Regulatory Reform Bill

This piece of legislation, the Regulatory Reform Bill, is in the name, I believe, of the Hon John Banks—no. Well, actually, it is very interesting because the bill still has, for some reason—I do not know whether this is an error—the Hon Rodney Hide’s name on it. That casts a sort of a nightmarish shadow over the debate for—

💬 Kris Faafoi: A throwback.

Yes, a sort of genetic throwback. Well, we have got the genetic throwback, actually. He replaced Mr Hide in Epsom, of course. This is an interesting piece of legislation, because the legislation that we are dealing with was brought in in the form of an omnibus bill, and was part of the outcome of the Quality Regulation Review, which was led and initiated by the previous Government. It is a bit, I suppose, like a Statutes Amendment Bill in some ways, in that it tidies up a whole series of small technical amendments to a whole series of bills.

It is interesting because, without getting into detail, this bill, when we last debated it, was in a slightly different form. Part of that bill that Mr Banks brought to the Parliament was to repeal 31 Acts that were spent—spent. I recall that when I spoke in the last debate on this, I asked the Clerk, because I am not a lawyer: “What is a spent Act?”. The Clerk was good enough to inform me that it is effectively an Act that does not exist, in effect. It has no effect on anyone, and has no compliance cost on any business, or any individual. So one of Mr Banks’ great contributions, as he was hauled back out of the political crypt, and then got into some very sticky and gooey political stuff over the last 3 months—the great reformer that John Banks is; the Minister for Small Business—was to bring a bill into this House that repealed 31 Acts that do not exist. I say, and I said last time, and I did mean it, that that takes a certain particular type of genius to achieve that in the annals of the Parliament.

I say this: it is interesting that this Regulatory Reform Bill does have some merit. It deals with, for instance, the reclassification of videos, DVDs, and those sorts of things. I went and visited the movie people who produce these up in Auckland—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Part 1.

Yes, I am coming to Part 1, absolutely. I am dealing with Part 1, and—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Part 1 is about agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines. It is a long, long way away from other things.

Well, only in interpretation, though, I would say. You could say you have a few animal control and veterinary medicines required over the other side of the Chamber. The point that I will jump at—and I will use those as the examples—is that, yes, this bill does deal with a large number of technical amendments, and some of them are very worthwhile. But let us get a bit real about it. This bill does not deal, for instance, with the big issues of reform in terms of compliance costs for small business. Yes, it deals with some components that will assist some small businesses, but it does not go anywhere near the big slash-and-burn promotion that Rodney Hide and now his successor, the Minister for Small Business, John Banks, said they would do. They came in and said that they would slash compliance costs. What did they actually do? They did something profound. They changed the name from the Regulatory Improvement Bill to the Regulatory Reform Bill. That was the great campaigning, the great slash into the future, that Mr Banks did. Then, because they changed one word in the title, they claim credit for this whole process.

I just say, as I said in the first debate, that this is a good process—a heavyweight process—but a lightweight content. This is dressed up—it has a bit of weight to the bill—as something magnificent, something that will reduce compliance costs; millions of dollars will flow from this and reduce compliance costs for small business. The truth is this is an omnibus bill. It tinkers around the edges and makes some technical amendments in the areas that we are debating now with Part 1, as you said, Mr Chairman, but it in no way actually addresses the big issues that Mr Banks said he was going to come in and deal with—you know, really cutting through compliance costs, saving money for small business. The guts of it is 31 Acts that do no exist, he repeals. No wonder Mr Banks is now sort of appealing to the deity for help, because his contribution as a Minister is marred with scandal, but, even over and above that, is marred with a lack of work ethic. There is a lot of puffing, a lot of blowing, but he presents a bill to the House that will do very, very little in a practical sense for small businesses, whether they be in the agricultural field or in other sectors—a lot of bluster, a lot of billowing, but it never actually delivered the goods.

It feels a little bit surreal speaking today in the Chamber on a bill that repeals 31 Acts that no longer exist, the Regulatory Reform Bill, especially when the Minister who has charge of that bill, John Banks, suffers from what can only be called documented memory loss.

💬 Brendan Horan: Amnesia.

Amnesia, or documented memory loss, as I choose to call it. Convenient memory loss, not the Regulatory Reform Bill or any other bill in his name, is his current claim to fame—forgetting whether he had met with Kim Dotcom, whether he had flown his helicopter to Dotcom’s mansions, and whether he had asked for, been offered, or received donations from that very same Mr Dotcom.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are on agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines—nothing to do with Dotcom.

