Regulatory Reform Bill, Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill

This legislation combines many parts, but I am speaking particularly to the Regulatory Reform Bill rather than the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. Looking at the Regulatory Reform Bill, there are some parts of it that I think are very good and some parts that we have some concerns about. This, of course, creates a problem, because there are some things that are good and some things that are problematic.

The good parts of the Regulatory Reform Bill that I would like to focus on in my brief talk here are about credit unions and building societies. We know that the finance sector in New Zealand is dominated by the large overseas-owned banks, and that creates a real problem for the New Zealand economy. There is basically a huge fiscal drag on the New Zealand economy, as $2 billion a year goes over to Australia. So encouraging the credit unions and the building societies is an important thing for us to do, and there is a very important element within this bill that will make it easier for credit unions and building societies, which is removing the $250,000 cap that currently applies to them in terms of the size of deposits they can accept. The amount of $250,000 used to be a lot of money, but these days if you sell a house, or if someone in your family dies and the family house is sold, you will often get more than $250,000 and you cannot deposit it in a credit union as things stand at the moment. So removing that statutory cap to the amount that can be deposited in a credit union, as this bill does, I think is a very, very important development.

Given that it is the International Year of Cooperatives—in fact, there is an event happening just next door, straight after we rise for the dinner break—it is very important that we support cooperatives. The Green Party has long been a supporter of cooperatives, unlike most parties in this Parliament, particularly the Government party, which opposes cooperatives. The Green Party thinks that this is an important development, because if we do not actually support cooperatives and the alternatives to the banks—and, of course, the Government is a big supporter of the banks, and does everything it can—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: You’d be the least cooperative party in this House. You’ve never cooperated.

The Hon Maurice Williamson, of course, is a big supporter of the Australian banks. That is why his Government constantly backs them and supports them. However, the Green Party thinks that we should be supporting the credit union sector and the building society sector, so that we have some competition in the finance industry to the big Australian-owned banks. So there is that element of this bill that is very good.

There is another element of the bill that is not so good, and that is around the changes to concessions on the conservation estate. That part of the bill we have some concerns about: whether it will actually make it easier for destructive commercial activities to occur on the conservation estate. There are lots of concessions on the conservation estate that are good and are non-destructive. Ecotourism and all sorts of ventures that occur are very positive. But there are some parts of the concessions that occur on the conservation estate that are problematic. Obviously, mining is one of them, but it is not the only one. Sometimes large-scale tourism ventures can be problematic for their impact on the conservation estate. So Part 4 of the Regulatory Reform Bill, which makes amendments to how concessions are dealt with on the conservation estate, is a more problematic area.

So this is a case of a bill that has some very good and important elements, in terms of supporting the credit unions in their competition with the large Australian banks, and also has some elements of it that are problematic, in terms of creating issues around the applications for concessions on the conservation estate. That is the nature of a large bill like this that combines all the different elements. This is an important bill. At this stage the Green Party will not be supporting it, because of the elements around the concessions on the conservation estate. But we will be moving amendments at the Committee stage to see whether we can improve the bill, because there are some very good elements of this bill that we would like to support.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Regulatory Reform Bill and the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. These two critical pieces of legislation once again show the hard work of this National-led Government towards ensuring a brighter future for all New Zealanders. By introducing the two bills concurrently, the aim of the Government is to boost New Zealand’s productivity and international competitiveness, and raise the living standards. The efficient regulation bills ensure that the focus remains on lifting long-term economic growth, which will create jobs for New Zealanders and raise our standard of living, along with providing world-class public services.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I would like to speak on the second readings of these two bills, the Regulatory Reform Bill and the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill, which are being read together tonight. I would first like to say that it was a sensible decision to hear both bills together. The Commerce Committee took that view when it heard submissions and deliberated last year. Both these bills seek to improve the regulatory environment. The first one amends 13 Acts to reduce compliance costs and regulatory burdens on business, and the second one repeals 31 Acts that are out of date and no longer have any effect, because they have been superseded.

