Volume 661 Week 38 - Tuesday 30 March 2010(continued on Thursday 1 April 2010) 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 661 Week 38 - Tuesday 30 March 2010(continued on Thursday 1 April 2010) 
[Sitting date: 30 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:10147. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 30 March 2010 
( 
continued on Thursday 1 April 2010 
) 
Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 When the House adjourned at midnight last night I was speaking on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. Prior to the House rising the debate had broken into a general one on the dairy industry. Brendon Burns for example spoke about the so-called threat of Chinese investment in the industry the need for Fonterra to get its capital structure correct and animal welfare issues. So this was becoming very much a general debate on the dairy industry. 
This bill is about milk: the processing of milk and the making available of milk by Fonterra to alternative processors on a competitive basis. I will focus on just one aspect of the greater issues regarding the processing of milk. We have the emissions trading scheme starting on 1 July which will make a significant difference to farmers. Meat and Wool New Zealand has estimated that the cost of the emissions trading scheme on the average dairy herd will be about $10000. 
Dairy farmers may be feeling a false sense of security because no doubt they listened to the Prime Minister when he told them last November that agriculture would not come within the ambit of the emissions trading scheme until 2015. Well I have a message for dairy farmers this morning which is that of that cost of $10000 only $2500 relates to animals. The average dairy farmer with an average herd will face some $7500 in costs due to increased energy and emissions costs. For Fonterra the cost of the emissions trading scheme on the processing of milk will be some $80 million at $25 a tonne and $40 million at $12.50 a tonne. I wonder how many dairy farmers realise that in less than 3 months’ time this country will impose on them a $40 million tax on their emissions to be followed up by a further $40 million in 2013. That is in addition of course to the increased cost of the electricity that they use in processing their milk in milking sheds and the petrol that is used in dairy tankers. 
I have just come from a breakfast that was hosted for European parliamentarians who painted a very dismal picture of the future. Mr Chauvel was there. One of the points made there was that Mr Obama has just passed the health care legislation in the United States and has burnt up a huge amount of political capital in doing so. This means that the prospect of President Obama being able to push through any law that would give effect to his plans for climate change is very very bleak. When the National Government introduced its amendments to the emissions trading scheme it expected to follow other nations. Last September in this House the Minister for Climate Change Issues stood up and said we would be a fast follower. He said we would be following Australia and that the New Zealand Parliament and farmers should not worry because we would be following Australia and the United States. 
There has been a dramatic change in the world landscape in the last 6 months and I ask why this Government is to tax farmers. We have heard that Mr Ardern the chair of the Primary Production Committee is a great advocate for farmers. I ask him where he is today. Is he standing up for farmers? I do not hear him speaking out about the $40 million tax that farmers will have to pay for emissions arising from their processing activity. I do not hear him speaking out about the cost of electricity on the farm or about the impacts on farmers of the emissions trading scheme and the massive windfall profits that some electricity generators will make. It is interesting to note that the powerhouses of the dairy industry are in Waikato Canterbury and Southland all areas where electricity comes from hydro sources so there will be no tax to pay but where there will be massive windfall profits for generators. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. I will say three things before I start. First of all I congratulate David Tua on winning his fight last night. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Yahoo! 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: He is a close relation of my mate Sam over there and he is a relation of mine as well because he is from up north—a long way up north but still up north. Secondly I record my deep and abiding criticism of my colleague the scoundrel Te Ururoa Flavell for abandoning the House last night and abandoning his responsibilities to the Maori Party so that he could go to watch the fight. 
Finally however I thank him very much for leaving me this most exciting speech on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. This bill to allow milk to be allocated through an auction process sounds technical but it also allows us to acknowledge the opportunity for Maori in the primary sector. Maori dairy farmers own an estimated 100 million shares in Fonterra with some of the major players in the sector being large Maori incorporations directly accountable to their people so Maori skill acquisition research and innovation within this sector will be essential to gaining added value for existing Maori assets and for interests in agriculture horticulture forestry and aquaculture. 
I understand that this bill is basically an exercise in restructuring contracts by having auctions putting the onus on buyers to set the new price range for contracts and helping all players to get a snapshot of potential new prices that are set by the market itself which will help in how the market sees and values itself and which will help determine consumer patterns. The stated intentions of the bill are to achieve a decent price for regulated raw milk as soon as possible to ensure that excess demand for regulated raw milk is managed efficiently and to remove uncertainty regarding the price of regulated raw milk. 
But it seems that even with one clear purpose there are still very strong and differing responses from across the sector. At one end we have Paraninihi ki Waitotara which supports the principle of the bill. Mind you Paraninihi ki Waitotara is a Fonterra supplier and has been subsidising Synlait and others to date for milk they take under the 2001 Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. At the other end is Green Valley Dairies which opposes the bill because it thinks the proposed auction system will simply create ambiguity in an already volatile raw milk market and Tatua Cooperative Dairy which said the bill should be abandoned or at least delayed until there is greater clarity about the likely outcomes. In the middle we have Open Country Dairy which does not think the bill will deliver on the expectations of the 2001 Act but which will comply with the new law because regulated milk is only a small part of its operation. 
On another level I think it is also worthy to note that one of the interesting features of the 2009 economic situation was that Maori dairy farmers thought they would be less likely to be affected by the forecast drop in milk payouts than non-Maori farmers. I recall Rino Tirikatene of Ngati Hine the chief executive officer of the Federation of Maori Authorities saying that it was because Maori farmers when gearing in debt ratios were more conservative than non-Maori with debt representing 10 to 15 percent of the value of the asset for Maori as opposed to 60 to 70 percent for non-Maori. That is something my colleague the scoundrel Te Ururoa Flavell spoke about last week during the debate on securities trustees. So instead of struggling to service debt Maori farmers are able to focus on feed strategies in order to stay afloat during tough times. Clearly being able to be self-sufficient and relatively undamaged by debt burden means that Maori farmers are less likely to be forced into mortgagee sales. That is a very strong feature of the Maori dairying sector that the whole New Zealand dairy sector would do well to emulate. 
Finally I would like to step outside the milking shed for a minute to look at the broader issue of the affordability of food and dairy products for ordinary Kiwis. Although the CPI suggests that essential food prices will fluctuate from time to time the trend is for ever-increasing prices regardless of options that may affect dairy farmers and their incomes. Statistics New Zealand states that food prices went up 2.1 percent in January alone with higher prices for groceries food fruit vegetables meat poultry and fish. This is an ideal opportunity therefore to promote the bill of my colleague Rahui Katene that calls for healthy food to be exempt from GST. In fact it seems as if it is poor people who are in danger of being priced out of the market. The research confirms the high rates of child poverty poor living conditions and poor health status of children in low-income families. We note that during the last 3 years food prices have gone up more than 20 percent; indeed increases in the cost of staples for a nutritious diet such as fruit vegetables and milk have been particularly high while real incomes have risen only very slightly. It is because of these massive changes that the Maori Party is supporting Rahui Katene’s call for GST to be removed from healthy foods to make them more affordable. 
Although we will support this bill we leave a challenge for this House: it can auction milk prices if it must but it should not auction the well-being of New Zealanders by failing to recognise the very real impact of our economic decisions on those who are most vulnerable in our society. Tena koe. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I will continue the discussion we had last night on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. First I thank Minister Nick Smith who in the nick of time made a change to a recommendation in the bill on behalf of the Minister. The bill was to come into force by 1 April which is today but at the last moment last night at a few minutes before 12 the Minister put forward an amendment to amend that and we are now able to pass the bill today. 
Secondly I am delighted that he answered some of the concerns raised during the select committee process by submitters who thought that the auction system might not be fair to processors particularly to the smaller players like Green Valley Dairies and Cadbury’s. They were concerned that the auction system might not be fair and equitable for them. I am glad that the Minister explained that last night and in particular the fact that over 300 auctions per week are likely to take place. That is a lot of auctions and there is always concern that the system may not be suitable for the small players who are processors. 
This morning I want to discuss one point that I think has not been raised in the discussions so far. My colleague mentioned how overseas buyers are interested in our dairy farms and our dairy industry. Chinese Russians Singaporeans and other interests want to buy into our dairy industry. I particularly with my science background can understand what is going on here. Milk is a highly sought-after bio-material. It is a very active bio-material. Those of us who know what is going on at the Fonterra Research Centre—the old Dairy Research Institute—in Palmerston North and across at Massey University know that a lot of research is going on into product development for pharmaceuticals. Let us imagine that upcoming countries like China India and other countries which need this biomaterial for pharmaceuticals will make pills using milk as the base with big industries developing around that. Over time those countries will add value to that product which we have as a commodity at the moment so they are looking ahead in strategic terms so that they can invest in our dairy farms and processing plants to ensure the future supply of their products particularly for pharmaceuticals and other bio-materials. 
I think that we have to be very careful when overseas interests want to buy into our dairy farms and our processing plants. In my view the dairy industry is a strategic asset in this country and we have to make sure that all of Fonterra’s production in particular is kept in our hands so that we can add value in the long term to pharmaceuticals and other products including a lot of drinks. I have had the opportunity to visit the research centre in recent times and I saw that a huge amount of material is being processed from milk into different products. In going forward we should not forget the value of milk; in this country we are lucky that we have the amount of milk we have which can be used as a bio-material for those products. That is an important point to remember. 
We have also heard a number of times that 27 percent of the export market is made up of milk and milk products. I had understood that it was about 25 percent so obviously the percentage has gone up over recent times. Clearly the dairy industry in New Zealand is important for our future and the future of our dairy farmers. We have 10500 dairy farmers and not only their livelihoods but also the livelihoods and incomes of our people in the future will be dependent on the dairy industry as more and more farms are converted to dairying. The demand particularly from Asia is going up so we have to make sure that we are prepared with new technology and a new way of doing things such as the ability to have online auctions for the export of milk overseas. 
Similarly with this bill we are hoping to introduce an auction system—and maybe over time an online auction system—for the excess milk we have. That is 600 million litres at the moment which is 5 percent of the milk Fonterra has for on-sale to small operators. I think it is important that those small processors are happy with the system we put in place. A lot of work has to be gone through in setting up the auction system and I hope there will be good consultation with processors so that they are happy with the milk they buy. Fonterra wants 10c per kilogram of milksolids as a fair seasonal value of milk. Of course some of the operators who are potential processors are not happy with that but clearly there has to be some margin. With those words I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time. 
Regulatory Improvement Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Regulatory Reform 
: I move  
That the Regulatory Improvement Bill be now read a second time 
. In so doing I thank the Commerce Committee for its consideration of the bill and I also acknowledge those who made oral and written submissions. The committee’s report includes some useful recommendations that I believe will improve processes and importantly reduce compliance costs. The bill provides an opportunity to improve the quality of regulation in New Zealand by recommending small but none the less very important amendments to nine Acts. As was indicated in the Minister’s first reading speech the provisions in the bill came out of the Quality Regulation Review undertaken by the previous Government in 2006 and 2007. I thank the member for Christchurch East for initiating and championing the work that has resulted in this bill. 
The changes proposed cover a diverse range of policy areas and legislation. They are all designed to improve the regulatory framework and to reduce the compliance burden on business. They are a move towards creating a regulatory environment that positively impacts on how businesses operate. Overall the changes address regulatory duplications gaps administrative errors and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation. Fixing them is a positive move towards a more prosperous and successful nation that is driven by the initiative and hard work of individuals. The Government is committed to a regulatory reform programme that ensures that new and existing regulations do not impose unnecessary costs on businesses and do all that they can to address the barriers be they big or small that can hold back New Zealand business from reaching its fullest potential and greatest growth. 
With the current economic challenges our businesses are facing our goal to minimise compliance costs is more important than ever. As an omnibus bill it provides an effective and efficient legislative vehicle to fast-track small changes to legislation to fix problems. A single Regulatory Improvement Bill is an administratively efficient way of progressing uncontroversial but none the less important amendments that will have a positive impact for business. Similar bills aimed at improving the regulatory environment for business are intended to be a regular fixture on the legislative calendar. 
The bill proposes amendments to the Companies Act 1993 the Conservation Act 1987 the Designs Act 1953 the Fisheries Act 1996 the Gas Act 1992 the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995 the Weights and Measures Act 1987 and the Reserves Act 1977. I can tell from the Assistant Speaker Eric Roy’s interest that that is a piece of legislation dear to his heart as a huntin’ fishin’ Southlander. 
Most submitters were supportive of the bill and the committee has not recommended any substantive changes to the proposals. I will outline the most significant changes that were recommended by the committee and the reasons for them. First I will refer to the Designs Act 1953. The submitters who commented on the proposed amendments supported the proposals for amendment. The main change suggested by submitters was that the Act provide for the restoration of lapsed design applications. The submission was accepted by the committee and the bill as reported back now provides for the restoration of those types of applications. The new amendments will bring the Designs Act into line with the Patents Act 1953 and with the Patents Bill which is currently before Parliament both of which include provisions for the restoration of lapsed applications. 
The committee has also recommended the amendment of the commencement clause to make it more certain when the amendment to the Designs Act 1953 would come into force the insertion of a clause that will explicitly authorise publication of bibliographical details of design applications so that the public is kept informed of applications being made and the inclusion of clauses to allow the restoration of lapsed copyright in registered design. 
The second Act that is worthy of some comment is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. The committee has recommended an amendment of clause 46 of the bill along with the insertion of a new clause. This clause amends the section in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that relates to incorporation by reference of material into regulations and other instruments. The clause was drafted in 2007 and differs from the Parliamentary Counsel Office’s proposed new standard clauses for incorporation by reference. The standard clause as prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel Office give effect to principles established by the Regulations Review Committee in its inquiry in 2004 into material that is incorporated by reference. In its 2008 report on the matter the Regulations Review Committee recommended that such clauses be included in the Legislation Advisory Committee’s guidelines and enacted in a statute of general application so that they need not be re-enacted each time they are required. 
The committee has recommended that apart from two exceptions the bill be amended to conform to the proposed standard clauses. Those two exceptions are first that the mechanism in the bill for amendment to incorporated material by notification in the  
Gazette  
should be retained. In doing so it has specifically safeguarded this mechanism with an express requirement that the material be brought to the attention of the Regulations Review Committee. The second exception is that the requirements for consulting on and access to amendments to material incorporated in the instruments involved should match the requirements that already apply in the Act for the instruments themselves. 
The main concern for submitters on Part 6 of the bill was the change to the notification for applications to release hazardous substances from being mandatory to being at the discretion of the Environmental Risk Management Authority. The issue is really the balance between the benefits of public participation and the associated costs and delays. Reducing unnecessary costs and delays also contributes to innovation through the timely introduction of newer typically less hazardous chemicals. The change reflects the experience of the Environmental Risk Management Authority. 
The reality is that of several hundred applications on hazardous substances that have been publicly notified since 2001 only 19 percent have attracted any submissions at all and the majority of those submissions have come from both local and central government agencies. Only 4 percent of applications have attracted submissions from the public with most of these being for veterinary medicines. The general concerns raised by submitters as to potentially harmful effects to certified organic producers and to trade are matters the authority would take into account in deciding whether there is likely to be significant public interest in a particular application. 
There were a number of other submissions. Particularly I should refer to two submissions which sought amendments to those parts of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that address genetically modified organisms. However nothing in this bill addresses or affects the regulation of genetically modified organisms. 
This bill has been introduced under Standing Order 264(a) now 259(a). The Standing Order provides that a law reform or other omnibus bill to amend more than one Act may be introduced if the amendments deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a broad policy. It is intended that the bill will be divided into separate bills at the Committee of the whole House stage. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the second reading of the Regulatory Improvement Bill and it certainly gives me a great sense of satisfaction to do so. As the Attorney-General on behalf of the Minister for Regulatory Reform pointed out I was the instigator of this approach to regulatory improvement in New Zealand through the Quality Regulation Review. The review looked at how New Zealand regulates how Parliament regulates and essentially what improvements could be made in the way we regulate to ensure that business was not facing unnecessary compliance costs. It was also to ensure that our frameworks were kept up to date modern and relevant and that they were risk-related. 
I experienced the frustration of the hundreds of businesspeople whom I spoke to from one end of the country to the other. They expressed to me the sense of an overwhelming burden of regulation that was not matched by any comparable benefit that they could see. Business was saying to me that if there are going to be rules that govern our obligations—and business accepts that regulation is an important part of the business environment for confidence and all sorts of other reasons such as health and safety to name two—they have to be risk-related. We have to look at what the risk is of this thing going wrong and what the benefits are that apply to the particular regulatory framework that is adopted. That very quickly said to me that we could have two sets of rules without offending the principle that one law should fit all. One size does not fit all when we put on our clothes so I do not see why one-size-fits-all should apply to regulatory frameworks. In some instances the risks are so minimal that to make the requirements of a larger entity apply to a smaller entity simply would not be acceptable. To take another line if one is fundraising from the general public obviously the regulatory obligations—the rules—will be much tighter than if one is just operating or borrowing from the bank where the reporting requirements will be negotiated between oneself and the bank. 
There are reasons why regulatory frameworks should be fit for purpose at all stages of the regime and that fitness for purpose may require different rules to be applied at different times. I think this Parliament has got a little bit gun-shy of the phrase “regulation”. Regulation is just rules. Driving down the left-hand side of the road is a regulation. It is a rule of the road. It is part of the road code. If we did not have that rule I would like to think that everyone would drive down the left-hand side of the road but it could be pretty Wild West out there if we did not have that rule in place. Certainly I learnt that businesses accept the need for rules but they ask the Government that the rules are kept relevant and are proportionate to the risk that their business poses in the particular situation. I agree with them. 
The other problem I found when I went out and talked to hundreds of small businesses was that we ended up with a situation where the regulator will not tell people how to comply with the rule. That was the second-biggest complaint I had. An individual employer would ring up the Occupational Safety and Health Service and ask whether something was within the rules of health and safety and the employer would be told: “I am sorry but we cannot tell you whether that is within the rules but if you breach the rules we will be down there to serve you with a notice to tell you that you have breached the rules.” Well I do not think that is good enough. I never thought it was good enough when I was a Minister. I think it is really important that we have the mechanism available to us as a Parliament to fix these things as they come up. 
