it is important that we keep legislation current with the environment those businesses are in. This legislation is part of that plan, and this Government is committed to making change and to making a difference.

The Hon Lianne Dalziel got up earlier and talked about how she had gone up and down the country talking to hundreds of businesses around New Zealand. They all said the same thing: as much as regulation is important—and it is important for investors to have confidence in the environment, and for them to have confidence in their investing they do need regulation—they do not need a lot of regulation all the time. We do not need to put layers and layers of regulation upon businesses. Governments are very good at regulating, but they are not very good at looking at regulations already in place, to ensure that the regulations are still current and that they are still getting benefits from those regulations. So that is why this bill is very important.

This bill is an omnibus bill; a vehicle to improve frameworks and reduce compliance burdens on businesses in a timely fashion. I know that the previous Green speaker questioned whether this bill should be standing as it is, but I believe that it should. I believe there is a common thread that runs through this bill in all areas. I know that it will be broken up into different bills later on after a later stage, but at this stage it is a good vehicle for getting small changes through. Otherwise, the Order Paper would be clogged up, and we would never get these small, not-quite-so-important bills through because bigger bills will always take preference.

The current bill addresses certain low-hanging fruit reforms. The visions in the bill came out of the Quality Regulation Review undertaken by the previous Government in 2006 and 2007. I thank the Hon Lianne Dalziel for the hard work she put into this omnibus regulations bill, in making sure that the whole House bought into this bill she put forward and worked with. The Quality Regulation Review worked with many, many stakeholders, over a period of about 18 months, I believe, to put something together that would work. Hopefully, we will have a bill like this going through the House every year, to change some of those regulations that are not as relevant as they were when they first came in.

I am taking just a very short call. I will be speaking at the Committee stage and on the third reading this morning, as well. I look forward to speaking at those stages.

STUART NASH (Labour) Link to this

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. Why? Because it is very much a common-sense bill. I will tell the House why I like the bill, and then I will tell the House how it came about.

The reason this bill is so good is that it provides a framework for the process of continuous legislative improvement. It makes it easier to get things done, to do business, to make regulatory change, and to make legislative change in areas that affect the everyday lives of hard-working New Zealanders. The bill is an example of one of the many pieces of legislative innovation that Labour championed and brought to the House. As we all know, this bill was introduced to the House by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. It is amazing that we are considering it under urgency, about 2 years after it was first brought to the House, but that is OK; at least it is coming into the House. Let us give credit where credit is due. I certainly know there will be many businesses out there that understand what this legislation represents.

As the former Minister of Commerce and instigator of the process, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, said in one of her speeches in the House on this legislation: “It is really important that we have regular opportunity, as a Parliament, to tidy up those issues that are not perhaps insignificant enough to make it into a Statutes Amendment Bill, but not significant enough to warrant a bill in their own right. Although it is fair to say that the amendments contained in the Regulatory Improvement Bill are not particularly dramatic, the bill itself is another deliverable of the Quality Regulation Review.” That statement was from Lianne Dalziel, and she did a fantastic job in bringing this legislation to the House and also chairing the Commerce Committee. I give my congratulations to her. The reason why I like this bill is that it makes progress. It is positive, and represents the outcome of a plan that resulted from consultation. It is good legislation.

Let me tell the House how this bill came about. It is a very good example of how to do things properly and make a difference in a way that is truly measurable, informed, and representative of the wishes of the core constituency, our employers—the people of New Zealand. Let us start at the beginning. As I have already mentioned, hats off to the Hon Lianne Dalziel because the Quality Regulation Review, undertaken by former Minister Dalziel, addressed regulatory barriers to business growth. We all know that the Labour Party is the party of business. This legislation is just another example of how Labour members go out there, talk to businesses, and implement the legislation that businesses want. We are for the many, not the few; for the many businesses, not the few—we all know that.