I would also like to remind the House that the Regulatory Reform Bill is essentially a Labour bill. It certainly did not come from the mind of the new Minister for Regulatory Reform, John Banks, and it certainly did not come from the former Minister Rodney Hide. It actually came out of the Quality Regulation Review, which was led by the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who also chaired the select committee last year that heard submissions on it. My colleague Lianne Dalziel introduced the first Regulatory Improvement Bill when Labour was in Government, and it was passed under this Government, which then took credit for it. The Quality Regulation Review—I think it is always important to hear a bit of history when we talk about these bills, so that people understand the context from which they came—

💬 Maggie Barry: Selective history.

Well, you know, it is also important that members—especially new members in the House—go and do a bit of research and actually research the facts on bills before they pipe up with their uninformed comments. The Quality Regulation Review report was released in September 2008. That is a fact, and I say to new members, and especially new members who have been broadcasters, that it is always important to speak to the facts. It addressed the regulatory barriers to business growth, which Labour was then very committed to addressing. Labour was and remains committed to regulatory reform, with a balanced approach that delivers solutions that work for business and benefit the New Zealand economy as a whole. Labour has believed, and still does believe, that annual regulatory improvement bills are a sensible way of ensuring quality regulation.

However, the changes in these bills taken together are hardly all-encompassing; most are small and technical. Although I believe that the intent is important, and that there will be some reductions in compliance costs and regulatory burdens—of which I will speak in a minute—it is hardly earth-moving legislation and it will not lead to great, quantifiable changes in our economy. But there will be savings made and regulatory improvement gained.

Here is a quick summary to remind everyone what we are talking about tonight, just in case they have forgotten. We are amending the Companies Act 1993 to allow companies to choose whether they use electronic shareholder participation. When speaking about this bill last year, the former Minister Rodney Hide said that that could save New Zealand companies $1.5 million in total each year. Another change is to amend the Unit Trusts Act 1960 so that financial statements and accounts can be distributed electronically. That is very important and it is highly overdue. It will result in cost savings to unit trusts, especially in respect of printing and postage. That might sound boring, but actually it is quite important and there are huge savings to be gained there. The third thing is amending the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act of 1993 to modernise labelling. That, it was argued, would reduce compliance costs by an estimated $2.4 million in the first year and $3.1 million in year 5.

I want to spend a couple of minutes on this particular item. The Commerce Committee is an interesting committee. It can be quite dry. You know, a lot of the bills, for many people other than us who sit on the committee, may make their eyes glaze over. However, we do get impassioned submissions to us on the most interesting issues. One that really did stand out during the consideration of this legislation was from the Video Association of New Zealand. It came before us and, seriously, gave quite an impassioned submission on how a simple change to the law could allow the printing of classification labels on the sleeves of video cases, rather than someone actually having to sit down and physically put those labels on, which is what has to happen at the moment.

💬 Hon Chester Borrows: Jobs!

The House might be surprised to hear this. It is a very arcane process, although many of us actually do spend some of our time licking envelopes and putting things in them so that they can get out to people. But actually physically fixing labels on to video case sleeves is something that still goes on in this country. The Video Association of New Zealand asked us—implored us—to make a change that would result in considerable savings for it of more than $2 million a year, and that would result also in supply chain efficiencies in that the product would be able to be supplied to the consumers more quickly in these times of high demand. It was pointed out that the actual number of physical video games and videos is diminishing in our lives, as I think we all probably know, as more and more people are turning to the online environment. Hopefully, if they are downloading videos and games, etc., they are doing that in a legal environment rather than an illegal environment.

However, there is something that I do hope the Minister will address. Because the Regulatory Reform Bill has taken quite a long time to get to the House for its second reading after the select committee process, the bill before us today actually refers to an issue that was raised during the select committee and is reflected in the bill—that is, that an amendment may be sought in the Committee of the whole House by way of a Supplementary Order Paper to bring forward the commencement date of this part. It is my belief that that is likely to have been superseded now because the bill has taken so long to get to the House, but it would be quite useful for that to be clarified as soon as possible so that the members in the House—and, certainly, anybody who is watching, particularly the Video Association of New Zealand Inc.—know that the savings that can be made once this bill is passed, should it pass, will come into effect as soon as possible.