The third thing I found out was that small businesses in particular have had an absolute gutsful of talking to the Government over and over again. Because we are all politicians we think of the Department of Labour the Ministry of Justice the Department for Courts the Inland Revenue Department the Occupational Safety and Health Service and the Accident Compensation Corporation. All that the business people see is the Government. They ask why the Government is continually asking them for the same information over and over again. During the course of this review I came up with one of those 10-second sound bite phrases that politicians love to create but I thought that it absolutely encapsulated what businesses were telling me. It was: why cannot the many arms of Government extend a single hand to business? That is a really important question for this Parliament. 
I hope that members on both sides of the House Government and Opposition would agree entirely that that should be our focus in terms of bringing down the weight of regulatory reform. I think that the only way that we can do that is through e-commerce—the ability for businesses to speak to the Government once and then for the Government to spread that information across its many arms. That is so easy to do now that we have the business reporting language. I note that in the next few weeks a guest speaker is coming here from the Netherlands which has the world leaders on business reporting language. I will attend that event and I am sure that others in this House will as well. That to me is the solution for so many small businesses’ complaints about the nature of reporting to the Government. 
The final thing that I was told did not come from businesses but from the departments. What came back from the departments when we raised issues with them was that none of the issues raised were big enough to warrant their going to their Minister and asking for a bill on the Order Paper. They could not get up a bill to deal with this issue because it was not small enough for a Statutes Amendment Bill and it did not quite fit a Business Law Reform Bill. There was no mechanism for dealing with these little issues from different departments. The departments asked whether there was a way of getting these things dealt with in parliamentary time in a reasonable way without having to deal with them bill by bill. 
Members can imagine in this case what this Regulatory Improvement Bill contains and this is the first of the regulatory improvement bills. It has amendments to the Companies Act the Conservation Act the Designs Act the Fisheries Act the Gas Act the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act the Reserves Act and the Weights and Measures Act. As a Parliament if we had to take up a first reading a second reading the Committee stage and a third reading of a bill for every single one of those amendments then we would be spending a lot of time making relatively small fixes. 
My desire was to see the development of a Regulatory Improvement Bill where the theme of the omnibus bill—which the Minister just spoke of—would be an amendment to deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy. It was finally accepted by the then Clerk of the House that that was a single thread that could be accepted as that interrelated topic and that was the improvement to regulatory frameworks. I had been to the Standing Orders Committee and had made the case to have the list of types of omnibus bills that can be introduced amended so that it included the Regulatory Improvement Bill along with the Business Committee’s agreement to the Business Law Reform Bill’s introduction as an omnibus bill. I wanted to have this written into the list as one of the bills that could be proceeded with as an omnibus bill as of right and I would still like to see that happen. 
I am pleased that it has been accepted in this case but it has to be agreed to by the Business Committee in order to be introduced as an omnibus bill. I think that we could do better than that. We could write it into the Standing Orders directly and say that the theme of regulatory improvement is something that the entire Parliament—members on both sides of the House—is committed to. We could agree to do this every year. This would be so much easier. We could send out messages to departments every year to say that this is their chance to make it better for businesses through better regulation. I have heard the Government of the day say: “Better regulation fewer regulations”. This is the best way of achieving that where we do not have the departmental commitment on the small stuff. They are now sweating the big stuff which is where their focus has to be. I commend this bill to the House and I also commend making a subsequent change to the Standing Orders. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to make my first speech on the Regulatory Improvement Bill at its second reading. I commend the Minister Chris Finlayson. He has shown a deft hand in regulatory reform as well as in Treaty negotiations and in the other portfolios that he holds. I also commend the Hon Rodney Hide who first introduced this bill. 
This bill is about cutting red tape. It is about reducing the bureaucracy involved in transacting business. It is a bill to be commended because the single most important issue facing this country is an economic issue: an issue of productivity and of economic growth in order to provide for the opportunities and jobs that so many New Zealanders deserve. This bill will not solve all the problems relating to regulation; I think that we all acknowledge that. But it carries on the valuable work that the previous speaker the former Minister the Hon Lianne Dalziel took in pushing for regulatory reform. It shows that this Government is committed to helping businesses to get through these tough times. 
When I go to visit the businesses in Maungakiekie in Auckland two things stand out in terms of their issues with the Government. Firstly those businesses that export their products have issues with the exchange rate. But the second major issue that faces small to medium sized businesses in this country relates to the regulations and compliance costs that they must face. 
Our productivity growth was shown by the GDP figures released last week. We have had our third quarter of growth in this country in terms of our output which is a positive thing. One of the stunning statistics shown in recent articles in the media is that our level of exports decreased for four consecutive years under the previous Government. We need to address that. I am glad that we had reference to dairy farming in the bill that we have just debated because that industry is one of the most important sectors to drive growth for this country. 
As the Minister has already said the 22 amendments in this legislation have the broad objective of improving the regulatory framework. I will not go through each of those individual amendments but in my third reading speech I will refer to some critical recommendations from our Commerce Committee. Overall this is a bill that needs to be passed. It will provide for less regulation or for better regulation—call it what we will—and it is a bill that the Government supports. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to it. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The bill before us implements a number of minor tweaks to nine pieces of legislation. In doing so it makes our regulatory environment one that imposes fewer compliance burdens on New Zealand business. Labour supports the bill because we believe that strong business is in the interests of New Zealand and that is the belief that drove Labour to introduce the original legislation in 2008 when we were in Government. 
The bill as we have heard from the previous Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel is a response to the opinions of businesses on things that would make the regulatory environment easier for them to operate in. These views were communicated through a very wide-ranging consultation process conducted by the previous Minister and her officials which was known as the Quality Regulation Review. Over 200 businesses were consulted and the changes to the nine Acts that this bill will affect are the result of that consultation process. 
A wide range of Acts is affected: the Companies Act 1993 the Conservation Act 1987 the Designs Act 1953 the Fisheries Act 1996 the Gas Act 1992 the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995 the Reserves Act 1997 and the Weights and Measures Act 1987. That is a good reminder of just how widely the statute book ranges over the interests of business and of how it can impose compliance costs on them. The changes that are proposed to each of those Acts are small and relatively uncontroversial I think but as expressed to Lianne Dalziel and her officials during the Quality Regulation Review consultation process they are important because they are what businesses want. The changes are small but important changes in order to allow the largely small and medium sized enterprises that were consulted to enjoy a more efficient regulatory environment that is fair to them and easier for them to do business in. 
I will give just a couple of examples of the sorts of minor changes in the bill that will have this effect. There is currently an inconsistency between the Companies Act 1993 and the Financial Reporting Act of the same year and this inconsistency imposes a cost on business that is completely unnecessary. Under the Financial Reporting Act a company with overseas ownership may not be required to file audited financial statements but under the Companies Act there is still an obligation in that situation for the company to appoint an auditor. That is obviously a discrepancy and one that Parliament should reflect on given that it results from two Acts that this House passed in exactly the same year. It is a systems issue that such an inconsistency could arise in our procedures and could result in the sorts of unnecessary additional costs that are imposed upon business. Obviously those costs are then passed on to the consumer and create inefficiencies and productivity glitches. So the minor changes to the Companies Act proposed in the bill and confirmed by the committee will fix this situation. They will basically put affected companies in the same position as the majority of other companies which essentially can choose whether to appoint an auditor. 
There are a couple of other examples of sensible changes in the bill. They can be found in the amendments to the Designs Act the Gas Act and the Weights and Measures Act. As far as the Designs Act—legislation dating from 1953—is concerned there is provision for the restoration of lapsed copyright in a registered design in cases where there has simply been a failure to pay the renewal fee or fill in the correct forms thus causing the lapse in the right to use the design. Clearly it is disproportionate for a company or an organisation to lose valuable intellectual property in a design simply because of a technical failure to pay a fee or register a form. This legislation will correct that area of the law; again this is a small change but one that will be valuable to business. 
The Gas Act 1992 will be amended to clarify that any regulations recommended by the Gas Industry Co. Ltd under Part 4A of the Act will cover gas to be used as a feedstock. That will clear up a previous area of unnecessary uncertainty. 
The Weights and Measures Act 1987 will be amended to provide that the control of LPG gas should occur only under the Gas Act 1992 and not also under the Weights and Measures Act. Again that is an example of how in legislating less than precisely and carefully this House can impose burdens under more than one piece of legislation which business then needs to comply with. We are now correcting that but there must be thousands of other examples of this sort of problem in the statute book where we impose a burden on those who are trying to make a living and contribute to our prosperity and we should take seriously the fixing of such problems. In that regard I recall the comments made by Lianne Dalziel in her speech. There is a real case for this exercise to be an annual one in order to deal with the sorts of reforms that fall midway between Statutes Amendment bills which come up regularly on a omnibus basis and the full substantive measures that clearly would not be justified in terms of the House’s time to deal with these sorts of glitches. 
The changes that I have briefly referred to by way of example are minor but provide much-needed certainty. They are just a few examples of the sorts of practical effective changes that Lianne Dalziel made sure were included in the bill after many months of talking to businesses about the need for amending legislation and minor reform. The New Zealand business community and the New Zealand public deserve an honest representation of what this reform is about and it is cheering to have heard Mr Finlayson in his introductory words give due credit to Lianne Dalziel for bringing this legislation before Parliament. It is appropriate legislation. 
I will deal though with one comment made by the previous speaker Sam Lotu-Iiga when he referred to a decline in exports. In an earlier contribution on the dairy industry restructuring legislation John Boscawen referred to a breakfast that he and I were at earlier with European members of Parliament in relation to climate change. One of the potential problems identified in that discussion was the potential for export barriers to be raised by certain trading blocs as a result of the possibility of a perception arising in those different markets that others were not taking the issue of climate change seriously. Again this provides an important reminder that all policy issues are interlinked and we cannot simply assume that an action taken in one area will have positive action in another. We have to make sure that there is joined-up policy. This bill is just a small example of that. 
As I have said this is timely legislation; it is useful legislation. Although there is absolutely no justification for progressing the bill under urgency through its final stages Labour will support its passage because we originated the measure and because it is good law. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I will begin by picking up exactly where Charles Chauvel left off with the principle in relation to urgency. The Regulatory Improvement Bill has been on the Order Paper for some years. It originated with the Quality Regulation Review in 2007 and it seems extraordinary to me that Parliament is now in urgency to consider its remaining stages. There seems to me to be nothing about the bill that would justify urgency. There is nothing urgent about the implementation of any of the detail of the bill so it fails to meet the test of urgency for this Parliament. On that basis I register the Green Party’s objection to the use of urgency to progress the bill. 
The previous speakers from both the National and Labour sides of the House have spoken about the background to not only this bill but this type of bill and about the principle of examining existing legislation and regulation with a view to streamlining them both so that the interests of civil society and of business are advanced without cost to the public. I guess the Green Party would lend its support to the principle that in situations where we can streamline legislation and regulation without cost to the public we ought to do so and to the principle that an omnibus bill is an appropriate way to advance the necessary changes to regulation that are identified in that way. We support that principle. 
In the first reading debate on this bill there was considerable discussion about the principle that such a bill should be uncontroversial and I have heard the Minister the Hon Chris Finlayson repeat that principle in the House today—that this bill should be about uncontroversial measures. This is where the Green Party parts company with National and Labour on this bill. That raises an important constitutional point. Our Parliament has moved from the elected dictatorship of first past the post to an MMP environment so the fact that National and Labour agree on the provisions of the bill does not make the bill uncontroversial. In the first reading debate I outlined the Green Party’s strenuous objections to several of the provisions in the bill. I raised some concerns about the changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and in particular I spoke about the proposed changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act which seem to me to be entirely objectionable and not to fit the tests for inclusion in the bill—and I will speak some more about those matters. For that reason the Green Party will continue to oppose this bill. 
I want to talk some more about the principle on which this bill is based because again I have heard the Minister the Hon Chris Finlayson repeat in the House today the statutory basis or the Standing Orders basis for this kind of bill. He has again cited Standing Order 264(a) which has now become Standing Order 259(a). That states that an omnibus bill to amend more than one Act can be introduced if “the amendments deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy”. The Government in the explanatory note of the bill claims that that single broad policy is to improve the regulatory framework and reduce the compliance burden on business. Then it goes on to further elaborate on that broad objective. 
For example it states that the initiatives in the bill address “regulatory duplication gaps administrative errors and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation that collectively create unnecessary compliance costs and uncertainty for business.” The Government states: “In keeping with the scope of the Review they”—the measures—“target poor implementation and administration of various regulatory frameworks.” The explanatory note of the bill then goes on to talk about how “these many small gains can make a larger overall impact in removing barriers to economic growth.”—I will not debate the desirability of economic growth although that is a live debate in this House—and again uses rhetoric about transformation. 
The Government claims that this bill contains a broad suite of measures to address all those goals that they are uncontroversial and that for that reason they meet the test set out in Standing Order 259(a). The Green Party is strongly opposed to the changes in the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act and that means the bill is not uncontroversial. I note the Government’s intent to split the bill in the Committee of the whole House into separate bills but at this stage during the second reading debate the bill stills fits under the umbrella of Standing Order 259(a). I will submit to you Mr Assistant Speaker at the conclusion of this speech that in fact the bill does not fit the test required by that Standing Order and should not proceed. 
The concerns that I talk about in this debate are ones that I raised during the first reading and it is disappointing to me that the Commerce Committee did not consider the issues that I raised at that point because the problem that I am raising today could have been dealt with at that time by the select committee. In my first reading speech I offered the Green Party’s cooperation to all sides of House to deal with those problems and it is a disappointment to me that the offer was not taken up. 
I will talk in particular about the changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act because they do two things: firstly they raise the maximum period of a concession from the current maximum of 5 years to a maximum of 10 years and secondly they also provide for there to be discretion not to publicly notify such concessions. I say neither of those measures in fact meets any of the objectives set out in the explanatory note of the bill or required by Standing Order 259(a). Most of the provisions in the bill do meet the test of being regarded as implementing a single broad policy—in this case the broad policy of improving the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business—but neither the changes to the Conservation Act nor the changes to the Reserves Act meets the test. Neither of those is about that at all. In fact those changes are about other measures that the Government has chosen to put into this omnibus bill. Therefore they fail to meet the test and the bill should be ruled out of order on that basis. 
The increase in concessions—for example moving the maximum period for a concession from 5 years to 10 years—does not improve the regulatory framework at all. Sure it probably reduces the compliance costs for the particular business that has that concession but it actually increases costs and creates barriers to good business practice for every other business. Also it creates problems for the New Zealand public because the New Zealand public have an interest in the conservation estate and that interest is not well served by that increase in the concession period. I will talk about that during the Committee stage. I will wind up my speech at this point but I will immediately take a point of order. 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Regulatory Improvement Bill does not meet the test set out in Standing Order 259(a) which requires that the amendments in such an omnibus bill “deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy”. The specific changes that are proposed to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act do not fit within the broad policy objectives set out in the explanatory note of the bill of “improving the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business.” That is not what the changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act are proposed to be about. Therefore the bill—because all of the changes in the bill are currently still under the umbrella of that Standing Order—does not meet the test and should be ruled out. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Which Standing Order is the member quoting from? Is it 264(a)? 
KEVIN HAGUE 
: Standing Order 264(a) has now become Standing Order 259(a) if I am correct in hearing the Attorney-General’s first speech in the second reading. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Very briefly there are two issues. The first is the question of timing. It is too late to take that point. It should have been raised if it was to be raised at all when the Business Committee was dealing with the bill. Secondly if members look at the report of the Standing Orders Committee they will see Speaker’s ruling 98/3 which states: “The current [omnibus bill] rules allow for an approach that facilitates … the inclusion in a single bill of a number of interrelated amendments that improve the coherence of provisions ….”—so far so good—“Proposed amendments must have a common purpose”—in my second reading speech I went through a number of those purposes—“or be linked to some broad policy objective.” 
KEVIN HAGUE 
: In responding to the points raised by the Attorney-General in that contribution I say his speech in the second reading did not refer to the changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act which are the specific ones that I say do not fit the broad policy objectives required by that Standing Order. Regarding the first point raised by the Attorney-General it is my understanding that the Standing Orders are still live at any point while a bill is being debated. This bill is still being considered by the House under the rubric of that Standing Order and therefore the fact that this issue was not raised in the Business Committee does not mean that a point of order cannot be taken at this point. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: There is a very clear chronology in terms of how these matters are actually dealt with. The question of an omnibus bill meeting the requirements of the Standing Orders is addressed at the introduction of the bill. The House has now accepted that the provisions in this omnibus bill meet those requirements. In that respect the member’s point of order is not upheld. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call this morning on the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I will address some issues that the previous speaker Kevin Hague talked about. The first is about urgency. This Government is about action and urgency is part of that action. It has been said before that this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper for a significant period of time so if we are serious about getting legislation through sometimes we need to go into urgency to do it. A bill like this does not have a high priority on the Order Paper and it can sit there for a very long period of time. For those businesses that rely on changes in regulations to update their regulations and keep them relevant to the environment they are in currently because we are in a business environment that changes very very quickly it is important that we keep legislation current with the environment those businesses are in. This legislation is part of that plan and this Government is committed to making change and to making a difference. 
The Hon Lianne Dalziel got up earlier and talked about how she had gone up and down the country talking to hundreds of businesses around New Zealand. They all said the same thing: as much as regulation is important—and it is important for investors to have confidence in the environment and for them to have confidence in their investing they do need regulation—they do not need a lot of regulation all the time. We do not need to put layers and layers of regulation upon businesses. Governments are very good at regulating but they are not very good at looking at regulations already in place to ensure that the regulations are still current and that they are still getting benefits from those regulations. So that is why this bill is very important. 
This bill is an omnibus bill; a vehicle to improve frameworks and reduce compliance burdens on businesses in a timely fashion. I know that the previous Green speaker questioned whether this bill should be standing as it is but I believe that it should. I believe there is a common thread that runs through this bill in all areas. I know that it will be broken up into different bills later on after a later stage but at this stage it is a good vehicle for getting small changes through. Otherwise the Order Paper would be clogged up and we would never get these small not-quite-so-important bills through because bigger bills will always take preference. 