The Quality Regulation Review was a broad review that looked at anomalies, inconsistencies, and duplications across the Government’s regulatory framework. As well as correcting errors, the review aimed to develop ways of ensuring new rules were efficient from a business perspective. The review established that when businesses deal with the Government, they do not see discreet agencies like the Inland Revenue Department, the Accident Compensation Corporation, and the Occupational Safety and Health Service of the Department of Labour. Rather they see a single entity: the Government. Accordingly, businesses were frustrated by having to provide the same information over and over again to different agencies. The Quality Regulation Review confirmed that New Zealand’s regulatory environment is generally in good shape. Of course it would be in good shape; there were about 8 years of a Labour Government, before this bill came into place, to get the stuff sorted out that had been put into such disrepair by the Bolger Government. After 8 years the regulatory environment was in pretty good shape. New Zealand consistently ranked highly in the World Bank’s Doing Business database. In fact, the 2010 global survey found that New Zealand is the second-easiest country in which to do business, and I think we can thank the previous Labour Government for that. Adding to the positive reputation as a business partner that New Zealand enjoys, we consistently rank highly under Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. We were first in 2009 and first equal many times before then.

Business was closely involved in the review process. Business networks, for example the chambers of commerce, Business New Zealand, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, and industry associations have acted as a conduit for business input into the review. In fact, 130 individual businesses in the four sectors were interviewed about what they see as priorities and issues. The former Minister Lianne Dalziel heard from focus groups. Imagine setting up a focus group and actually talking to people! That is a novel approach for members on the Government side of the House, but Labour did it the whole time during its 9 years in Government.

The Minister set up these focus groups nationwide and we received submissions from individual businesses through the Business Consultation Website. It was a very involved and a very consultative process. It was not done under urgency; it was done in good time, under proper procedure. Labour and Lianne Dalziel looked at the regulatory framework, and at how new regulations were made from a business perspective. As well as introducing this bill, the previous Government strengthened the regulatory impact analysis regime to ensure that future regulation properly identified the problem and looked at all options for resolving it. Once again, Lianne Dalziel and the Labour Government went out and talked to people. They talked to the people who were affected by this sort of legislation. This is why this is such good legislation.

Here is an example of a hard-working Minister who went out and listened to the people. She heard from people and then acted upon their recommendations. As we know, this bill has gone through all the proper processes. The fact that the bill is going through under urgency is probably unfair because it was a long and involved process; in fact, it should have been passed a year ago. But anyway, here we are. That is what Labour does, and Lianne Dalziel epitomises this work ethic.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) Link to this

My understanding is that this is the second reading debate on the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I was not intending to take a call on this bill, but I have been listening to Mr Stuart Nash this morning and I have heard very little about the bill and the things that are in it. In fact, Mr Nash used his opportunity to promote Lianne Dalziel. I was not counting, but I understand that Mr Sam Lotu-Iiga was, and I think her name was mentioned nine times.

I need to respond to some of the comments that Mr Nash made about Lianne Dalziel. I agree that Lianne Dalziel is a good listener, and she is a very good chair of the Commerce Committee. I had the pleasure of attending a function in Hawke’s Bay with her just on 2 weeks ago, when she launched her member’s bill. In fact, Mr Nash knows that well, because he was there on the day, initially, as well.

We also heard from Mr Nash that the Labour Party is the true party of business, and he talked about a consultation process. He said that Lianne Dalziel had travelled around the country from North Cape to the Bluff, consulting and listening. But then, sadly, Mr Nash could not pass up the opportunity to try to screw the knife in. He said that he could not see Rodney Hide and Simon Power travelling around and consulting the country. As an ACT member, I cannot allow those comments to go unchallenged.

JOHN BOSCAWEN Link to this

I thank Mr Hone Harawira for that. Those comments cannot go unchallenged, because Mr Rodney Hide, the other three ACT MPs, and I are the only MPs who are listening to the people of New Zealand on the emissions trading scheme. We are the only people listening.

I find it interesting that Mr Nash talks about the Labour Party being the party of business. If Labour had had its way and won the last election, we would have already had a 10 percent increase in the price of electricity. From 1 January this year, we would have had a 10 percent increase in the price of electricity. We would have had massive windfall profits going to those power generators that produce electricity from hydro sources—renewable sources—and then do not have to pay the emissions trading scheme tax because they are not burning up coal or gas.

