Regulatory Reform Bill

I would advise honourable members that Part 5 is debate on clauses 52 to 76 and the schedule.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and my thanks also go to the messengers this evening, who have an extra layer of duties running microphones around the Chamber. It is my pleasure, though, to have the opportunity to speak to Part 5 of this bill, the Regulatory Reform Bill. For all of the rhetoric that we have heard from across that side of the Chamber about how this bill is creating fundamental reform for the business community, how it is cutting through red tape, and how it is making the lives of small businesses that much easier, of all of the elements of this bill this is probably the one where that argument may have some legitimacy for one particular industry.

We heard at the very beginning much discussion from the member Sam Lotu-Iiga about saving $50,000 per annum through regulation changes to—what was it? Animal or veterinary services, or some other description. This particular amendment, when put in place, will save the Home Entertainment Association of New Zealand $50,000 per week. Let me explain what this particular part of this bill does. It is one very small part, found under Part 5. Clause 55, “Conditions relating to display of restricted publications”, says: “Section 27(4)(a)(ii) is amended by omitting ‘affixed to’ and substituting ‘displayed on’.” This is the ultimate demonstration of unintended consequence in legislation. This particular small little clause means that when products are brought into New Zealand, the Home Entertainment Association of New Zealand and parts of the music industry are not able to simply affix censorship details relevant to New Zealand on to the exterior of that product. Instead of just displaying it, it must be affixed to the product itself, leading to a very onerous process within the industry in order to do that. The simple use of “affix” instead of “display” is costing an industry $50,000 per week.

I would argue that that probably demonstrates where something like a Regulatory Reform Bill has a place in this Parliament. It allows us to quickly and easily rectify, I think, a consequence that no one in this Committee would intend, because it is simply a bureaucratic nonsense: if you are displaying the censorship details, then that should be sufficient, whether they are affixed to the product itself or to a plastic sleeve on the outside. Surely this would have been the perfect vehicle to deal with this quickly and effectively, but has it? Absolutely not. When did the Home Entertainment Association of New Zealand first raise this issue? I think members over that side of the Chamber may indeed be familiar with the fact that it was raised 3 years ago with the National Government. It was first raised not with John Banks—obviously not in Parliament at that time, but this is a potted history; it was raised with Richard Worth, who was in charge of this particular area of legislation at that time, in May 2009. Since that time it was raised with Nathan Guy. It was then raised with Rodney Hide, and eventually it found its way on to the lap of John Banks under the Regulatory Reform Bill, the bill that was intended to swiftly move through Parliament areas of reform that are a nonsense such as this for this industry.

How much is it then—quick calculation, any of the Labour members—if we are looking at $50,000 per week for almost over 3 years, I think it would be? Well, roughly, we can apportion the cost of that Government’s neglect on this simple change down to $7 million—$7 million. Do you know that is almost as much as the Government spent on its roads of national significance publicity campaign—not quite, but almost? It is more than what the Government has put aside in its Budget to deal with the recommendations in the white paper on vulnerable children. The industry has paid $7 million because that Government was neglectful in its duty to fix a simple area of nonsense, of bureaucratic nonsense, in our legislation.

This Government could have dealt with it in another way. Let us not be under any illusion that somehow this was the only option that lay in front of the Government to deal with this particular area of law. Of course, we have heard from my colleague Lianne Dalziel about other options that have existed in the past. Previously, these kinds of changes would have been dealt with in a Statutes Amendment Bill, potentially—a yearly omnibus bill that allows us to deal with substantive issues like this that are non-controversial. This would have been a perfect fit for a Statutes Amendment Bill. Why, then, I ask the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Internal Affairs, was this particular piece of Part 5 not put into a Statutes Amendment Bill 3 years ago when it was raised with Richard Worth, when it was costing this industry $50,000 per week? Why was it that that Minister at that time did not recommend that perhaps it might take some time to pull together this particular bill, that perhaps some of the members ushering it through the House were more controversial members of Parliament, and that it might not be the speediest of processes? Why did Richard Worth not raise that at that time and allow it to be put in a Statutes Amendment Bill?

