Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) Link to this
I move, That the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2), the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Amendment Bill, the Financial Reporting Amendment Bill, the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill, and the Insurance Companies' Deposits Amendment Bill be now read a third time. These bills started their life in this House as the Business Law Reform Bill. They are part of a programme of reform designed to give effect to the Government’s overall objectives to clarify and update the intended purpose of various statutory provisions to remove unnecessary compliance costs—something we all welcome in this House—and to ensure consistency between different legislative requirements.
The Government wants the law affecting the operation of business to be clear, efficient, and effective. This legislation represents a stage in the incremental improvement of existing business laws to achieve these goals. The Business Law Reform Bill process allows an exception to the general prohibition on omnibus bills, and these are allowed to proceed through the agreement of the Business Committee. The Government is therefore grateful to all parties for their support of this process, otherwise I would have had to introduce five separate bills, taking up considerable time and effort of the House, the select committee, and the officials.
After some of the comments I heard, though, during the select committee process, I should make the point that I did not say that this bill was a matter of technical amendments. I checked my first reading speech and, in fact, I identified that I was really pleased that I had the opportunity to deal with significant policy issues as well as technical amendments in a single bill. I think it is a process that we are all very supportive of. Nothing in this process prevents matters of controversy from being dealt with by way of a Business Law Reform Bill. It is up to the parties whether such a bill can be introduced and proceed.
Did some controversy arise during the hearing of the submissions? Yes. Is that fatal to the passage of those provisions? No. If this were a Statutes Amendment Bill then it would be fatal to the provision proceeding, although the reality is that it would not have got into a Statutes Amendment Bill in the first place. I would not need to use a Business Law Reform Bill if all provisions qualified for inclusion in a Statutes Law Reform Bill.
An example raised at the select committee was the submission of the captive insurers, who indicated that the bill would have wider application than was intended. However, the legislation was only ever intended to cover companies that did not offer insurance in New Zealand. If they offered insurance in New Zealand they were not to be caught by the provisions of the legislation. They were not to use the word “insurance” in the company name, or to hold out that it was a New Zealand insurer when it was not. This, of course, was designed to protect New Zealand’s reputation internationally. We have some companies that have registered themselves with a company name that includes “insurance”, but they do not sell insurance in New Zealand. They are not participants in the insurance industry in any way, shape, or form. The reason the word “insurance” has been put into the company name is so that they can hold themselves out internationally to be covered by our regulatory enforcement system, and they are not, because they do not sell insurance. So the whole purpose of referring bills to a select committee is to tidy up any wording that does not achieve the objective. I think people agreed that in this particular case the intention of the Government was one that they upheld.
The chair of the committee, though, in the Committee stage seemed to think that if a submitter disagreed with the wording, or the submission was in opposition to the changes proposed, then this is not suitable for a Business Law Reform Bill. That is not the case, and I hope that she revisits her attitude before we introduce another one, as I doubt that the National Party would want to oppose business law reform per se.
The issue that created concern at the select committee was the opposition of the Accounting Standards Review Board to the exemption-making powers within the bill. Did I know that the Accounting Standards Review Board was opposed to the exemption-making power, before I introduced the bill? No, I did not. I was briefed before the board made its submission to the select committee so I was aware of its opposition to it, at that point. But, as I said during the Committee stage, I met with the chair of the review board after he had made the submission and we discussed the concerns that he had, in some detail. I took advice, and, essentially, I addressed a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage to deal with some, but not all, of the concerns that had been raised.
There were two significant changes by way of Supplementary Order Paper. First, the power to make exemptions will be limited to classes of persons; exemptions will not be able to be made for individual reporting entities. This will deal with concerns that the focus may have been too much on the interests of the entity, not the wider public interest. Secondly, the main criterion for making decisions will be changed from “exceptional circumstances”, to a decision as to whether compliance would result in financial statements that are misleading in a material way. The criterion is more specifically focused on the problem at issue, and I believe sets a much higher threshold. This change will not affect the fact that the exemption power is to be used only in exceptionally rare circumstances when an international financial reporting standard is not fully relevant to New Zealand’s circumstances.
