Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill, Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2), Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

The three regulatory systems amendment bills are omnibus bills that contain small regulatory amendments to legislation administered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. The Government is committed to maintaining and updating existing legislation to respond to changing environments and citizen needs. Regulation, when implemented well, underpins markets, protects the rights and safety of citizens and their property, and assists with the efficient and equitable delivery of goods and services. Regulation is an important tool for preserving and advancing the public interest.

The Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill makes amendments to 14 Acts. Among these are the Companies Act 1993, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, the Insolvency Act 2006, and the Trade Marks Act 2002. Of the 14 Acts in this bill, 13 fall within the commerce and consumer affairs portfolio, while the Continental Shelf Act 1964 falls within the energy and resources portfolio.

I would like to briefly mention two of the more significant amendments in this bill. The first is an extension to the offences listed in the Companies Act which automatically prohibit a person from directing or managing a company for five years. The bill seeks to add two additional types of offences to this list—namely, evasions or similar offences under section 143A and 143B of the Tax Administration Act 1994 for evasion and similar actions, along with aiding, abetting, inciting, or conspiring with another person to commit such offences, as set out in section 148 of that Act.

The second amendment is to the Insolvency Act. Currently, that Act prohibits an undischarged bankrupt from either directly or indirectly managing or controlling a business, being employed by a relative, or being employed by an entity such as a company or a trust owned or controlled by a relative. This is to prevent a bankrupt from having sufficient control over the finances of a business during their bankruptcy. However, an undischarged bankrupt who works for a relative with no remuneration is not considered as employed and can therefore avoid these restrictions. This bill seeks to extend the restrictions on employment to include working without reward for a relative or for an entity owned or controlled by a relative.

The Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2) includes two parts. Part 1 serves to simplify the role of the Community Housing Regulatory Authority and reduces the administrative burden on registered community housing providers. Part 2 amends the Retirement Villages Act 2003 to clarify that the higher maximum fine will apply for breaches of the Act where an operator or promoter of a retirement village did not take all the practicable steps to ensure that an advertisement was not misleading or deceptive, or where an operator of a retirement village contravenes the obligations relating to the code of practice of operating a retirement village. The code of practice sets out the rights and obligations of retirement village operators and residents, and it’s important that the operators understand the consequences of breaching the code and that the registrar has clarity when detecting such breaches and offences under the Act. Both of these offences are of a serious nature and are similar to the other offences that currently receive the higher maximum fine.

In the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2), I want to pick up on the changes that relate to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. This bill addresses an obvious gap between the intent of the parental leave scheme and the legislation, whereby spouses or partners are treated differently to other types of primary carers in a similar situation—for example, adoptive parents. The situation may arise if the working spouse or partner becomes primarily responsible for the care of the newborn and the biological mother is ineligible for, or hasn’t applied for, parental leave payments. This situation could arise, for example, if the biological mother dies or has a disability following an accident. The spouse or partner currently would not be entitled to parental leave payments. I share the Prime Minister’s concern for families in these situations, particularly as they are likely to be in great need after losing the support of one parent. This small fix will have minimal impact on the regulatory system overall yet will offer important benefits for these families. Partners and spouses in these situations will be able to access parental leave payments, if otherwise eligible, that contribute to their family’s income stability and the health of the young child, and enable them to maintain a connection to the workforce.

I would like to thank the three select committees for their consideration of these bills. The committees have considered changes to 19 statutes and reflected on submissions covering quite technical and detailed information. I commend the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a quick call on the regulatory systems amendment bills’ second readings, which National will be supporting. As the Minister Phil Twyford’s very helpfully outlined, this is, of course, an omnibus bill which contains three bills: the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2).