Well, in the circumstances, I think it would be pertinent to ask whether the Minister actually remembers what is in the bill, given the documented memory loss. I was going to suggest that we give him a wee test and ask whether he can name the 31 non-existent Acts that are being repealed.

The bill is not actually even his bill originally. It was actually originally a Labour bill, in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel, and then it became Rodney Hide’s bill. Now it is John Banks’ bill. There is certainly nothing wrong with this bill, and Labour supports it, as we have through all of its stages to date, but most of the changes in this bill are small and technical in nature, and are hardly slashing red tape.

Although it is all about, I guess, a bit of tinkering, our view is that perhaps Mr Banks should have made its passage more worthwhile by introducing his regulatory reforms for schools into this bill. They are regulatory reforms that, as Mr Banks has been known to say on many an occasion, are all about removing red tape and slashing red tape. The reforms are about fundamentally changing the school system and introducing charter schools, which were not in the policy of this Government going into the election. They do away with a number of what I am sure Mr Banks considers to be trivial and pesky regulations, which the Prime Minister might say people should not be hung up on—the fact that teachers without qualifications will be able to teach New Zealand children at those charger schools.

Since that announcement, I think it was described by one academic as being a case of you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. It was a rebranding exercise that clearly demonstrates that the Government has recognised—

I want to refer to new section 44A of the Regulatory Reform Bill, inserted by clause 11, which I believe is part of the part that we are debating.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Correct.

It is very interesting, because in this it talks about recognised agencies, persons, and classes of persons. Particularly, I want to ask the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Commerce, what the ramifications of new section 44A(b) are, because (b) states: “establishes a procedure for the recognition of persons or classes of persons who are to carry out specified functions and activities for the purposes of this Act;”. My question to the Minister—and I take it that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Craig Foss, is not Mr Banks, and we take it that his memory is a lot better than Mr Banks’—is how it is that we can have a Minister of the Crown who has such a bad memory on all sorts of issues.

This is very germane to this bill. How would he, for instance, recognise a person or classes of persons who carry out specific functions? How would the Minister for Small Business, Mr Banks, actually recognise it? Of course, as we know through illustrative evidence, the Minister—not the Minister in the chair, to be fair—struggles to remember his own name or his reflection in the mirror, whether he is on a helicopter, or whether the brown envelope was a sack or a brown envelope. So I think it is very, very germane. I would invite Minister Foss, who I am sure has some insight into these things—or he may wish to take some advice from a specialist in amnesia or something like that; I do not know whether the Ministry of Health has those people—to state whether Mr Banks, as the responsible Minister, is actually accountable and can be held accountable for this particular provision in the legislation.

I would have thought that in order to establish a procedure for the recognition of persons or classes of persons who carry out specific functions and activities for the purposes of this bill, one would have to have a reasonable memory. One would have to know what day it is, for instance, or what one’s name is. One would have to recognise and remember these persons. I see Todd McClay nodding. He knows that this is an important part of this bill. You cannot have a bill implemented by a Minister who is incapable of remembering the basic facts—the basic facts—of any particular proposition.

💬 Brendan Horan: What time the House is debating his bill.

My colleague says what type of house he is entering. What he had for dinner. How big the bodyguard was. How big the envelope was. Whether he did declare it or whether he did not. These are all sort of evidential propositions that would lead somebody to believe that a Minister who is in charge of this may not be able to carry out and be accountable for the particular clauses in this section, and that is a worry to the New Zealand public.

That is a real worry, because, I think, especially in our agriculture and our other—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. This debate is interrupted. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.

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

I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Consumer Affairs. Sadly, Mr Banks is not in the chair. I am sure the ghost of John Banks, out of the crypt, is emanating around the Chamber somewhere, and I am sure he is here. I know he is here somewhere in spirit, if not in person.

💬 Louise Upston: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes, a point of order, and the member does not need to tell me what it is. I did give the member a look. He will desist from making references to the absence of people, even if it is by implication.

I want to go back to where I concluded, which was—I know my colleagues over there are interested in this—where we talk about new section 44A in new Part 3A, “Recognised agencies, persons, and classes of persons”. This is an interesting piece of legislation, because this was a piece of legislation developed by the Labour Government. It is akin, I suppose, to a Statutes Amendment Bill. It is an omnibus bill, and it deals with a whole lot of technical amendments.

