Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill

I move, That the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Commerce Committee.

Today I present to the House the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. The bill repeals 31 Acts that have been identified as no longer being required, obsolete, redundant, or spent. The bill forms part of the commitment made by this Government to improving the regulatory environment in New Zealand, as outlined in the Government Statement on Regulation: Better Regulation, Less Regulation. That sets out the Government’s commitment to introducing new regulation only when satisfied that it is required, that it is reasonable, and that it is robust, and to review existing regulation in order to identify and remove requirements that are unnecessary, ineffective, or excessively costly. Ensuring that the statute book contains regulations that are easy to use, up to date, and fit for purpose is the key to a quality regulatory environment.

The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill will help achieve this by clearing the statute book of some unnecessary and spent Acts without having to proceed with a repeal bill for each of the 31 separate pieces of legislation. Without this bill, the spent Acts may continue to sit on the statute book, which creates unnecessary clutter and potentially may create confusion for the users of legislation. The use of a single repeal Act to repeal multiple Acts is not unique to New Zealand; the United Kingdom has used legislation to repeal and amend a number of Acts, and the Commonwealth Government of Australia has a regular Statute Law Revision Act.

Each of the Acts put forward for repeal via this bill has remained within the stock of regulation for New Zealand, even though each item is, for all intents and purposes, no longer live. None of the Acts are currently in use and their removal will not affect any party. The bill contains four clauses. The first two clauses cover the title and the commencement of the legislation. Clause 3 repeals the Acts specified in the schedule to the bill, and clause 4 provides for the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill itself to be repealed 28 days after the Act comes into force, thereby removing the need for future repeal bills to have to repeal their predecessors. That is not bad—a bill that will knock out 31 statutes and then knocks itself out a month later.

The Acts put forward for repeal have been identified by Ministers from seven portfolios and have been identified through a number of avenues including the regulatory scanning exercise. The Government asked agencies to undertake scanning of their legislation as part of the commitment this Government has to the Government Statement on Regulation: Better Regulation, Less Regulation. Many of the Acts contained within the bill are Acts that agencies have known they have had on their books but have not yet had the opportunity to repeal. The Acts put forward for repeal in the bill range in date from 1884 to 2003, indicating that time is not necessarily a factor in identifying when an Act will become obsolete.

I do not think that our work in getting rid of the regulatory burden will be finished with the passage of this repeal bill; I intend that an omnibus bill of this nature be proposed as and when necessary to ensure that Acts no longer required are removed from the statute book using this highly efficient method. I thank my colleagues responsible for the Acts put forward for repeal in this bill. Their decisions to put these Acts into the bill show the commitment they have to improving the stock of regulation.

The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill is part of a broader agenda of work designed to improve the body of regulation in New Zealand. Other work in this area has led to the introduction of the Regulatory Reform Bill, which contains legislative amendments that reduce compliance costs to businesses. I have also prepared a revocation order that proposes the revocation of spent and obsolete regulations. This set of legislative vehicles is designed to improve the stock of regulation in New Zealand, and it will make sure that New Zealand has an evolving regulatory environment that is relevant, up to date, and best placed to meet the needs of a dynamic economy that will help New Zealand grow. This is a good day, because here we are in the Parliament removing 31 statutes. Thank you.

The Labour Party of course will support the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. But let me say that for something called a regulatory reform bill it is the most inefficient use of Parliament’s time that the Minister for Regulatory Reform and indeed the Government have imposed on this Parliament so far. Given some of the legislation we have had in this House, that takes some doing. Last Tuesday, only 2 days ago, we debated the Regulatory Reform Bill and referred it to the Commerce Committee. Why on earth was the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill not a schedule to that bill? It would have made absolute sense for this bill to be included within the legislation we have already referred to the select committee. I ask the Minister why this is a separate bill. Perhaps one of his acolytes who rises to speak on the bill could explain to us why there is a separate bill, when we had a Regulatory Reform Bill before the House just 2 days ago. In fact, it has already been referred to the select committee and we will be advertising and calling for submissions, as is standard practice.

The first principle of the Code of Good Regulatory Practice is efficiency. It is the No. 1 principle. What is efficient about two separate bills taking up the House’s time, including this debate this afternoon? What is efficient about two separate references to the Commerce Committee, which I chair? We are an extraordinarily busy select committee and we do not need to have our time wasted, when these bills could have been compacted into a single piece of legislation. What is efficient about doubling the cost of the advertising for submissions, when the two bills could have been advertised together? This does not meet the No. 1 test of the Code of Good Regulatory Practice in itself. It is a complete failure in that regard, and I am utterly appalled that the Minister for Regulatory Reform gave his speech in the form that he did. He has indicated that this bill is doing something that it simply is not doing.