I just want to make some overview points. Firstly, the policy objective of this legislation is to improve regulatory systems by ensuring they are effective and efficient in accord with best regulatory practice. The amendments will do this by clarifying and updating statutory provisions to give effect to the purpose of various Acts and their provisions, addressing regulatory duplications, gaps, errors, and inconsistencies within and between different pieces of legislation, keeping the regulatory systems up to date and relevant, and removing unnecessary compliance costs and costs of doing business. And I think that last point is actually very important, because there are so many costs and red tape and other things which get in the way for particularly small businesses. Being able to effectively make the regulatory system a lower burden on small businesses is something which particularly we on the National Party side of the House are very passionate about—and so that is definitely one of the reasons why we’ll be supporting these bills tonight.

The first bill is the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill. It amends 14 Acts, which is quite a large number of pieces of legislation that it makes amendments to. The Minister talked about amendments to the Companies Act. One of the changes that it makes there is to remove unnecessary costs of doing business, including allowing documents to be sent by email. How novel—how novel—allowing documents to be sent by email—

💬 Hon Member: Really—email?

—to overseas companies and bodies corporate. It’s a very new idea, absolutely. I hadn’t thought of that one! It will allow the notice for a meeting to extend the deadline in which electronic votes and proxies must be received—again, bringing some of these requirements under the Companies Act into the 21st century to allow business to get on and make the changes. My favourite has to be the amendment to the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006. Normally when that gets referred to, the Opposition will whine, but, obviously, I’m in quite low spirits tonight, so we’ll wait for them to warm up as the night goes on.

The second bill is the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2). I’m sure my colleague Andrew Bayly will have a bit more to talk about with that one, particularly in the number of changes that it makes there. It changes the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act and also makes some changes to the Retirement Villages Act 2003—of course, very important pieces of legislation—and I’m sure that these changes will make a positive difference in those areas.

The third bill is, of course, the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2), which changes a number of pieces of legislation: the Holidays Act, the Employment Relations Act, the Remuneration Authority Act, and the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. And, of course, the Minister touched on the important changes that it makes around parental leave and some of the unfortunate circumstances that families can find themselves in. Being able to bring some compassion into those circumstances is certainly something which we are supporting.

So it’s a pleasure to support this piece of legislation tonight. The National Party supports this. As I said at the start, it’s something which helps to make our legislation, our regulatory systems, more efficient and more effective and to accord with best regulatory practice—something which we want to see: less regulation, not more, and, where there is regulation, that it’s efficient and able to be understood and able to be managed properly and easily by New Zealanders. We support this legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, this is pretty non-controversial legislation. It is omnibus legislation, as both speakers previously have spoken about. Anything that we’re able to move through in this House with a bit of expediency to make the lives of New Zealanders better off surely must be encouraged, and it’s nice, actually, to know that there’s a bit of consistency in opinion from both sides of the Chamber on this one.

I’m particularly interested in the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill. It’s mammoth. When we talk about omnibus bills, we talk about lots of bills going through. This is 14 Acts, actually, that this legislation is going to change. Among them are the Companies Act 1993, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, the Insolvency Act 2006, and the Trade Marks Act 2002. Of the 14 Acts in the bill, 13 of those fall within the commerce and consumer Affairs portfolio. There’s also the Continental Shelf Act 1964, which falls within the—

💬 Michael Wood: A great bill.

—a great bill; yes, absolutely—energy and resources portfolio.

I’m just going to dig down into a couple of these, particularly within the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill—firstly, the Companies Act, which prohibits a person from directing or managing a company for five years. What it does is the bill seeks to add more types of offence to the list; namely, evasions or similar offences under sections 143A and 143B of the Tax Administration Act 1994 for aiding, abetting, inciting, or conspiring with another person to commit an offence, as set out in section 148 of that Act.

I want to talk about the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2) as part of my contribution as well. Again, anything that helps to reduce the compliance that organisations such as the community housing providers that are spread out all around the country—anything that helps them to reduce their compliance—has got to be supported by Parliament. We have a lot of people working in this space, especially in the Bay of Plenty, where I come from.

I know that we’ve got in Tauranga the Mangatawa Papamoa Blocks Inc. They are a community housing provider. I’ve been there; I’ve seen what they do. But one of their complaints is obviously the amount of compliance that they have to go through to be able to operate. So what this amendment does is it simplifies the role of the Community Housing Regulatory Authority and, as I say, it reduces the administrative burden.