The point I made before the break was that the bill, if you look at it, is actually in the name of—and I can refer to his absence—the Hon Rodney Hide, “The Ghost Who Walks”. It is still in his name in the printed version. Maybe there has been a mistake. Mr Chairperson, you might want to take advice from the Clerk. But, you know, he is “The Ghost Who Walks”. It is still in the Hon Rodney Hide’s—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Famous columnist.

I am sorry?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: He’s a famous columnist.

Yes, apparently so—apparently so.

What I say is that this is a heavyweight process developed by the previous Government to deal with a whole set of issues, but, sadly, the Minister who inherited the bill, the Hon John Banks—bit of an oxymoron, that—came and made the same claim as his predecessor, the Minister for Small Business, who was then the Hon Rodney Hide, that he was going to slash through red tape. Sadly, this is mere tinkering—mere tinkering. For instance, we know that as part of this legislation it repeals 31 spent Acts.

As I said before the break, at the last debate we had some weeks ago—because we know the Government has hidden this. Since Mr Banks has had his troubles, it has been “deep six”, buried, hot riveted, and welded down because the Government did not want anything with John Banks’ fingerprints all over it. Suddenly the police have said: “Well, we know he’s got a bad memory.” He was not sure whether it was a sack or a brown envelope, but he is back out of the crypt in the land of the living. We are going to deal—

It is a pleasure to take a call on this Regulatory Reform Bill, and I also want to acknowledge the Minister John Banks for bringing this bill to the House. It was Rodney Hide’s bill originally, but John Banks is continuing the good work that Rodney Hide did in the last term. It is about making New Zealand a better place to do business, it is about making New Zealand a better place to live in, and it is about improving the lives of all New Zealanders. The changes may seem small to some across the aisle there, but to the industries that this bill impacts, to the people whom they employ, and to the consumers who buy their products, they are significant indeed.

This bill, as has already been stated here tonight, is about getting rid of unnecessary regulations and about making it easier for businesses to do business.

💬 Brendan Horan: Speak up.

I want to thank Brendan Horan over there. He did not turn up to the rugby on Saturday, after spending 1 minute on the field 2 months ago—he smiles over there—but his leader turned up and gave a speech without playing the game. But coming back to this bill, we all know what the problem is. It is about the effects that outdated and irrelevant regulations continue to have on our economy. It is about growing the economy, because our Government believes in focusing on the things that matter. It is not about gay marriage. It is about regulations. It is about jobs, opportunities, and the things that matter to New Zealanders, whether it be health or education. I am pleased, because in my electorate of Maungakiekie we have got companies that actually welcome this bill. I go around and talk to these companies. Last week I was at NCI packaging in Mount Wellington, and the one thing they said to me was: “It’s about getting rid of compliance regulation.” Such regulations burden businesses unnecessarily and are ineffective.

I want to come to the bill—I want to come to the bill. There is amendment to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997, which Mr Cosgrove did not talk about, but I want to say what it does. The Regulatory Reform Bill provides for greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997. What does it do, Mr Cosgrove? Mr Cosgrove did not tell us in the last speech, but what it does is it will remove the requirement for product manufacturers’ details to be included on the public register. That is one thing that it does.

Secondly, it also allows the Director-General to cancel non-compliant and obsolete trade name product registrations where those registrations, and any required prerequisite approval for the product or a specific component or ingredient of a product, have been revoked under other legislation. He has got that bit right. Mr Cosgrove has got that bit right. But it is also about where the registrant cannot be located or where non-compliance continues to follow suspension of the product’s registration. That is some of the stuff in Part 1 that we are amending.

These amendments will also remove requirements that are unnecessary and excessively costly. How much is it? It is $50,000 per year under this part of the bill—$50,000 per year. Again they might scoff at that amount, but that amount is still significant when you think over the long term of the amount of money that will be saved under this part of the bill.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How much? How much?

I said it is $50,000 per year. Please listen when I speak; I give Mr Cosgrove the respect of listening to him when he speaks.

So these amendments will really increase the consistency across food safety - related legislation and will reduce red tape costs. The ability to recognise a class under this Act will reduce potential compliance costs and minimise the disincentive for applicants to become recognised. That is what the bill does, I say to Mr Cosgrove, if he was wondering, because he did not refer to the bill.

Much of the poor regulation, if I can summarise, afflicts our businesses right across the board. Some of the regulations that we have had to amend, certainly under this administration, the National administration, have been mistakes made under the previous regime.