There were other comments made by the chair of the select committee during the Committee stage that reflect, I believe, an inadequate understanding of the business law reform process. We were castigated for the reporting requirements of foreign companies, when the member’s own party could have addressed that issue in any one of the 9 years it was in Government in the 1990s—or, indeed, in the years in the early 1980s, because the reporting requirements that she referred to, and which this Government has addressed, have been around for a very long time.
The changes to the Financial Reporting Act 1993 are aimed at generally improving the workability of the financial reporting system, and, in particular, remove excessive compliance requirements on some small companies and many overseas companies. They will also improve enforcement, by introducing an infringement notice system for company directors who fail to file their company’s financial statements with the Registrar of Companies by the due date.
Proposed changes to the Companies Act 1993 further improve enforcement by extending the management and director-banning provisions to persons who have been banned in certain overseas jurisdictions. This delivers on another aspect of the single economic market agenda with Australia. The legislation further seeks to improve the efficiency of the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982 and gives credit unions more room to grow their business, without introducing unmanageable risks to their members. In addition, the field of membership of a credit union will be broadened by extending membership to charities and incorporated societies affiliated with the common membership criteria of the union. The bill also gives credit unions, and their associations, more flexibility on administrative matters such as the ability to determine the minimum deposit-holding of each member and removing compliance costs when seeking to broaden their service base.
Changes to the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act 1988 will allow the Minister of Commerce to specify the date from which new and reassessed rates of anti-dumping and countervailing anti-subsidy duty will apply. The bill will also exclude the Christmas break from the statutory time frame for the completion of dumping and subsidy investigations.
All in all, these bills improve the regulatory environment for business and reduce compliance costs, especially for small to medium sized enterprises in terms of financial reporting, and I welcome that, both with my hat as Minister of Commerce and as Minister for Small Business. I am very grateful to officials, who provided good support to the select committee, and, indeed, to all members of the select committee for the work they did. I commend the bills to the House.
PANSY WONG (National) Link to this
This is legislation that proposes incremental and minor improvements to the reduction of business compliance costs. It streamlines the various provisions in the business law area, and National—and the public as well, I believe—has come to appreciate small concessions from the Labour Government, when we can get them, because they are better than nothing.
All the Minister’s talk, and all the Government’s talk, about economic transformation is unfortunately not backed up by this legislation, or by the numerous pieces of commercial legislation that have come before the House—legislation that seems to consist of incremental changes. Some changes, in the area of employment law, are significant improvements to the business operating environment, and were requested particularly by small and medium-sized businesses, which the Minister continues to champion, and which make up 92 percent of New Zealand’s business. The majority of those businesses requested a 90-day litigation period for employers, to enable them to give an opportunity for work to new staff and new graduates, to people who had had no previous work experience, and to new migrants. But the Government turned the request down.
Businesses also asked for clarification to change the confusing holiday provision, not to mention the provisions of the Resource Management Act. But none of those significant improvements, as requested by businesses, is evident in the bills being passed in that direction. The outcry of those businesses in terms of increased compliance costs—taxes, fees, etc—seems, so far, to have fallen on deaf ears. But that is reality and, unfortunately, businesses have to come to terms with having low expectations, and have to accept what little incremental improvement we can extract from the Government.
A further example of this Government’s anti-business attitude was shown by the passage of the insolvency law reform legislation. It is opportune today that I relate all this business law to that legislation, as well. The centrepiece of the insolvency legislation was the introduction by the Government of the so-called voluntary administration scheme, where creditors can come together and agree to freeze outstanding debts, to allow an entity to work out of a financially difficult situation.