Mr Hide is a listener. He fought virtually single-handedly against the emissions trading scheme in the last Parliament. He absolutely, totally opposed it. I attended a breakfast this morning with European parliamentarians, where the comment was made that there is a general consensus between Labour and National on the emissions trading scheme, and that it would have been a very tough job for Mr Hide to represent the views of the people and to stand up and speak out against it.

Mr Hide listens; I cannot speak for Mr Power. I hope that Mr Power—

STUART NASH (Labour) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member who has just resumed his seat criticised me for not mentioning much of what is in this bill, but I do not even think I heard the name of the bill in that speech.

MELISSA LEE (National) Link to this

It is a pleasure to speak in the second reading of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I want to make a couple of points. I agree with what the previous speaker, John Boscawen, said in terms of Mr Nash’s speech. It was almost as if it were Groundhog Day. The speech was repeated over and over and I think it was the same one that Lianne Dalziel delivered only a couple of minutes ago, or was it an hour ago? It has been a long sitting session. It is like déjà vu.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) Link to this

I rise with great pleasure to support the Regulatory Improvement Bill. As a number of my colleagues have said before me, it is a common-sense bill that will make it easier to do business. Labour is supporting this bill. As has been mentioned, it is an omnibus bill that makes amendments to nine pieces of legislation in order to improve the regulatory framework and reduce the compliance cost on businesses. It is an important bill.

It is important that I correct the previous speaker, Melissa Lee, who said that the bill would not have come before the House if this Government had not brought it. The bill was actually submitted to the House before the last election. It is very unclear—given the importance of the bill, the sensible nature of it, and all the previous work that has gone into it—why it is being rushed through the House under urgency. I think it is important that we note there is no reason for it to be considered under urgency.

An enormous amount of work has gone into this legislation, and that is largely due to the important work done by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel. She has had a number of mentions in the House today. I think that she deserves a lot of credit for this bill.

Labour supports this bill, not because it has been rushed through the House under urgency by the Government but because it is the result of the very careful 15-month Quality Regulation Review. There has been a lot of consultation with Government agencies and 200 businesses. The previous Labour Government knew a lot about consultation and how to do it properly. This Government does not appear to know a lot about consultation. It seems to think that rushing bills through the House under urgency reflects consultation with New Zealand people. This bill is more important than its content. The previous Labour Government listened very carefully to businesses and set about implementing their recommendations, whereas the style of the Minister in charge of this bill, the Minister for Regulatory Reform, Rodney Hide, is to ignore recommendations and come up with his own plan. That does not bode well for New Zealand businesses, because they will get what Mr Rodney Hide says they need.

The important point to make about this bill is that the Hon Lianne Dalziel, when she was Minister of Commerce—how many times have I mentioned her?

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) Link to this

It is my pleasure to stand and speak on the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I must admit that the Commerce Committee is a very enjoyable select committee to work on, no doubt due to the fantastic contribution of the deputy chair, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. It is second only to the enjoyment of working on the Law and Order Committee, as you, Mr Assistant Speaker, would agree. That committee is fantastically led, as well.

There is a very famous statement by the Rt Hon Winston Churchill, who said: “If you have 10,000 regulations, you destroy all respect for the law.” The provisions of this bill remove the unnecessary encumberments and redundant issues of regulation that have a negative effect, with no just purpose any longer. It is a good process to go through. It is a process we are committed to because it assists businesses in many different ways to not be encumbered by unnecessary regulations. It takes time and expense to fulfil requirements that do not have the purpose of making business any better; nor do they necessarily make government any better. There comes a time when we need to identify regulations through review and determine whether they have any current or future purpose in order to remain there.

I am advised that the Quality Regulation Review took 15 months to complete. It involved a wide range of Government agencies, as well as more than 130 businesses consulted, which I think the member opposite referred to, from North Cape to Bluff. Apparently there was a bit of a road trip by the previous Minister in order to do that. I am sure that that would have been an enjoyable trip. I am not quite sure who in Bluff she would have consulted with—perhaps those who farm and harvest oysters. I am not quite sure what businesses operate up in Cape Reinga. I have been there myself. I have enjoyed visiting the far reaches of our country, where I am sure there would be at least two businesses and 128 businesses in between, that that member would have consulted. I think consultation is very important. Engagement with business is the only way to understand the real impacts of the decisions we make as parliamentarians.