💬 Hon Members: Oh, oh!

Oh, and they laugh. Let me point out another piece of legislation that we had to amend under the last term. There was the financial advisers and financial service providers legislation—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Hang on—relevance?

—just as an example to draw an analogy about what we are doing compared with what the Labour Government did. We had to clean up this legislation because the finance company failures were hurtful. We had to make up for the mistakes that were made under the last Government. When we came in, in 2009, we said that we would make two major commitments—two major commitments that pertain to Part 1 of the bill. We said that we would introduce new regulation only when we were satisfied that it is required, reasonable, and robust. I refer to the financial advisers legislation, and I refer to the financial service providers legislation, because in 2008 that legislation was passed and we had to amend it almost immediately.

The second part of our reform agenda was that we would review existing regulations in order to identify and remove requirements that were unnecessary, ineffective, or excessively costly, and that is what this bill does. This bill amends those costly regulations that were put in under the last Government. So this is another promise by the National Government that we are fulfilling.

Just to summarise, this is another promise that we are fulfilling around reducing the costs of compliance, reducing bureaucracy, reducing red tape, and promoting jobs and opportunities for all New Zealanders. That is what this National Government stands for. Thank you.

The Hon Clayton Cosgrove.

I know—sadly, Mr Chairperson, there is no one else but me. I have got to say that that was a stunning speech. That was a stunning speech, because poor old Sam Lotu-Iiga was brought out as the sacrificial lamb tonight to say that this Regulatory Reform Bill is a stunning bill, because do you know what it does? It saves 50,000 bucks a year! That is spread over however many small to medium sized enterprises there are. That is a lot of money to the average Kiwi, I accept that, and it is spread over the thousands of small to medium sized enterprises in this country. Poor old Sam Lotu-Iiga was reeled out. He drew the short straw in the caucus tonight. He is on the ginger ale. He has been told “Come down and try to justify this.” A bill from a Minister for Small Business, who—

💬 Hon Member: By Banksy.

—in the name of his predecessor, “The Ghost Who Walks”—Rodney Hide—who came in, like Rodney Hide, and said that he would slash through compliance costs. As I said some weeks ago, Mr Banks must have been affected mortally by his officials who told him to come down. This was the big hit for John Banks, because within this legislation we have 31 Acts that are going to be repealed, which are spent Acts and which effectively do not exist. I think it takes a certain amount of intelligence and class to come up with a policy where you come down to the nation’s Parliament to expunge from the books 31 pieces of legislation that have no effect on anybody, have no compliance costs, and have no effect on any business—that takes a special type of person, in my humble view. Then Sam Lotu-Iiga says: “The Government works on the things that matter.” Well, by God, can I ask the member what contribution is made by expunging from the books 31 Acts that effectively do not exist? Can I ask the member what contribution to small business is being made by saving a paltry $50,000 per year—a paltry $50,000 per year?

But I want to turn to a very interesting section: new section 44A(b) in clause 11, and I did allude to this previously in the evening—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! That is in Part 3.

No, I think if you check with your predecessor, Lindsay Tisch, he ruled—and I made a speech on this—that this is part of Part 1. So with respect, until you have taken advice, I will keep going.

What we have got is section 44A(b) and what that states is that new Part 3A “establishes a procedure for the recognition of persons or classes of persons who are to carry out specified functions and activities for the purposes of this Act;”. Effectively, what that means is you have got to have a damn good memory to recognise persons who have specific functions to carry out the Act. The difficulty we have is there is a lot of not only anecdotal evidence but quasi-judicial evidence, I would wager to say, about the Minister in charge of this bill. This is not the Minister in the chair, Simon Bridges, whose great policy that he brought to the select committee was based on clamping. I have said he is a great clamper, this man—an absolutely great clamper. Wheel clamping was his great policy, so I do not direct my comments at that member. I direct them to John Banks, the Minister who owns this bill.

The Minister who is accountable for this bill has to have a damn good memory in order to recognise agencies, persons, and classes of persons. The difficulty we have with this is that the Minister for Small Business, John Banks, cannot remember his own name. He cannot remember his own reflection, who he is, whether it was a sack or a brown envelope, how big the bodyguard was, whether it was a helicopter, a Learjet, or a MiG-16, what house he was in, how big it was, or how big the bodyguard was. So if the Minister who is accountable for implementing the provisions of section 44A(b) cannot remember his own name, then I have a question for the Minister in the chair. I know he will have done some work on this. He will have consulted the Ministry of Health in respect of what one does in respect of amnesia. He will have consulted those officials, those officials in high office, and he will have an explanation for us.