A hundred percent of submitters came before the Commerce Committee to say that unless the special privilege enjoyed by the Inland Revenue Department was addressed—with regard to the position that it could have a preferential claim on outstanding deductions such as GST and PAYE—then the scheme would not work. But when it came to the crunch the Labour Government chose to protect the Inland Revenue Department instead of standing alongside business—particularly small and medium-sized businesses, which the Minister claimed to champion. The Government was very defensive of its position of making sure that tax revenue would not be affected by the loss of that privileged position of the Inland Revenue Department, yet we learn from the department that even with that protected position, it claims back only $5 million a year. So it is disappointing that once again we are consigned to supporting legislation that consists of very low ambition or expectation for the business community, in terms of reducing compliance costs or creating an environment of economic transformation.
All those exaggerated claims by the Minister of Commerce, Lianne Dalziel, about conducting a vertical, horizontal, and dynamic review of regulatory frameworks are nothing but—once again—hot air, when the House is passing yet more legislation that makes only minute, incremental changes. Maybe the Minister was indeed embarrassed by this legislation, which consists of only timid, incremental changes, and that is why, at the last minute, she decided to inject some excitement into the process by cutting through the public consultation phase of the select committee deliberation. She wanted to bring in a Supplementary Order Paper that would have introduced major changes to the Takeovers Code, in order to tackle the issue of why some entities choose to use the scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act, rather than the amalgamation provision under the Takeovers Panel jurisdiction, when a merger situation occurs.
Well, this Minister should not be complaining too loudly, or crying wolf, about the fact that National refused to be at her beck and call to undermine the select committee process. Labour believes it is above the law; National is here to uphold the law and to defend the public’s right to make submissions to the select committee. We learnt that earlier this year the Takeovers Panel carried out a public consultation over a short 10 days, and it did not receive an overwhelming endorsement from the commerce sector with regard to the proposed changes. Indeed, this Minister was on the record in Hansard as saying that a 10-day consultation was hardly a proper process. She turned down a request for us to cooperate in that instance, and she duly delivered a lecture on the importance of following the proper parliamentary process whereby submitters have the right to present their arguments and engage in robust debate through the select committee process. National endorses that point, and that is why it turned down the Minister’s last-minute introduction of the Supplementary Order Paper, which would not have given the public an opportunity to present their arguments.
By the way, the National Party’s pride and joy, the hard-working, up-with-the-play senior whip, has very correctly pointed out that that particular Supplementary Order Paper was totally out of the scope of this legislation. Therefore, to introduce something that was outside the scope of the legislation at that late stage was not acceptable.
But I point out how cooperative National is when it comes to improving the environment for economic activities. The chair of the Commerce Committee, Katherine Rich, actually offered to accept that Supplementary Order Paper provided we were allowed to have a limited consultation, because after all only a confined sector is involved in the takeover type of activity so it would not have been a very difficult process. We agreed to accept the Supplementary Order Paper, subject to our being able to invite those relevant submitters to come to the select committee for us to hear them, because it was a very technical issue. Well, the Minister would not have a bar of that. She simply wanted to ram the Supplementary Order Paper through the Committee stage, then pass it into law.
National wants to make it very clear that it is a responsible Opposition party. We will support positive and sensible changes, even though they are not ambitious and will not lead to economic transformation, but we will never be bullied into undermining the parliamentary process just because the Minister and the Government are announcing themselves as being above the law and proper process. National supports this legislation, and we will support further legislation that consists of logical—even incremental—positive changes.
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) Link to this
It is regrettable, in a third reading debate, to hear National members taking pot-shots at process when this legislation, which has been broken down into five separate bills, brings efficiency and effectiveness to the law regarding the operation of business. The fact that this legislation has been broken down into five bills brings a dynamic sense to reporting requirements and to security requirements.
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER Link to this
I say to Ms Wong that I will deal specifically with the part that appears to have missed her scrutiny, even though the rest of the Commerce Committee clearly had the chance to peruse it. I will take the member, if I can, to what is now known as the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2). In particular, I ask Ms Wong to turn to clause 8. I will lead her to a provision that achieves precisely what the select committee recognised, in the opening paragraph of its introduction in the commentary on the bill, and what the Minister spoke about, in essence, in her third reading speech. I ask the member to flick over—and I hope she is doing so now—to clause 8. Is the member with me yet?