If there were a single valid reason for having two separate bills—and I, for the life of me, cannot think of one reason—then why not include this provision within a Statutes Amendment Bill? There is nothing at all, by any stretch of the imagination, controversial about repealing three pieces of legislation that date back to the 19th century. I do not think anyone will be opposed to the repeal of the New Zealand Institute of Journalists Act 1895, the New Zealand Shipping Company (Limited) Empowering Act 1884, and the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885. I do not think we will miss that legislation. I do not think there is anything controversial about repealing them, because they do not have any effect any more anyway. The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill is a “do nothing” bill that could have been added to a Statutes Amendment Bill in its own right. It is also repealing one Act from 1934 and one from 1964. The rest of the Acts date back to the 1980s and the 1990s, and three are from this century. So only three of the Acts being repealed are from this century. But guess what? Of the 31 Acts of Parliament that this bill repeals, 12 of them are repeals of repeal Acts. All they are doing is repealing the fact that there was a repeal Act on the statute book. They are not something that anyone would be looking up in our printed statutes, but I will come back to that in a minute.

If there were a single valid reason not to include this bill in the Regulatory Reform Bill, then we would have seen it in a Statutes Amendment Bill, except that there is possibly a reason why this Minister for Regulatory Reform wants a separate bill. It is because he wants to prove that he is delivering on the second principle of the Code of Good Regulatory Practice, and of course we all know what that is, off by heart, do we not? In fact Aaron Gilmore will know; he probably wrote the Code of Good Regulatory Practice. The first principle is efficiency, so what is the second principle?

💬 Aaron Gilmore: It doesn’t really matter.

No, he does not know. Ha, ha! I did not think he knew. The second principle of good regulatory practice is effectiveness. This Minister wants to show he is an effective Minister because he has had all these bills passed in his name. Can I just say that one does not measure effectiveness by quantity. It is the quality of the regulation that counts, not quantity. The number of pieces of legislation in the Minister’s name that are passed in his name does not meet the test of effectiveness either. I wonder whether it has something to do with the fact that the Prime Minister announced that the Government would be introducing its own Regulatory Responsibility Bill. I wonder whether it is because Rodney Hide’s old Regulatory Responsibility Bill, because it is a member’s bill, is now in the name of the Hon Sir Roger Douglas, so he wants to get that name back on his Regulatory Responsibility Bill.

Of course, if that Regulatory Responsibility Bill had been in place at the time that this Government had taken office, then that Government would not have been able to pass the amount of legislation it passed in its first 100 days in office, because a number of those pieces of legislation failed the test of the bill. If anyone thinks that the union movement would not have gone to court on the 90-day trial period legislation, I would think that that person had not given much thought to how the Regulatory Responsibility Bill would have worked. That is why we have the bill. We have the bill because the Minister wants to say that he has passed X number of bills, and that he has repealed 31 statutes. The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill repeals 31 statutes that have no effect. Therefore, the repeal of them is a bit like multiplying by zero. What happens when we multiply one by zero? What happens when we multiply 150,001 by zero? The answer is still zero, and that is what this Minister has produced: zero.

Unfortunately this bill also offends principle No. 3 of the Code of Good Regulatory Practice, which requires transparency. There is no transparency in presenting a bill, when the explanatory note says: “The maintenance of a quality regulatory environment requires ensuring that the existing body of legislation is easy to use, up to date, and fit for purpose.” It is all very well to say that that is what this bill delivers when all it does is clear from the statute book some unnecessary and spent Acts. These are all pieces of legislation that are now completely out of date, no longer have effect, or have very limited effect, and none of which are relevant to our legal system today. There is nothing about the bill that actually delivers on that. Let us look at what the explanatory note states: “The maintenance of a quality regulatory environment requires ensuring that the existing body of legislation is easy to use, up to date, and fit for purpose. This Bill will help achieve this by clearing the statute books of some unnecessary and spent Acts.”

I come back to my point: the legislation that this bill repeals does nothing. The repeal of the legislation that this bill repeals does nothing, as well. There is nothing that the Minister or any of the MPs on the other side of the House can say that will make it otherwise. If each of the laws that this bill repeals has no effect, then, as I have said, the bill will not do anything other than create the obligation for those who still have printed statute books to update them by crossing out the statutes that have no effect anyway. In regard to all the books out there in the lobbies, someone will have to come along and open them up at the relevant pages, from the 1890s into the 1930s, the 1980s, and the 1990s, and put red lines through all of those pages. It would be a make-work scheme and maybe the Government could get someone on Community Max to do it. That would be a very good idea but, actually, it is a very skilled job that has to be done in these areas because we should not be playing around with our statutes.