So I ask the Minister: can he give us a guarantee that the Minister administering this bill will recognise agencies, persons, and classes of persons under section 44A(b) who have specified functions and activities for the purposes of this Act? That is what worries the people of New Zealand. You cannot get $250,000 a year, the BMW, the warrant, the flash house, and all the baubles of office if you cannot remember your own name. You are actually running a country here. This is serious. I say to Mr Banks and to the Minister in the chair that we would like an assurance around this. But I say in all seriousness that the Minister came in and said: “Well, I am going to slash through compliance costs. I am going to make the big breakthrough. I am the impact player for the Parliament, and this is lightweight, lightweight content in a heavyweight process.” The heavyweight process was actually initiated by the last Government.

I am sure Mr Banks will make a contribution tonight. I am sure he will be itching to, given that he has had his clearances, given that his memory has returned, and given that he knows where he is, who he is, what he is, and how much he took. I am sure he will wish to take a call now. I say to Simon Bridges to not be afraid, Minister, to vacate the chair for Mr Banks. Do not be afraid to do that, because I know that this Parliament will want to hear from him. This Parliament will want assurances from him. But, actually, this Parliament will want to know why it is that he brings this sort of technical bill—after how many months in office—as the big hitter for ACT who was going to deregulate and to slash through red tape. This is the best he can do.

I will acknowledge that there are a few pages in this bill. It probably weighs—I do not know—a quarter of a kilogram. It is 144 pages, plus Supplementary Order Papers. There has been a bit of work in this, a bit of ink, and a bit of paper. But what does it actually do? Well, the best we have heard is from Sam Lotu-Iiga, and I will say that I feel sorry for Sam Lotu-Iiga. I really feel sorry for him. We have all been in his place, where the whips have told us “Come down. It’s your turn. You’re out on the pole. They’re going to have a peck at you. They are going to have a go at you. But it’s your turn to take the hit for the Government and try to justify this.” We have all been there. Fair enough. And I like Sam. He is not a bad bloke. But I say this: the best he could do was say this bill will save $50,000 per year. Well, how many small to medium sized enterprises do we have in this country? Hundreds, thousands of small to medium sized enterprises. Well, if you spread 50 grand over all of them, it is not a big contribution.

I just say to the Government that he talked about growth, did my colleague across the aisle. He talked about growing the economy—all objectives that we across the Chamber want to achieve. But I have got to say is this it—is this the 121st point of the 120-point plan? Is this the new one? Is this the big hit? Is this the best the Government can do? I know that it has buried this legislation. It has buried section 44A. It has buried the whole thing. We know, for instance, because I talked to the Hollywood guys, that this legislation has cost the film producers $50,000 a week, every week, because the classification issues have not been dealt with. The Government sacrificed them because it did not want any legislation with John Banks’ fingerprints on it. It did not want a profile for him. So suddenly, after he has got his alleged clearances, it is back in the Chamber, and I know that the Minister will be itching—itching himself probably—to take a call in this debate. He will want to take a call. He will want to actually justify what he has done to earn his pay, because I have got to say, as an ex - small business person myself, that this is piffle. This does nothing to help small business.

It will help the Hollywood guys. It will save them $50,000 a week, and that is fair enough. That is a good thing. But for every carpenter, plumber, sparkie, and small business person out there, this is nothing. The Government is prepared to stand up—and we will keep the speeches; we will keep Sam Lotu-Iiga’s speeches—and say: “This is the best we can do. This is the best we can do, thanks to John Banks.” I know Sam is going to go out to all these small businesses and hand them a copy of this bill and say: “Don’t you feel good about the National Government? Don’t you feel good about us? You should thank us. You should go down on bended knee and thank the National Government because this is what we have delivered for you.” Well, I have got to say to my colleague over there that I sympathise. I would be saying to the whips: “I want leave for a month after this. I have made the ultimate sacrifice, defending the indefensible.” And you have got to ask why it is that the Minister John Banks, in the last few hours, has not taken a call. Even “Cue Ball” over there is willing to have a go, but Mr Banks will not take a call.