Finally, wrapping up, I would like to reiterate what my colleague from the Greens said when speaking before me tonight on Part 7 of the Regulatory Reform Bill, around the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982. It essentially removes the cap on the amount that can be deposited in a credit union, which is a sensible move. We on this side of the House are very supportive of cooperatives and friendly societies, and the concepts that lie behind them. We would have liked to propose an amendment to confer legal status on credit unions in the discussion on this bill. At present, credit unions are required to have trustees in whom the assets of the credit union are vested. We considered that to be a cumbersome and costly arrangement. Unfortunately, the scope of this bill did not include that. In the commentary on this bill we have mentioned this, tabled it, and flagged it as an issue that does need to be addressed in this House.

Despite the fact that these bills do, on the face of it, seem to be fairly mundane, there are a lot of quite important regulatory issues that lie beneath them. We commend these bills to the House.

I would like to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in relation to both the Regulatory Reform Bill and the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill, the two of which are run conjointly. Firstly, can I say that New Zealand First supports the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill, as we always support reform that is good for the country. We believe that this bill delivers some cost savings in some areas and some sensible repealing of a number of Acts that are no longer applicable. Perhaps people who may be listening out there to Parliament this evening may not have caught up with this, because this legislation has come back after being in the House a few weeks ago, but in terms of the Acts that are being repealed, it is interesting that some of them go right back to 1885.

For instance, one Act that I was looking at earlier, the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885, which this legislation is proposing to repeal, refers to: “Whereas on the thirtieth day of October, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, the House of Representatives resolved, ‘That the Government be requested to come to the best arrangements they can with the district railway companies with a view to the acquisition of the lines by the colony; such arrangements to be subject to the ratification of Parliament:’ ”. That was back in 1884, when this House approved the negotiations with some of the different railway operators to acquire the lines and, essentially, create the network for the base of the railways in New Zealand.

That was a long time ago. It is no longer applicable. We have gone through many, many changes over the last 130-odd years. Railways have been bought, railways have been sold, and railways have been bought back again. Depending on the Government of the day, who knows where they will be in the future? Certainly, under the present Government, we are never safe when it comes to State assets and knowing where our assets will be—where the nation’s assets will be. But, in this particular case, we are repealing that old, historical Act going back to 1885. However, in doing so we do acknowledge the wisdom of the parliamentarians back then in the 1800s who saw the sense in having the railways acquired through the District Railways Purchasing Act.

Similarly, when you look at many of the other Acts that are here, some also go back into the 1800s, such as the New Zealand Shipping Company (Limited) Empowering Act 1884. There are others from the 1910s and into the 1960s and 1970s, many of which are no longer applicable and are basically redundant. So it is good to be bringing the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill to the House to repeal many of those Acts, which basically are sitting on our statute book, no longer have application, and therefore are clutter. In many cases they are clutter, and they are sitting there simply because they have not been repealed before now.

It is good that we are moving on in this. I commend the Minister for Regulatory Reform. I understand that the Minister, the Hon John Banks, has carried this legislation through from his predecessor, and it is good to see that the ACT Party is working on things such as reforming and reviewing things from the 19th century. It is certainly up with the play, and the fact that the ACT Party is concentrating on looking at Acts from back in the 1880s is an indication of where it is at. I am sure that when the honourable member has his caucus meetings in a phone box somewhere on Lambton Quay, these sorts of issues are raised regularly—that they should be looking at Acts going back to the 19th century and reforming them. Good on him, and I hope he continues in that vein in the future.

Similarly, the other bill that is before the House tonight, the Regulatory Reform Bill—they are both being actioned in tandem—is basically to amend 13 other Acts. For many of those, again, it is just paperwork and it is a case of tidying them up. As with some of the previous speakers, we support that bill as well, in terms of just tidying up some of the irregularities.

I too was going to mention the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993. There are significant savings to be had because of this bill providing flexibility to either print labels directly or physically affix separately printed labels for films and videos. This is just bringing things into the modern age of modern techniques. That saving for the industry is estimated to be in the order of $1.3 million in the first year, rising to $2 million in year 5. Again, that is good. That helps our companies and it helps the various industries involved. That is a good thing, and New Zealand First certainly supports the likes of that. It also supports some of the other pedantics in terms of changing some of the other wording, such as that regarding the Director-General. The Animal Products Act refers to “the Ministry”, and “the Ministry” is referred to under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act. These are some of the issues where it simply is just a change of wording to tidy it up and make it more applicable in the year 2012.