Part 2 of the Retirement Villages Act 2003 clarifies that the higher maximum fine will apply for breaches of the Act where (1) an operator or promoter of a retirement village did not take all of the practical steps to ensure an advertisement was not misleading or deceptive, and (2) where an operator of a retirement village contravenes their obligations relating to the code of practice of operating a retirement village. Those offences are very serious and are similar to other offences that receive the higher maximum fine.

This is very carefully thought-through legislation—some would say boring, others would say incredible in terms of, as I said before, moving legislation through the House so that we don’t have to catch ourselves up listening to these kinds of things in depth. Anything that we can do all at once, such as these omnibus bills, has to be supported. I commend this legislation to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hey, it’s an absolute pleasure to be talking on this legislation. It’s such wide-ranging legislation with so many different things to talk about, as I’m sure you know and have read very carefully, Madam Speaker. I know I’ve got very good colleagues tonight, so I’m not going to hog it. I’m just going to pick up on a couple of matters I thought relevant.

The first one was around retirement villages. I think all of us have retirement villages in our electorate. I’ve got many—many—particularly in Pukekohe, and of course we’ve got a new one that’s going to be built in Beachlands very shortly. But I think one of the things that we’re really worried about in retirement villages is that the advertisements that they put forward and what they claim they’re going to offer their residents—it is very important that they are correct and not misleading. And the important thing that actually came out of the select committee process was that some changes were made to make sure that the incentive for—if I can use that word—retirement owners to do the right thing, and to be correct and accurate, have been refined and enhanced in this bill. I think the speaker just before mentioned some of the penalties. But I just note it is vitally important that we protect our older people who wish to go into these facilities, and that they have the rights that they are entitled to, as anyone else should.

The other one I thought was particularly relevant in this wide-ranging smorgasbord of changes is the changes to the Insolvency Act 2006, and, again, these are very, very significant. Our insolvency laws need to be refined and updated. I’m hoping that, in time, the Government will deal with this issue because there are a lot of things to be done in this area, but this bill certainly covers off some of those.

Specifically, I just thought I might talk about four or five of them. The first one is requiring a bankrupt person to obtain consent to work with a relative regardless of whether they’re rewarded for that work or not. This is important because what we find is bankrupt people sometimes take control of companies indirectly and control them and manage them through the levers of relatives or other such people. So having visibility around that’s very important.

It also clarifies the value of necessary tools of trade and household furniture a bankrupt may retain. At the moment, that is an issue for the official signees’ prerogative, and I think it’s an important one to have some clarity around.

The third one is concerning a creditor who files a claim after a distribution has been made. So the example is a company that has gone into liquidation: the liquidators have made the first payment, but then a creditor is made aware of that situation. He or she can then make a claim; they cannot disturb the previous disbursement that’s already been made by the liquidator, but they can be entitled to subsequent claims.

The last one—and I hope I don’t have to have this opportunity, although I might be around to remember it—provides a mechanism for a bankrupt who dies before submitting a statement of affairs to be automatically discharged from bankruptcy three years after death. I’m hoping that none of these members in this House get to that situation, but even if you do, you won’t know what’s happening. Thank you very much.

Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2).

So what I’d like to speak to—again, I take on board the Opposition’s comments with regard to their support and how they see that the bills are necessary, and that it is good to move along. I take on board Mr Brown’s comments about removing red tape and making sure that small business, particularly, can manage. It’s a shame they didn’t do this while they were in Government. So it’s nice to say that this Government is moving along and tidying up these little pieces that need—they’re technical. There’s like 14 technical amendments, if I’m right, among the three bills that we’re talking about here. It was an omnibus bill originally. Some of it was set around by circumstances.

If I were to direct my comments in the first instance to the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2), it increases the maximum penalty for breaches of the Retirement Villages Act 2003. As the Minister for Seniors, I can say that there’s actually a lot more that needs to be done around the Retirement Villages Act 2003 to protect—

💬 Alastair Scott: Get on with it.

