Regulatory Reform Bill

The question now is that Part 3 stand part. Are you taking a call? You must call.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. One of the issues with the lack of sound in the Chamber is actually the inability to be heard when one stands and attempts to seek a call. So I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to that, that that is an issue on this side of the Chamber, which is the Opposition.

Yes, I am very cognisant of what the Speaker said. I looked around to see whether any member was on their feet seeking a call. When that did not happen, I proceeded. I will do that on each occasion. I said: “Is any member seeking the call? I will put the motion.”

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not going to challenge the ruling that you made in Part 1, where I did try to seek a call at the very end of that debate. But I get the funny feeling that you may not have seen me stand up or heard me speak when I asked for a call on Part 1.

Yes, I did see the member stand up and I chose to let the Committee determine whether it would take a closure motion. I saw that. I then was very careful on the next occasion, as I will be now, as I put the question that Part 3 stand part.

💬 Clare Curran: Mr Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Are you seeking the call? I call Clare Curran.

For the second time! I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I accept that I do not have the loudest voice in this Chamber, but I have on two occasions now stood up here and said: “Mr Chair”, attempting to take a call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I did not see the member stand when I looked around. I did not see the member, and I looked around.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I accept that I am not the tallest member in the Chamber either, but I have on two occasions now stood here and said: “Mr Chair”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): In regard to a call? Because I asked whether anybody was seeking a call.

In regards to a call, but I did not have the microphone, and my point is that without the microphone, the Opposition members in the Chamber are compromised unless they have extraordinarily loud, booming voices or happen to be maybe around 6 foot tall.

💬 Louise Upston: If the member is referring to any calls in Part 2, clearly no one stood, so therefore no one called in Part 2. We are now on Part 3. The member sought a call and she has been given it, so I am not sure why we do not just carry on.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is precisely the point. I actually took the precaution of saying: “Is some member seeking the call?” and looked around. I did the same on Part 3, and I have acknowledged that the member has the call on Part 3, if the member wants that.

I would like to take a call on Part 3 of the Regulatory Reform Bill, which, under some duress in the Committee, we are attempting to debate. The point that is to be made around this bill is around the fact that it achieves some measures that are going to ensure that we tidy up, and provides some tinkering around a number of bills, some of which are just being amended, and 31 of which are repealed bills and bills that need to go. As we have heard from the Hon Lianne Dalziel and other speakers, this bill came out of a process that has been ongoing for a number of years. It was the outcome of the Quality Regulation Review that was led by Lianne Dalziel during the former Labour Government, when the first Regulatory Improvement Bill was introduced, which was then an omnibus bill as well, as we are seeing here today a number of years later.

This bill was put in by the incoming National Government under the name of Rodney Hide, and has now been transferred to the Hon John Banks. We have been calling all night for him to take a call on this bill, because there have been a number of important issues and points raised around the impact of this, the savings that it will make, and, I suppose, the bigger regulatory reforms that it leaves out and that are not being covered in this bill, which a number of colleagues have made reference to. We know that annual regulatory improvement bills are a very sensible way to ensure quality regulation, but we have expressed a lot of concern about the process of this bill through the House and how it has been held up, and whether or not it actually achieves anything particularly major.

There are some issues that it does deal with, such as with those 13 amendments to those particular Acts that it will cover, and I was making reference to the importance of the electronic shareholder participation. Another change that it includes is amending the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act, which will reduce compliance costs as well. We received a number of submissions on this during the progress of this bill through the House. This was quite an important issue, which was referred to by submitters who had been requesting changes, essentially, to “the Films, Videos and Publications Act 1994 since early 2009.”, and stated that “The Film and Video Labelling Body … is currently permitted to cross rate film titles from Australia and the United Kingdom”.

💬 Andrew Williams: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member, with all due respect, appears to have moved on to Part 5 of the bill. We are debating Part 3 at the moment, so just keep this brief and to the point.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

With reference to Part 3 of the Regulatory Reform Bill, the Companies Act 1993 is one of the 13 Acts that are being amended. Actually, there are a number of Acts that are being amended, and the Companies Act is just one of them. The Companies Act is from 1993.

💬 Darien Fenton: What are the other Acts though?

Well, we have covered off the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997, which actually Lianne Dalziel spoke quite knowledgably about, I have to say. I think there has been some reference to the Animal Products Act 1999.

I have to acknowledge to the member who leapt to his feet previously, Andrew Williams, that I did actually get ahead of myself a bit by referring to the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993. There are a number of issues associated with all of these particular Acts that are being amended, and then, of course, there are the 31 pieces of legislation that are being repealed, because they actually do not exist any more. That does, I suppose, in the context of tonight, when we are standing—

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on Part 3 of the Regulatory Reform Bill. In particular, just to bring some focus on this particular part of the bill, I say that we support this, in that it particularly focuses on the Companies Act 1993 in relation to the use of increased electronics for the servicing of documents on shareholders and creditors, and for the methods of holding meetings in allowing electronic means of holding meetings. That is most appropriate tonight, in view of the electronic limitations that this Parliament has. But this bill specifically allows for companies to allow shareholders and participants of the company to participate in holding meetings via electronic means, such as audiovisual and other electronic communications. So it brings it into line with modern technology, which is a good thing. It allows for shareholder participation by electronic means, in terms of distribution of documents by electronic means as well, including the likes of proxies and other instruments of a company for the undertaking of their business. This is a good thing.

This part of the Regulatory Reform Bill is welcome. It just means that New Zealand comes into the 21st century in terms of what would be a modern expectation for companies to undertake their business, and for commerce in New Zealand to be competitive on a global stage with competitors around the world. Therefore New Zealand First certainly supports this. It will help New Zealand be more competitive in global business.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 3 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It might be to the benefit of the other side, but I am seeking a copy of the bill. It is normal practice for a copy of the bill to be on the Table of the House. It does not appear to be the case, at least on this side. That is a distinct disadvantage for members, if they not only cannot be heard, but also cannot see the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you to the honourable member, and we will ensure that that happens. It is being organised.

Part 4 Conservation Act 1987