But who uses the statutes out there any more? If members are in their office they can go on to legislation.govt.nz. I do not know how many people are still using the printed statutes, and that is why, again, this is such an irrelevancy that does not deserve a separate debate and separate referral to the select committee. The only reason this is a separate bill is so that the Minister can puff up his chest and claim that he has yet again applied the blowtorch to regulation, and any National members who back him up will prove that they are the patsies they are.

I have heard racing commentaries that were slower, less excitable, and less intense than that contribution. I can only assume that Ms Dalziel must moonlight at Riccarton racecourse on a Saturday afternoon.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: As a horse!

Thank you, Mr Williamson. What an entertaining, if slightly angry, tirade that was from the former Minister of Commerce. It was a breathless contribution. But methinks that it was a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I was pleased to speak in the first reading debate on the Regulatory Reform Bill in the House on Tuesday afternoon, and I am equally pleased to speak today in support of this important companion measure, the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. Again I congratulate the Minister for Regulatory Reform, the Hon Rodney Hide, and his team of officials on the work they have done in bringing this bill to its first reading in this House. I make the point that this bill is a significant part of the Government’s strategy to lift New Zealand’s long-term economic growth, create jobs, boost incomes, raise living standards, and provide world-class public services.

The explosion of bureaucracy and red tape that occurred under the previous Labour administration in the first decade of this century has had disastrous consequences for productivity and jobs in New Zealand. That is why the National-led Government is determined to reverse the trend and overcome the problem. It is why the Government made two clear commitments in the Government Statement on Regulation, which was released in August 2009. Those commitments are, firstly, that we will introduce new regulations only when we are satisfied that they are required, reasonable, and robust; and, secondly, that we will review existing regulations in order to identify and remove requirements that are unnecessary, ineffective, or excessively costly.

This particular bill will repeal 31 Acts that have been identified as redundant, as was envisaged when the Government Statement on Regulation contained the pledge to identify and remove requirements that are unnecessary, ineffective, or excessively costly. Some of the Acts identified for repeal, as we have just heard from Ms Dalziel, are even older than most of the members opposite and, like those members, they have long since ceased to serve any useful purpose. Ms Dalziel read out some specific examples. They also include the Aid to Water-power Works Act 1910 and the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885. I think at least one of those measures was passed when Ms Dalziel was a junior member of this House, so I understand that she may feel some grief at its passing, not to mention understand that party’s apparent reluctance to see any red tape removed from our statute book and regulations. But it is well past time that those Acts went.

There is a very serious purpose to this measure, as the repeal of the 31 redundant Acts will minimise the potential for confusion that firms and individuals may experience. As a Government we are working to ensure that the statutes are up to date, easy to comprehend, and fit for purpose. Under the Government Statement on Regulation, Ministers are required to certify that all new regulation is consistent with the two principles I mentioned a moment ago. Their departments are required to provide annual regulatory plans of all known and anticipated proposals to introduce, repeal, or review legislation or regulation. To assist in that aim—and an example can be seen in the 31 Acts that have been identified for repeal in this bill—a process of scanning has been adopted. This scanning process will be followed by all departments, which have been directed to look over the stock of legislation and regulations that they manage, and assess whether they are still needed, efficient, and proportionate. The current Government’s initiative is designed to minimise the burden of regulation placed on individuals and firms. There is no doubt in my mind that it will be a significant and widely welcomed procedure.

Notwithstanding the extraordinary contribution we heard a moment ago, I expect that this measure will enjoy broad cross-party support in the House. For that reason I commend the bill to the House and say we should get on with it and not have quite as much excitable nonsense as a red herring.

Of course, the member who has just taken his seat, Tim Macindoe, has not done anything to answer the criticisms that were made by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. The reality is that this separate bill, the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill, has one operative clause, clause 3, which is seven words long. It states: “The Acts specified in the Schedule are repealed.” That is all this bill does. It states: “The Acts specified in the Schedule are repealed.” Lianne Dalziel was quite right to point out that we passed a regulatory reform bill earlier this week that could have included that phrase and repealed this list of old statutes, which do need to be repealed, in that regulatory reform bill. The fact that it was not included in that bill is a nonsense. It is a colossal waste of money. We know that the cost of each separate Act of Parliament that is passed in this Parliament runs to many hundreds of thousands of dollars. We are unnecessarily adding to that cost to taxpayers. So although Labour agrees that there are old Acts on the books that ought not to live there any longer and ought to be killed off, and that can simply be done by a phrase that long, we do not agree that it should be a separate Act of Parliament.