Clause 8 inserts new section 209A. Ms Wong is a member of the Commerce Committee, so I am surprised that she does not recall that the select committee, unanimously, had the wisdom to give some weight to clarity, efficiency, and effectiveness by looking at the requirement on shareholders to receive an annual report. Shareholders must receive the report within 15 working days, if they communicate that wish to the company after receipt of notice of the AGM. Shareholders can receive the report in either hard copy or, after the exciting introduction of this bill of course, in electronic form. Many people now are quite rightly looking to electronic retrieval systems and storage, so receiving annual reports in electronic form is really the way the business community is moving.
But the sensible addition of the select committee—and I remind Ms Wong that this was a unanimous addition, too—is that once shareholders have requested for a particular year an electronic copy of the annual report, or also of the concise report if they wish to have that, then the company must regard that as being an enduring request, to be complied with each year. So it is not a situation where each year shareholders have to remember to contact their company at head office and ask for a full copy of the report to be sent—either electronically or the hard-copy version, whichever has been indicated. Instead, the communication given once is communication that remains as long as those people are shareholders, or until they take the next step of telling the company that they do not want to receive such a copy.
Of course, the advantage of that system is that it enables shareholders, if they want, to be entirely passive and not bother themselves with reports, thus saving a company the expense of producing unnecessary reports or of altering its database so that reports will be sent automatically. Once shareholders expresses the interest the self-selecting process is then signalled and they remain on the database as shareholders to receive the annual report or the concise annual report—or both, if that is the request. Shareholders remain in that situation until they elect to remove themselves from the database in such a form. Although this amendment to the Companies Act is small—and I have chosen the brief time available today to concentrate on just this small amendment—it signals the whole tenor of the business law reform legislation.
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER Link to this
I turn now to the Financial Reporting Amendment Bill, which illustrates, really, the Government’s commitment to improving the efficiency of business and compliance costs. As Minister Dalziel said in her third reading speech, the changes to the Financial Reporting Act are generally aimed at improving the workability of the financial reporting system and reducing business compliance costs. I address this from the point of view of constitutional law issues, because if we want to make a really determined effort to improve business efficiency and to make the Government responsive to the market, then the Financial Reporting Amendment Bill is a very good illustration of how that can be achieved.
The point I refer to also demonstrates the efficacy of the committee structure in this House, and the importance of the Regulations Review Committee. That committee pointed out to the Commerce Committee that the proposals in clause 28 of the Financial Reporting Amendment Bill were in fact in breach of constitutional policy. New section 6A(2), inserted by clause 28, gives the Governor-General, by Order in Council, the power to make regulations that amend the maximum amount of assets, maximum turnover, and maximum number of fulltime-equivalent employees. It is relevant to raise this only because new section 6A(1), inserted by clause 28, sets the limits for the maximum amount of assets, maximum turnover, and maximum number of fulltime-equivalent employees. Regulations made by way of Order in Council will have the effect of changing what is contained in the Financial Reporting Act when this legislation is passed, so will in fact change primary legislation.
It is important that this House recognise that primary legislation should be changed only by primary legislation, and not by the delegated legislation of which regulations are part. However, the Regulations Review Committee will of course review every regulation made—that is the reason for its existence. Having been a member of that committee, I can speak to its diligence in that respect.
The Commerce Committee, quite sensibly and quite properly, whilst noting the apparent breach, also drew the conclusion not to propose any amendment to rectify that breach, because it noted, quite correctly, that the possible risks were minimal. I think it is quite proper that the Commerce Committee highlighted that point. It also adopted a sensible approach in terms of aiding business efficacy in this country by noting the minimal nature of the breach. But it is important to bear in mind the important principle that primary legislation should not be amended by way of delegated decision-making powers or decisions, as will be part of this new Act. However, businesses must work and be responsive to changing markets, and it is very sensible that limits are set but can be changed from time to time, subject to review by the very efficient Regulations Review Committee.