If you are so proud of your performance, if this is the big hit for small businesses, if you are going to be carried aloft in every province of the country by the chambers of commerce saying what a wonderful human being and what a great man you are, then surely, as a Minister, you would come down and take a call. Well, I call on Mr Banks to take us through in detail how much it is going to save small business, how many, when—all those things. Because at the moment there will be a few people in agriculture reasonably happy about this for the odd label, but your average Joe, your average Kiwi on Struggle Street in a small business, knows what this is. I said in the last contribution I made that this is bull—high-quality bull, but it is bull none the less. New Zealanders and small businesses can smell it, they know it, and they know when they are being conned. I say to the National Party for God’s sake, have some sort of righteous indignation over this.

It is very difficult to follow on from that incredible contribution from my colleague Clayton Cosgrove, but I do want to follow on from him because I think he has absolutely nailed the core issue here. I was the chair of the Commerce Committee when this Regulatory Reform Bill, which has taken such priority from this Government, was referred to our committee on 15 February 2011. We set a closing date for submissions of April Fool’s Day 2011. We received and considered 20 submissions from interested groups and individuals, and we heard six submissions. The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill was referred to the Commerce Committee on 17 February 2011. The closing date for submissions on that bill was also April Fool’s Day 2011, and we did not receive any submissions on that bill. We were able to report this bill back in good time, and yet it has taken until now, until this date—and I am not even sure what date we are up to now—

💬 Hon Member: 22 August.

—22 August 2012, and somehow this has become the Government’s top priority. I think that my colleague has actually identified one of the major problems that we have with this bill.

I have been at a conference today. The New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development has had a very good conference today. I had the pleasure of hearing Rodney Hide speaking. Rodney Hide is, of course, the person whose name still appears on this bill, because this bill was introduced by the Hon Rodney Hide. He made some interesting comments, which I think are very relevant to this bill. He said that when he was in the Government he proposed that he should take control of all council budgets as the Minister of Local Government but that his Cabinet colleagues were not as “ballsy” as him. That was the description that he gave to the meeting today, and it was greeted with a degree of incredulity—if that is the right word to use—in responding to such an assertion that Cabinet colleagues were not as ballsy as him to take all of the finance responsibilities off local government. When we actually look at what this former Minister did in practice, he introduced the regulatory reform bill that did what this bill does, which is very little indeed. I think my colleague Clayton Cosgrove has described that very well. So what we are seeing here is the Government trying to push this forward as a major innovation in a number of areas, and yet we have had almost no examples from the speakers for the Government in support of this particular piece of legislation.

Of course, Part 1 amends the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997. I recall that this was the part of the bill that attracted some of the submissions, and I think we actually heard a couple of those submissions. People were somewhat concerned at some of the amendments that were being suggested that may, in fact, involve the Director-General not being required to consult in a way that one would expect the Director-General to consult.

But before I come to the specifics of this particular part, I just want to comment on the point that was made by a number of those who submitted on the legislation as a whole, which was that in many respects people were left with the concern that there was not proper attention being applied to the individual amendments to the particular pieces of legislation. I actually reject that assertion, because I think that the concept of a regulatory reform bill—we would call it a regulatory improvements bill—is a very, very good concept, because what it does is it enables Parliament to deal with issues that may be vaguely controversial, and so do not necessarily meet the test of a Statutes Amendment Bill, and to remove some of the regulatory barriers to business growth, in an integrated way rather than on a piecemeal basis. If you could imagine that we were debating the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act Amendment Bill, then it probably would not have made it to the House, because the Minister concerned would not have been able to persuade his colleagues that that alone was sufficient to warrant a high enough place on the legislative programme. So the Regulatory Improvement Bill, as we called it—or the Regulatory Reform Bill, as it was renamed by Rodney Hide when he was the Minister, in order to make it look like he had done something different from the Government—is actually a good process to enable these things to be dealt with.

This particular issue, though, did raise some concern. The concern that was raised was whether it was going to enable changes to be made to the recognition of agencies without the degree of consultation that one would normally expect under the particular provisions of the legislation. So what the bill actually does is it not only enables the Director-General to “recognise that person as an agency that is responsible for the management and carrying out of specified functions and activities.” but it also gives the power for that recognition process to be overturned. So the grant of recognition is not a permanent grant of recognition. It is an advantage—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! [Interruption] Order!

It is an advantage that ideally means—if anyone can hear what I am saying; I am getting the feeling that the sound system has been turned off. So I think that the point I would make is that it also enables the suspension of recognition to—

💬 Hon Member: See you, Lianne.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Come on, Mr Chair. Tell her.