I also want to talk a little further about why that is, given that it is so patently unnecessary for this to be done in a separate Act of Parliament and so patently wastes the time not just of Cabinet but of this Parliament and of select committees. Why is the Government organising its programme in this way? It is patently clear: it has no economic programme to bring before the House. It is not busying itself with the things it needs to do as a Government to take New Zealand from its double-dip recession and to improve our economy.

In this country over 100,000 people are unemployed now, and we are entering into a second recession—a double-dip recession. We are one of the few countries in the Western World that is experiencing a double-dip recession. It plainly is National’s recession. It cannot duck responsibility for this one. It cannot blame it on Australia. It cannot blame it on China. It cannot blame it on the rest of the world. It cannot blame it even on the previous Labour Government, which it has tried to do. It is National’s recession and National’s responsibility. Why is this Government playing around with parliamentary processes, wasting taxpayers’ money and the time of Parliament and the executive with a bill like this one when there are serious things that need to be addressed in this country?

The reality is that we know from those who are regular followers of Parliament on radio, or from those who sit on the Opposition benches, that it is patently clear now that the Government does not have an adequate plan to deal with the challenges that the country faces. It has given up on some of the promises that it was elected on. One of National’s core promises at the last election was that it was going to close the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia. Having promised that, the Minister for Economic Development, Gerry Brownlee, halfway through last year made a fool of himself by saying that the Government was achieving that. The Prime Minister dug a hole for himself by saying that, yes, he agreed. But we unpicked that in Parliament. All of the analysts and journalists agreed that the Opposition was right, that rather than that gap narrowing it was broadening and it continues to broaden.

💬 Chris Hipkins: They’ve caught up with unemployment, though.

Oh, yes, that is true. The only thing we have caught up with Australia on, and in fact surpassed it, is the unemployment rate. But in terms of the growing wage gap between Australia and New Zealand, the Government has not caused it to narrow. It has not even caused it to stabilise. It is growing.

On the back of that, we have tried to pin the Government to some milestones, whereby the Government would be judged as to whether, by its own measure, it was succeeding or failing, and it has dodged that. The Government has said that that is a target for 2025, by which time its members will all be retired, or will have been retired by the electors. Such a meaningless target that is so far out is something that the Government tries not be judged upon.

Let us look at what other things the Government promised, which it should be focusing on instead of focusing on this completely unnecessary bill that could have been included in another bill that we considered just 2 days ago. The Government was promising a step change in the New Zealand economy. It said that a step change in the New Zealand economy was necessary in order to, amongst other things, bridge the ever-growing wage gap, under this Government, between wages and salaries earned in Australia and in New Zealand. Well, that phrase has dropped from its vocabulary. If we were to look at the election material provided for the last election campaign, we would find that National had promised a step change in the New Zealand economy. The National Government even kept up with that language until the middle of last year. It was on its publications and on its website. The Government said it was seeking a step change in the New Zealand economy. Well, now that the Government has taken us back into another recession, that phrase also has dropped out of its vocabulary. It is no longer talking—

💬 Chris Hipkins: We’re stepping in one direction, but it’s not the direction they promised.

Well, certainly we are taking a step backwards. It is a step change in the New Zealand economy, but in the wrong direction. It certainly is not a step change in the direction of the New Zealand economy that will cause more people to get jobs and incomes to rise.

If we reflect on what is left in the Government’s armoury when it comes to economic policy, other than this meaningless regulatory reform bill, which repeals Acts that are already irrelevant, anyway, we find that the cupboard is just about bare. There is no significant policy. The Government has always been a single-focus party, which is tax cuts. That is all it understands. It thinks that tax cuts are an economic policy. Tax policy is an important part of economic policy, but it is just a part. The Government does not yet seem to understand that reality. So that is why, rather than dealing with all of the other things outside of tax policy that are so important and need to be done, this Parliament instead is considering this largely irrelevant legislation.

We know that the Government’s tax policy has increased inequalities in New Zealand. We know that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have both said in the last month that one of the problems in the world that threatens both civil order in a lot of countries and economic progress is the growing gap between the rich and the poor. When the gap becomes as large as it is in New Zealand and in a lot of other Western countries, the economy does not grow as fast. This Government, in respect of just about its only economic plank, which is tax cuts, has made that worse in New Zealand by so unfairly weighting the income tax cuts to those who are already best off. In fact, over 40 percent of the income tax cuts made by this Government have gone to the top 10 percent of income earners.