I make that point because it is an important statement of principle, and one we should bear in mind at all times. Having raised it, I say that it also indicates the importance of the way in which the committees of this House work together to express their various areas of responsibility and concern. The report from the Commerce Committee quite properly summarises the Regulations Review Committee’s concern, and its response to it. It is a good report, and it recognises the importance of the amendments to the Financial Reporting Act. That is in line with the whole ethos of this business law reform legislation, which is to make our business community, our commercial community, more responsive to the market and to the many changes ahead of us as we move into a very business-friendly and value-added economy as part of our policy of economic transformation.
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) Link to this
I wish to take a short call on this legislation, which was previously known as the Business Law Reform Bill. National supports this legislation, and has supported it right through. The legislation makes some incremental changes to the way that businesses will operate in the future, and we support that, but a number of the issues that we believe are important in terms of compliance have not been addressed in this legislation, at all. Although the Business Law Reform Bill has been broken down into five other bills, each of which has some merits, in terms of the big challenges facing businesses—particularly small businesses—in New Zealand this legislation does absolutely nothing. That is why I said that although there are some incremental changes that we support, unfortunately the legislation does not go far enough for us.
Let us look at what has been happening around the world and at some of the reports that have been done. I have some here. Here is a very important and interesting report that was done back in July. Look at the size of it! It is called Finding the Balance: Maximising Compliance at Minimum Cost. It is a very full and comprehensive document. This Government has not taken notice of the very important recommendations that appear in this report by the Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance Costs. Here is another document, called . The previous speaker, Russell Fairbrother, talked about the Regulations Review Committee, and although it has a very important function, it is unfortunate that in terms of compliance the committee really only gets into something once legislation has been passed and people make complaints. I sat on the Regulations Review Committee. I guess it is a committee that is—
H V Ross RobertsonWell, it can be high-powered. It is a very important committee, as the member said. It can be tedious. However, it has an important function in overlooking the whole range of legislation and regulation that come forward. I do not know whether members opposite have seen Constraining Government Regulation. It is a very, very important document.
I spent some time overseas to see what other countries are doing. Here is a document from the Commission of the European Communities. It is interesting to note the challenges faced by European countries. Germany has an economic programme called Agenda 2010. It has taken information out of this very comprehensive document, which has given it some leads and, certainly, some competitive advantages in the marketplace that it has not had before.
I went to Singapore. It has a programme called SPRING. This document has identified the sorts of challenges that small businesses, in particular, face. It is called SME 21: Positioning SMEs for the 21st Century. If we look at the Singaporean economy, we see that the constraints there, especially in respect of environmental law and environmental issues, are very strong. But Singapore has been able to take the red tape out of compliance. It has been able to identify those things that businesses are interested in and assign someone to help each business as a policy adviser. The scrutiny with which a proposal is analysed is very, very clear. Businesses deal with one person at a time, and at the end they know whether their project will go ahead.
Here is an Australian document, dated 16 August, that talks about Australia slashing red tape. If we look at the Report of the, we see a very comprehensive document.
Unfortunately, the Government here seems to brush over these important issues that face businesses. It plays only at the edges. As I said, there are some incremental changes, but they are not significant enough to give that competitive advantage to small businesses in this country. We need bold and innovative strategies. They can come about by the Government taking seriously the issue of regulation. Regulation builds walls where there should be bridges.
We find that over the last 6 years the Labour Government has been very quick to introduce legislation and just gloss over the regulatory impacts, the compliance cost regimes, and the impact statements that should appear in legislation. Although, as I mentioned, the Regulations Review Committee actually had some oversight of that—it is usually too late by the time that the committee gets to it to actually be able to do much about it. Regulation is important, and should be about building bridges. The public sector has every interest in maintaining and growing its position, and little incentive to ensure optimal outcome from interventions. Its drive is to maximise, not optimise, the regulatory interventions.