This is a sensible move. We in New Zealand First have said that we will support Government policy where it is good policy. We believe, in the case of these two reform bills, that they are sensible and that they will have a positive effect in terms of some savings for different industries, companies, and sectors, and also in terms of some of the companies, friendly societies, credit unions, and various other organisations. It does make sense.

Can I just say that it is, however, disappointing that it has taken so long. In the case of many of these Acts, perhaps this should have been addressed decades ago, not in the year 2012. Hopefully, this House will move in the same direction to amend or repeal other Acts that are no longer applicable in 2012 to make New Zealand a much more competitive place. If we are going to compete in the world markets as a global player, and if we are going to compete with our trading partners around the world, we do have to be competitive in all respects, and regulation is one area that can hamper us and can hold us back. I believe that the more that all members in this House can work towards improving the legislation that this House provides, and also updating past legislation that may not be up to modern-day requirements, the better. So New Zealand First will support both of these bills. Thank you.

It is great to be able to take a call in respect of supporting the Regulatory Reform Bill and the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. I find myself in agreement with the previous speaker, Andrew Williams, who said that the change particularly in respect of stickers on video labels is something that should have happened some time ago. It is interesting to note in reading the transcript from the select committee debates that the officials who were making this point to the Commerce Committee said that they had spoken to the previous Government on many occasions, trying to get exactly that reform. That is good; I will come to that later.

The Government is committed to improving the quality of regulation and to removing unnecessary, ineffective, and excessively costly regulation, and this legislation helps to achieve that. The Regulatory Reform Bill is an omnibus bill and so carries many provisions that will make it easier to do business. This is particularly important as an objective in the current economic climate, and I hope further reform bills will follow.

As a Minister with responsibility for the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act, it is obvious that these changes are very, very necessary in terms of the matter I mentioned earlier. The industry has expressed frustration with some of the administrative requirements in the Act. It supports the purpose of the Act, but says it is hampered by compliance requirements that are outdated and costly. The Regulatory Reform Bill will modernise these requirements and reduce those compliance costs. A key change will be to allow the industry to print classification labels. Currently labels take the form of stickers, and have to be physically attached to DVDs and some computer games. This is an expensive and time-consuming process—but it is a job—and it is out of step with most comparable jurisdictions. It is time the process was updated and streamlined to better meet the needs of the industry and the viewing public. Allowing the print and sticker labels is a small but valuable change and it is expected to save businesses up to $2 million a year in compliance costs.

The bill will also improve the process for reviewing classification decisions. People who disagree with a decision of the classification office can apply to a review board to have the decision reviewed. However, the current process for reviewing decisions can be very lengthy, and to be effective, a review process should deliver timely justice. A protracted process has little value for the industry. The entertainment industry is fast-growing. There is often little time between classification and the release of a major film and there is, therefore, only a short period during which a distributor can challenge a classification. This bill will establish a more timely review process. It will allow review applications to be lodged more rapidly. The classification office will move from a paper-based system to an electronic register—

💬 Chris Hipkins: Who wrote this?

—of classification decisions. And it will make classification decisions publicly available on the electronic register within 5 days. “Alfalfa” over there is asking who wrote it. It is obvious that if he had read the transcript from the select committee process, he would see that this is something that officials have been asking for over a long period of time. Unfortunately, under the Government in which he served, or would have liked to serve—he served as a public servant, which is fair enough—he never had the opportunity to supervise or to see brought to fruition the claims and the entreaties that those officials made to that Government when those members were in Government prior to 2008. It is a real shame, it is a crying shame, but what we know is that they hate business. They hate business so much they were not prepared to grant this small wish. We know that those people who lick those labels and stick them on those CD pouches—every one of them—voted for their party.

I am pleased to be able to support this legislation and its intent, which is to reduce compliance costs and to create productivity in this fine country of ours. I endorse it to the House.

I am very happy to stand in support of these two bills that we are debating concurrently, the Regulatory Reform Bill and the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. It needs to be said again and again and again that the National-led Government is working hard to secure a very strong future for the economy, the families, and the business people of New Zealand. This legislation, as mundane as it might sound, according to Clare Curran, is actually very important.