This Government is bereft of ideas to get New Zealand moving again. It is not doing much. It says it has spent a bit on infrastructure, and that is true; it is also true that it is not really spending much more on infrastructure than was spent by the outgoing Labour Government.

💬 Hon John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been listening to the address from this member, and I have to say that the bill is about regulatory reform, yet most of his speech has been about economics and the Government’s economic policy. As a point of relevance, I suggest to you, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker, that we bring him back to the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): To be fair, the member has referred to the bill on regular occasions, has referred to regulatory reform, and has referred to matters that the Government could have been doing in addition to this. So the member has not been entirely off the topic. But the point is well made. We are discussing the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. Members are entitled to draw on other things, but not to rely on them entirely.

As I have said previously, the Government has often said that one of the important things to get this economy moving is regulatory reform. It has rattled on about how if we change the Resource Management Act the economy will go faster, and how if we improved regulation it would somehow significantly improve our economy. That was one part of its plan. The other part of its plan was tax cuts.

I know that Mr Carter does not like to hear the message I have been giving to the House. He tries to stop me repeating it, because it resonates with a lot of people who have become unemployed and people whose incomes are languishing compared with Australia. The message is that the plan that National says it stands for, which is regulatory reform and lower taxes, does not cut the mustard. It does not do it, especially when we know that most people overall are worse off after the so-called tax switch, and only a very small percentage at the top are significantly better off as a consequence of the tax changes. The vast majority of people also know that as a consequence of the failure to get this economy running properly and as a consequence of borrowing for tax cuts, the Government’s finances are not in as good shape as they would otherwise be.

New Zealand is not yet in a parlous state in terms of the Government accounts, because, of course, the incoming National Government inherited very low Government debt by world standards. In fact, net Government debt was at virtually zero—one of the lowest rates in the Western World. But it means that the economy is performing less well than it ought to, and it means that now over 100,000 people are unemployed. A very significant proportion of our young people, once they leave school, are going into unemployment. They are not going into training; they are going into unemployment, living off a benefit, and becoming disenchanted. Sadly, they are becoming unmotivated, which will present future social problems for New Zealand. It is one of the reasons New Zealanders are leaving in almost unprecedented numbers every week to go to Australia—so much so that Julia Gillard on her visit to New Zealand this week said that she views New Zealand as a worthy place of well-trained, well-educated people who go and make Australia wealthy. This bill is a smokescreen for the lack of progress made by the Government.

It is enough, I think, to say that the Green Party will support the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill through its first reading.

My modest contribution to the debate will be confined to an acknowledgment that I have not delved deeply into the Cornish Companies Management Act Repeal Act 1994, nor have I actually delved into any of the 31 Acts this bill repeals, such as the Economic Stabilisation Act Repeal Act 1987, which of course had far more historical significant once upon a time. The New Zealand Planning Council Dissolution Act 1991 causes me grief, since I worked for the Planning Council only 7 years before that, and there is no telling what might have happened if the Act had been passed earlier.

I do not intend to spend time rhapsodising about the New Zealand economy, for or against Government policy, at this moment. I would rather not take up more of the House’s time. I reiterate that we will support the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill.

I am just a new member here, but I am pleased today to be able to help out the Hon David Parker and the Hon Lianne Dalziel with something that, apparently, I know and they do not. The reason that the Regulatory Reform Bill, debated earlier in the week, was not tied up with this bill is simple: omnibus bills must have a shared purpose. The Regulatory Reform Bill’s aim was to reduce compliance costs for business; the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill does not do that, so it has to be a separate bill.

I find it extraordinary that Lianne Dalziel felt the need to go on for her full 10 minutes—on and on—about something she said mattered absolutely not at all. I will not fall into making that mistake. I commend this bill to the House.

I was not going to take a call on the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill, but in order to prevent speakers from the Labour Party dragging on and on about a bill that we should be able to deal with in 5 minutes, I have taken this opportunity to say that we support this bill.

Like the three speakers who have spoken immediately before me, I do not want to spend a long time on what is a very simple bill, the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. I have said everything I wanted to say about the importance of getting the regulatory environment right to move the country ahead in my contribution earlier this week on the Regulatory Reform Bill.

The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill is not a significant bill. It is not a world-changing bill, but none the less it needs to be passed. I think the fact that some of the legislation now being repealed includes legislation like the District Railways Purchasing Act from 1885 and the New Zealand Institute of Journalists Act 1895 is testament in itself as to how long overdue this exercise is. It is not just about making sure we do not create too much new regulation and that when we do, it is right; it is also about making sure that when a regulation is no longer required, we get rid of it, tidy things up, and get it off the books. That is what this bill is all about.