I would be interested in how many Statutes Amendment bills have passed since this issue was first raised in May 2009. Why did Nathan Guy not make that suggestion to the industry, and, indeed, to the Minister of Justice at that time? Why did Rodney Hide not make that suggestion? Well, I think with Rodney Hide we get a clue. I think we get a clue because at that point the Regulatory Reform Bill was—what was it called back then? It was called the Regulatory Improvement Bill, or something like that. At that time, regulatory reform was one of the main platforms that ACT had in this Parliament. That was one of the only platforms, one of the only points of distinction, that ACT members had as members in this House. The basis on which, I imagine, their coalition agreement was set was that they could have a Regulatory Reform Bill such as this. So it would not have been in their interest to suddenly remove swathes of their regulatory reform bill and put it into a Statutes Amendment Bill, even though that would have saved the home entertainment industry, and, no doubt, the music industry in excess of $7 million had that been done. This industry has paid $7 million for the ego of the ACT Party. That is what this comes down to: the ego of the ACT Party is the reason why this has not moved to another form of passage through this Parliament.

I would challenge any member on that side of the Chamber to stand up and give me a legitimate explanation, if this was a known issue, why it was not dealt with in some other form much earlier in this debate, because that is what the expectation would have been on this side of the Chamber. I have seen letters suggesting to Ministers that this be rushed through, and it has stagnated for weeks at No. 16, No. 17, and, at times, at No. 20 on the Order Paper. And why did it stagnate earlier this year? Why did it sit there dormant even though it was considered to be relatively non-controversial, even though it had support, for instance, on this side of the Chamber? Why? Well, I would suggest that John Banks’ rather controversial time in this Chamber has actually hindered his ability to represent the people this bill would have a positive impact on through the passage of this bill through the House.

As much as that Government may argue that John Banks is able to do his job as Minister with the cloud hanging over him over potential electoral fraud, this bill proves that actually that is not the case. [Interruption] If the member would like to challenge me on what cloud it is that hangs over Mr Banks, then I welcome that—I do use the term loosely. But there is an impression that obviously the Government did not want to be challenged on whether or not Minister Banks was right to continue to hold his portfolios, because if it was not concerned by that, then it would have allowed the Minister to continue—

💬 Hon Member: Section 5, Part 5 please.

—to pursue his Regulatory Reform Bill and Part 5 through this debating chamber much earlier than it has. It is only now that we are discussing Part 5, after many, many weeks of Mr Banks finally being somewhat out of the spotlight. And that, I believe, is the only reason why we are now here debating clause 55 of this bill in Part 5 and the conditions relating to display of restricted publications. I urge the Government to continue the passage—

I recognise the honourable member Andrew Williams, and advise members that they can interject only on the person who has the floor at the time, not on each other.

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in relation to the Regulatory Reform Bill, Part 5, which refers to the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993. It is a little bit like Part 3, which we discussed a short time ago, in relation to improving the electronic regulatory side and bringing new systems and new technology into being. This is the same application in terms of the film and video publications industry.

In this respect it is very clear from the wording of the bill that what this allows for, for instance, is that the chief censor will establish an electronic register for this particular medium and for classifications—and this is from 1 November 2011—rather than as previously, when the classification office used to publish a monthly list of such decisions. Obviously, time has moved on. We are now in the electronic age, and having an electronic register, rather than lists being published on a monthly basis, is a much more efficient method for the industry concerned.

Also, the industry, as a result of some of the changes in the legislation here, will be allowed to directly print on to the publications rather than be required to affix labels. We are told that just that simple change of methodology of printing directly on to the videos, films, and other publications has the potential to have significant savings for the industry. We are told that in year 1 the savings to the industry will be in the order of $1.3 million, heading towards $2 million by year 5. Therefore, again, this is a sensible piece of legislation that brings both efficiencies and significant savings to the film and video industry.