We have heard speakers this evening and today talk about this situation regarding video labels. Do you know what is significant about that? It was just a very small change that made a significant difference. I think that this is the genius of doing regulation reform. There are very small changes that can make significant differences to businesses out there. But we need to understand that these changes are creating change in not just how things are done but also who does them, and this is the challenge that we are facing. This is the challenge that the Opposition does not like, because it alters the job market.

But the reality is that our economy is all the time changing. It is all the time evolving. It is all the time reacting and responding to market trends, so it is incredibly important that we go through a regular process of regulatory reform in order to make sure that we have regulations that are fit for purpose, that they work, and that they are not encumbrances but actually enhance and help business. Our regulations need to be like a racehorse—lean and high performance. We need to have regulations that are not cumbersome, that work, that are common-sense, and that enhance productivity in this country.

We are in times of incredible change around the world, and the good thing, I believe, about New Zealand is that we are responding. We are moving forward. Better but less regulation is essential to boost New Zealand’s productivity. The maintenance of a quality regulatory environment in New Zealand requires a body of legislation that is easy to use, up to date, and fit for purpose. That is incredibly important. That is what is going to give us the advantage in this highly competitive world.

New Zealand needs to offer a better policy environment than what can be found anywhere else if we are to overcome all the disadvantages that we face as a nation. We are a long way away from our markets—perhaps the farthest country from the markets that we send to. We have a small size. We have geographical isolation. We have incredible transport costs. So what is it that is going to give us that advantage? Of course it is going to be innovation. It is going to be that Kiwi know-how, that ability to adapt and to find what it is going to be that is going to create that edge. But in order to do all of that, we have got to have regulations that enhance that process.

You know, under the previous Labour Government, we know that we saw a huge increase in the core Public Service. It was an environment that lived and breathed regulation in many regards because of the programmes that were put in place. But we are moving into an environment where it needs to be far more entrepreneurial, where it needs to be far more innovative, because no doubt, even though we have very good public servants, the people who are earning us overseas exchange are our entrepreneurs.

Our Public Service needs to support our economy and it needs to support our population, but we have got to have regulation that is going to support entrepreneurialism and that is going to enable innovation to take place. Like we have talked about, even this video case used to have stickers on it, but now what they have said—something very basic; something very simple that should have been done a long time ago—is that they can just print the classification on the slip at the point of production. That saves that industry millions of dollars every year. What it does with those millions of dollars is be more innovative and create more jobs. All of these things are enhancing our economy. That is the sort of thinking we need.

Like I said when I started my speech, it is the small things that make significant differences. We have business people all over this country who are doing business and who are finding things that are snagging them and stopping their productivity. No doubt they are speaking to their members of Parliament and asking: “Why is this here? Why cannot that be changed here to make things easier?”. That is the process. It is politicians being connected to business people that is going to help regulation continue to change and be improved and modified, and that is going to enable us—New Zealanders—to have a competitive economy in this very competitive world. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I rise tonight to speak specifically, first, on the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. I would like to begin by echoing the considered and clearly articulated views of my esteemed colleague Dr Russel Norman, especially in his first speech on this bill.

The Green Party advocates for a sensible, rational, and evidence-based approach to regulation as opposed to an ideological one. The Green Party is happy to support the non-controversial Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill, as it repeals a number of superseded and outdated pieces of legislation—31, in fact. But, as Dr Norman noted in his previous speeches, there are both good and bad regulations. We often hear about the detrimental cost of regulation—especially from that side of the House—but we hear very little about the huge cost of neglecting to regulate appropriately. The costs of neglecting to regulate can be huge. This is evidenced by the leaky homes fiasco, the cost of the Christchurch earthquakes, and the cost of the Rena disaster.

If we move away from a highly charged ideological opposition to regulation and simply look at the evidence, we can see that there are both good and bad regulations, and the test must be what the overall impacts are on the community of either regulating or failing to regulate. And we cannot look at the impacts on just one specific special-interest group. Interest groups—and these can be specific business groups, for example—will inevitably argue to reduce regulations and compliance costs, because they have a direct financial interest in reducing the costs that they have to pay. But this, in and of itself, does not mean that those regulations or costs are without merit or that removing the costs will be good overall for the economy and New Zealand as a whole. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that regulation is the single biggest driver of innovation. So it is the role of Parliament and this House to adjudicate on behalf of the people and not to cave to specific lobby groups and reduce oversight and short-term costs just so some groups can profit at the expense of all of us.