Unfortunately the Government that was in for nine years did nothing. So this Government has quite a lot of work to do. While the Opposition members shout out consistently, this Government gets on and does the actual job.

We’ll get round to that for greater protection for the residents of retirement villages, but this is one of those protections that we’re bringing forward at this stage, where an operator or promoter of a retirement village did not take all the practical steps to ensure an advertisement was not misleading or deceptive, or where an operator of a retirement village contravenes their obligations relating to the code of practice of operating a retirement village. As more and more of our seniors—750,000 seniors we have in this country at the moment, heading towards 1.1 million seniors by 2036—enter into agreements with retirement village owners, this Act becomes more and more important. So while I, as the Minister for Seniors, believe there’s more work that needs to be done, this is a start on setting some of those protections.

The other piece that I’d like to talk about is in the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill. It’s around the two key changes there: the adding of tax evasion and conspiring, aiding, abetting, or inciting a person to commit tax evasion to the offences section of the Companies Act. Now, we all know and will remember the conversations about the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Actually, if we’re very lucky, Deborah Russell will get up and talk to us more about tax, because there’s not a person in this House that isn’t worth listening to on taxation if it isn’t—what she doesn’t know about tax basically isn’t worth talking about. So I’m very much looking forward to the opportunity, if Ms Russell is going to take a call, because it’s always enlightening when she speaks on these topics.

The other one is people found guilty will be automatically prohibited from directing or managing a company for five years, and the bill prohibits a bankrupt person from working for no pay for a relative. I’m going to make an assumption that that relative can also be a spouse. So it’s not directly written in the notes that I have here, but having lived through the 1980s and the 1990s when we had companies falling over and over and over due to the policies of what I believe was a National Government—anyway, there was a rolling of companies just going into receivership and into liquidation. At that stage, we had to do quite a lot of work around the insolvency laws. There was the situation where at that time, business owners would transfer the business, for a dollar value, or whatever, into the hands of their spouse. We closed some of those loopholes, but this loophole obviously had remained.

So the Insolvency Act prohibits an undischarged bankrupt from either directly or indirectly managing or controlling a business, being employed by a relative, or being employed by an entity, such as a company or trust, owned or controlled by a relative. However, bankrupts could work for companies in the name of a relative for no pay and continue to manage the businesses despite the ban. That is what we are trying to address here. That is what the bill does address.

Having been a debt collector prior to becoming a stay-at-home mum, I’m very aware of the number of rules and regulations and laws we have, and the ways that we can punish the average Joe citizen if they get into debt to a business. I think it’s appropriate that we start to make sure that those business owners who, therefore, go out of their way or are bad business owners are made to follow the rules and regulations without having loopholes available to them.

New Zealand First commends the legislation to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me to rise in support of this legislation, and I’d just like to touch on a couple of—isn’t it a shame that the Minister for Seniors continues to blame and take no responsibility for the Retirement Villages Act? She’s said herself that there’s a whole lot of work to do. She’s just picked this up, read the notes, and realised that there’s actually a hell of a lot more work to do. It was good that she admitted that, but she’s been here for two years and she’s saying she needs to do more about it. Well, how about getting on and doing it—how about getting on and doing it? It is the year of delivery, after all.

Then she talked about the bad old days in the 1980s and 1990s, about the issues around insolvency and liquidations and receiverships—about the bad old days of the 1980s and 1990s. It must have been the National Government that was to blame for that too. Is that right? Is that what the Minister said?

Look—no idea what the hell she’s talking about; no idea what specific regulations and Acts she’s talking about or even changes that occurred at the time. Just had to fill some space in—just like I’m doing now.

This is very good legislation. It is legislation that both sides of the House agree on, and speakers have said so. It is constructive. It is an ongoing evolution of how we do things here. One could blame the other side for not picking these things up in the 14 Acts that this omnibus legislation covers, but we’re not. We’re saying this has got to be done. This is stuff that makes things more effective, cost efficient, and comprehensive for the general public to understand. It saves costs, it improves the lives of New Zealanders, and that is why we are all here tonight and next week and the day after that. I commend the legislation to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was just thinking this is a surprisingly robust debate given it appears to have universal acclaim on both sides of the House. We’re violently agreeing with ourselves on this one.