I am very pleased to see, in the words of Mission Impossible, that the bill itself will self-destruct 28 days after its passing, to make sure it does not commit the same folly as the bills we are now having to deal with of remaining on the statute book long after its time. With that comment, I am pleased to commend the bill to the House.

The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill could have been dealt with earlier this week alongside the Regulatory Reform Bill. This is a basic bill. It repeals 31 Acts that have expired in terms of their use. As the previous speaker said, the bill will self-destruct after being passed. I make the point that it would be good if more National bills did so. If I had had time I would have put together a list of the National bills that should self-destruct.

We accept that Acts proposed for repeal are spent, but, as a number of speakers on this side of the House have asked, does the Government not have anything better to do? Is this really a good way to spend Parliament’s time? Mr Hide, the Minister in charge of the bill, said in a press release in December: “Through regulation, government has the power to affect the lives of every New Zealander.” This Government is using its power to affect the lives of every New Zealander by repealing Acts that have no effect whatsoever. Spent Acts can be repealed without any practical consequences. New Zealanders need practical solutions to the problems they are facing.

Labour welcomes regulatory reform with a balanced approach that will deliver solutions that work for businesses and will ultimately benefit the New Zealand economy as a whole. The bill is not about regulatory reform, as its title purports.

Having made that point, I will talk briefly about one of the 31 Acts that are expiring. One of the Acts that will be repealed under the bill covers an area that is very close to my heart, the New Zealand railways. The District Railways Purchasing Act 1885 authorised “Her Majesty the Queen to purchase certain Railways within the Dominion constructed under the District Railways Act and the Railways Construction and Land Acts.” I will read a paragraph from the preamble of the District Railways Purchasing Act: “And whereas the companies owners of the railways mentioned in the Schedule to this Act are desirous of selling their railways to the Government of New Zealand: And whereas it is expedient that the Governor should be empowered on behalf of Her Majesty to purchase the said railways in the manner provided by this Act,”.

The District Railways Purchasing Act might be 126 years old, but it does have symmetry with today when one reflects on the benefits of State-owned enterprises while the Government plans to sell them off. A recession is happening in this country. There are not enough jobs. We need a plan for our economy. That is what the Government should be concentrating on. Instead, we have the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill before us today. Selling off our assets is the Government’s big plan. The asset sales will be great for foreign investors but a disaster for Kiwis. We will see power prices skyrocket as the new foreign owners push for bigger profits. Labour has said it will stop asset sales and keep our prize assets in Kiwi hands. We already own them, so why sell them? The only long-term winners will be the foreign investors. After 9 years in Opposition and 2 years in Government, that is National’s plan. National’s model of mixed ownership means that the wider public interest that should be an essential requirement in terms of running New Zealand’s electricity system will be surrendered to private investors, many of whom certainly do not have New Zealand’s best interests at heart. As my colleagues who spoke before me asked, is this a step change in the economy? I do not think so.

I think it is relevant in relation to the 31 Acts that are expiring, one of which is about the purchase of New Zealand railways, to talk about the importance of State-owned assets and the failure of the Government to grow the export economy, which, to date, has been reflected in its appalling economic decisions—abolishing the research and development tax credit, despite our demonstrably low private sector research and development spend; undermining KiwiSaver, despite New Zealanders’ poor record in savings; and falling at the last hurdle on ring-fencing property losses. Let us think about what the Government could do. I will go back to the bill before us today and the Act I mentioned before, the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885, which is 126 years old. New Zealand can control its own future only with strong, sustainable local industries such as what was intended in the Act, which is being expired as a result of the bill before us today. The Government should be ensuring that we have such industries.

Last year I released a member’s bill called the Kiwi Jobs Bill, which was put into the ballot. It aimed to maximise opportunities for competitive local businesses when tendering for large Government projects such as providing work to our rail engineering industry in New Zealand, which is not a sunset industry but is an important part of our economy. There are two significant places in New Zealand where rail engineering work is undertaken. One place is the Hillside railway workshops in Dunedin, which are just down the road from my office in Hillside Road, and the other place is the Woburn workshops in the Hutt.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: A high-quality place.

It is a high-quality place and I am sorry that I do not know the address off by heart, but I have been there. They are both very good workshops and have highly skilled people working in them. They are exactly the sorts of places that should be supported by the Government. The member’s bill that I put into the ballot establishes a commission of inquiry to compare Government procurement policies in Australia and other comparable jurisdictions—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think this has relevance.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is some flexibility in a first reading speech, but I would like the member to come back and talk about what this bill is doing. She is actually talking about her member’s bill now, which is not part of this debate. I have given the member the opportunity to bring it back in line. I ask her to spend her remaining time on the bill, please.