As I said, the Green Party does support the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill because the legislation that is proposed to be repealed is redundant, it was not really affecting anyone, and it probably was not costing anyone much money, which is why it did not seem like there were very many submissions on it at the Commerce Committee.

When it comes to the Regulatory Reform Bill, the Green Party would have liked to support this bill. It removes some petty obstacles that small and medium businesses often face, and small and medium businesses are our best opportunity to develop a clean, green economy that works for all New Zealanders. As Dr Norman said earlier today, it removes an outdated restriction that restricts credit unions in their ability to provide financial services. The Green Party supports practical lawmaking that will help small business and help us transition to a sustainable economy, and that is why we announced a small-business policy last year that would significantly simplify tax compliance.

But we cannot support the Regulatory Reform Bill at the moment, because of Part 4. I will take just a moment to mention our concerns about the amendments to the Conservation Act 1987, because these changes potentially make it easier for destructive commercial activities such as mining and large-scale tourism infrastructure development to occur on public conservation land. That has potentially quite a large impact on our “clean, green” brand and our tourism sector, which is arguably one of our largest exports.

At the moment if someone wants to operate a commercial activity on Crown-owned conservation land, they need permission in the form of a concession granted by the Minister of Conservation or a Department of Conservation official. Public conservation lands are far from being locked up, as some would claim; they are the basis of our billion-dollar tourism industry and the location for considerable commercial activity. Last year—that is, in 2010-11—the Department of Conservation had 4,675 concession activities. The biggest group of concessions, more than 871, were grazing concessions. Access easements, including for mining operations, were the next biggest group, followed by guiding concessions and aircraft landing concessions. These concessions have varying levels of impact on landscapes on wildlife conservation land, but we are concerned that the purpose of the amendments that are proposed in Part 4 of the Regulatory Reform Bill is simply to make it easier for business, without necessarily giving the Department of Conservation the resources and the time to weigh up the evidence about whether it is going to be good or not for New Zealand. Thank you.

I do not consider myself to be a very old person, but I must say I am beset with a feeling of déjà vu as I get up to speak to this Regulatory Reform Bill and Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. I feel the need to reflect a little bit on history, not simply because it was this day in 1940 when Michael Joseph Savage died in office, or this day in 1984 when the trades hall in Wellington was bombed and Ernie Abbott was killed. It is not for those reasons, although they are worth getting in Hansard, but it is because when I first came into Parliament, and I was as new to this House as Maggie Barry opposite and her colleagues are now, I was on the Commerce Committee, and the Minister of Commerce was Lianne Dalziel. She engaged in a Quality Regulation Review. She was also the Minister for Small Business and she engaged in a very comprehensive regulation review process, which I got to know about fairly intimately being on the Commerce Committee. It was an excellent process and really engaged with the business community, in a way it had not been engaged with for a long time, to see what kind of regulation could be disposed of and dispensed with, and what was useful for business in order for it to function adequately and safely in a suitably regulated environment.

I just want to pay a tribute to Lianne Dalziel for that work and to say that although it has taken this Government 3 and a bit years to get to the point of bringing this omnibus legislation forward, for all its hype and bluster about being anti - red tape, really the credit for this initiative lies back with Lianne Dalziel.

However, in the form that the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill now appears in front of the House, it is not so much a regulatory reform bill as an omnibus legislation repeal bill, because largely what it does is to repeal a whole lot of Acts. Yes, some of them should go, and, as we heard from the New Zealand First speaker, Andrew Williams, earlier, things like the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885 should probably have gone some time ago. But one of them that also takes my attention here is the Economic Stabilisation Act Repeal Act 1987. A bit of history again: I remember the Labour Government in 1987 repealing the Economic Stabilisation Act. Here is a little contemporary irony: that was the Act that was used, in 1951, to deal with the waterfront lockout. In that period—and prior to that there was a version of it for the Second World War—the Economic Stabilisation Act gave the Government huge, huge powers, which we have seen since only in the extraordinary legislation around Christchurch. So there is a little bit of history there going back to the Second World War and later events in 1951, when the waterfront workers were being punished and forbidden to organise—and, lo and behold, here we are in 2012 and there is a bit of a port dispute on in Auckland, in case the members opposite had not noticed.