I also just wanted to rise just to put on record the Green Party’s continued support of these bills—in fact, three separate bills—amending 14 separate pieces of legislation. I know that it is very technical and that it does cover a number of different pieces of legislation, but there are two things that I did want to just put on record from the Green Party’s perspective that are worth noting on, and, really, why we’re supporting this legislation so strongly.

First of all is the component around the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2), which is about improving the fairness of paid parental leave to ensure that all parents and all caregivers are able to access the full suite of benefits that they’re entitled to. I think, given the technical nature of these things, it can often get lost what the purpose or the intent of Parliament is in trying to make these amendments, and on this one there are some areas in the existing legislation which do mean—basically due to a technicality—that people are not easily able to access the support that they need. Given the vulnerability of young parents in terms of their ability to provide for their kids or to access childcare, I think ensuring that they do have that full access is really important. So while it does seem like a fairly small set of amendments, I did just want to bring that to the attention of the House to say that, as a result of this legislation, we are actually making life easier and better for parents and caregivers.

The second bit is actually quite different, which is the piece around tax evasion. This is the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill, which is about adding tax evasion and conspiring, aiding, abetting, or inciting a person to commit evasion into the offences section of the Companies Act.

I think one of the things that Kiwis get really hot under the collar about is the idea that whilst they may be paying their fair share of tax, somebody else out there is not. That degrades trust in the tax system overall, because, after all, if someone else is able to get away with not paying their fair share of tax, then “Why the heck should I put so much effort into paying my fair share of tax?”, and I think Kiwis, generally, are pretty fair-minded people. We feel like we all need to be putting into the kitty in order to get the public services that we all need to make this country operate and to ensure that everyone has got access to the public services that we need, but they get really, really annoyed when people are able to get around that.

So what this does is to ensure that we extend the remit of tax evasion to ensure that we are actually catching everyone who is trying to get around it. People found guilty will be automatically prohibited from directing or managing a company for five years, and I think that’s a pretty good deterrent. The other thing that the amendment does is it prohibits a bankrupt person from working for no pay for a relative or for an entity controlled by a relative. That’s a loophole in the existing legislation which, essentially, means that someone who has been declared a bankrupt can technically volunteer for an organisation or a company that’s controlled by a relative and thus get around the provision that they shouldn’t be participating in the management of a company. So this does close a loophole there, as well.

So, again, if we just kind of get out of the detail of it and just focus on the principle, what’s important here is that we’re closing loopholes and we’re making it harder for people to avoid tax, and we’re making it more difficult for people to avoid the restrictions that are placed upon them when they’re in bankruptcy. I think that both of those are laudable aims of the set of amendments that are in front of us, and we just want people to know that, actually, this is legislation that whilst it’s kind of small in its detail and so on, actually, it can make a real, material difference to people’s lives and improve the fairness of the country. So I commend this legislation to the House.

I rise to commend this legislation to the House. I’d first like to commend the Hon James Shaw on speaking for five minutes on the regulatory systems amendment bills, a detailed matter that I’m sure, when he envisaged coming to Parliament, was the sort of thing he imagined he would be speaking on in great detail.

I also just want to respond to some comments made in the debate by the Hon Tracey Martin, who talked about the need for action in retirement villages, and I reflect on this because I visited some retirement villages yesterday. It’s Seniors’ Week, and I thought it was an opportune moment to check in with retirement villages in this city. Isn’t it funny that as I sat down and spoke to the leader of one of these, he reflected that we have a Government that were all talk on so many things and, for him, absolutely nothing had changed. In fact, when he thought about the important things that had happened in retirement villages over time, he thought of National, who, of course, did bring in increased wages for aged-care workers and who have done substantive things.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: After going to court.