In winding up on that matter, I think the important point to be made in relation to the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill and the 31 Acts being expired under it—one of which is the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885, which is 126 years old—is that in 2011 the Government of the day should be putting investment into Kiwi firms. Those firms should be given the best chance possible, with full, fair, and reasonable opportunities to compete for tenders in major projects.

Labour supports this bill, but we consider it to be fairly rudimentary, as it could have already been dealt with and the Government could, instead, be showing leadership through providing stimulus to the economy. Instead, the House is fiddling about and the Government is not showing leadership. Real leadership is about hard work, not smiling and waving. It is about articulating a vision and delivering concrete changes to better the lives of this generation and future generations of New Zealanders. It is something that has been absent from the National benches for a long time. Essentially, we support this bill, but we question whether it is really the best use of Parliament’s time, and we ask why this Government has no better ideas than to repeal old legislation.

It is a pleasure to stand and correct some of the nonsense that has been coming from the other side of the House. [Interruption] It could take hours, and I have only a few minutes, so I will just deal with what I can. First of all, we heard the comment from members opposite that this Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill should have been taken into account with the bill that we had 2 days ago. Clearly, the Opposition has not heard of a thing called the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives. This bill cannot be included in an omnibus bill, which is why it is being dealt with separately. I wish the Opposition would learn the Standing Orders within which we have to operate.

Secondly, we heard a whole lot of conversation from members opposite who talked about railways and their relevance to this bill. Talking of railways and diesel, I think that the contribution of “Diesel von Trapp” in the very brown hat over there will be very interesting to hear, I am sure.

The first Labour speaker on this bill, Lianne Dalziel, asked why bills are even printed any more. Ms Dalziel may be aware that in regard to the Legislation Bill that was recently dealt with by the Regulations Review Committee, of which I am a member, the Labour members on the committee fought vehemently to retain that clause in that bill. So I think that is very strange. Those members should talk a bit about what they want.

But I will talk about the Government’s economic reform platform and the important part that regulatory reform is playing in that. The Government stands on a number of things. We stand on rebuilding infrastructure. We stand on having the ability to gain more skills and innovation. We stand on getting taxes down. We stand on reducing regulation and red tape. Before us today is a bill that does that. It removes 31 Acts of Parliament from the statute book, like the Chateau Companies Act 1977 and the Clerks of Works Act Repeal Act 1992. What do those Acts do? They do nothing. They are a complete waste of time. That is what this Government is about: getting rid of things that are a waste of time and getting business and our economy growing. That is what we really, truly believe in. The Opposition just believes in wasting time, not following the rules, and having discussions about things that are completely off the platform—so much so that we heard Mr Parker talk about the need for an economic agenda. Well, I see that the Labour Party is advertising for an economic adviser in its office, so it is obviously looking for ideas at the moment. I find it very hard to believe that Labour members are so full of good ideas that they need somebody else on their team.

My contribution today is very short and sweet. I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to its continuing progress.

If the House will indulge me for a couple of minutes, I will explain the rationale behind my very spiffy outfit. At 10.47 a.m. on 3 February 1931, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake destroyed Napier. What was not destroyed by the earthquake was totally ruined by a fire that swept through the city. The city of Napier was razed to the ground. I will tell members what happened in 1931. The people of Napier stood up, they had a plan, and they had a strategy. The people of Napier rebuilt the city in 2 years. They rebuilt the city in 2 years.

The reason I am wearing this outfit is that this weekend is Art Deco Weekend in Napier. We will have thousands upon thousands of people coming into the wonderful city of Napier. Some would say—in fact, most people who live there and everyone who visits it would say—that Napier is the best city in the country. Napier is the best city in the country. People come into Napier for Art Deco Weekend for an absolute celebration. People can walk down the streets of Napier and be taken back to the 1930s. New Zealanders are taken back to the 1930s. Visitors from all around the world marvel at the absolute spectacle of the Art Deco festival. In fact, the Art Deco festival is the only New Zealand festival listed in the Lonely Planet guide that lists international festivals and places to be. It is fantastic.

I am wearing this fantastic outfit—a genuine 1920s suit, trilby hat, tie, and two-tone shoes—in celebration of Napier. It is a celebration of Art Deco Napier, because I believe in the city. I believe in the people of Napier. I think it is a fantastic city. But, goodness me, there is a lot of work to do there to bring the city back up to what it once was, because after 2 years of this Government, the people of Napier are struggling.