No, I am happy to speak without anyone hearing what I have to say. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I am sure that those people responsible for the sound system—we might be back on again, are we? No. They are working on it. I ask the Committee to show a bit of decorum in the adversity that we are now facing, without amplification, and just bear that in mind.

Is it being broadcast?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have no idea whether it is being broadcast. It is not being amplified. I cannot answer that question.

💬 David Bennett: Well, nobody’s listening, anyway.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Yeah, nobody’s listening, anyway.

As I can hear my colleague across the Chamber, I can only presume—I am afraid that the member across the Chamber said that nobody was listening, anyway. I am perfectly happy with that outcome—I really am—because I do not actually feel that anyone is taking the issue as seriously as I believe they should be taking the issue. This bill does not allow for the suspension of recognition of recognised agencies, persons, or parties. This was the issue that was raised with the select committee, and I think that as a result of that we have a responsibility to take it seriously. If we do not take these matters seriously, then there is no point in people making submissions to the select committees. If they make submissions to the select committees, then I believe that this House has a responsibility to hear what they are saying and to actually take advantage of that.

So, Mr Chairman, I am not sure why one is looking at one in that particular way—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Well, I can respond to a question the member asked a moment ago: is this being broadcast? The answer is affirmative. It is just the amplification that we are short of.

💬 Kris Faafoi: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We have had word from people watching the TV that this is not being broadcast.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Well, I am talking about radio.

💬 Kris Faafoi: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Television is not being broadcast either, I am being told.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): It does not have to be. The Hon Lianne Dalziel—you have got about 2 minutes remaining.

Sorry?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): You have got 2 minutes of this call remaining.

The point that I was making is that the process of this legislation is an important one, because it does enable us to deal with a range of regulatory improvements on a collective basis rather than on an individual basis. What I have been saying is that maybe the individual amendments may not have sufficient weight on their own to carry them across the line when one is talking about a legislative programme with the Government, but what happens when you are able to collectivise them and put them into a single piece of legislation is that it enables the House to deal with them with them, part by part, within the context of a single piece of legislation, and that can then cross the line.

But the point that I am making is that this piece of legislation is not necessarily proceeding through the House in a timely fashion, because we had it referred to us in February last year, when I was still the chair of the Commerce Committee. There were people who made submissions on this who actually expected that this process would be used in a way that would facilitate the passage of the legislation in a timely fashion, but this Government has completely ignored it. It is not taking it seriously. We are not getting the calls from the opposite side that would suggest that those members are treating this in the way that it should be treated. We are taking it seriously on this side of the Chamber, because we think it is a very, very important piece of legislation not only in terms of the individual parts but also in terms of the collective, of what it represents as a whole—

💬 Louise Upston: Tell us about the part, then. Tell us in detail about the part.

I have told you about the part. It does not give the opportunity—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am aware that there may not be a requirement for this to be broadcast on the radio and on television, but I am just wondering, because of the technology, whether this is being recorded for the purposes of Hansard and whether this debate should continue if it is not being broadcast.

I have had no indication that Hansard is under any difficulties, and I assure the Committee that it is being broadcast on radio and that the television broadcast has sound.

I want to take just a brief call, as the Minister in the chair. I want to say I have never heard a better speech from the member Lianne Dalziel. That is because I could not hear it. I also want to say that despite everything the other side has said, this bill, the Regulatory Reform Bill, is a worthy bill. Actually, it is important that we clear these sorts of statutes that have been sitting on the book, that serve no purpose, and that, in fact, get in the way of businesses. The statutes need to be taken off the books. We on this side of the Chamber wholeheartedly support this bill, and think this bill is going to do a good job.

I think that the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Consumer Affairs, is actually mocking the reality of this situation, because what he has referred to—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I have asked for some tolerance of the situation. Members will walk if they do not heed that.

What the Minister did just then was to take a call and refer to the fact that a number of these statutes need to be taken off the book. That is the regulatory reform repeals part of the bill that we are debating here, the Regulatory Reform Bill. I am happy, you know, because the Minister has raised that, to respond to that. But every single one of those pieces of legislation—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague. There is a difficulty. I have just come down from my office, and I have seen your rulings on the sound. I have come down to report to you that you are audible, the Minister is audible—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am—sorry?