This bill contains 22 amendments to legislation. The broad objectives include improving the regulatory framework and reducing compliance burden on business. In times like these, we need to be enabling businesses to lift their heads up rather than having them all the way down doing the paperwork. They need to see what opportunities are coming before them. We know that regulation is important. Regulation gives confidence to people, it enables businesses to effectively work within confines and constraints that are reasonable, and it gives everybody the opportunity to live under one law. Thank you very much.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour) Link to this

As part of my contribution, I would like to pay tribute, first, to the Hansard Office and, second, to the wonderful, hard-working, good lawyer turned good member of Parliament, the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Because of the Hansard Office, we have the speech notes readily available for us to reflect on, and to bear witness to, how history repeats itself.

The honourable member who spoke before me, Jonathan Young, quoted Winston Churchill. Interestingly, in the Regulatory Improvement Bill’s first reading in May 2009, if my memory serves me well, the Hon Tariana Turia also quoted Winston Churchill. I would like to quote her: “Winston Churchill and Rodney Hide have something in common, apart from looks, though Rodney is definitely in better shape. It was Churchill who famously said that if there are 10,000 regulations, all respect for the law is destroyed.”

Almost 80 years later Mr Hide has introduced a bill to do something to address, once and for all, the duplications, gaffes, errors, and inconsistencies that make a mockery of our law. I was very lucky in May 2009 to have the opportunity to rise and take a call on the bill’s first reading. I responded to the Hon Tariana Turia that Winston Churchill would have been very pleased to hear what I was about to say in the next 10 minutes or so. Then I said that Mr Churchill was a great statesman and a great historian. Given his great historic status, let us look briefly at the historical side of the Regulatory Improvement Bill.

I join my colleagues in congratulating the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who introduced this bill in September 2008. The Hon Lianne Dalziel made history in September 2008. She introduced a brand-new bill that aimed to improve some existing laws and reduce compliance costs for businesses. More important, I would like to remind members that the bill was introduced as a result of the careful 15-month Quality Regulation Review, and reflected consultation between Government agencies and 200 businesses. Therefore, I rise to support this bill, both for its content and for the way in which it was introduced. In that regard, to some extent the bill itself may be more important than its content.

The Hon Lianne Dalziel and the Labour-led Government listened to business people and set about implementing their recommendations. As I pointed out nearly 12 months ago, at the bill’s first reading, consultation is particularly relevant. We have witnessed—this week and many times in the past month in this honourable House—recommendations being systematically ignored and legislation being rammed through. To borrow the Hon Tariana Turia’s words, what makes a mockery of our law and the way we as lawmakers make our law is that such important legislation can be rammed through in such a manner.

I want to reiterate what my colleagues Stuart Nash and Clare Curran said previously. Labour supports this bill—it is Labour’s bill, anyway—because it is the result of the careful 15-month Quality Regulation Review and reflects consultation between Government agencies and 200 businesses. As Stuart Nash has just said, the Labour Party is a true party for business people and of business. The bill is more important than its content.

For the benefit of Mr John Boscawen I reiterate that Labour listened to business people and set about implementing their recommendations, whereas the style of his ACT Party is to ignore recommendations and come up with its own plan. This is a typical example of the National-ACT approach to lawmaking—that is, there is no consultation.

I return to the bill. The bill makes small and controversial, but important, changes to the regulatory environment. The Quality Regulation Review also led to a greatly enhanced regulatory impact statement regime. This is yet another bill that was introduced by Labour, and the Hon Rodney Hide is taking credit for it. Regulatory improvement bills are a sensible way of ensuring quality regulation, unlike the ACT Party’s Regulatory Responsibility Bill, which languishes on the Order Paper.

Thank you for the opportunity to take a call. I look forward to the debate in the Committee stage. Thank you very much.