The current bill addresses certain low-hanging fruit reforms. The visions in the bill came out of the Quality Regulation Review undertaken by the previous Government in 2006 and 2007. I thank the Hon Lianne Dalziel for the hard work she put into this omnibus regulations bill in making sure that the whole House bought into this bill she put forward and worked with. The Quality Regulation Review worked with many many stakeholders over a period of about 18 months I believe to put something together that would work. Hopefully we will have a bill like this going through the House every year to change some of those regulations that are not as relevant as they were when they first came in. 
I am taking just a very short call. I will be speaking at the Committee stage and on the third reading this morning as well. I look forward to speaking at those stages. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. Why? Because it is very much a common-sense bill. I will tell the House why I like the bill and then I will tell the House how it came about. 
The reason this bill is so good is that it provides a framework for the process of continuous legislative improvement. It makes it easier to get things done to do business to make regulatory change and to make legislative change in areas that affect the everyday lives of hard-working New Zealanders. The bill is an example of one of the many pieces of legislative innovation that Labour championed and brought to the House. As we all know this bill was introduced to the House by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. It is amazing that we are considering it under urgency about 2 years after it was first brought to the House but that is OK; at least it is coming into the House. Let us give credit where credit is due. I certainly know there will be many businesses out there that understand what this legislation represents. 
As the former Minister of Commerce and instigator of the process the Hon Lianne Dalziel said in one of her speeches in the House on this legislation: “It is really important that we have regular opportunity as a Parliament to tidy up those issues that are not perhaps insignificant enough to make it into a Statutes Amendment Bill but not significant enough to warrant a bill in their own right. Although it is fair to say that the amendments contained in the Regulatory Improvement Bill are not particularly dramatic the bill itself is another deliverable of the Quality Regulation Review.” That statement was from Lianne Dalziel and she did a fantastic job in bringing this legislation to the House and also chairing the Commerce Committee. I give my congratulations to her. The reason why I like this bill is that it makes progress. It is positive and represents the outcome of a plan that resulted from consultation. It is good legislation. 
Let me tell the House how this bill came about. It is a very good example of how to do things properly and make a difference in a way that is truly measurable informed and representative of the wishes of the core constituency our employers—the people of New Zealand. Let us start at the beginning. As I have already mentioned hats off to the Hon Lianne Dalziel because the Quality Regulation Review undertaken by former Minister Dalziel addressed regulatory barriers to business growth. We all know that the Labour Party is the party of business. This legislation is just another example of how Labour members go out there talk to businesses and implement the legislation that businesses want. We are for the many not the few; for the many businesses not the few—we all know that. 
The Quality Regulation Review was a broad review that looked at anomalies inconsistencies and duplications across the Government’s regulatory framework. As well as correcting errors the review aimed to develop ways of ensuring new rules were efficient from a business perspective. The review established that when businesses deal with the Government they do not see discreet agencies like the Inland Revenue Department the Accident Compensation Corporation and the Occupational Safety and Health Service of the Department of Labour. Rather they see a single entity: the Government. Accordingly businesses were frustrated by having to provide the same information over and over again to different agencies. The Quality Regulation Review confirmed that New Zealand’s regulatory environment is generally in good shape. Of course it would be in good shape; there were about 8 years of a Labour Government before this bill came into place to get the stuff sorted out that had been put into such disrepair by the Bolger Government. After 8 years the regulatory environment was in pretty good shape. New Zealand consistently ranked highly in the World Bank’s Doing Business database. In fact the 2010 global survey found that New Zealand is the second-easiest country in which to do business and I think we can thank the previous Labour Government for that. Adding to the positive reputation as a business partner that New Zealand enjoys we consistently rank highly under Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. We were first in 2009 and first equal many times before then. 
Business was closely involved in the review process. Business networks for example the chambers of commerce Business New Zealand the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and industry associations have acted as a conduit for business input into the review. In fact 130 individual businesses in the four sectors were interviewed about what they see as priorities and issues. The former Minister Lianne Dalziel heard from focus groups. Imagine setting up a focus group and actually talking to people! That is a novel approach for members on the Government side of the House but Labour did it the whole time during its 9 years in Government. 
The Minister set up these focus groups nationwide and we received submissions from individual businesses through the Business Consultation Website. It was a very involved and a very consultative process. It was not done under urgency; it was done in good time under proper procedure. Labour and Lianne Dalziel looked at the regulatory framework and at how new regulations were made from a business perspective. As well as introducing this bill the previous Government strengthened the regulatory impact analysis regime to ensure that future regulation properly identified the problem and looked at all options for resolving it. Once again Lianne Dalziel and the Labour Government went out and talked to people. They talked to the people who were affected by this sort of legislation. This is why this is such good legislation. 
Here is an example of a hard-working Minister who went out and listened to the people. She heard from people and then acted upon their recommendations. As we know this bill has gone through all the proper processes. The fact that the bill is going through under urgency is probably unfair because it was a long and involved process; in fact it should have been passed a year ago. But anyway here we are. That is what Labour does and Lianne Dalziel epitomises this work ethic. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: That’s seven mentions. 
STUART NASH 
: There was no sitting behind her desk I say to Sam. She was travelling the country talking to people and businesses and only then coming up with legislation that really makes a difference. The changes proposed in this bill cover a wide range of policy areas and legislation but they are all aimed at improving regulatory frameworks and reducing the compliance burden on business. I say thank you to Lianne Dalziel. To tell the truth—and I do not mean to be disrespectful here at all—I just cannot see Rodney Hide or Simon Power doing this. This bill would not be before the House if Messrs Hide and Power were in charge because I simply could not see them getting in their cars and travelling from Cape Reinga to Bluff consulting and talking. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Well if they had another car following. 
STUART NASH 
: The member is dead right—if there were two or three cars; a cavalcade. But they would not be talking to people because they would need all the cameras for the smile and wave photo opportunities. This was serious business of the Government; I could not see Mr Hide doing that. That is why this is a Labour bill. That is how we operate. We travel the country listening to the people. We sometimes get criticised for getting out there and talking to Kiwis up and down this wonderful country. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my friend Mr Nash but I wonder whether you could remind Mr Lotu-Iiga of Speaker’s ruling 8/4 which requires members not to refer to what is happening in the gallery. It is out of order and the member has done it at least twice. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that the ruling talks about speakers. The member was interjecting so he is not necessarily a speaker. Can I say—[ 
Interruption 
] Excuse me I am ruling here. Can we have some quiet please. 
The second point is that I have been a little bit concerned about the nature of the debate. The interjections have been responded to and we are getting a cross flow. Also members are referring to each other by their first name. I could have taken a point of order and straightened that up but I was hoping to let the speech flow so that we could get on with the business of the House. But having had the interruption I say that we will not refer to people in the gallery we will not refer to members by their first names and we will speak to this very interesting legislation which we are all seized with—the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I invite Stuart Nash to continue. 
STUART NASH 
: As I was saying we are public servants and we are employed to represent the will of the people so why would we not get out there? At the moment I am talking about the process of this bill how it came about and why it is such good legislation. I was saying that the reason why it is such good legislation is that we went out and talked to people. We talked to businesses up and down the country—well Lianne Dalziel did that. She sought feedback from wherever she was and as a consequence has come up with very very good legislation. I suppose that is evidenced by the fact that everyone in this House is supporting it. 
I come back to this bill. This is an omnibus bill that makes amendments to nine pieces of legislation with the object of improving the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business. As I was saying everyone knows that the Labour Party is the true party of business. It is the only party that has brought a bill to the House that actually reduces the compliance burden on business and they will be very thankful for that. 
The bill amends the Companies Act the Conservation Act the Designs Act the Fisheries Act the Gas Act the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act the Reserves Act and the Weights and Measures Act. There is a lot of good stuff in here. The reason why this legislation is here is that we went out and we talked to people. We asked them what they would like in this sort of bill. People said: “This is what we would like to see.” And this legislation is the result of that. 
As the Hon Lianne Dalziel said the intention is to have an annual Regulatory Improvement Bill. I hope the National Government sticks with that because every time there is one it makes life easier for companies to undertake their business. We should pay homage to the Hon Lianne Dalziel who as we all know chairs the Commerce Committee that came up with this wonderful legislation. In fact she is the only Labour chair of a select committee and I believe that is why this legislation is so good. As I said it is what she does differently. Many of the ongoing work programmes established as a result of the Quality Regulation Review address these interface issues. The reason I have outlined why I am supporting the Regulatory Improvement Bill— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that his time has expired. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 My understanding is that this is the second reading debate on the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I was not intending to take a call on this bill but I have been listening to Mr Stuart Nash this morning and I have heard very little about the bill and the things that are in it. In fact Mr Nash used his opportunity to promote Lianne Dalziel. I was not counting but I understand that Mr Sam Lotu-Iiga was and I think her name was mentioned nine times. 
I need to respond to some of the comments that Mr Nash made about Lianne Dalziel. I agree that Lianne Dalziel is a good listener and she is a very good chair of the Commerce Committee. I had the pleasure of attending a function in Hawke’s Bay with her just on 2 weeks ago when she launched her member’s bill. In fact Mr Nash knows that well because he was there on the day initially as well. 
We also heard from Mr Nash that the Labour Party is the true party of business and he talked about a consultation process. He said that Lianne Dalziel had travelled around the country from North Cape to the Bluff consulting and listening. But then sadly Mr Nash could not pass up the opportunity to try to screw the knife in. He said that he could not see Rodney Hide and Simon Power travelling around and consulting the country. As an ACT member I cannot allow those comments to go unchallenged. 
Hone Harawira 
: Hear hear! 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I thank Mr Hone Harawira for that. Those comments cannot go unchallenged because Mr Rodney Hide the other three ACT MPs and I are the only MPs who are listening to the people of New Zealand on the emissions trading scheme. We are the only people listening. 
I find it interesting that Mr Nash talks about the Labour Party being the party of business. If Labour had had its way and won the last election we would have already had a 10 percent increase in the price of electricity. From 1 January this year we would have had a 10 percent increase in the price of electricity. We would have had massive windfall profits going to those power generators that produce electricity from hydro sources—renewable sources—and then do not have to pay the emissions trading scheme tax because they are not burning up coal or gas. 
Mr Hide is a listener. He fought virtually single-handedly against the emissions trading scheme in the last Parliament. He absolutely totally opposed it. I attended a breakfast this morning with European parliamentarians where the comment was made that there is a general consensus between Labour and National on the emissions trading scheme and that it would have been a very tough job for Mr Hide to represent the views of the people and to stand up and speak out against it. 
Mr Hide listens; I cannot speak for Mr Power. I hope that Mr Power— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Nine times. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Oh nine comments was it for Lianne Dalziel? I have mentioned her name a couple of times myself. I hope that Mr Power is listening to the voices of business. I hope that he is listening to consumers I hope that he is listening to families and I hope that he is listening to farmers. We are introducing a tax on our farmers that will result in windfall profits and I cannot let those comments go unchallenged. Thank you. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member who has just resumed his seat criticised me for not mentioning much of what is in this bill but I do not even think I heard the name of the bill in that speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The point of order is redundant; the member has finished his speech. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in the second reading of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I want to make a couple of points. I agree with what the previous speaker John Boscawen said in terms of Mr Nash’s speech. It was almost as if it were Groundhog Day. The speech was repeated over and over and I think it was the same one that Lianne Dalziel delivered only a couple of minutes ago or was it an hour ago? It has been a long sitting session. It is like déjà vu. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: All over again. 
MELISSA LEE 
: It has been a bit like déjà vu; it is all over again. It was very interesting to listen to Mr Nash mention Lianne Dalziel. As much as I adore Lianne Dalziel—she is a lovely woman and she is the chairperson of the Commerce Committee—to suggest that she has done all this work and this bill would not be here without her is ridiculous. She drives really well in Christchurch; she drove me back to my hotel. 
Personal things aside if it was up to the Labour Party then this bill would be languishing on the Order Paper. It is the National-led Government that is committed to growing this economy. We are bringing this bill forward and making sure that it is getting a hearing. It is about cutting red tape and I think it is a great bill. I am glad we have a lot of support for it. Thank you. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I rise with great pleasure to support the Regulatory Improvement Bill. As a number of my colleagues have said before me it is a common-sense bill that will make it easier to do business. Labour is supporting this bill. As has been mentioned it is an omnibus bill that makes amendments to nine pieces of legislation in order to improve the regulatory framework and reduce the compliance cost on businesses. It is an important bill. 
It is important that I correct the previous speaker Melissa Lee who said that the bill would not have come before the House if this Government had not brought it. The bill was actually submitted to the House before the last election. It is very unclear—given the importance of the bill the sensible nature of it and all the previous work that has gone into it—why it is being rushed through the House under urgency. I think it is important that we note there is no reason for it to be considered under urgency. 
An enormous amount of work has gone into this legislation and that is largely due to the important work done by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel. She has had a number of mentions in the House today. I think that she deserves a lot of credit for this bill. 
Labour supports this bill not because it has been rushed through the House under urgency by the Government but because it is the result of the very careful 15-month Quality Regulation Review. There has been a lot of consultation with Government agencies and 200 businesses. The previous Labour Government knew a lot about consultation and how to do it properly. This Government does not appear to know a lot about consultation. It seems to think that rushing bills through the House under urgency reflects consultation with New Zealand people. This bill is more important than its content. The previous Labour Government listened very carefully to businesses and set about implementing their recommendations whereas the style of the Minister in charge of this bill the Minister for Regulatory Reform Rodney Hide is to ignore recommendations and come up with his own plan. That does not bode well for New Zealand businesses because they will get what Mr Rodney Hide says they need. 
The important point to make about this bill is that the Hon Lianne Dalziel when she was Minister of Commerce—how many times have I mentioned her? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You’re only up to three. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: She consulted widely on the Quality Regulation Review which led to this bill. It appears that Mr Rodney Hide the so-called Minister for Regulatory Reform does not and will not place as much emphasis on consultation. Of course the key example of that is the Auckland super-city where a reasonably sham process disguised as consultation has been undergone in terms of consulting Aucklanders. The way that this bill has been introduced to the House does not reflect the work that has gone into it—another important point to make. But it certainly reflects the approach of the National-ACT Government to lawmaking and that is to have no consultation. 
The bill makes some small uncontroversial but very important changes to the regulatory environment. The Quality Regulation Review which was led by the Hon Lianne Dalziel led to a greatly enhanced regulatory impact statement regime which is another thing that the previous Labour Government should be very proud of. That regime is largely due to the work of the Hon Lianne Dalziel my colleague who is the chair of the Commerce Committee. 
The Commerce Committee is generally a very effective committee. We all work together very cooperatively and harmoniously in the main largely due to the extremely experienced chairing skills of the Hon Lianne Dalziel. All of my colleagues across the House who sit on the Commerce Committee even the ones who have subbed on the committee comment on how well it is chaired by the Hon Lianne Dalziel and what a pleasure it is to sit on it. 
As I said Labour introduced this bill but the credit is being taken by Minister Rodney Hide. It is important to make the point that annual Regulatory Improvement bills are a sensible way of ensuring that quality regulation takes place unlike the ACT Party’s Regulatory Responsibility Bill which is still languishing on the Order Paper. 
I will make a couple of comments about the process that led up to this bill. It was introduced by the Hon Lianne Dalziel in response to the Quality Regulation Review. The review found that when businesses deal with the Government they do not see discrete agencies. That is a really important point. Citizens view the Government and the services that it provides for both citizens and businesses as a single entity. They do not want to see a whole lot of individual organisations separately. They would like to—and do—see a single entity the Government. Because of the requirement to deal with all the single entities businesses in particular become frustrated at having to provide the same information over and over again to different agencies. 
Labour looked at the regulatory framework under the leadership of the Hon Lianne Dalziel and new regulations were made from a business perspective. As well as introducing this bill Labour strengthened the regulatory impact analysis regime to ensure that future regulation properly identified the problems to be solved. Labour looked at all of the potential options for resolving it. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: They’ve taken the regulatory impact statements out of the bills. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: The Government has taken them out. It was quite difficult to access the regulatory impact statement for this bill. My office had to go through quite a rigmarole this morning. The Hon Lianne Dalziel has spoken to the House about this issue on a number of occasions. Public access to the regulatory impact statement is extremely important. 
Another thing that the previous Labour Government launched as part of the Quality Regulation Review which was led by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel was a 2-year trial of a business cost calculator that quantifies the compliance costs of regulation. The business compliance cost calculator is a software tool that allows Government officials to calculate the true cost for businesses of any regulations that they are recommending to the Government. The tool is designed to assist policy makers to create higher-quality regulation in a uniform and efficient manner. A similar type of tool is being used successfully in Australia and in some European countries. The Australian model is currently being adapted for use in the New Zealand environment. It is envisaged that in the long term the use of this tool will support greater productivity and competitiveness by allowing more resources to be applied to core business activities. The business cost calculator is just one of the measures introduced through the Quality Regulation Review led by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel. She had an absolute commitment to making it easier for businesses to do business in New Zealand and to putting sensible measures in place. This bill is the result of that work. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand and speak on the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I must admit that the Commerce Committee is a very enjoyable select committee to work on no doubt due to the fantastic contribution of the deputy chair Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. It is second only to the enjoyment of working on the Law and Order Committee as you Mr Assistant Speaker would agree. That committee is fantastically led as well. 
There is a very famous statement by the Rt Hon Winston Churchill who said: “If you have 10000 regulations you destroy all respect for the law.” The provisions of this bill remove the unnecessary encumberments and redundant issues of regulation that have a negative effect with no just purpose any longer. It is a good process to go through. It is a process we are committed to because it assists businesses in many different ways to not be encumbered by unnecessary regulations. It takes time and expense to fulfil requirements that do not have the purpose of making business any better; nor do they necessarily make government any better. There comes a time when we need to identify regulations through review and determine whether they have any current or future purpose in order to remain there. 