I won’t take you further into the detail of some of the derisory comments that we shared about the record of this Government on delivering, but it was, of course, Tracey Martin who raised retirement villages, and it’s to that that I respond.

But I commend this legislation to the House. I, in particular, want to commend the committee who considered the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill. It’s fair to say that on the Education and Workforce Committee, the matters we discuss are, I would suggest, of a more relatable nature for many New Zealanders and, therefore, possibly easier matters to consider. So I truly do commend the members of this committee and, in particular, the very able chairperson, Jonathan Young. I do commend to the House a bill that we’re all in agreement on, and isn’t that nice on a Tuesday evening? Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Fakaalofa lahi atu, Te Mana Whakawā. It’s always a privilege to stand in this House to contribute, and in this particular legislation—let me read it out so I can get it right, Madam Speaker—the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment (No 2) Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2).

I have to respond to Nicola Willis, the previous speaker, who spoke about National increasing aged-care workers’ pay, but she failed to record history correctly. They were taken to court to increase aged-care workers’ pay in terms of retirement villages. So I just want to add to that.

We are fixing what we have accumulated for many years. We know that not everything can be fixed overnight, but we are getting started. As the Minister has said, the Government is committed to maintaining and updating existing legislation to respond to changing environments, which will protect the rights of citizens of this country. These bills make minor fixes that have a big effect on businesses and New Zealanders.

I want to first start off with the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2). I am a member of the Social Services and Community Committee, and these changes came before us. I want to let the committee know that we did have four people submit on this bill. As it’s late at night, I just want to recall that there were two oral submissions. Now, one submission that I recall was a person that’s writing a book on retirement villages and how they should service New Zealanders, and, of course, the other was from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. I want to remind the committee, if I can, of what these changes to the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill (No 2) actually are proposing.

On the proposed amendment to the Retirement Villages Act, we recommended—clause 7, affecting the Retirement Villages Act. We did not discuss any minor or technical changes to the bill, but in section 26 of the Act it requires operators and promoters to take all practicable steps to ensure that advertisements are not misleading or deceptive. And section 79 of the Act specifies two penalties for breaching section 26 without reasonable excuse.

So when I say—and, of course, when the Minister says—that the Government is maintaining and updating existing legislation to respond to changing environments, to making sure that our citizens are safe, it actually looks like this. What we are saying is that a fine not exceeding $15,000 for a person or a fine not exceeding $50,000 for a body corporate—that refers to section 79(2) of the Retirement Villages Act. The second point is that there is a fine not exceeding $5,000 for a person, or a fine not exceeding $10,000 for a body corporate, which is clearly stated in section 79(3).

These are changes to the Regulatory Systems (Housing Amendment) Bill (No 2). It is about proposed amendments to the Retirement Villages Act. It clearly defines what is a fine for an individual and what is a fine for a body corporate if they breach these clauses of this proposed bill.

I also want to cover the second part of my kōrero in terms of the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill (No 2). I’d like to pick up on the changes and echo what the Minister had talked about in relation to parental leave and the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act.

Madam Speaker, I just need to confirm that my contribution is 10 or five minutes for tonight.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Five.

Five. So it’s not a split call?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): You could ask the National Party to donate five minutes—you’re on a roll! But no, you’ve got 11 seconds to go.

Ha, ha! I want to commend this legislation to the House and especially the hard-working Social Services and Community Committee. Thank you very much.

My apologies for not advising the member this is a split call.

I commend this legislation to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Fakaalofa atu. I really would treasure the opportunity to take a few minutes and talk about this excellent legislation, the second reading of this omnibus legislation. Each of these regulatory systems amendment bills amend legislation that is administered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and are highly technical bills. I think someone mentioned before that they amend, in fact, 14 pieces of legislation—quite incredible work that has been done here. These bills ensure that statutory provisions are updated where necessary and clarified, addressing duplication and any issues that really need tidying up in general. That in turn will bring some more efficiency and effectiveness to our legislation. It also removes—

I’m sorry to interrupt the flow of this debate. The debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption on the next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.