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You are audible, the Minister is audible, but for some reason on this side of the Chamber my colleague is not. Labour’s acting whip took a number of calls and they were not audible. I can also confirm for you that it is not only the television. It is also radio being piped into the parliamentary system. My question to you is simply this: the proceedings of the House—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Speak up. Can’t hear you, mate. Speak up.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Well, there’s no point in having a point of order if we can’t hear it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Mr Henare, I have cautioned you. You are on your last warning.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I cannot hear.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Right. The member will now leave the Chamber.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What for? I can’t hear.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member will leave the Chamber—you can hear that.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Only because you spoke up.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am waiting for the member to leave the Chamber.

💬 Hon Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am just aware that it appears to us that—now my microphone has started working—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes, it is working.

💬 Hon Jo Goodhew: —but other microphones have not been working.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes—I am waiting for the member to leave.

Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I do not intend politics in this one but I can clarify for my colleague that there appears to be a major problem, unless it has been rectified since I walked downstairs. What I am saying to you, Mr Chairman, is that you interpreted that the radio is working; it is not. You are audible, your colleague beside you is audible, but everyone on this side of the Chamber is not. I have not heard a speech from your colleague—maybe they are—but there is a difficulty in that it is not being broadcast, unless it has been rectified since I walked down to the Chamber.

💬 Hon Jo Goodhew: Mr Chair—oh, I am on. But the member Tau Henare’s microphone was absolutely not on at any time.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, that was not a point of order. I am not taking that as a point of order. I have made myself quite clear. I had direct eye contact with the member and he did resist me in a way that necessitated some action after a warning. I have made it quite clear—I am taking advice as I sit here, so I have not got any predetermined outcome about this. I just ask for some tolerance from members in the Chamber, and I am not sure what is happening on this side now. There is some life that has come back in on this side to the audio system. [Interruption] I am on my feet. So I am just going to ask for some tolerance. It is an instruction that the House should be broadcast, but not a requirement, if you can understand the Standing Orders on that point. It is preferable—I have had a look at the Standing Orders. In the absence of that, if we show some accommodation to each other, we can hear what is going on in here. I thank the member.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, because—[Loss of audio]—in an appropriate way. My question, which maybe you could answer, is that if it cannot be broadcast in the media—i.e., television or radio—should that not be rectified before proceedings continue? That is one problem. The second problem is I—[Loss of audio] Mr Henare has illustrated the third problem: some members cannot hear the contributions of others, so is it appropriate that the Committee taihoa for a moment until the technical difficulties can be fixed?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Let me just tell members that the Standing Order I referred to is Standing Order 44(1), which states: “The proceedings of the House are broadcast on radio during all the hours of sitting”. Nowhere in the Standing Orders is there a requirement that says that if they cannot be broadcast, the proceedings of the House will be adjourned. There is no instruction in that form. Having worked with the difficulties that we are in, the Clerk has brought us a microphone, which we will pass to any member who has the call. They can use a handheld microphone. That is the best we can do in the circumstances until it is rectified.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. With respect, Mr Chair, I do not want to in any way impinge on you, as I think what you are doing is absolutely appropriate. But I think it is worth you seeking some advice from a higher authority—if you can hear me, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think others should hear you.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Yes, I will approach the bench.

💬 Hon Member: “Karaoke Cosgrove”.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I do commit to the Committee that I will not break into karaoke. I do not wish to impinge on you, because I think you are trying to navigate through this. But I think there is an issue as to whether the House should be suspended until this problem is worked through. I am happy to move to recall the Speaker, but if I do that I do not want any imputation put on the fact that I am challenging your integrity, because I think you have acted absolutely admirably. But I would suggest, and I am happy to move, that we recall the Speaker to just get some advice on this. But I do not want to impinge on your integrity.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will respond to that. We now have a microphone that works. I know that it is not the best that it has to be moved around—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Is it being broadcast?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes, it is. You are booming loud and clear here, and my presumption is that it is being—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: But on the television and the radio?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I cannot answer that question.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have been able to follow the progress of this debate on television, but I got the feeling also that some of the things that were being said by you, Mr Chair, were being broadcast as well.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can I simply request the following: that if we cannot get verification that it is being broadcast through the normal medium, could we seek advice from the Speaker, on the premise that I do not wish—normally when the Speaker is recalled it is a negative conclusion on the Chair, and I want nothing drawn from that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is understood. The member has only to move that the Speaker be recalled.

I move, That the Chairperson report progress to obtain the Speaker’s ruling regarding the failure of the sound system and whether the Committee could proceed while not being broadcast.

Motion agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

No, we have now moved to recall the Speaker. We are past that.

House resumed.

Speaker Recalled