Regulatory Reform Bill

The House in Committee for the Regulatory Reform Bill is resumed. I think the Hon Lianne Dalziel had the call, and she has just over 4 minutes remaining. I think I should respond to ejecting someone from the Chamber. I have been informed that this microphone has been live the whole time. Whether or not it was, having spent my formative years as a drum major, I am quite sure the member heard me. The reason he got ejected was for interjecting while I was on my feet, and he clearly can see, even if he cannot hear. But given the complexities that the House has been in, he is able to return to the Chamber at 9 p.m.

I just want to clarify the amount of time that I have to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Four minutes.

Four minutes? So I have not lost anything as a result of this? OK, just checking. I think that before this interruption, I was identifying that the Minister of Consumer Affairs himself had spoken with, probably, a broad-brush approach on the whole regulatory reform repeals element of this legislation, which he said gets rid of a whole stack of statutes that are holding business back. They are costing business money, and they want to cut through the red tape in order to get things done. Not one single piece of that legislation exists in practice. This is a tidy-up piece of legislation that he is referring to, which simply removes things from the books that are printed there in technical fact, but have no practical impact at all. So it really is not a very good argument for the Minister to make, and I am disappointed, actually, that he would make those assertions in this Committee, because they really do not make any difference to the sum whole of any of the compliance issues that business might face.

The removal through a repeal Act of legislation might remove some printed words from the statute book, but it does not do anything practical to assist the small to medium sized enterprises of this country. I think to get up and say in this Committee that that is what this legislation is all about, when in actual fact it does not make any practical difference—I am all for the tidying up of the legislation, but I just do not think that the Minister should stand in this Committee on this part of this bill, in order to make that point, when I do not think it is particularly relevant to this particular part. I also do not think that it is relevant to the debate that we are having. It is not relevant, and to assert that small businesses are going to be better off as a result of the changes that this legislation is making is simply an inadequate response from the Government.

I do not think that the Government has been taking this bill seriously. That it could allow this bill to be introduced in February last year—I mean, we have had a general election since then. I was the chair of the Commerce Committee and we treated this seriously. We actually dealt with it relatively quickly. We reported it back to this House in a timely fashion, and this is what we are treated with. We are down to August 2012. So the Government does not think that this is very important, and then we get these platitudinous speeches in the Committee, from—what is the name of the guy from Auckland?

💬 Rino Tirikatene: Sam.

Sam Lotu-Iiga was saying that this is the best thing since sliced bread and it is a fantastic Government that has been able to deliver it. Yet you just cannot for a minute see that this Government has shown an ounce of interest in this particular matter, which actually does verify the fact that this is not a piece of legislation that is going to have a major impact at all.

That being said, I am pleased with the approach. But it is the approach that we developed when we were in Government. We said you need to have a particular format for regulatory upgrades that enable a number of regulatory measures to be dealt with in a single hit, rather than dealing with them as individual pieces of legislation. The reason that we went down this track is we knew that Ministers were going to struggle to get their colleagues to agree, and that the agricultural compounds amendment bill, or whatever it is—the amendment to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997—was not going to get the standing it needed.

I would like to speak to Part 1 of the Regulatory Reform Bill again, and take a little issue with my colleague Clayton Cosgrove. Although I support the vast bulk of what he said on the bill in his previous, erudite speech, I would like to say that Labour is the party of restorative justice. It stands for restorative justice and rehabilitation. I think that is a really important point to bear in mind when we are talking about the issue of documented memory loss and the effect that that can have.

In particular, I refer to section 44A(b) in clause 11 and the point that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove was making around whether or not the Minister in charge of this bill, John Banks, could actually establish “a procedure for the recognition of persons or classes of persons who are to carry out specified functions and activities …”. It was unknown whether or not he could actually recognise those people, and whether he would have the memory capability to do so. I think, given that we know that there is a phenomenon known as recovered memory syndrome, that it is possible that he could actually recover his memory and be able to fulfil and carry out his functions as the Minister in charge of this legislation. In particular, I refer to section 44A(c) in clause 11, which says this part “sets out the duties of recognised agencies, recognised persons, and recognised classes, and when their recognition can be suspended or withdrawn;”. The bill goes on to talk a bit more about recognition and the importance of recognition, and recognised agencies, recognised persons, and recognised classes. I do take issue with what Clayton Cosgrove said around the ability of the Hon John Banks to actually recognise those things, and whether or not he was able to.

I would like to follow on from my colleague Lianne Dalziel, who chaired the Commerce Committee that saw this bill through and did a very good job. I am sure that all of the erstwhile members of the Commerce Committee in the last term would agree that she did a very good job on that.

The summary of changes includes quite an important issue—which we have not discussed tonight—around amending the Companies Act 1993 to allow companies to choose whether to use electronic shareholder participation. I suppose, when thinking about this bill, that that particular aspect of the bill is actually quite important, and one would think that it would have meant that this bill came before the House a lot sooner than it did. I understand that a number of companies have wanted to use an electronic means for shareholders to cast a vote, but, because of their inability to do so under the current legislation, they have not been able to. Just to set out the issue with that, the Companies Act 1993 does not permit companies to use electronic technology for shareholders to vote during meetings, nor does the Act permit shareholders to elect to receive notices and other documents from the company electronically. The impact of this bill—which, as Lianne Dalziel has said, came out of the regulatory changes that came from the previous Government—will enable companies to use electronic technology for shareholders to vote during meetings. This is 2012, and one would think that we could have sorted this issue out a couple of years ago, at least. You have to ask yourself: “I wonder how many companies have actually been precluded from using that mechanism to get their business happening in a more timely and easily managed fashion?”.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Animal Products Act 1999

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Companies Act 1993