I am advised that the Quality Regulation Review took 15 months to complete. It involved a wide range of Government agencies as well as more than 130 businesses consulted which I think the member opposite referred to from North Cape to Bluff. Apparently there was a bit of a road trip by the previous Minister in order to do that. I am sure that that would have been an enjoyable trip. I am not quite sure who in Bluff she would have consulted with—perhaps those who farm and harvest oysters. I am not quite sure what businesses operate up in Cape Reinga. I have been there myself. I have enjoyed visiting the far reaches of our country where I am sure there would be at least two businesses and 128 businesses in between that that member would have consulted. I think consultation is very important. Engagement with business is the only way to understand the real impacts of the decisions we make as parliamentarians. 
This bill contains 22 amendments to legislation. The broad objectives include improving the regulatory framework and reducing compliance burden on business. In times like these we need to be enabling businesses to lift their heads up rather than having them all the way down doing the paperwork. They need to see what opportunities are coming before them. We know that regulation is important. Regulation gives confidence to people it enables businesses to effectively work within confines and constraints that are reasonable and it gives everybody the opportunity to live under one law. Thank you very much. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 As part of my contribution I would like to pay tribute first to the Hansard Office and second to the wonderful hard-working good lawyer turned good member of Parliament the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Because of the Hansard Office we have the speech notes readily available for us to reflect on and to bear witness to how history repeats itself. 
The honourable member who spoke before me Jonathan Young quoted Winston Churchill. Interestingly in the Regulatory Improvement Bill’s first reading in May 2009 if my memory serves me well the Hon Tariana Turia also quoted Winston Churchill. I would like to quote her: “Winston Churchill and Rodney Hide have something in common apart from looks though Rodney is definitely in better shape. It was Churchill who famously said that if there are 10000 regulations all respect for the law is destroyed.” 
Almost 80 years later Mr Hide has introduced a bill to do something to address once and for all the duplications gaffes errors and inconsistencies that make a mockery of our law. I was very lucky in May 2009 to have the opportunity to rise and take a call on the bill’s first reading. I responded to the Hon Tariana Turia that Winston Churchill would have been very pleased to hear what I was about to say in the next 10 minutes or so. Then I said that Mr Churchill was a great statesman and a great historian. Given his great historic status let us look briefly at the historical side of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. 
I join my colleagues in congratulating the Hon Lianne Dalziel who introduced this bill in September 2008. The Hon Lianne Dalziel made history in September 2008. She introduced a brand-new bill that aimed to improve some existing laws and reduce compliance costs for businesses. More important I would like to remind members that the bill was introduced as a result of the careful 15-month Quality Regulation Review and reflected consultation between Government agencies and 200 businesses. Therefore I rise to support this bill both for its content and for the way in which it was introduced. In that regard to some extent the bill itself may be more important than its content. 
The Hon Lianne Dalziel and the Labour-led Government listened to business people and set about implementing their recommendations. As I pointed out nearly 12 months ago at the bill’s first reading consultation is particularly relevant. We have witnessed—this week and many times in the past month in this honourable House—recommendations being systematically ignored and legislation being rammed through. To borrow the Hon Tariana Turia’s words what makes a mockery of our law and the way we as lawmakers make our law is that such important legislation can be rammed through in such a manner. 
I want to reiterate what my colleagues Stuart Nash and Clare Curran said previously. Labour supports this bill—it is Labour’s bill anyway—because it is the result of the careful 15-month Quality Regulation Review and reflects consultation between Government agencies and 200 businesses. As Stuart Nash has just said the Labour Party is a true party for business people and of business. The bill is more important than its content. 
For the benefit of Mr John Boscawen I reiterate that Labour listened to business people and set about implementing their recommendations whereas the style of his ACT Party is to ignore recommendations and come up with its own plan. This is a typical example of the National-ACT approach to lawmaking—that is there is no consultation. 
I return to the bill. The bill makes small and controversial but important changes to the regulatory environment. The Quality Regulation Review also led to a greatly enhanced regulatory impact statement regime. This is yet another bill that was introduced by Labour and the Hon Rodney Hide is taking credit for it. Regulatory improvement bills are a sensible way of ensuring quality regulation unlike the ACT Party’s Regulatory Responsibility Bill which languishes on the Order Paper. 
Thank you for the opportunity to take a call. I look forward to the debate in the Committee stage. Thank you very much. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Regulatory Improvement Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I seek leave for all the provisions of the Regulatory Improvement Bill to be taken as one question and for the debate to be of no more than 3 hours’ duration. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. The question is that Parts 1 to 9 and clauses 1 and 2 be agreed to. 
Parts 1 to 9 and clauses 1 and 2 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Committee stage of this bill. This will be the first of a number of calls I will be taking in this area because obviously this bill had its genesis in decisions that were taken through a Labour Cabinet. In fact the bill was introduced in my name prior to the last general election. Since that time it has been picked up by the now Minister for Regulatory Reform and I place on record my congratulations to the Government on having a Minister for Regulatory Reform. It is an excellent concept. It is the same as the Labour Government having a Minister for Small Business. It is worthwhile having somebody whose single focus pretty much in that portfolio space is on small business. In the current Government this concept of regulatory reform as being a significant driver for the Government is one that we support on this side of the Chamber. I was kind of a de facto Minister of Regulatory Reform because of the work that I did on the Quality Regulation Review. 
A number of people who have spoken on this bill have talked about it being the outcome of the Quality Regulation Review. It is not the only one. It is only one small part of the Quality Regulation Review which had a whole lot of different streams of work. One of those streams of work even though it did seem to cause one Jonathan Young some angst was the idea that I had spent my time travelling around different parts of New Zealand getting feedback from business. I found that to be the most enjoyable part of the review because it was something I was directly involved in. Some of the changes were made directly as a result of that one-on-one engagement. I found that there were really small things that were utter irritants to business and removing some of the clutter assisted business to get on with their primary job. Not all of the provisions in this legislation fit within this category. I know that the Green Party members will be talking about the changes to the Conservation Act so I thought I would comment on that one initially but certainly I do want to come back in on some of the other issues as well. 
We received very few submissions on the bill. I cannot remember the exact number but there were very very few indeed. [ 
Interruption 
] There were 12 or so—a very small number. The issue that came up on the question of the changes to the Conservation Act was focused on a misreading of the bill and what it proposed to do. The argument that was brought to the Commerce Committee was that this would apply to leases. Of course leases are not covered by the proposal; it is simply licences that are. Let me put on record what the response was from the Department of Conservation. It was the Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand that registered its opposition. It said that it opposed extending the term of permits to 10 years with permits at present granted for a maximum of 5 years. 
The submission questions the justification for the changes particularly in terms of freeing time spent on processing permits so more time can be spent on planning and environmental monitoring. The Federated Mountain Clubs considered that this was more about Department of Conservation prioritising than about business compliance costs and it notes that most businesses obtaining permits are small flexible businesses that do not require upfront investment to operate. It says that although they would benefit from greater business certainty by obtaining a longer-term permit this does not outweigh the rights of New Zealanders to comment on the land’s management. 
The response from the Department of Conservation was: “Over 300 new permits are applied for each year with at least the same again being reissued each year. In obtaining a permit significant staff and applicant effort occurs. Reducing the regularity for seeking a permit will reduce effort and cost and enable effort to be better placed in improved planning and management of concessions. Permits are granted for many activities including some which require significant financial investment—e.g. aircraft landings boating guiding grazing. A longer-term permit will provide greater certainty for investment in these opportunities. The Department of Conservation’s planning processes enable opportunity for public engagement on how public conservation lands and waters are managed over a 10-year period.” 
Certainly when we considered this matter at the select committee it was felt that this was an issue that fitted within the purview of the legislation but more important that the question of environmental protection and public engagement with the Department of Conservation over the estate was reasonably left to the broader planning role of the department rather than requiring people to apply every 5 years. 
Interestingly I actually thought we had some information in here that we do not have I say to the Minister in the chair the Minister for Courts. I have not been able to find it in my notes since I realised that this would be a debatable issue in the context of this Committee stage. One of the pieces of information I think would be useful for the Committee if the Minister could supply it is how many of those 300 applications per annum are renewals and how many of them are challenged. If the reality is as I recall the advice we got at the select committee that almost none of them are challenged because they are ongoing concessions then it would seem to me that we might be trying to make dare I say it a mountain out of a molehill—which is probably not fair to say given that it was the Federated Mountain Clubs that raised the issue. Incredibly useful advice for the debate would be to know how many of them are normally opposed. My recollection would be that very very few if any that are longstanding concessions in our Department of Conservation estate are in any way challenged by anyone and have been a great opportunity for people to get engaged with our conservation estate especially in terms of our tourism industry. It might be slightly different now with mining on national park land but there we go; that is probably a debate for a different occasion. 
The other issue I thought I would touch on was that there were a number of submissions in relation to the hazardous substances legislation as well. One of the problems with the way the submitters came forward was that it appeared that they had not quite realised that the bill was not changing any of the GMO provisions in the legislation. So we ended up hearing a couple of submissions where people were genuinely concerned about something that genuinely was not happening. The commentary states: As nothing in this bill addresses or affects the regulation of genetically-modified organisms as any changes to the regulation of such organisms is likely to be contentious and as the purpose of this regulatory improvement omnibus bill is to address minor regulatory problems”. 
So again I say to the Minister that it would be useful if the Minister puts it on the record that this is not an intention of this legislation and it never was an intention of this legislation. I understand that the submitters were utterly genuine in the submissions they were making and possibly it was useful that they brought the matter to our attention just to show that this was an issue that will continue to be of importance across New Zealand. But in this particular case it was not an issue that required the attention of our committee because the bill itself did not cross the line into the area of genetic modification. 
Having made those opening comments I think it would be useful to have some clarity from the Minister and if we can get those additional points of information to assist the Committee in the debate I think that would be very useful. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
:  
The Regulatory Improvement Bill is about reducing the compliance cost of doing business. At this stage I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel for the work that she did as the previous Minister of Commerce in reducing the compliance costs on businesses. She introduced this bill on 9 September 2008. People say imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Lianne Dalziel can be well pleased that Rodney Hide has taken up this bill and is progressing it through the House albeit without any consultation at all. This bill is the result of 15 months of careful consultation between Government agencies and over 200 businesses. That speaks volumes about the consultation process that the previous Minister undertook to ensure that the whole issue of compliance costs was addressed. 
I remember some years back introducing a private member’s bill to this Parliament. It was called the Paperwork Reduction Bill. The whole idea of that bill was to reduce the cost of compliance for small businesses. At the time the media made hay of the fact that members had to produce 21 copies of their submissions in order for that bill to go forward. The whole thing was concerned with the efficiency and productivity of an organisation. That is where Lianne Dalziel needs to be recognised for the work that she did. There was also the Productivity Council Bill (No 3) which was introduced in 1989 and I see that 21 years later the National Government has decided to do something about that matter. 
This legislation after 15 months of consultation between the Government and other agencies is finally starting to happen. That is due in no small part to the work that our Minister of Commerce did when she was in office. The bill takes a broad view that looks at anomalies inconsistencies and duplication across the Government’s regulatory framework. As well as correcting errors the Quality Regulation Review aimed to develop ways of ensuring new rules were efficient from a business perspective. 
I can remember visiting a small business in the South Island some years ago and talking about the issue of compliance. I said we were going to look at the issue and the guy who was doing paperwork in his office in I think it was Winton threw it all in the air and said “Thank goodness for that!”. The issue of compliance is a longstanding grievance for small business. I put it to members that it will continue to be a longstanding grievance for small business because of the amount of time and effort required in order to adhere to Government regulations. Again Lianne Dalziel needs to be recognised and complimented for addressing that issue. 
I quote Lianne Dalziel who said: “The bill is an important part of the Government’s overall effort to ensure that all our regulation is necessary. Our regulatory frameworks as a whole must be of the highest quality if our businesses are to compete internationally and be as innovative and productive as possible.” That is certainly the whole aim of this bill and it is one of the reasons why the Opposition will be supporting this legislation. Businesses are frustrated by having to provide the same information over and over again in different categories. Today that is still one of the problems that we face. One hopes that this legislation will go some way towards rectifying that problem. 
When Labour was in office we also launched a 2-year trial of a business cost calculator in order to quantify the compliance costs of regulation. When you were the Opposition spokesperson on small business Mr Chairperson Tisch I guarantee that one of the things you heard from small-business owners was that they were concerned about the issue of compliance. It is an age-old issue. This bill attempts to do something about it and I again acknowledge the work that my colleague did in bringing this legislation to Parliament. She is to be commended and congratulated for doing so and I know that also goes some way towards the work that you did Mr Chairperson Tisch when you were the Opposition spokesperson on small business. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I take a call to deal with some of the issues that the Regulations Review Committee drew to the attention of the Commerce Committee during its consideration of the legislation. But before I do I advise the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp that my colleague Lianne Dalziel raised two issues with the Minister who was in the chair before him the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. I know that the officials will have made a note of those issues but it would be good if he was cognisant of them. The first was whether when he takes a call the Minister could confirm the number of times that applications have been made under the Conservation Act in respect of the matters that are being dealt with by the legislation. The second is that I think it would be useful— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: And the number of objections. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: And the number of objections that have been received. It would also be good if we could have in the record of the proceedings of the Committee a confirmation that there is certainly no intended substantive change to the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No changes relating to GMOs. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Yes a confirmation that there are no changes relating to genetically modified organisms. That would go a long way towards allaying some of the fears that the mention of that legislation clearly raised in the minds of some submitters. 
I particularly draw the attention of the Committee to the three issues that the Regulations Review Committee drew to the attention of the Commerce Committee. I do so because it is not entirely clear from the record what the committee made of one of those matters in particular. 
The first issue that was drawn to the attention of the committee related to the manner in which the original legislation was intended to be commenced. The provision originally in the legislation stated that the bill would come into force on a day to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. Members will be aware that over a number of years the Regulations Review Committee has expressed concern about this form of clause. Essentially this provision is used very regularly overseas particularly in Canada and the United Kingdom. It allows the executive the power to proclaim legislation as opposed to Parliament itself fixing a date for legislation to come into force. 
Various justifications are used for this sort of clause. The usual justification advanced is that officials need time to implement the technical matters that are referred to in the legislation and that until that implementation work has been carried out it is not possible to set a firm commencement date. The problem with that sort of argument is that we have seen in the last couple of years some extraordinary examples of delay in the coming into force of legislation. One example involved legislation that was delayed for 8 years between its passing and its coming into force. 
I am pleased to see in the report of the Commerce Committee on this legislation that clause 2 is recommended to be amended so that the commencement date is to be the earlier of either a date to be appointed by the Governor-General or a day that is 12 months after the date on which the Act receives the Royal assent. It seems to me that the amendment is an appropriate response to the concerns that were expressed by the Regulations Review Committee. I thank the Commerce Committee for reaching a sensible accommodation on that first point of concern. 
The second concern is where I would particularly like the Minister to take advice from the officials if he would and take a call. The second issue relates to the making of regulations without express controls which is another major area of concern for our scrutiny committee. On this occasion the concern relates to clause 28 which inserts a new section 42C in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. New section 42C(3) would provide a power to “make regulations specifying the circumstances in which there is a low risk of adverse effects from— … (b) developing … a new organism … in containment.” This relates to organisms that are not genetically modified—I stress that point. But it will allow applications to develop organisms in containment to be rapidly assessed by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. 
A similar regulation-making power exists in section 41 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act relating to so-called low-risk genetically modified organisms. It allows the Governor-General “from time to time by Order in Council” to “make regulations—(a) Specifying the procedures … (b) Specifying the probability that adverse effects will occur … (c) Specifying the circumstances in which genetic modification of an organism is a low risk genetic modification.” 
New section 42C(3) relating to organisms that are not genetically modified contains wording that is similar to that currently found in the existing section 41(c). Existing subsections 41(a) and (b) which relate to creating regulations specifying a standard process for making any assessment of risk of adverse effects from genetically modified organisms have not been carried through into the bill in relation to non - genetically modified organisms. 
Under section 41 of the Act the standard process for assessing risk relating to genetically modified organisms must be promulgated by way of regulations. This ensures appropriate transparency and future technical scrutiny by Parliament. But under the bill that safeguard is not carried through in respect of the assessment of risk for the development of organisms that are not genetically modified. There is no explanation in the explanatory note or in the report of the committee for the difference in approach between the existing section and the proposed new section. 
The difference is contrary to the statement in the original explanatory note to the bill which stated that it is intended that there be “consistency” in how both such applications are dealt with meaning consistency between those relating to non - genetically modified organisms and those relating to genetically modified organisms. That is on page 26 of the original explanatory note of the bill. So I do think it is important in respect of the assurance that I was asking for before and which Lianne Dalziel referred to that we do not see any substantive change here in respect of GMOs and that the decision not to have a consistent procedure as between GMOs and non-GMOs be a considered one. I think that is an important point. 
The issue here is that the regulation-making power under proposed section 42C(3) does not have any expressed controls placed on it by the bill. This is not consistent with the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines. They state that although empowering statutes should not generally prescribe the procedure for making delegated legislation: “Consideration should be given in each case as to whether a procedure or any aspect of the procedure should be specified.” This might include requirements for notice consultation or confirmation by Parliament of any regulations that result. 
It is just not clear why the standard process that will be used to assess low-risk non-GMOs is not to be promulgated by way of regulations to provide transparency and future scrutiny consistent with section 41 of the Act. There may well be good reasons for the inconsistent approach but they are not apparent. I think it would be helpful if we could get an explanation from the officials via the Minister of that point. 
I have another issue to raise. It is the third matter dealt with by the Regulations Review Committee. It relates to Part 6 but I apprehend that I might be running out of time on this call so I will reserve that matter for a future call. Thank you. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. This bill was dealt with at the Commerce Committee which I am a member of. I thank the members of the select committee for the time that they devoted to this bill and I thank the people who made on submissions on the bill for their time. In total 10 submissions were received three of which were heard by the Commerce Committee. We received advice from the Ministry of Economic Development the Ministry of Consumer Affairs the Department of Conservation the Ministry for the Environment the Ministry of Fisheries the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Environmental Risk Management Authority. 