Government has become bigger over the years and the structural bias that we are seeing now creates a regulatory culture that has remained. There is no incentive for public servants to reduce regulations. I said in my first reading speech—[Interruption] My first reading speech, Mr Cosgrove, was an interesting speech in that it did challenge the Government—
Hon Clayton CosgroveIt was a 10-minute speech; it might have been small in stature, but it was full of character. It was full of some very informative information that the member may be interested in. I will not repeat it; it is in Hansard. I am sure that the member might want to get it out and have a look at it for some late-night reading.
We have had the McLeod Tax Review, the ministerial panel on compliance cost, and the Small Business Advisory Group’s reports. So a large number of reports have been done. Unfortunately this Government knows best and tends to overlook the expertise that is necessary in order to structure the environment in which businesses operate in a way that reduces the compliance and red tape that are there.
The primary cause to address, really, is the incentives for the public sector to regulate. This legislation goes absolutely nowhere towards addressing that. We need to create a system in which public servants put their energy into creating optimal outcomes for Government interventions. That, as I said before, is the crucial issue that should be dealt with. Instead, the Government just makes more and more laws. There is no incentive for public servants in New Zealand to propose a removal or rationalisation of regulations or of old regulations. That just does not occur. Australia’s move to a regime of sunset clauses in a number of regulations is something that National has endorsed. I know that my colleague Dr Richard Worth, who chairs the Regulations Review Committee, has some very strong points he makes about monitoring regulations that are in New Zealand.
Although these incremental changes are for the better, the opportunity has been lost to make substantive changes in the areas of taxation, the Resource Management Act, Occupational Safety and Health regulations, and employment law. There is no incentive for the Government to reduce compliance and there is no incentive for public servants to see how they can optimise outcomes. The Government is interested only in creating barriers that shackle investment and business; we see that time and time again. National wants businesses to be able to get on with the job of creating wealth and jobs, instead of being distracted by the excessive red tape that we see at every turn.
MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this
I rise to speak to this series of bills, having had the privilege of sitting on the Commerce Committee that examined the Business Law Reform Bill, as it then was, which is now split into its composite parts. I risk repeating things that I said in the first and second readings and at the Committee stage of the Business Law Reform Bill. These bills—the five that are currently under discussion in their third reading—show again that the Labour-led Government is prepared to invest in the incremental improvement of the business legal environment by ensuring that legislation surrounding the operation of businesses is clear, efficient, and effective. To that end we have listened to the submissions from the business community and from business representatives, who had a number of things to say but were to a person in favour of the kinds of reforms that these bills represent.
The amendments are intended to clarify commercial law statutes by removing conflicts within, and between, existing legislation. They are also intended to remove unnecessary compliance costs. This is an issue that we on this side of the House have addressed previously because it is something that, despite the mythology to the contrary, is of great importance to us. If we can reduce unnecessary compliance requirements and costs, we believe we should do so. There is no benefit to be gained in continuing to heap additional compliance costs upon businesses—especially upon small businesses. This set of bills arising out of the omnibus Business Law Reform Bill is designed to achieve that end.
For example, the Companies Amendment Bill proposes to exempt some overseas companies from some reporting requirements. This does not lessen the stringency of reporting requirements in this country, but it does take away unnecessary requirements from companies that are based overseas but are trading within New Zealand. Similarly, the Financial Reporting Amendment Bill is aimed at improving the workability of the financial reporting system. The Insurance Companies’ Deposits Amendment Bill will prohibit an entity incorporated in New Zealand from using the word “insurance” in its name if it does not offer insurance. That is one of those common-sense kinds of amendments that allow business operations to run smoothly and without impediment or unnecessary bureaucratic interference around the name, and the application of that name, within the New Zealand business context. Also, the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill will give credit unions more room to grow their businesses. I welcome that because credit unions are frequently those organisations that ordinary New Zealanders are most likely to have access to for investment and return. The Dumping and Countervailing Duties Amendment Bill will allow the Minister of Commerce to specify the date from which new and reassessed rates of anti-dumping and countervailing duty will apply.
One of the issues that I take up in particular relates to the report from the Regulations Review Committee. My colleague Russell Fairbrother commented on this before.