We have said that New Zealand First will support legislation that is good, sound, and sensible legislation. This is another example of legislation that will help an industry that is very important to New Zealand—our film, video, and publications industry. It is an industry that does need a level of assistance in terms of being internationally competitive and being able to provide film, video, and other such publications to the people of New Zealand at an affordable price. Everything that we can do in this Chamber to assist the industry to do that in a more efficient manner is a good thing. So New Zealand First will support this part of the bill and we commend it to the Committee.

Thank you. Just before I call the next member, can I advise members that I have been advised that the mikes on our desks are now working, so there is no need to have the wireless mike any more.

I would like to take a call on Part 5 of the Regulatory Reform Bill, and I would like to say that my colleague Jacinda Ardern made some very good points about the amount of money that could have been saved on this issue, on this particular part of the bill, which is around film, video, and publication classification, and how it is a travesty that this bill is going through Parliament only now. I have just done a quick calculation as to how much could have been saved, and it is at least around $6 million or $7 million that could have been saved if this bill had gone through when this issue was first raised with Ministers. Essentially, that represents almost half of the budget of TVNZ 7, which was canned just over a month ago. One has to ask oneself, and one certainly has to ask the other side of the Chamber and the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Internal Affairs, why, if this issue was raised—and I am going to outline specifically what the issue is—it was not addressed at the time, especially if this Government is so intent on regulatory reform and cutting red tape.

I would just like to draw the Committee’s attention to what the issue is. It is really about bringing the labelling of DVDs and video games into the 21st century, and creating a harmonisation between the classification of films that are shown at the movies and the DVDs that we watch in our homes. The issue is that most DVDs and some video games that are supplied to the public have to have, as my colleague Jacinda Ardern said, labels affixed—that is an interesting word, “affixed”; it is not a word we normally use—to them, showing their rating or classification. Currently, those labels take the form of stickers. They are time-consuming and expensive for the industry to actually affix, because it has to do it manually.

We heard two submissions on this particular part of the bill, and it was explained to us in depth as to how all of those DVDs had to be brought in and reclassified because of this anomaly in the law. The DVDs had to be watched, and if the classification needed to be changed, then new labels had to be affixed, which meant that they had to be done manually. So that is a group of people sitting around, sticking labels on. This creates an enormous amount of cost, instead of allowing the harmonisation of the difference between how the actual movie gets classified with how the DVD gets classified. It also means that consumers—as, I think, probably a number of us have discovered when we go to the DVD store, if any of us still go to the DVD store—can be confused, as the majority of DVDs and games are imported, and yet they carry the New Zealand sticker label and a foreign, printed label. So when you are actually going in and having a look to choose the DVD, often it is a bit hard to tell which actual classification it has.

What this bill does is it allows the industry the flexibility to either print or physically affix the labels, which, as we have heard, is expected to result in substantial compliance savings. Those savings are lower than initially estimated, because of the reduction, and this, I suppose, is an issue that does go to the change in technology. My understanding from the submitters who did come to the Commerce Committee is that the DVD industry is still alive and well. Having recently joined a DVD shop myself, I am aware of just how alive and well it still is. Not all New Zealanders are downloading movies illegally from the internet—

💬 Kris Faafoi: Or legally.

—or legally—they actually do still go to the DVD shop. And there is something to be said for going to the DVD shop, especially when you have got children, but the confusion is—

It is not my intention to take a full call now, but I thought it would be important to acknowledge the role that an individual, single member can have in getting legislation moved along. I want to, in particular, thank Jacinda and compliment her on the work that she has done in Auckland Central and on behalf of the people in the video industry. It is interesting to see, when an individual hears a representation, picks it up, ensures it is considered by the Business Committee, has a bill lifted up the Order Paper, and has it debated in a way as we are doing now, how one individual efficient member of Parliament can cause focus on a piece of legislation.

Notwithstanding the fact that my copy of the Regulatory Reform Bill states that the Hon Rodney Hide is in charge of the bill, I think it is probably likely that it is now John Banks who is the member in charge of it. So, notwithstanding the fact that one of the most useless Ministers in the House is in charge of the bill now, we have worked on the basis that another Minister, who could only be more talented, is sitting in the chair and saying nothing in order that the Committee can make progress on Part 5 of the bill, which is something that is important to Kiwis and can save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for people involved in the industry, the people who are making the purchases.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: It’s the only thing that does things for business in this whole bill.