The Commerce Committee made two main changes to the bill. The first change related to the Designs Act 1953. The Designs Act provides for the restoration of lapsed copyright in a registered design in circumstances where the lapse was as a result of neglect to pay the renewal fee or to make the necessary application. The Commerce Committee recommended that in addition to allowing the restoration of lapsed copyright and registered designs the bill should allow the restoration of lapsed copyright in design applications. The committee also recommended that the bill should give specific authorisation for the commissioner to publish bibliographical details of design applications. 
The change to the Designs Act in the bill relates to its coming into effect on the earlier of the following: 12 months after the bill receives Royal assent or a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. However clause 14 which enables regulations to be made should come into effect on the day after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent along with the rest of the bill. It also recommends that the bill should give specific authorisation for the commissioner to publish bibliographical details of design applications and that the bill in addition to allowing the restoration of lapsed copyright in registered designs should allow the restoration of lapsed copyright in design applications. 
The second main change was around the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 which enables the delegation of technical decision-making power by the Environmental Risk Management Authority to the chief executive and other staff of the authority or other persons and it enables applications to import develop or field test non - genetically modified organisms or non-GMOs as they are called in containment to be treated consistently with each other and with applications to import or develop low-risk genetically modified organisms in containment. It also enables applications for conditional release of low-risk non-GMOs to be treated consistently with applications for full release of low-risk non-GMOs. 
There is a whole list of other things that this Act does. The changes proposed by the Commerce Committee include a recommendation that the provision in the bill amending section 141A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act which relates to incorporation by reference of material into regulations and other instruments be amended to conform with new standard clauses prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel Office to give effect to the principles established by the Regulations Review Committee and its inquiry into material incorporated by reference in 2004. Those are the two main changes to the bill. 
As I said earlier this omnibus bill makes amendments to nine pieces of legislation with the objective of improving the whole of the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business. The Acts that are to be amended are the Companies Act 1993 the Conservation Act 1987 the Designs Act 1953 the Fisheries Act 1996 the Gas Act 1992 the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996— 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 In relation to the specific questions asked by the Hon Lianne Dalziel the officials have provided me with specific answers. Three hundred permits were applied for; they were new applications. In addition there were 350 renewals as well. It should be noted that very few of the 300 new applications were notified with the reason being that they were low-impact activities. However I can inform the Committee that over a 2-year period 157 particular concessions were notified but only 22 of those actually received submissions from I guess members of the public. The concessions were in relation to licences and leases. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No no not leases. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is what I am advised. I am advised that the concessions that were notified related mostly to licences and leases. 
In relation to the very interesting points raised by Mr Chauvel I note that as he went through clause 28 which inserts section 42C I think he kind of answered his own question. The regime set out there which as he specifically noted relates to organisms other than genetically modified organisms is in respect of low-risk situations. That is why there is that particular procedure. As for the issues around the commencement dates they have all been set out in Supplementary Order Paper 117. I think from going through that Supplementary Order Paper that the concerns raised by Mr Chauvel have been very carefully considered. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I will talk a little bit about some of the provisions of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. It is good that the bill is being dealt with as one question as each part relates to a different Act so that decision makes a lot of sense and is expedient. I will give a little bit of background. As members have talked about this bill came out of extensive reviews and consultation with industry representatives up and down the country by Lianne Dalziel and the rest of the Labour team. It is a very good bill that makes a lot of sense. It is common-sense legislation which is what we are here to pass. 
As mentioned this omnibus bill amends nine Acts. Let us have a look at them; the first is the Companies Act 1993. The main provision under this bill is that under the Financial Reporting Act certain companies with overseas ownership will no longer be required to file audited financial statements with the Registrar of Companies. Those companies at present must appoint an auditor under the Companies Act 1993. The provision makes sense. Most other companies may by the unanimous resolution of shareholders elect not to appoint an auditor so the bill puts such companies with overseas ownership in the same position as other companies. Members of the Committee will remember that a number of bills have gone through the Finance and Expenditure Committee to tidy up a lot of this sort of legislation as well. This bill will reduce the unnecessary compliance costs for those companies due to the inconsistency between the two pieces of legislation. If there is one thing that Labour has worked very hard for—and did work very hard for in its 9 years in Government—it is to reduce unnecessary compliance costs and I think it has been very successful in that role. This bill continues with that because as we know this was a bill introduced by Labour and the Hon Lianne Dalziel. 
Let us now look at the provisions for the Designs Act 1953. As my colleague Charles Chauvel has mentioned that Act is an old piece of legislation; it is about time it was amended. The bill provides restoration of lapsed copyright in a registered design in circumstances where the lapse is a result of neglecting to pay a renewal fee or failing to make the necessary application. The Commerce Committee recommended that in addition to allowing the restoration of lapsed copyright in registered designs the bill should allow the restoration of lapsed copyright in design applications and that is becoming more and more applicable in this day and age of globalisation. A country like New Zealand needs to protect its intellectual property—of that there is no doubt. I know that my colleague Clare Curran is very hot on this topic and no doubt she will speak extensively on this bill that is about to come before the House for its third reading. 
The committee also recommended that the bill should give specific authorisation for the commissioner to publish bibliographical details of design applications. Again that is another common-sense amendment. When I heard there were 14 votes against this bill being read a second time I was not too sure why that was because it is common-sense legislation. The bill makes it easier to do business; it simplifies and streamlines processes. As mentioned this legislation has resulted from extensive consultation up and down the country. 
I move on to the provisions about the Fisheries Act 1996. The bill provides for the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries to consider requests from commercial fishers to be granted catch balancing relief provided that set criteria are met. That has the effect of allowing inadvertently incurred deemed value debts to be reviewed. Commercial fishers will benefit from a more timely and efficient consideration of their requests for the relief of debts that are inadvertently incurred through the end-of-year balancing process under the quota management system. The bill provides for delegation of the power to consider these requests to the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries instead of the current requirements for ministerial approval. That is again another piece of common-sense legislation. It streamlines the process and makes it easier for businesses involved in fishing. 
There is a provision pertaining to the Gas Act 1992. The bill clarifies that any regulations and rules that the Gas Industry Co. Ltd can recommend under Part 4A of the Gas Act 1992 will cover gas used as a feedstock. 
There are many provisions for the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. This bill enables the delegation of technical design-making power by the Environmental Risk Management Authority to the chief executive and other staff or to other persons. It enables applications to import develop or test non-genetically modified organisms known as non-GMOs in containment to be treated consistently with each other and with applications to import or develop low-risk genetically modified organisms in containment in terms of rapid assessment of low-risk organisms and the discretionary notification of other applications. As the Committee will be aware all that this does is streamline a process. It brings up to date the practice by which we need to continue our competitive advantage in this area. The bill enables applications for the conditional release of low-risk non-genetically modified organisms to be treated consistently with applications for full-risk or non-risk genetically-modified organisms. It allows the Environmental Risk Management Authority to publicly notify hazardous substance release applications that do not otherwise qualify for rapid assessment under section 28A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and gives the ability to delegate non-notified applications to its chief executive. It enables test certifiers to issue a conditional test certificate for hazardous substance locations where on reasonable grounds they consider the non-compliance to be minor and technical. The bill extends the purposes for which the approved persons now including the chief executive of the New Zealand Fire Service may search the register of test certificates to include emergency response planning purposes for hazardous substances. 
Again that is all common-sense stuff that has needed to be done. It is good that it will be done. As Lianne Dalziel mentioned I think that it is agreed upon—by the two major parties certainly—that this is the sort of bill that we will see in the House every year going forward. 
The bill empowers Biosecurity New Zealand to recover the costs of conditional release compliance enforcement under the Biosecurity Act 1993. It removes duplication of reporting requirements in the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s statement of intent. An annual monitoring report extends the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s power to revoke test certificates on the grounds for revocation. The bill more closely aligns times to lay information for new organism and Biosecurity Act offences Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act offences and Health and Safety in Employment Act offences respectively. It allows changes to material incorporated by reference to have legal effect and notification in the  
Gazette 
. It recasts the scope of standards that can be incorporated by reference. It aligns the Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act enforcement responsibilities for aerodromes and extends the alignment for health and safety and Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act powers of entry and inspection to all agencies with enforcement responsibility under both Acts for places of work. Finally it allows the incorporation of material via reference to standards requirements and recommended practices of national as well as international organisations. 
There is also work on the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995. This bill removes the penalty regimes applicable under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act for non-payment of cost-recovery levies. Commercial fishers will now have greater certainty—which is what we are after in business; of that there is no doubt—and reduction of compliance costs around the penalty regime for debt repayment. The bill will remove the requirements under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act for the Ministry of Fisheries to charge all clients a 10 percent penalty fee when they fail to pay their statutory incurred debt within a prescribed time frame. The provision overlaps with the sanctions already provided by the Fisheries Act 1996. This duplication is both inappropriate and unnecessary. I think we will find that a common theme through this bill—and a common theme through the consultation process—is the inappropriateness of duplication. It is just red tape in the way of businesses driving forward. As I mentioned it is good to see that Labour is the party that has put this bill forward. 
Let us look at the provisions for the Reserves Act 1977. The bill provides for 10-year—currently 5-year terms only—licences over vested reserves. Licences under the Reserves Act enable licensees to occupy reserve land or to carry out an activity on reserve land. 
There are provisions for the Weights and Measures Act 1987. The bill provides for the control of LPG in gaseous form to be under the Gas Act 1992 only and not under the Weights and Measures Act. 
As I have mentioned there is a lot of good stuff in this bill. Let us hope that the Government takes the bill forward and that another bill is introduced this year. Next year in 2011 I have no doubt that a Labour Government will be producing a similar one as we continue the process of streamlining regulations and legislation to make it a lot easier for businesses and companies to do business in New Zealand and around the world. Thank you. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed his seat Stuart Nash expressed puzzlement at the fact that votes are being cast against this bill the Regulatory Improvement Bill. So I will start this first contribution on this stage of consideration of the bill by recapping that. 
The purpose of this bill is that it is supposed to be a set of uncontroversial measures that are intended to address regulatory duplication gaps administrative errors and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation. That is what the bill is supposed to be about. I have spoken both in the first reading debate and in the second reading debate about the set of changes proposed for the Conservation Act and for the Reserves Act. The changes there change two things: they change the maximum period for which concessions can be granted from 5 years to 10 years and they change the provisions relating to public notification of the intention to grant such concessions. Neither of those is about any of those objectives for the bill. So one of the reasons for the Green Party’s objection to this bill is that it contains provisions that are inconsistent with its objectives. 
The second reason is that the proposed changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act are bad changes and I will talk a little more about that in this Committee stage. The land administered by the Department of Conservation is land that is administered on behalf of all of us—on behalf of all New Zealanders. It is not the “DOC estate” as it is sometimes referred to; it is actually the public conservation estate. It is administered by the Department of Conservation but it is administered with the objective of protecting the conservation values that are in that land. I readily admit that there is land of varying qualities within that estate but the department is protecting and preferably enhancing the conservation values in that set of land for all New Zealanders. 
The principal Act sets out in effect a hierarchy of values. This is important to understand for the context in which the proposed changes to the Act will take place. The paramount set of values in the hierarchy of values in the Act is about the protection of the conservation values—that is the natural biodiversity and indigenous biodiversity of those places including all of the indigenous animals and plants and the ecosystems within which those animals and plants live. The Act is protecting and preferably enhancing those. That is the paramount objective of the Act. The second level down is about recreational access. The Act sets out to encourage New Zealanders to have recreational access to the places that are being protected on our behalf but the recreational access ought not to occur at the expense of the conservation values. Then the third tier down is about allowing for tourism and other commercial activity. That commercial activity ought not to occur at the expense of either the conservation values of these places or New Zealanders’ recreational access to them. 
One of the ongoing critiques of the performance of the Department of Conservation and of the performance of successive Governments in conservation relates to the blurring of recreational access and commercial activity—that the hierarchy intended by the Act is not always respected by the process. What we are now faced with is a set of pressures that are on the department and indeed on Governments of any hue that should hold that conservation responsibility related to the increasing threats to biodiversity and to the conservation values that we are trying to protect and enhance. In the face of this the Government has made a number of decisions that have compounded that problem and have in fact made it worse. 
In the Prime Minister’s statement to the House at the beginning of this year the section that dealt with the environment and conservation was entitled “Unlocking resources”. That is directly germane to this bill because this bill is about commercial activity that occurs in the public conservation estate. The Prime Minister’s statement was code for a new approach to the conservation estate that says it is not a set of land biodiversity and conservation values that is protected on behalf of all New Zealanders; it is a set of resources that could be exploited for commercial gain. What he is doing with that statement is reversing or undermining—“undermining” is probably a good word for it—the hierarchy of values set out in the Act. 
Just over the last couple of days we have seen the attacks on water conservation orders and the proposals for mining in schedule 4 lands which are the practical application of the Prime Minister’s intent. That represents an expropriation of land and resources that are held and are owned by the public in common—an expropriation for private gain. That is directly relevant to this issue of concessions because the Government has created a set of drivers that will require the department to be looking for more and more revenue. It has cut the budget for the Department of Conservation by $52 million over 4 years at a time when the pressures on the conservation estate are increasing. That has led to a Department of Conservation that is now looking for more and more opportunities for creating revenue so we are starting to see pressure placed on the department to make inappropriate decisions about concessions. They are inappropriate decisions: decisions that actually put the revenue stream ahead of the conservation values that are to be protected. 
Under the existing law a 5-year maximum term for concessions at least provides the public with some protection but proposing to increase that term for concessions creates the risk that bad decisions—decisions made by the department for the purpose of revenue rather than for conservation values—will be locked in not for 5 years but for 10 years. The bill goes further in potentially compounding that by stating that in those cases where the concessions extend for a 10-year period the public will not even necessarily get to have a say about that. 
I am grateful to Lianne Dalziel for addressing these conservation issues in her first intervention in this Committee stage. I think that it is probably the first time in our discussion of this bill that anyone besides me has done so. I am grateful to her for doing that and for posing that question. I am also grateful to Minister Mapp for answering that question. Unfortunately that information provides us with a retrospective look at what has been occurring in regard to concessions and I am saying in this intervention that it is essential that this Committee takes a prospective look—again “prospective” may be a particularly appropriate word to use in the context of this debate—at what this Government is doing with the conservation estate. I would encourage the Committee— 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I will take only a very brief call. I was listening to the previous speaker Mr Hague and I would like to correct one statement that he made. New section 17T(4) which is to be substituted in the Conservation Act by clause 7 clearly states: “Before granting a lease or a licence with a term (including all renewals) exceeding 10 years … the Minister must give public notice of the intention to do so.” As I heard Mr Hague it was suggested that that would not be required. It is actually a legal requirement that public notice would have to be given for all leases and licences exceeding 10 years. 
Kevin Hague 
: Exceeding 10? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes. For those that are less than 10 years in new section 17T(5) “the Minister may give public notice … having regard to the effects of the licence permit or easement”. I took this call just to rectify what I think was perhaps an unintentional mistake. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 The House has agreed to take all of the parts of this bill together as one debate; therefore I seek leave for members to have an unlimited number of calls on all parts without there being any change to the agreed time limit for the debate. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I ask that the member repeat that. I was on the telephone and I did not hear the start of the request. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I ask Chris Hipkins to seek leave. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 No problem. This is probably a discussion that occurred just before the member arrived in the Chamber. I seek leave for members to have an unlimited number of calls without there being any alteration to the overall time limit for the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 We are debating the Regulatory Improvement Bill which makes a number of amendments to a number of Acts. Stuart Nash outlined the Acts earlier this morning and they include the Companies Act the Conservation Act the Fisheries Act the Gas Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I will focus my comments on two particular Acts: the Designs Act 1953 and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995. 
In relation to the Designs Act we note in the commentary on this bill that its provisions have been drafted to come into effect on the day after the bill is given the Royal assent with the exception of most of the provisions that are changes to the Designs Act. When the bill first came into the House there was a provision for the changes to the Designs Act to become effective on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council or the date when the Governor-General gave the Royal assent but there was no fixed time for that. That time provision could have dragged on for a number of years. In fact we heard a member of the Labour Opposition mention this morning a particular instance whereby it took some 8 years for some regulations to come into force. 
The Commerce Committee of which I am a member—I have to say that I did not play a large part in this bill’s deliberation; nevertheless I am a member of that committee—was concerned to ensure that there was some certainty. An amendment was put forward and Labour members have spoken at length on that this morning. There was a provision that notwithstanding the balance of the bill for which all of the other changes were to come in immediately the changes to the Designs Act were to come into effect on the earlier of two dates: the Governor-General giving an Order in Council or the date of a year after the bill receives Royal assent. The reason for making that change was to provide certainty. In the commentary the select committee said that members of the public need to have certainty and there should be only very rare and exceptional circumstances when we do not provide that certainty or when it is justifiable not to have some certainty and not to set a date for provisions to come into effect. 
That set my mind thinking as to when else we would have those rare and exceptional circumstances. I went back to the passing of the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill last November. We were told in this House that that bill would be based on the Australian scheme that the officials could make all the regulations they wanted and that they would have more than sufficient time because all they had to do was copy the Australian regulations. Well I realise I should keep the debate to the particular issue of the Designs Act but the point I am making is that that Act deals with copyright and designs. Therefore it was considered that a year should be more than sufficient time to make those regulations. It is not surprising that a year was thought sufficient because the regulations that were to flow from the emissions trading scheme legislation all had to be made in 6 months. That should not have been a problem because we were copying the Australian legislation. The only problem was that there was no Australian legislation—no Australian legislation at all—so now we are going where no country has gone before. 
That leads me to my next point concerning the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995. This Regulatory Improvement Bill makes some amendments to that Act. The primary purpose of those amendments is to remove the penalty regimes applicable under the Act for non-payment of cost recovery levies as they are already provided for in the Fisheries Act 1996. We are making amendments here to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995 to ensure there is not a duplication of penalties. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister for Regulatory Reform) 
: 
 I first acknowledge the Hon Lianne Dalziel whose work the Regulatory Improvement Bill is; and I am carrying it on. One of the things that I have noticed as a Minister is how much work that has been set up carries over from one Government to the next. I have been the fortunate beneficiary of Lianne Dalziel’s efforts so I thank the member for that. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: You can’t rest on your laurels though Rodney. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No. I admit to the honourable Ross Robertson that Lianne Dalziel set a very high bar and that I am working hard to match her efforts in this area. 