Dr Richard WorthThe member opposite is suddenly alert and attentive at the mention of the Regulations Review Committee. This is because he chairs that committee. I am delighted that he has chosen to pay attention at this moment.
What is really important about the scrutiny that the Regulations Review Committee applies to legislation is that it protects the prerogative of the House to provide the ultimate scrutiny of the law. That is a very fundamental and critical democratic purpose of this House, and of the legislation and the process surrounding legislation before it. So the Regulations Review Committee rightly considered what are basically the “Henry VIII” provisions in the Business Law Reform Bill, as it then was. The members of the committee—including myself because I am also on that Regulations Review Committee—considered that it was worth drawing to the attention of the Commerce Committee that the delegated authority in the Business Law Reform Bill was such that the Commerce Committee was required to think about it again. Delegated legislation should not be allowed to creep into regulation without the scrutiny of the House, so the Regulations Review Committee drew these provisions to the attention of the Commerce Committee and said: “What about this? Have a look. This isn’t really how things ought to go.”
It was a very important debate and it was a very important issue that was brought to the attention of the Commerce Committee, as my colleague Russell Fairbrother said previously. But, on balance, the Commerce Committee decided that the delegated authority was acceptable because the issues around it are to do with the size of a company—that is, the number of people employed by the company, the size of the assets of the company, and so on—and the size of a company could easily be determined by regulation without further recourse to the House for amending primary legislation. In other words, the risks of allowing this delegated regulation to go through were far outweighed by the convenience and the benefits of allowing this delegated authority to proceed in the form of regulation. But it is worth drawing to the attention of the House, because the process is important. The checks and balances around legislation that comes before this House are important, and the upholding of them through the very able and competent chairing of the Regulations Review Committee that my colleague opposite Dr Richard Worth embodies is also a significant contributor to the democratic process.
The omnibus bill, now broken up into the five component parts, represents an incremental improvement in the business legislation environment, and business groups and business owners throughout the country will welcome the passage of these five amendment bills.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Kia ora tātou katoa i tēnei pō. In doing some research for the debate on this legislation, I found that there has never been a better time to be reforming business.
Over the last weekend in Ōtaki, in the rain and the wind, 2,000 people flooded to the Ōtaki Racecourse to attend the second Te Arahanga O Ngā Iwi National Māori Business Expo. The crowds were treated to some 97 Māori businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs from throughout Aotearoa, specialising in education, performance art, creative design, fashion, tourism, and other ventures.
Last month New Zealand’s national indigenous broadcaster, Māori Television, recorded its highest ever ratings, with a monthly cumulative audience of more than 580,000 unique viewers tuning in to the channel. This is a sign of its spectacular business success and the growth of the Māori broadcasting industry, and it also indicates the willing readiness of many New Zealanders to look into the Māori world.
In my own electorate we celebrate the success of cultural tourism through Te Puia, which builds on the success of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute, and the Whakarewarewa geothermal park. Next year we celebrate 40 years since the first intake to the carving school Te Wānanga Whakairo entered the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute. Initiatives such as these demonstrate the strength of the contribution Māori are making to the economic, social, and cultural fabric of Aotearoa through Māori business. Indeed, tangata whenua have an asset base of $9.4 billion. Approximately $3.1 billion of that figure is in agriculture, fishing, and forestry, and $2.4 billion is in general business and property assets. The remaining $4 billion is evenly distributed across all business areas, such as mining, manufacturing, wholesale - retail trade, tourism, transport, education, health, and cultural services.
Māori business is smart business for Aotearoa. The Māori Party is therefore delighted to welcome the removal of unnecessary compliance costs and the range of legislative proposals being introduced in this legislation. This package of legislation, formerly considered as part of the Business Law Reform Bill, is another step in the incremental improvements being made to ensure that there is consistency with business law, and between different legislative requirements.