However, history is a good teacher, or ought to be, and this legislation, although it cannot do the things that National and the ACT Party would have us believe it would do—that is, rid business of strangling red tape and bureaucracy—it is still none the less worth passing 3 and a bit years late. It is still worth passing to get some pieces of legislation that are no longer relevant off our statute book, and for that reason I support the legislation.

I am very pleased to take a call on the Regulatory Reform Bill and the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. For a nation, this legislation is very important in terms of contributing towards growth, productivity, and international competitiveness, and boosting living standards.

Last Friday I launched my business forum series in my home electorate of Rodney. We had Rodney’s business leaders of large, medium, and small businesses gathered together along with our local budding entrepreneurs. Our discussions were based around identifying new opportunities, expanding on existing ones, looking for synergies and joint venture potential, how to expand our exports and tradable sector, networking, and developing policy to enable and strengthen business in our communities. A big part of achieving a more competitive environment is through better regulation, less red tape, and reducing compliance costs. Better and/or less regulation will assist our New Zealand businesses to become more internationally competitive.

In my experience overseas, we will continue to compete in an ever more demanding and competitive global economy. This Government understands that and is making all the right moves to ensure that the people and businesses responsible for taking our great New Zealand products, services, and innovative ideas to the global market are provided with a strong regulatory platform that helps make them competitive. Much of the poor regulation we have been afflicted with has been a hodgepodge that has never subsequently been challenged. This Government has been the first to systematically address these issues.

The people working hard to grow their businesses and create employment in my electorate are encouraged to see that this Government continues to make moves to create high-quality regulation. We are small and a long way from what are important markets for us. However, we do proudly punch above our weight, and we need to offer a better policy environment to help overcome those economic disadvantages. Some good examples of these are the improvements that have been made to the Resource Management Act, the electricity sector, transport, communications, and ACC.

The Regulatory Reform Bill contains amendments to 13 Acts, removing duplication, disposing of unnecessary requirements, clearing up inconsistencies, and reducing regulatory burdens. In short, this bill will make life easier for businesses. When I was addressing my business forum on Friday, I talked about this bill and how important it is as one of the building blocks for what we are trying to achieve in Rodney. It gave me great pride to be able to report that this Government is continuing to address and remove possible barriers to growth. For example, amendments to the Companies Act will enable companies to hold shareholder meetings with the use of the internet and will allow electronic voting. This has the potential to save New Zealand companies a total of $1.5 million a year. Also the bill amends the Unit Trusts Act 1960 so that financial statements and accounts can be distributed electronically. Changes to the Conservation Act will allow time limits to be set within which applications for concessions must be processed. This makes it much easier for businesses to plan and budget. Changes to the Statistics Act will allow greater access to Statistics New Zealand’s information by researchers, universities, and firms.

Finally, I am passionate about making our businesses stronger and more competitive on the global stage. As a result, I am pleased to commend this legislation back from the Commerce Committee.

Honourable members, the question is that the Regulatory Reform Bill be now read a second time. Those of that opinion will please say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

The question now is that the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill be now read a second time. Those of that opinion will please say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill read a second time.

I seek leave of the House to amend our vote, which would be to call for a party vote on the Regulatory Reform Bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think a party can amend its own vote; that is fully understandable. But to retrospectively call for a party vote where no party vote was called before is, I think, somewhat newer territory for the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, it is, but, having said that, the House is the master of its own destiny, and the member has sought leave. It does not have to be granted.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is recent precedent for this, when the ACT Party sought retrospectively to cast a party vote in respect of the third reading of a bill it opposed, and that was declined as outside of the Standing Orders. So I just wonder whether you would reconsider—I am not challenging your ruling, and the House is free to make that change, but my recollection of that particular event was that leave could not be put in that instance.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just advise honourable members that this particular case, because it is the second reading, is in the members’ hands. Had it been a third reading, then that would have been a different issue. So the member is perfectly free to ask the House and seek leave—the member has done so—for a party vote. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The member may call for a party vote.