The Regulatory Improvement Bill proposes to give effect to the Government’s objective of improving the regulatory framework by reducing the compliance burden on business. As members will appreciate the bill is an omnibus bill introduced under Standing Order 264(a) which has now become Standing Order 259(a). The bill contains a number of small but important amendments to legislation. These amendments were identified as being part of the 2006-07 Quality Regulation Review. This bill is the first of this nature and it is aimed at making it easier to do business in New Zealand by removing red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy—something that all of us in the House agree with. The bill covers a diverse range of policy areas and legislation with the whole aim of improving regulatory frameworks and reducing the compliance burden on business. Overall these changes address regulatory duplications gaps and administrative errors and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation that collectively create unnecessary compliance costs and uncertainty for business. The bill provides a vehicle to progress these issues in an efficient and effective manner. 
The first change in Part 1 of the bill is to the Companies Act 1993. The purpose of the changes to that Act is to reduce compliance costs and align the obligation of companies to appoint an auditor with changes that were made recently to the Financial Reporting Act 1993. The bill provides that these companies can opt out of the requirement to appoint an auditor through the unanimous resolution of shareholders in the same way that other companies do that are not required to file audited financial statements with the registrar. 
We have also made changes to the Conservation Act 1987 in Part 2 of the bill. The purpose of the changes to the concessions provisions of that Act is to reduce costs and the administrative burden and to ensure that efficient contestable processes can take place. The changes will ensure that the process of obtaining concessions over public conservation land is more efficient. The three changes are: firstly to enable licences to be granted for up to 10 years without mandatory public notification; secondly to increase the maximum term for permits from 5 to 10 years; and thirdly to prevent persons from making applications for concessions when the Minister has already initiated a tender process for the particular activity. These changes will assist a wide range of businesses that operate on public conservation land. But the changes—and this is an important point—are not part of the proposal to allow mining on public conservation land. Mining on public conservation land requires an access arrangement to be approved under the Crown Minerals Act. Concessions are not required for activities covered by the mining permit; a concession is needed only in some cases where there are ancillary activities that are not covered by a mining permit. 
The next legislation to be changed is the Designs Act 1953 in Part 3 of the bill. The purpose of the changes to the Designs Act is to ensure the policy intent of the Act can be more efficiently and effectively achieved with the minimum necessary compliance costs. The bill allows for the restoration of lapsed design registrations and abandoned design applications and Supplementary Order Paper 118 in my name relates to this part. 
Then there are changes to the Fisheries Act 1996 in Part 4 of the bill. The purpose of the amendments here is to create a statutory process whereby commercial fishers who have inadvertently incurred deemed-value debts can have the debt reviewed. The bill provides for the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries to consider requests from commercial fishers for catch balancing relief provided that set criteria are met. 
We come to the Gas Act 1992 in Part 5 of the bill. I see that the Hon Lianne Dalziel remembers this well. The purpose of the changes to the Gas Act is to create certainty that any regulations and rules that the Gas Industry Co. Ltd can recommend under Part 4A of the Gas Act—and I notice that Lianne Dalziel is nodding her head—will cover gas used as a feedstock. The changes will reduce the uncertainty for the gas industry and ensure that all participants will be treated fairly. 
We then have changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 in Part 6 of the bill. The purpose of the changes is to ensure that the policy intent of the Act can be more efficiently and effectively achieved with the minimum necessary compliance costs. An important point—and I am looking at the Greens in the hope that they will appreciate this—is that the amendments do not affect the regulation of genetically modified organisms. This was an intentional decision as any changes to the regulation of genetically modified organisms are likely to be contentious and would not fit within a bill such as this one. The purpose of a regulatory improvement omnibus bill is to address relatively minor regulatory problems and this bill is not an appropriate means to address such an issue. 
The amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act cover a range of different matters. The first area of change is intended to improve the functioning of the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Government is doing four things in that respect. Firstly instead of requiring all applications for the use of hazardous substances to be publicly notified we are giving the authority the discretion to publicly notify only those that it considers are likely to be of significant public interest and to not notify those that are routine. Secondly we are allowing the authority to delegate the relatively minor technical or administrative decisions to its chief executive or other persons. Thirdly we are allowing the authority to deal with changes to individual substance and group standard generic approvals at the same time and to make minor or technical corrections to those group standard approvals on its own motion. Fourthly we are removing the duplication of reporting requirements in the authority’s statement of intent annual report and annual monitoring report. 
The second area of change is intended to reduce the barriers to innovation by getting the balance right between the benefits of public participation and the associated costs and delays. There are two things here. Firstly we are allowing the discretionary public notification of applications for the general use of hazardous substances and secondly we are introducing the rapid assessment of certain classes of applications for low-risk non - genetically modified organisms in line with the Primary Production Committee’s report on its investigation into plant imports while on the other hand allowing the authority to publicly notify applications for non-GMOs that it considers may be of higher risk. 
The third area of change is to improve the operation of test certification for high-risk hazardous substances. There are three things here: firstly removing the all-or-nothing nature of current certification requirements by giving test certifiers the flexibility to issue conditional test certificates for locations where they consider non-compliance to be “minor and technical” while that non-compliance is being remedied; secondly extending the authority’s power to revoke test certificates and the grounds for such revocation to circumstances when the certificate holder no longer meets the criteria for which the certificate was issued; and thirdly allowing the register of test certificates to be searched for emergency response planning purposes by for example the New Zealand Fire Service. 
The fourth area of improvement is to bring increased clarity to compliance with and enforcement of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act by improving its alignment with other legislation. Here there are three things. The first is to empower MAF Biosecurity New Zealand to recover the costs of new organism conditional release approval compliance and enforcement under the Biosecurity Act. These costs are currently met from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s baseline funding. The amendment provides the ministry with the incentive to fully identify the costs and develop an efficient monitoring system and cost structure as it does already for new organism containment approval compliance and monitoring. The second measure is to align the times in which to lay information which will make the new organism provisions consistent with those in the Biosecurity Act and make the hazardous substances provisions consistent with those in the Health and Safety in Employment Act. The third measure is to further align the Health and Safety in Employment Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act enforcement responsibilities in order to minimise duplicate inspections. 
The fifth area of change is intended to keep the hazardous substance and new organism regulations and other instruments up to date by allowing amendments and updates to material incorporated by reference to take effect by notification by the Minister or the authority in the  
Gazette 
. The regulations refer to a large number of standards in similar technical documents. However the material that is incorporated is fixed in the form that it was in at the time of incorporation. This creates unnecessary complexity and confusion for users when such material becomes outdated. 
I turn to the changes to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995 in Part 7 of the bill. The primary purpose of these amendments is to remove the penalty regimes applicable under the Act for the non-payment of cost recovery levies as the Fisheries Act 1996 contains an adequate penalty regime. At present clients are faced with what amounts to a double penalty. 
In terms of Part 8 of the bill the purpose of the changes to the Reserves Act 1977 is to reduce the cost and administrative burden attached to certain licenses issued under the Act. Part 8 provides that licenses will be granted for 10 years rather than for 5 years for specified purposes over reserves that are vested in local administering bodies. 
I know that the previous Minister of Commerce is interested in the changes to the Weights and Measures Act 1997 which is amended in Part 9 of the bill. The purpose of the changes here is to resolve the confusion and reduce the compliance costs caused by having two pieces of legislation—and I think the previous Minister of Commerce raised this issue with me—namely the Weights and Measures Act 1987 and the Gas Act 1992 controlling the supply of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in gaseous form through pipes for industry consumers and regulators. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: 7 kilograms and falling. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: The bill proposes that LPG in gaseous form is regulated only under the Gas Act. The previous Minister is telling me that her new regime has seen her lose 7 kilograms and we can all be proud of that. 
There was a question from Kevin Hague about why new section 42C(3) of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act which is inserted by clause 28 of the bill is different from the current section 41 in respect of the amendments. Let me explain that as best I can and see whether I can address the member’s concerns. Section 41 is the regulation-making power for low-risk GMOs and it includes provisions regarding the procedures as well as the circumstances when a GMO is low risk. New section 42C relates to low-risk non-GMO organisms. The procedural aspects are not included as these replicate what is covered by specifying the circumstances. Further there is less uncertainty associated with non-GMOs than with GMOs and that justifies a slightly different approach. It should be noted that there is no substantive difference. That is because there are currently no regulations relating to procedures for GMOs as these were not necessary in order to make the low-risk GMO regulations. I hope that answers the member’s question. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in the Committee stage just a 5-minute call. A number of speakers have already referred to the part of Lianne Dalziel or should I say the Hon Lianne Dalziel in this bill. I think in one 10-minute speech there were 13 references to Lianne Dalziel which is a fair few. The reason for that is the Hon Lianne Dalziel has had a lot to do with this legislation. Given the importance of her role I should make it clear that it is Lianne Dalziel with “Lianne” spelt with two “n”s—it can be spelt with one—and not the other version which is “Leanne” Dalziel. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: With an “i”. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is with an “i” not an “e”. In this debate we have heard various mispronunciations of Lianne Dalziel’s surname. Some people say “Dalzel” and other people say “Dalzeal”. The Hon Lianne “Dalzeal” says that it should be pronounced “Dalzel” but in the context of this debate and the zeal that Lianne “Dalzeal” has shown for this bill I think that the pronunciation should be Lianne “Dalzeal” rather than Lianne “Dalzel”. 
My questions would of course be going to Lianne “Dalzel” or Lianne “Dalzeal” as the Minister in the chair had she still been the Minister of Commerce but because of the change of Government after this bill was introduced Lianne “Dalzeal” is no longer the Minister. So my questions have to be addressed in substitution to the Hon Rodney Hide who has already acknowledged the important contribution that Lianne “Dalzeal” has added to this legislation. 
I will deal with a couple of matters that Lianne “Dalzeal” has already touched upon. The first relates to the changes to the Conservation Act. I think that the Hon Rodney Hide made some important points in response to my colleague from the Greens in respect of the changes there. He made it clear that the changes to the Conservation Act do not impact upon mining in national parks or in other schedule 4 areas. Indeed if these changes were to make it easier for those mining operations I am sure that the Hon Lianne Dalziel would not have included them in the bill and the Labour Party would not be supporting them. That is not the effect of these changes and they do not have the import that Kevin Hague has suggested to the Committee. I think Rodney Hide has dealt with that matter appropriately. 
The other change that the Hon Lianne Dalziel made reference to earlier was in respect of the Designs Act 1953. This is an example of how some regulation can be a little silly and is now being fixed. At the moment the Commissioner of Designs cannot extend the period of copyright for a registered design because of the failure of someone to pay a prescribed fee by a certain time and this legislation makes it clear that the commissioner can. 
Various other improvements are brought about by this legislation. I thank the Minister in the chair the Minister for Regulatory Reform for the clarification that the changes to the rules relating to hazardous substances and new organisms do not impact upon the controversial area of genetically modified organisms. That line was drawn carefully by the previous Minister of Commerce the Hon Lianne Dalziel. 
Other changes include changes to the Companies Act to align obligations to appoint auditors under the Companies Act with the recent changes to the Financial Reporting Act. This measure impacts particularly upon overseas owners. A silly requirement has been fixed by the Regulatory Improvement Bill which provides that those companies may by a unanimous resolution of shareholders elect not to appoint an auditor which is also the norm in respect of companies that are not overseas-owned. 
I think that must be my 5 minutes and more than 13 references. Thank you. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 All I can say about regulatory reform and the Regulatory Improvement Bill is hurrah! At last something is being done. It was initiated by the previous Labour Government and the Hon Lianne Dalziel. It is good to see— 
John Hayes 
: You had 9 years to fix it and didn’t. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: I say to Mr Hayes that it is good to see that this legislation has been carried forward by this Government. I speak on this side of the House for small business. When last in Opposition I was also the spokesperson for small business and I learnt a number of things. I learnt how passionate small-business owners are about their business. I learnt how much effort commitment and dedication they put in to make sure their business is successful. To me small businesses are the locomotive of growth the driver of GDP and the bastion of employment. We cannot do enough for them. One of the things that I learnt then and it has been reinforced now is the fact of compliance costs for small business. 
When members look at regulatory improvement members will see that it is all about productivity. That is what it is about. It is about the better utilisation of resources—all resources: land labour capital and machinery. It is about doing everything that we can do and doing it better. In the Regulatory Improvement Bill we have the previous Minister of Commerce the Hon Lianne Dalziel wanting to do what she can to improve the overall performance of small businesses because of the impact they have on the New Zealand economy and she is to be commended for that. It is about effectiveness efficiency and best practice. 
I found it interesting that out of 10 submissions to the Commerce Committee only three were heard. I found that slightly unusual because I thought there would be more input into such an important bill. Obviously the submissions were of a high quality because that is why this legislation is here. 
It is important to recognise the results of the Quality Regulation Review carried out over 15 months. There was lots of consultation right around the country with stakeholders and a number of small businesses involved. I acknowledge the part played by the Commerce Committee—the members of the committee and the officials. The committee was chaired by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Its members were John Boscawen Clare Curran Te Ururoa Flavell Raymond Huo Melissa Lee Sam Lotu-Iiga Katrina Shanks and Jonathan Young. I am sure that going by the work that came back from the committee they obviously put a great deal of effort into it and they should be acknowledged for their contribution along with the officials who did a tremendous amount of work in ensuring that this legislation came back to the House in the manner in which it has done. 
I think it is really important that the results of the Quality Regulation Review be read in the debate and I will share them with the House. Just before I do though I want to put a question to the Minister in the chair the Minister for Regulatory Reform. Does he seek any further improvements in regulatory reform; if so what are they? I want to know whether he will continue the reforms that the Hon Lianne Dalziel implemented when she introduced this bill back in September 2008. Let me record in  
Hansard 
 what this bill will do. The Accident Compensation Corporation and the Inland Revenue Department have agreed to improve the coordination of data collection and to share information on businesses. That is fantastic because they are working together in the true sense of the word “community” which means that together we serve together we prosper. Here the Inland Revenue Department the Accident Compensation Corporation and small businesses are all working together to improve things. 
Next the adjustment date for excise and the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand levy paid by the wine industry are now aligned. That is also a plus for small business. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister for Regulatory Reform) 
: 
 I will take a brief call to answer the Hon Ross Robertson’s questions. Yes it certainly is the Government’s intention to carry on the work of the previous Labour Government in this area. I will be introducing a further bill in the coming months. I suggest to that member that if he has particular areas that would suit being reformed that constituents have brought to him or that have come to his attention he should write to me and we can look into it and include it in that legislation. The only thing I would note is that they will not be called regulatory improvement bills; they will be called regulatory reform bills. I do not know why but that is one of the things that happens. So we are continuing this process. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I too rise to speak in support of the Regulatory Improvement Bill and acknowledge the work of my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Like others I will probably mention her several times in this 5 minute contribution; I am sure I will not be able to reach the heights of David Parker but that should not be taken as an indication of any less esteem in which I hold my colleague. This is an omnibus bill that makes amendments to nine pieces of legislation with the objective of improving the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business. It was introduced by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. 
I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Hon Rodney Hide; that is something I do not often do but do I want to acknowledge that he has recognised the work undertaken by the previous Government and by the previous Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel. I think it is important to acknowledge that because often it is said that Labour does not support business in this country. The fact that this bill is here is a very clear example of the contrary: that in fact Labour does support business in New Zealand and that we have worked very hard to improve the regulatory environment that business operates in. I know for a fact that the Hon Lianne Dalziel in her previous capacity as Minister was absolutely passionate about improving the environment for business. I came across her in that capacity in a number of ways myself prior to being in Parliament both as a member of the Small Business Advisory Group and as the secretary of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. Just as people do not necessarily believe that Labour is business-friendly—incorrectly as it transpires—likewise people often do not recognise that the trade union movement has a very real interest in ensuring that our businesses are successful and that they do not face unnecessary regulatory impediments. It is about having successful good-quality businesses that people can work in. 
I shall talk about one of the submissions to this bill. The bill was a result of a quite extensive process—a process of 15 months of talking with people identifying barriers and recognising that when businesses deal with various Acts of Parliament and various agencies of Government they do not necessarily see them as separate agencies; they often see them as a single entity: the Government. “I’m from the Government. I’m here to help you.” was one of the catchcries. 
One of the submissions made to the Commerce Committee chaired of course by the Hon Lianne Dalziel was made by the Motor Trade Association on one of the provisions. The submission was particularly about the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and significant changes have been made to that legislation as a result of this work. In fact in Part 6 of the bill members will see a significant raft of changes to that Act. The submission of the Motor Trade Association talked about the fact that collision repairers and service station operators frequently come up against hazardous substances and where appropriate businesses obtain the necessary site and approved handlers’ certificates as required by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. However the association advises its member organisations to keep their stock of hazardous substances below the trigger points for licensing. That is a sensible common-sense arrangement and enables them to work out the appropriate risk-management practices in their workplace. 
I am now coming to a point the association raised which I think is an important one for the Minister to note. It raised the concern that two territorial authorities had decided to require businesses to provide them with inventories of substances below the trigger points listed in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. When questioned about that businesses were told that the authorities were requiring businesses to provide such a list in terms of the Health and Safety in Employment Act. The select committee process followed through with that particular concern of the submitter and members were told by officials that the points raised by the submitter were valid. However they relate to operational matters and they have been referred to the appropriate agencies where they are being addressed at an administrative level. The reason I am raising this is that I would like to know from the Minister whether that has been done because one of the issues around regulation is not just the law but the operation of the law. So Mr Chair can I just— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member’s time has expired. Stop! 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I did call again. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No you did not. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I did. I said “Mr Chair”. If you take the  
Hansard 
 record you will find that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: You should do that immediately the bell rings and then I am not confused as to whether you are referring to me as a matter of emphasis as some people do. The member just continued to talk after the bell so I want to clear up how we do this. Is the member seeking a call? 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I certainly am. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Carol Beaumont. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: Thank you Mr Chair and I will make sure I am much clearer on the matter next time. As I was saying I have a question for the Minister. It is an important one because this is an area where we get the overlap between what the law and regulation says and what the operational practice is on the ground. The Motor Trade Association raised a very valid point; officials recognised that valid point and said they were going to ensure that the relevant organisations were looking at the various administrative arrangements in regard to this sort of matter. I say to the Minister that members on this side of the House would be grateful to know how that work is going because on a common-sense level that will be the sort of thing that makes a difference on the ground. Thank you. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the Regulatory Improvement Bill and I endorse the comments made by my learned colleagues who spoke earlier. 