We support the small—but priority—improvements that are being applied to business law statutes so that the operation of business can be clear, efficient, and effective. We also welcome the changes, such as the workability of the provisions in the 1993 Financial Reporting Act. The changes seem to move towards there being easier, smoother, and lower-cost operations. They include allowing the registrar time to notify companies that they will have to file their obligations in the passage of the Act, strengthening the accountability of the Accounting Standards Review Board in exercising the powers of exemption, and enabling companies to take advantage of the reduction in compliance costs a year earlier. These changes will be of significant value for the Māori economy.
For those members who are unfamiliar with the wealth of opportunity established in the Māori economy, I have consulted the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report, Te Ōhanga Whanaketanga Māori,which states: “The Māori economy can be defined as the assets owned and income earned by Māori—including collectively-owned trusts and incorporations, Māori-owned businesses (e.g. tourism, broadcasting, and the self-employed), service providers (especially in health and education), and the housing owned by Māori. The wages and salaries earned by Māori workers are also part of this definition.” It is in this context that newspaper headlines scream that Māori are facing extinction, so it is great to come to this House to celebrate the successes of Māori business.
Yet yesterday the Minister of Māori Affairs was unable to answer why the numbers of Māori living in severe hardship have increased by 243 percent under his ministry. Today the Minister of Education was unable to answer my questions around the fact that Māori students are nearly three times as likely as non-Māori students to leave school with little or no formal attainment. Well, I hope these Ministers will find some answers in the entrepreneurship, the visionary enterprise, and the unprecedented achievements that have been reported in respect of the Māori economy.
Every member of Parliament should appreciate the fact that the Māori economy contributes some $240 billion in taxes and $650 million in exports. All members of Parliament should familiarise themselves with the latest Māori business output figures, which reveal that growth between now and 2014 will be the highest in transport, utilities, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, cultural and recreational services, and health and education services.
In the spirit of celebrating our productivity, I want the House to take note of the significance of an award made today by the Public Service Association (PSA) in recognising honorary life membership to a Te Arawa Kaumātua, Kīwhare Mīhaka. Kīwhare has been a union member of the Council of Trade Unions since 1957—that is nearly 50 years of dedicated commitment to Māori and to the life of New Zealand workers. At 4.45 this afternoon Kīwhare was presented with his life membership badge at the PSA congress. It is only appropriate that we in this House recognise the enormous service he has given to this nation.
Finally, in thinking of the decades of successful contribution to the Māori economy, I want to refer briefly to the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Act. Some 44 years ago, in 1962, a gentleman by the name of Bill Proctor established a credit union for the benefit of Māori living in Pukekohe. This organisation was the first Māori credit union to become a registered member of the New Zealand Credit Union League. The Ngā Hau e Whā Credit Union was focussed on enhancing the well-being of Māori within the Pukekohe community. The membership of the credit union quickly grew to 100 people, and by March 1964 it had savings of £656 in hand, with £781 loaned out amongst 27 people. Within 2 years, 407 of the loans had been repaid.
The growth of credit unions was dramatic and exciting, and for the many Māori communities the opportunity to gain credit through such means was unique. So we welcome the new administrative changes that now allow credit unions to decide their own common bond—their field of membership—and to have the opportunity for amalgamations, charities, and incorporated societies to become members. We embrace these new proposals for the way in which the credit unions will be empowered with the appropriate flexibility to determine their own minimum deposit levels, and be able to undertake such changes as offering new services to their members without requiring ministerial approval. These are all steps in the right direction in terms of recognising the autonomy and the independent self-determining journey of the credit unions.
When one is faced with a range and diversity of proposals, such as the ones that appear in these bills—the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2), the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Amendment Bill, the Financial Reporting Amendment Bill, the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill, and the Insurance Companies’ Deposits Amendment Bill—it is always difficult to confine the debate to specific issues of relevance. The Māori Party is, however, reassured that the changes are based on suggestions from business, law practitioners, enforcement agencies, and the business community. In the spirit of always respecting the authority of the actual communities involved, and in recognition of the tremendous achievements of Māori in business, we are delighted to support the third readings of this suite of five business-related bills.