Third Readings

Whenever the House has to consider an omnibus bill, such as the Regulatory Improvement Bill, which these bills came out of, we must be careful to ensure that vital issues are not overlooked. In relation to this legislation, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill is one particular bill that has been overlooked.

The Māori Party supported this bill at its first reading because it satisfied the party’s desire to see more community and less bureaucracy. As a principle, we support initiatives that help reduce unnecessary cost and uncertainty caused by an overlap or inconsistency between different pieces of legislation. But, after hearing from submitters on the Regulatory Improvement Bill, we have changed our view—particularly in respect of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill.

The Soil and Health Association was particularly concerned that applications to introduce new hazardous substances will shift from public notification to being publicly notified only at the discretion of the Environmental Risk Management Authority. The association’s concern was echoed by Organics Aotearoa, which said that leaving the decision to the authority undermined the principle of transparent and open governance—the very issue that led to the Māori Party opposing the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill last night.

Our nervousness about dropping public notification is important, because, in respect of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill, dropping public notification eliminates an important check on an agency’s decision-making process, increasing the risk that the Environmental Risk Management Authority will make bad decisions about whether hazardous substances should be released into the environment, and increasing the risk that such substances will be introduced to Aotearoa. Wyeth New Zealand said that public notification was vital to meaningful public debate on hazardous substances. GE-Free New Zealand noted that genetic engineering still posed unknown economic and environmental dangers, and that silencing the public voice simply to save money actually worked against the intentions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

The Māori Party supports the reduction of barriers to economic growth but not at the cost of the environment. Because public involvement is being set aside in respect of new applications under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act through the proposals being considered here today, the Māori Party cannot support the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Act.

I would like to acknowledge the work of the Minister for Regulatory Reform, the Hon Rodney Hide, who has graciously acknowledged several times during the passage of this bill the work of my colleague the former Minister—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): There is a lot of noise in the House and it is very distracting. I know that we are getting close to the end of a long week but I just ask for a little less noise. I invite the member to continue.

I will acknowledge the Minister for Regulatory Reform, the Hon Rodney Hide, again. He graciously acknowledged several times during the passage of this legislation today the work of my colleague, the former Minister Lianne Dalziel. I also acknowledge the Hon Lianne Dalziel not only for her extensive work in bringing this legislation to the House but also for her work that underpinned it and her work as the chair of the Commerce Committee. The Hon Lianne Dalziel has been rightly acknowledged in this House many times today and I am not proposing to beat the record set by my colleague the Hon David Parker.

This legislation is important if we are to have an efficient regulatory environment that is fair to businesses. I remind the House that there is no reason to push this legislation through under urgency. This haste is beginning to define the National-ACT Government’s approach to lawmaking, which is to have no consultation. It is also important to remember that it was a Labour Government that came up with these changes, not a National Government, although National is doing the right thing by continuing with this legislation. It makes small, uncontroversial but important changes to the regulatory environment. It is built on the foundation of the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s extensive consultation with business. Labour is thankful that this consultation was undertaken while it was in Government as it is obvious that this is not how a National-ACT Government intends to operate.

This legislation is a response to the opinions of businesses heard by Labour on what would make the regulatory environment easier for them to operate in, and it came from the wide consultation process that the Labour Government underwent via the Quality Regulation Review, which involved 200 businesses and was led by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel. The review also greatly enhanced the regulatory impact statement regime, of which Labour is very proud. It was also led by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel.

The Quality Regulation Review was announced by the Labour Government in May 2006 to ensure that New Zealand’s regulatory environment was supportive of the Government’s economic transformation agenda, which was to address regulatory barriers to business growth. That review investigated ways of eliminating duplication, inconsistencies, and uncertainties where multiple regulatory frameworks intersect, and looked at improving the Government’s own processes for assessing and monitoring the impact of regulations. We often look at how one regulation works across the economy, but we seldom look at the cumulative impact of all regulations on one sector or industry. The fact that Labour looked at both angles has developed a richer perspective on the impacts on business, and a better understanding of how we can best resolve any concerns. Many of the ongoing work programmes that have been established as a result of the review are addressing these interface issues. Because the Labour Government spoke directly to businesses, it was able to get very specific feedback about how regulations look from their viewpoint, and has been able to build their needs into the strengthened regulatory impact analysis regime.

This legislation confirms that New Zealand’s regulatory environment is in good shape, which fits with the World Bank’s assessment of New Zealand as second in the world for ease of doing business. But there is room to improve the ways that rules are communicated to business, implemented, and enforced. Getting regulations right is a matter of continuous improvement. I think the Minister acknowledged that earlier today, and Labour supports the intention to have annual regulatory improvement bills.

Labour supports business, but it is more than that; Labour listens to business. Unlike the National Government, Labour did not rush its end of the legislation, namely the groundwork, the consultation, and the creation of the foundation on which this legislation now stands. The National Party is not the only party that stands for and supports Kiwi businesses. After 9 years of Labour Government, New Zealand was one of the easiest places in the world in which to do business. This legislation demonstrates the enormous benefit that real listening can provide, by asking businesses what they really thought. It is the cumulative effect of making small changes on a number of what seem to be small issues that can add up to significant change. So this afternoon, as we commend this legislation and its amendments to the nine Acts it affects, we should remember that it was Labour that listened to businesses, and it was Labour that came up with legislation to support them and foster their growth.

There can be no justification for bringing this legislation through all its final stages under urgency, but because we originated the measure, and because it is good legislation, we will not oppose its passage.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I have been advised by the Labour whips that they intend to split the call. The second part of the call goes to Raymond Huo.

I am delighted to rise to take a very short, 1½ minute call in support of the nine bills that arise from the Regulatory Improvement Bill.

There are two important aspects I wish to focus on. Firstly, as my learned colleague Charles Chauvel noted in the bill’s first reading, the content of the bill is only half the matter; the other half is the process that led to it. Secondly, in relation to the Regulatory Improvement Bill, we have to engage in two-way communication; we have to ask the businesses, or stakeholders, what the issues are, go through a meaningful consultation process, and then make sure we respond in a judicious and proportional way.

It is particularly important, in light of the impression I got from the Minister for Regulatory Reform, that such a bill will become part of the normal proceedings of Parliament. It is very good that we have a regular opportunity to tidy up some issues that may not be insignificant enough to make it into a Statutes Amendment Bill, but are not significant enough to warrant a bill in their own right. The Hon. Lianne Dalziel made history in September 2008, and set a good precedent for us to follow.

I commend the bills to the House. Thank you.

Companies Amendment Bill read a third time.

Conservation Amendment Bill read a third time.

Designs Amendment Bill read a third time.

Fisheries Amendment Bill read a third time.

Gas Amendment Bill read a third time.