When we look at the bill and its contents in this Committee stage I would like to acknowledge the current Minister for Regulatory Reform the Hon Rodney Hide who is responsible for this bill and I thank him for carrying on with the good work initiated by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I acknowledge the two Supplementary Order Papers dividing the bill into the nine separate bills. 
I had the pleasure of sitting on the Commerce Committee with its wonderful chair the Hon Lianne Dalziel deliberating on some of the main provisions. I take this opportunity to thank all the submitters the businesses and the membership organisations that contributed their time energy and ideas to this bill. 
The New Zealand Institute of Patent Attorneys made a very good submission—a very helpful submission should I say—particularly in relation to the Designs Act 1953. The bill provides for the restoration of lapsed copyright in registered designs in circumstances where the lapse was the result of neglect to pay the renewal fee or to make the necessary application. The Commerce Committee under its wonderful chair the Hon Lianne Dalziel recommended that in addition to allowing the restoration of lapsed copyright in registered designs the bill should allow the restoration of lapsed copyright in design applications. The committee also recommended that the bill should give specific authorisation for the commissioner to publish bibliographic details of design applications. 
In its submission the New Zealand Institute of Patent Attorneys said that it agreed with the intent of the bill to provide restoration of lapsed design registrations and that it also believed that the bill should be amended to provide for restoration of pending design applications that had lapsed. Looking at the bill itself I say as I said earlier that to some extent the bill is more important than the content. 
The bill was introduced initially by the Hon Lianne Dalziel in response to the Quality Regulation Review. The final report was released on 5 September 2008 after a 15-month review. The Quality Regulation Review addressed regulatory barriers to business growth. It was a broad review that looked at anomalies inconsistency and duplication across the Government’s regulatory framework. As well as correcting errors the review aimed to develop ways of ensuring that new rules were efficient from a business perspective. The review established that when businesses deal with the Government they do not see discrete agencies such as the Inland Revenue Department the Accident Compensation Corporation or the Department of Labour’s Occupational Safety and Health Service they see a single entity—namely the Government. Accordingly businesses were frustrated by having to provide the same information over and over and over again to different agencies. 
Labour looked at the regulatory framework and at how new regulations are made from a business perspective. As well as this bill being introduced the regulatory impact analysis regime was strengthened to ensure that future regulation properly identified the problem and looked at potential options for resolving it. Thank you. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I want to pick up not exactly where I left off but where the Minister in the chair the Hon Rodney Hide left off in his discussion of the proposed changes to the Conservation Act. He referred not so much to the specific objectives of the Regulatory Improvement Bill in terms of removing gaps duplications errors and inconsistencies but rather to the broader purpose for which those were to be removed—in other words to improve the environment for business. He used two words in respect of the proposed increase in the maximum length of concessions from 5 to 10 years. He said it would make the process more efficient and more contestable. 
Well it has been a while since I studied economics but it seems to the Green Party that the effect of increasing the term of concessions is not so much to improve contestability for example but to reduce contestability. The effect of a concessionaire having his or her concession extended for a further 5 years—again I emphasis for the House that there is not necessarily any public input at all—is to make it very much more difficult for competitors and those who might wish to test the concession to have a viable go the next time. I am mindful of the work of the Commerce Commission in respect of laboratory services for the Otago and Southland district health boards. The Commerce Commission had the very strong view that in that case the sole contract that was proposed for an extended period would have a chilling effect on competition and on contestability by shutting out competitors; that when it came to the end of that contract it would be difficult for other potential competitors to be in a position to make viable bids. 
So what this bill proposes is anti-competitive. It seems unusual for the Green Party to be making that point in a House where normally either National or Labour is making that point but it seems that we need to because no one else is doing it. I think we would call the bill monopolistic. 
I want to talk in the time I have remaining about several of the other downsides. Sure there is an upside; there is a small increase in efficiency for the business that happens to be successful in getting the concession. It is a small upside. On the other side for the department there is a reduced cost in administering it. On the downside we have the monopolistic effect of a chilling of competition. We have the fact that there will be increased pressure from other businesses that have been shut out of that process wanting to apply for concessions in other parts of the conservation estate. In terms of determining appropriate conditions we have the difficulty of predicting at the beginning of a 10-year period what all of the effects may be over that 10-year period. There is a mid-term review but my submission is that it is inadequate. 
I am particularly concerned about the fact that the public are shut out of the process. In response to the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp’s contribution earlier on can I say I am very much aware that the bill provides for concessions in excess of—exceeding—10 years on which yes the public will have the right to have a say but anything up to 10 years is solely at the discretion of the Minister. I believe that that is inappropriate and inadequate. 
I say that in the broader context of the pressures on the department around concessions that I referred to earlier. We are already seeing decisions being made by the department for commercial reasons. It is a small point but the Cathedral Cove concession stand earlier this year was a concession that served no conservation purpose at all. It was a concession that was given purely for revenue. If we are starting to see conservation values such as the untouched nature of that place being comprised for revenue in a small case like that what will we see in more important places with more important conservation values? We have seen the department allow commercial eeling of threatened long-finned tuna in national parks. What was the reason for that? Again it was revenue. 
We are in an environment where the Government has starved the Department of Conservation of cash—a $52 million reduction in funding over a 4-year period—at a time when the threats to our biodiversity the threats to our natural values and the threats to our public conservation estate are greater and greater. That leaves the department in a totally invidious position because it has increasing demands on its budget on the one hand and decreased revenue on the other. That means that in its new business development strategy it is looking for ways of developing new revenue streams. This bill which extends the time of concessions to 10 years without necessarily any public say at all provides an avenue for the department to pursue. The temptation will be great to grant concessions under this new provision in order to obtain revenue. Longer periods will be more lucrative; there is more in it for businesses from longer periods. The risk is that the objective of the Conservation Act of preserving those fantastic treasured places for all New Zealanders living now and for all of those to come for their inherent biodiversity and conservation values but also for their recreational access will be compromised by that process. 
In summary this bill in respect of the changes to the Conservation Act and to the reserves legislation is bad law. They do not fit the objectives of this kind of bill but also they set a set of objectives for the department that are at odds with the purpose of the Act and with the purpose of that public conservation estate and they should not proceed. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a short call on the Regulatory Improvement Bill to finish the matters that I started dealing with earlier. I will do this for the benefit of the Minister in the chair Rodney Hide who had Mr Mapp substituting for him at that point. There was the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms issue and the issue of the commencement of the legislation which was by Order in Council originally. Then there was the matter of incorporation by reference in respect of Part 6. The Minister has not been able to be here for the entire debate so I will tell him that in respect of the commencement issue there has been a satisfactory resolution. There was a provision that stated that the legislation would come into force on the earlier of either 12 months after its receipt of the Royal assent or on the proclamation of the legislation by Order in Council. That concern of the Regulations Review Committee has been resolved satisfactory. 
In relation to the issue of section 42C(3) to be inserted by clause 28 the Minister has said that one procedure deals with genetically modified organisms and the other deals with non-genetically modified organisms; therefore that is the reason for the difference. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has given that explanation but I think it would have been helpful if the legislation on its face had reflected that more explicitly. However I will not take the issue further. 
The final point I will raise is the issue raised by Part 6 which comprises the amendments to the hazardous substances legislation in respect of incorporation by reference. This is the last of the three matters that the Regulations Review Committee raised with the Commerce Committee in a very eloquent letter from Mr Macindoe dated 1 September. He will appreciate that I am taking up the cudgels on behalf of the committee in this regard. The issue is very simple: with these hazardous substances and new organisms standards the legislation allows for international sets of documents agreed to by supranational organisations like the European Union to be incorporated basically wholesale into New Zealand law. An obvious issue arises; how do ordinary New Zealanders know what the law is on any particular occasion if a regulation says for example that standard 6.8 of the Council of Europe on x y or z is now the law of the land in New Zealand? On that issue the committee clearly made some extensive amendments to the legislation which may well be satisfactory in terms of requiring that the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment make available any gazetted material that is incorporated by reference by way of a hazardous substances and new organisms standard. It seems that on advice the committee has gone through and taken pains to deal with that issue in new sections 141B to 141I to be inserted by clause 46A. 
My question for the Minister in the chair is whether he thinks that the provisions are adequate given the high standards he thinks that the legislation should comply with. The specific provisions I am referring to for the Minister’s benefit are firstly new section 141D(3): “Material that ceases to have effect does not cease to have legal effect as part of a notice of transfer in which the material is incorporated by reference.” I have to say that that is a very odd provision. New section 141F(5) states: “A failure to comply with this section does not invalidate regulations that incorporate material by reference or a group standard or code of practice that incorporates material by reference.” There are similar provisions in new sections 141G(6) 141H(4) and 141I(2). In essence these provisions say that it does not matter if all those notices and information requirements are not complied with; the legislation or the incorporation by reference remains valid. I want to hear from the Minister if he is willing to take a call on the issue whether that is good enough. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to clause 13 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Parts 1 to 9 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Parts 1 to 9 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Companies Amendment Bill the Conservation Amendment Bill the Designs Amendment Bill the Fisheries Amendment Bill the Gas Amendment Bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Amendment Bill the Reserves Amendment Bill and the Weights and Measures Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper117. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Readings 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister for Regulatory Reform) 
: 
 I move  
That the Companies Amendment Bill the Conservation Amendment Bill the Designs Amendment Bill the Fisheries Amendment Bill the Gas Amendment Bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Amendment Bill the Reserves Amendment Bill and the Weights and Measures Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. Once again I thank the Hon Lianne Dalziel who I feel I have not acknowledged enough and has not been sufficiently acknowledged through this process.  
Until the Committee of the whole House stage these amendments were progressed through the Regulatory Improvement Bill an omnibus bill. The amendments to the following Acts were identified during the Quality Regulation Review which was undertaken by the previous Government in 2006 and 2007. Taken together these nine bills will improve the regulatory framework and reduce the compliance burden on business. I consider bills such as this a good use of the House’s time as considering small regulatory amendments through an omnibus bill is an efficient approach to removing minor legislative niggles. Again we have the Hon Lianne Dalziel to thank for that. 
These nine bills will result in the following changes. The changes to the Companies Act will reduce compliance costs and align the obligations for companies to appoint an auditor with the recent changes to the Financial Reporting Act. The amendments to the Conservation Act will reduce the costs and administrative burden on all parties involved in concessions and provisions ensuring an efficient and contestable process occurs as well as assisting a wide range of businesses operating on public conservation land. 
The changes to the Designs Act will also ensure greater efficiency as well as effectiveness by allowing for the restoration of lapsed design registrations and abandoned design applications in circumstances where the lapse occurred as a result of an unintended failure to pay the renewal fee or to make the necessary application. The amendment to the Fisheries Act provides a common-sense solution to deal with situations whereby commercial fishers have inadvertently incurred deemed-value debts. The chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries can now consider requests from commercial fishers for catch balancing relief provided that set criteria are met. The amendment to the Gas Act clarifies the regulations and rules recommended under the Act including gas used as feedstock. This means all industry participants will be treated fairly. 
The amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act ensure that the policy intent of the Act can be more efficiently and effectively achieved with the minimum necessary compliance costs. The amendments to this Act cover a range of different issues. They are to improve the functioning of the Environmental Risk Management Authority for example by enhancing the ability to delegate routine decision-making; to reduce barriers to innovation by getting the balance right between the benefits of public participation and the associated costs and benefits; to improve the operation of test certification for high-risk hazardous substances for example so that businesses can continue to operate with conditional test certificates while completing the full regulatory requirements; to bring increased clarity to hazardous substances and new organisms compliance and enforcement by improving alignment with other legislation; and to keep the hazardous substances and new organisms regulations and other instruments up to date by allowing amendments and updates to material incorporated by reference to take effect by notification to the  
Gazette 
 by the Minister or the authority. 
The amendment to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act removes unnecessary duplication in the penalty regime applicable under the Act for non-payment of cost recovery levies. The provisions of the Fisheries Act 1996 alone are sufficient to ensure that statutory debts are paid. By amending the Reserves Act to enable 10-year licences to be granted for specified purposes over reserves that are vested in local administering bodies we are removing administrative complexity and additional costs surrounding the issuing of licences under the Act. 
Finally the Weights and Measures Act amendment removes regulatory confusion surrounding the supply of liquefied petroleum gas in gaseous form through pipes for industry consumers and regulators by removing it from the ambit of this Act. This means that in the future it will be regulated only under the Gas Act. The Government has asked all public sector agencies to take a systematic and ongoing approach to ensuring that the existing stock of regulation is free of regulatory duplications of gaps of administrative errors and of inconsistencies between pieces of legislation. Therefore as part of the Government’s commitment to an ongoing regulatory reform agenda I intend to regularly bring omnibus bills before the House to remove small regulatory issues that are burdening New Zealand businesses. 
Before finishing I would like to thank the House and the select committee for their work. Once again if I have not sufficiently acknowledged the Hon Lianne Dalziel I would like to do that again. She and I have worked together on improving Parliament’s approach to regulation and I have always had a good working relationship with her. I greatly admired the work she did in this area as Minister. I would also like to thank the officials across a wide number of departments who have worked on this project and for the advice they have given Parliament here today on these issues. I commend the bills to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Regulatory Reform the Hon Rodney Hide—New Zealand’s first Minister for Regulatory Reform—and to thank him for— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Best one so far. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes definitely the best one so far and I know I can say that without anyone being able to challenge it at all. I thank him for the generosity of his comments with respect to the work that I did in this area. He will find out I am sure what a thankless task it is sometimes with one’s colleagues to be pushing the mantra on regulatory reform and regulatory improvement. I will come to the language of his new legislation in a minute. 
First of all I thought I would acknowledge what happened in the Committee stage of the debate on the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I felt that there was good humour particularly in the competition for references to my name. I thought that the overall winner was absolutely David Parker. He bolted in with over 20 references to my name in a 5-minute speech whereas Ms Clare Curran managed only 13 references in a 10-minute speech. Definitely David Parker was the overall winner of the competition. But what I particularly liked about David Parker’s contribution was that he deliberately mispronounced my name as “Dal-zeal” in order to emphasise the zeal I brought to the role of Minister of Commerce with responsibility for regulatory issues. What I wanted to say though is that the good humour reflected the response of the Committee of the whole House and I thought that boded very well for business. 
On both sides of the House we are prepared to talk about quality regulation and what that might mean for business for sustainable business practices and also for productivity as others have mentioned. Although I respect the Greens’ position on the issue that they raised it was not the principle of the legislation that the Greens were raising. It was the issue of whether one of the aspects of the bill should have been included in legislation of this nature and I respect that. We have a different view on the actual facts of the matter but with regard to the reason for raising it it was not the overall principle of regulatory improvement legislation. 
Again because of the good humour around the issue I do not want anyone to think for a minute that this legislation was the only outcome of the Quality Regulation Review. It was only one tiny little outcome of the Quality Regulation Review which had a lot of other outcomes but I will not go into them because it might be considered to be outside the scope of this particular debate. However it was an important part of the Quality Regulation Review. That review was a multifaceted review that asked officials and business to engage with each other in a very direct way. I was part of that as well. As I have said to the House I travelled around the country and engaged with business in a wide range of areas. I put on record my thanks to the chambers of commerce and to the economic development agencies around the country that actually facilitated those meetings. They brought to meet me business people with specific issues on their minds. So it was not just a complaint-fest about what was wrong with regulation and how much red tape they were exposed to. I think it was really a problem-solving exercise on a greater scale than most we have done in this country. But it was a small thing—the small businesses telling us how those small things irritated the hell out them and how just a little bit of effort around those small things would be a big relief to business so they could get on with the job. 
I will not repeat all the things I said in the second reading but I say that this legislation really does not realise my wildest dreams. I do not want anyone to think for a minute that I think that this legislation is good enough. It is the first set of legislation but it should have been a blockbuster. It should not have amended only nine Acts; it should have amended 29 39 69 89 or 99 Acts. That really hammered home to me how hard it is for any Government to change things that are relatively small when one looks at the big picture when it is trying to deal with the parliamentary processes that are in place. They are there for good reason but they act as a barrier to progress when there are small technical amendments to be made. This Parliament has been good enough over the years to develop the concept of the Statutes Amendment Bill but as everyone knows if one party disagrees with any one of those amendments then that one has to go. It is a very good way of getting rid of the technical changes that need to be made but anyone can disagree. Nothing can be controversial there can really be no debate about it; it is just a straightforward change to a whole lot of different statutes. And that is good—that is a great process. 
The Business Law Reform Bill is approved by the Business Committee on an annual basis or when it is required to be introduced but as people will have seen through this debate not all of those elements could be identified as business law reform. I still would like this legislation to be written as one of the types of bills that are accepted by this House as an omnibus bill. Departments should be not just invited but required to send through these small items to another department to take over the work and fix the problem. 
I tell members that I became the Associate Minister of Justice so that I could get a change made for the wine industry with respect to the Sale of Liquor Act. I could not as Minister of Commerce running the Quality Regulation Review make the tiny change needed to fix a mistake that had been made when the Winemakers Act was repealed in the 1989 changes to the Sale of Liquor Act. I think Rodney Hide will find out as he delves into regulation that the biggest barrier to getting that kind of change through Parliament is the reaction of departments. The second biggest barrier is the time that the Minister has to put into it. Giving it up to another department that has responsibility for tidying up some of these smaller regulatory matters I think would be a good thing. 
I put on the record my thanks to all of the departmental officials who came to the Commerce Committee but when I saw that cast of thousands I just about felt like banging my head against a brick wall! That was the whole reason that these sorts of changes get held up. I do not know how many there were in the room at one time but at some point they certainly outnumbered the members of the committee and all of our officials. 