It is the only thing that does things for business in the bill. There could be whole pile of complaints about it taking this long, but what I just want to say is that my colleague indicated to the Business Committee, through Mr Hipkins and me, how important this legislation is. We had had no idea from John Banks about the importance of it.

💬 Hon Member: He doesn’t know about it.

He probably does not know about it. As a result, we are dealing with the Committee stage today, and I am sure that the efficient Government will have it on for a very short third reading tomorrow.

Trevor Mallard and I are no longer sharing a microphone, but we are sharing a bill, and that was due to the—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: In her case, it’s normally me paying.

Paying? No, I think that is a little bit unfair of my colleague. I do not think he has paid any bills, but he does owe me big time, so I am prepared to accept that as future commitment to pay a bill. I think there are a few people he should shout for on this side of the Chamber for a number of reasons, but we will not go there.

The reason I wanted to speak on this particular part of the Regulatory Reform Bill was that this particular measure is actually the most important measure contained within the legislation, and I believe from the contribution that my colleague has just made that this explains in very clear terms why the Government wanted to see this bill pushed up the Order Paper. As my colleague has said, if the Government had made that clear to the Opposition months ago, we would have, of course, facilitated its passage, because it is a bill that we have all worked on very closely and, actually, very efficiently at the Commerce Committee last year. I have made the point a few times in the Chamber tonight that this bill was referred to our select committee in February last year. I know that the member who was my former deputy chair on the other side of the Chamber is kind of smiling, because he knows how it is—Mr—

💬 Hon Member: “Lotto Winner”.

Ha, ha! Mr Lotu-Iiga—Mr Lotu-Iiga, sorry. He is not my deputy chair any more, because I am not the chair of the Commerce Committee, and I have not had the pleasure of working so closely with him over recent times.

But the reason I wanted to take a call on this part is that this particular measure actually goes back quite a long way, and it was one of the things that was picked up in something that I called the Quality Regulation Review when I was the Minister of Commerce. The reason I conducted that review was that Helen Clark, who was the then Prime Minister, said it was really important that we identified what the regulatory barriers to business growth were. So I conducted the Quality Regulation Review, which had a number of different elements to it, but what it identified relatively quickly was that there was a huge difference between the big end of town and the small end of town. Often the small end of town had these little compliance issues that were just standing in the way of them doing good business, and they wanted these little regulatory matters dealt with. The big guys, the big end of town, had stuff like the Commerce Commission. They had things like Part 4 of the Commerce Act. They wanted to do the big-picture stuff at their end of town, but the small to medium sized enterprises of this country, pretty much the backbone of a number of elements of our economy, wanted to see these little regulatory matters attended to.

What we discovered was that individual Ministers could not get these things over the line. When it came to negotiating the legislative programme, they actually could not get them over the line. This was one of the ones that came up back then and, of course, it was something that ought to have been dealt with after the change of Government in 2008. It did not see the light of day until last year, and now we have had to wait for another term of this Government to have it finally addressed.

The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 amendment is the most substantial part of this legislation. It is one that must pass. It actually enables the labelling provisions to be sensible and to be brought into the 21st century, which, I have to say, is about time.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 5 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Part 6 agreed to.

Part 7 Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 7 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 7 as amended agreed to.

Part 8 agreed to.

Part 9 agreed to.

Part 10 agreed to.

Part 11 agreed to.

Part 12 agreed to.

Part 13 Wine Act

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 13 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 13 as amended agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 118 and 24 in the name of the Hon John Banks to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill, the Animal Products Amendment Bill, the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2), the Conservation Amendment Bill, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Amendment Bill, the Fisheries Amendment Bill, the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill, the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill, the Registered Architects Amendment Bill, the Statistics Amendment Bill, the Takeovers Amendment Bill, the Unit Trusts Amendment Bill, and the Wine Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 119.