Is it not interesting? I will make my analogy. The city of Napier was rebuilt in 2 years, pretty much—2 years. There has been 2 years of a National Government, but it has not rebuilt the economy—in fact, it has torn it down. There has been no plan or strategy to drive growth, drive down unemployment, and get this country up and running.

The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill is an example of what is going on at the moment under this Government. Labour supports the bill because we support any bill that removes regulations that have been on the statute book for a long time. One of the Acts the bill repeals has been around for 127 years—the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885—but I wonder why the House is spending time and energy repealing that Act at a time when 158,000 New Zealanders are unemployed. Could the bill not have waited until a Labour Government returns, gets the economy up and running, and gets the fiscal situation sorted out? Then we can tidy up such things.

I do not know whether the press gallery are aware that the New Zealand Institute of Journalists Act 1895 is included in the bill. I hope they are and that there has been wide consultation on it. That Act has been on the statute book for 117 years, yet the Government wants to remove it at a time when the country is in a double-dip recession, the worst since the 1930s and the worst since stylish gentlemen were wearing suits like I am wearing.

The bill will not create employment for the 160,000 New Zealanders who now class themselves as unemployed. The bill will not help companies export more products. It will not help companies grow and create employment. The bill will not get our unemployed youth back into education or training. It will not help them develop a sense of self-worth. The bill does none of that, at all; it repeals 31 Acts—for example, the Potato Industry Act Repeal Act. I do not know how the 7,000 unemployed people in my region of the country will feel about the repeal of that Act, but I do not think they will be jumping for joy in the streets. Repealing the Potato Industry Act Repeal Act will not make headlines as a plan for economic development. The bill repeals the Poultry Board Act Repeal Act. Repealing that Act is not earth-shattering and will not create jobs. The Government has no plan for economic development, and this bill is an example of that.

The previous speaker Aaron Gilmore, when it was his turn to speak on the bill, talked about the Government’s economic reforms. Well, that is a bit of a joke. Aaron Gilmore stood up to speak on a bill that repeals the Potato Industry Act Repeal Act but talked about economic reforms. I tell him that the people of New Zealand want to see a plan about real economic reform; they do not want to see the Government wasting time on a bill that repeals 127-year-old Acts.

The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill is simply a travesty. It was introduced by Rodney Hide. Goodness me, the business people of New Zealand must be disappointed in that member. He came in and said he would cut red tape for every business. He said he would make it easy for businesses to work. Today is the second time this week I have spoken on a bill that will not help businesses in any way, shape, or form. The bill does nothing for businesses. If Mr Hide champions himself as the true driver of economic business growth, of the free market, then why is he introducing bills like this one to the House?

The bill is one reason why ACT will disappear this year. Not even ACT has a plan. When the Hon Simon Power stood up at question time today and said he agreed with the Hon Sir Roger Douglas on economic policy, I realised that a lack of a plan—except for selling State assets—is the major problem facing this country. It really is a travesty that instead of MPs spending time visiting constituents and dealing with issues, we are spending time on a bill that is not about a plan, will not create any benefits, and will not create jobs.

I will quote Mr Hide speaking on the bill. He said: “Through regulation, government has the power to affect the lives of every New Zealander.” In a way, Mr Hide is right, but this bill will have no power. It will not affect the life of any New Zealander. I say to Mr Hide that if regulation can affect the lives of every New Zealander, he should put forward a bill that actually does that. He should put forward a bill that shows there is a plan, because this sort of bill shows there is no plan for economic growth and no plan for creating jobs. I think the people of New Zealand are a little bit sick and tired of these sorts of bills. They are a little bit sick and tired that over the past 2 years they have seen this country go backwards into a double-dip recession.

The city of Napier was rebuilt in 2 years. It has stood since 1931 and it is celebrated. I do not think that in 80 years’ time the people will be celebrating the 2 years of this National Government. This period will go down in history as one of the worst 2 years this country has experienced. We have a double-dip recession and 7 percent unemployment. That is an absolute travesty.

Labour is supporting the bill, but it shows that the Government has no plan to drive economic growth and no plan for jobs. Thank you very much.

My intention this afternoon is to speak very briefly on the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. I say to the Opposition members that had they looked at the explanatory note of this bill, they would have seen that this is a timely and cost-effective method of collectively repealing spent Acts. Yet each member of the Opposition team managed to talk for 10 minutes about nothing of interest to this House or to the public of New Zealand, wasting this House’s time.

This Government is getting on with business. This bill is nothing more than getting on with business, and therefore I commend it to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.