It really emphasised the problem for me which is that we have to get into a position where we can trust our own departments to work a lot more collaboratively and take up some of the responsibility for these things. 
The final point I make is on the question of regulatory improvement versus regulatory reform. The health reforms of the 1990s ruined that word “reform” for me. I thought that the word “reform” meant to make something better or to look at something in a new way that would lead to an advancement of the situation. The health reforms of the 1990s absolutely ruined that word for me and that is why I do not use the word “reform”. I use the word “improvement” because members would be surprised at the number of people who will argue reform when in fact what they are proposing is not an improvement to the situation from a business perspective. Even I was surprised at the push-back on some of the very sensible suggestions that I took up on behalf of business. I will not list those suggestions here because they will be in Labour Party policy next time and the push-back will not be tolerated when we are next in Government. 
It is not always about the regulation as it appears in the legislation; it is often about how it is implemented on the ground by the regulators—and that is another story. This is an ongoing story and I will be happy to support future regulatory improvement bills even if they are called regulatory reform bills because that process is good for Parliament and for business. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the various legislation from the Regulatory Improvement Bill as the Minister has outlined. I will not get into the regular accolades that have been thrown around in the House except to say that I have enjoyed working with the chair of the Commerce Committee and I acknowledge the work she did during the period when she was the Minister of Commerce. 
I quickly acknowledge the officials. The previous speaker mentioned the number of officials who were at our select committee. The advice those officials provided was by and large sound advice and they worked together across departments which is something we would like to see more of not just in the formulation of laws but also in the formulation of policies and regulations. 
Much has been said already and I echo the comments of others. It is good that we can get cross-party support. I acknowledge and respect the divergent views of the Green Party whose members argued against part of the bill but I am certain they support the general thrust of what has been debated today. This bill is only a small step as the Hon Lianne Dalziel has already mentioned. Certainly I would like to see more of this type of legislation in this House; more bills that look at regulation. Regulation is a good thing as has been stated but we need to look at the costs of compliance and red tape that businesses have to endure in order to get on with their lot. I support this bill. It has been a joy to work with our fellow committee members. Thank you. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I also rise to make a short contribution in this third reading debate. Let me start by saying that it is pleasing to see the Regulatory Improvement Bill finally pass into law. It has had a rather more than necessary protracted gestation period. 
I will make a couple of process points though notwithstanding the substantive support for the legislation that members on this side of the House are expressing. First of all there cannot be justification for dealing with these sorts of matters in urgency. They are minor and they have been languishing on the Order Paper for a long time. They simply ought to have been dealt with in ordinary parliamentary time and if this House continues to rush these sorts of measures through under urgency we will continue I am afraid to undermine public confidence in our legislative process. That is something that I think all members should reflect on. 
The second issue I wanted to deal with by way of a bit of criticism was the way in which the matter was dealt with in the Committee stage. I took the time in the Committee stage to rehearse the three concerns that have been pointed out to the Commerce Committee by the Regulations Review Committee which I have the privilege to chair. First there was a commencement issue. Secondly there was an issue around whether a section to be inserted in the hazardous substances legislation was satisfactory given that it differed from the existing provision but did something relatively similar and there was no explanation about that. Thirdly there was an issue around incorporation by reference—an important issue about the public being able to know what the law is. 
On the first two issues I think there was a satisfactory resolution. On the commencement issue the Commerce Committee clearly listened to the concerns and dealt with them. On the second issue—the discrepancy in procedures issue—although there was not an express explanation by the Commerce Committee one of the Ministers who took the chair in the Committee stage Mr Mapp sought to explain the matter. Mr Hide did on the advice of officials seek to explain that further. But there was really no attempt by the Minister in the chair to address the third issue—the issue of whether the extensive changes to the incorporation by reference procedures were satisfactory. Given the Minister’s expressed passion for good law and appropriate regulation I would have hoped he would respect the parliamentary process a little more than simply declining to take a call on that issue and make an explanation as to whether he thought the changes were adequate. 
This is legislation that is supported by the Labour Party. It is legislation that owes a lot to the efforts of my friend colleague and bench mate Lianne Dalziel and I will join the chorus of praise and support for her as that has obviously become traditional in this debate. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: You could go a bit further. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I could go further as Ruth Dyson suggests but canonisation is not within the power of the House according to the Standing Orders so we had better just leave it where things sit. 
Although I express support for the legislation and a degree of pleasure that this appears to be likely to become an annual exercise because it is a good thing to do from the point of view of efficiency and good law it is disappointing to have to express the sadness I have that we are dealing with the matter under urgency on a completely unmerited basis and we did not really get the sort of respectful and careful consideration of the issues that the rhetoric of the Minister would lead us to believe we should have had in the Committee stage. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I begin by sharing the concerns about urgency that Charles Chauvel raised. In particular I note that Katrina Shanks was the only person from the Government side who attempted to justify urgency and her explanation for it was entirely woeful. 
The Green Party will vote against the changes to the Conservation Act the Reserves Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act but will vote for all the other changes. We support the principle behind the Regulatory Improvement Bill. When this kind of legislation comes before the House in the future let us ensure that the measures proposed are genuinely uncontroversial. In relation to the changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act they do not meet the test of addressing duplication gaps errors and consistency between legislation. Therefore they ought not to have been included in this legislation. In particular these changes will reduce rather than enhance contestability will introduce a substantial barrier to entry into a market and will lead to locking in bad decisions where quality is hard to measure in concessions. The Government’s intent to see the natural world as a set of resources to exploit rather than treasure and to starve the Department of Conservation of cash will lead to long-term concession decisions made for revenue and not for conservation values. That is regrettable. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Questions to Ministers 
Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Leader of Opposition’s Statement 
1. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does he agree with the reported statement of the Hon Phil Goff that “any outcome needs to maintain public access to beaches and protect the customary title or rights of iwi to the seabed and foreshore” and that “this is already the situation”; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I certainly agree that any outcome needs to protect the customary title or rights of iwi. However rather than protecting customary title the current Act extinguished it but I guess only the Labour Party would equate extinguishing basic property rights with protecting them. Perhaps this helps to explain why Labour members thought that the way to protect free speech in New Zealand was to restrict the rights of New Zealanders for fully one-third of their adult life under the Electoral Finance Act. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does the Government’s consultation document on the foreshore and seabed address the concerns raised by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that the 2004 Act contained discriminatory aspects against Maori; in particular its failure to provide a guaranteed right of redress? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: In addition to the criticisms of the United Nations the review panel did indeed find that the current Act disproportionately discriminated against Maori—[ 
Interruption 
]; well I am simply referring to what the report said—because it extinguished Maori property rights in the form of customary title while leaving non-Maori property rights unaffected and it removed the fundamental right of folk to go to court. The Government’s preferred approach set out in the consultation document will restore that fundamental right of New Zealanders to have access to the courts. 
Rahui Katene 
: Why is public domain takiwa iwi whanui the Government’s preferred option and is it responsive to tikanga Maori such as kaitiakitanga? 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It appeared that the microphone did not kick in for the first 10 or 11 words—I certainly did not hear them—and I wonder whether we could have the question again. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If members are quite finished there was a point of order. It was a totally fair point of order. I could not hear either. If the honourable member Rahui Katene would not mind repeating her question please. 
Rahui Katene 
: Why is public domain takiwa iwi whanui the Government’s preferred option and is it responsive to tikanga Maori such as kaitiakitanga? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I believe it is. The concept of ownership has proved to be a polarising issue and I believe that the public domain concept provides a very good basis on the way forward and it certainly provides a good framework within which iwi and hapu can access the courts to seek to prove customary title. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister agree with Hone Harawira that the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act essentially stole freehold title to the whole of the foreshore and seabed around New Zealand from Maoridom? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I think that as we move forward it is important to avoid explosive terms like “steal” or “appropriate”. I am keen to seek to achieve a reconciliation of interests—[ 
Interruption 
]—and in answer to the member for Rongotai we could all look back to the past and throw sticks at one another but I am seeking to rise above this and do the right thing for the country. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order about the nature of the answer from two perspectives. First the quote from my colleague is a quote I understand from just yesterday so it is not looking back but is a recent matter of public importance for us to consider. 
Hon Member 
: Yesterday is the past. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Well he said the ancient past. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There should not be interjection while a point of order is being taken. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The second point is that the substance of the Minister’s answer was that he did not want to go down the path of criticism and arrow slinging and so on and so forth but in his own prepared answers to the Maori Party’s supposed supplementary questions he accused the Labour Party of shutting down freedom of speech and all sorts of things. I do not feel that my colleague’s question was answered. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member and I agree with him absolutely that the disorder that has arisen during this question stems from the Minister’s first answer which was not particularly helpful. Having said that I think the member the Hon David Parker asked whether the Minister agreed with a statement. We all know that when we seek opinions we cannot expect to receive absolutely precise answers around them. From the Minister’s answer it would appear that he does not totally agree because he suggested that that sort of language was not helpful. So I think the member did get his question answered. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister agree with comments made by John Armstrong in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning that “Right now the Maori Party carries the responsibility of making optimum use of a benign political climate to strike a deal both for its own sake and the country’s.”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: With apologies to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 I have to confess that I have not read the article. I am the first to admit that it is a different political environment from what it was 7 years ago. I think there is a very good opportunity to work through this issue. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister— 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Listen to Mr Robertson behaving like an oaf. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was just about to assist the Minister and he has just cut the ground from under my feet. On this occasion the Minister was trying to give a helpful answer there was a lot of interjection and it was very unhelpful. But with that last comment the Minister has left me no option but to proceed to the next question if there are no more supplementary questions. 
Budget 2010—Responsible Spending of Taxpayers’ Money 
2. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How will Budget 2010 ensure taxpayers’ money is spent responsibly? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Budget 2010 will continue the process of cleaning up the mess left by the previous Government and improving the quality of Government spending. It is important that this Government focus on better front-line services and on not wasting money on bureaucracy strategies plans and workshops as the previous Government did. This Government intends to honour the confidence that taxpayers have shown in the Government’s ability to use their PAYE dollar wisely. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How will the Government improve the quality of spending? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It will not actually be very difficult to do so because in the past 5 years under the previous Government one-third of all Budget vote areas received funding increases of over 50 percent and two-thirds received increases of over 30 percent. These very large increases made very little increase in the effectiveness of public services. In Budget 2009 we directed about $2 billion of lower-value spending to the front line of public services and we intend to redirect a significant amount in this next Budget. 
Stuart Nash 
: What is his response to the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who earlier this week talked about the consequences of not doing enough to protect jobs in a recession saying: “Look at the unemployment rate in New Zealand just across the Tasman … If that unemployment rate was replicated here in Australia hundreds of thousands of people would not be with jobs today”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That question is a bit rich coming from a party that opposes mining which has been the largest source of new jobs in Australia. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on alternative approaches to fiscal management? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. I have seen reports of the long list of unfunded commitments Labour left behind when it left Government. When we add them all up we see that the previous Labour Government had made $6 billion of commitments for which there was no funding at all. I am pleased to say that in last year’s Budget we got rid of most of those commitments and in this year’s Budget we will continue to eliminate the waste that Labour built into the system. 
Stuart Nash 
: When he said yesterday that jobs lost in the recession were “not real jobs” which aspect of the jobs was not real—the steady wage or people’s ability to pay the bills and support their families? Does he simply believe that those 168000 people are not really unemployed? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: What I said yesterday was that instead of crying crocodile tears Labour should take responsibility for the problems it has created in the economy. It promoted a housing bubble it fed consumption in the economy with excessive Government spending and people who thought they had long-term sustainable jobs did not actually have long-term sustainable jobs. We are trying to clean up that mess. 
Crime Violent—Prime Minister’s Statements 
3. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “I know that one of the key reasons Kiwis elected National is because they trusted us to take the tough steps needed to tackle violent crime and make families safer in their home and communities”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes and the Government has followed through on that by passing 11 new pieces of legislation with three more having been introduced that toughen up on sentences parole and bail for violent offenders improve police powers crack down on gangs and P and support crime victims. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How much safer are New Zealand families when the crime statistics released today show that the increase in crime under National is bigger than it was in any calendar year under the previous Labour Government and that violent crime has risen by 9.2 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has taken seriously the need to get on top of the rising momentum of violent crime over the last decade. We are backing the police with a wide range of tools which they appreciate and which the public believe will be effective in dealing with that rising momentum of violent crime. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Prime Minister expect the “three strikes” legislation that has now been reported back to the House will make a difference to violent crime in New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes; that is why the Government supports that legislation. The “three strikes” legislation will send a very clear message to serious recidivist offenders that they will be dealt with severely. The legislation will also make it less likely that serious recidivist offenders will be able to continue to commit crime because they will be locked up. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Which communities are feeling safer now than they were before the election considering that 10 out of the 12 police districts in New Zealand experienced an increase in crime in 2009 six of those on the back of a decrease in crime under the previous Labour Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Those communities and all communities are looking forward to the benefits of an increase in police numbers tougher sentences tighter parole management tighter rules for bail on violent offenders improved police powers and a crackdown on gangs and P. I must say that all the reports coming out of for instance South Auckland are that the higher police numbers and smarter policing are making that community feel safer. 
David Garrett 
: Has the Prime Minister seen evidence that defining a “strike” as a conviction plus a qualifying offence would greatly reduce the effect of the “three strikes” policy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There has been a lot of discussion about the definition of a “strike” and the definition of an offence. The Government has supported the general principle that dealing more harshly with serious recidivist offenders will make the community safer because those criminals will be locked up. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: If as Simon Power said 54 murders in a year was an example of violence running wild what would he call a massive 25 percent increase in murders in 2009 under his watch leading to the highest murder rate in 10 years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am sure that Mr Power would regard any increase in the murder rate as being completely unacceptable and that is why he has been the prime driver in this Government in passing a series of law changes that will give the police more tools—and the criminals more consequences—to deal with violent crime. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Why did he tell Counties-Manukau police in March: “Provisional statistics suggest crime in the region is dropping” and: “Already people in Counties-Manukau are noticing a change for the better” when the crime statistics released today show that Counties-Manukau had an increase in every category of crime in 2009 and in many cases on the back of decreases in the year before that? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That member would know as well as anyone that both the previous Government and the current Government have put considerable effort and resources into reducing crime in South Auckland. Our discussions with the police have been to the effect that they believe the increase in police numbers and the changes in their methods of policing alongside the work done under the previous Government in respect of youth gangs will have a significant impact on crime in South Auckland. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Can the Prime Minister now tell us exactly when he will deliver on his promised priority to make our streets safer for Kiwis rather than using every excuse he can find which is what he and his police Minister have done today as an excuse for inaction and not delivering? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has delivered on his promises. The Government has passed 11 new laws with three more to come that toughen up on sentences parole and bail increase police numbers improve police powers and crack down on gangs and on P. The people who have been making excuses are in the Labour Party which has not supported all the measures that are needed to get on top of the rising momentum of violent crime. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why does he not honour his promise and be accountable for the explosion in violent crime in New Zealand under his watch rather than making excuses bearing in mind that he said before the election: “Clark may offer excuses but I say this: not on my watch. National will do better at preventing crime and we will do better at cracking down on criminals.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: And that is exactly what he has done. 
Crime Statistics—Factors Influencing 2009 Statistics 
4. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received on the key factors that influenced the 2009 crime statistics? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 The crime statistics today show that New Zealand has a serious violent element that has no respect for people the community or the law. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Surprise surprise! 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It might well be a surprise to Clayton Cosgrove but it is not a surprise to members on this side of the House. Two big factors in our crime statistics are reported family violence and an increase in alcohol and drug arrests due to an increased focus on these crimes by police. Despite this— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister while she is on her feet but I am sitting very close to her and I cannot hear a word. A constant barrage is coming from the Opposition benches. The Opposition might not like to hear the answer but I certainly would and I am sure that other members would too. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I need further assistance on this one. I ask members to be a little more reasonable but I do not blame this situation totally on the Opposition at all because the Minister in answering the question included a provocative comment directed across the House which obviously brought more interjection back. The remedy is partly in the Minister’s hands: to not be unnecessarily or gratuitously provocative. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well I will continue. Despite this and despite the— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You had barely called the Minister to answer the question when the barrage of noise began again. I am sitting marginally closer to her than Mr Hide was but I could not hear a word of what was being said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member. On this occasion the Minister had barely opened her mouth so the Opposition front-benchers did not have the excuse that she had been provocative yet there was an immediate barrage. I now ask seriously for members to show a little more respect for the House. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Despite this the police have achieved an outstanding result in solving 47.8 percent of all reported crime—the highest level since electronic records began in 1978. In fact just today the police completed a major organised crime operation in the Bay of Plenty with 115 arrests the destruction of thousands of cannabis plants and the seizing of methamphetamine cash and stolen property—yet another great result from the police. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What other steps has this Government taken to address the issues raised by the crime statistics? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: We have taken action to toughen sentences parole and bail for violent offenders; we have improved police powers and cracked down on gangs and P; and most important we have supported the victims of crime. We have given the police new tools to go after criminals including 720 new Tasers and a new power to take DNA samples from offenders arrested for imprisonable offences. We are putting 300 extra police on the front line and 200 police officers are already deployed in South Auckland. This means that the police will catch more criminals which will be reflected in the statistics. The more police we have the more rocks they can look under and that is exactly what is happening. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What steps has the Government taken to help the police cope with family violence? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Actually the police have an incredibly difficult job. They are called in to clean up after the most horrendous cases of violence and domestic violence putting their own safety on the line in most of these cases. In addition to the raft of laws effective from 1 December 2009 from July this year the police will be able to issue on-the-spot protections orders. That means they will be able to remove immediately any alleged violent person from a home for a period of up to 5 days without having to wait in some cases for quite a long time for a court date. It is very important that this Government is backing the police giving them 600 extra staff and 720 Tasers and is backing the police when they have to take tough decisions about their safety and the safety of others. 
Hon Annette King 
: What evidence does she have—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Any member of this House is entitled to ask a question. 
Hon Annette King 
: What evidence does she have to back up her claim that welfare dependants—in other words beneficiaries—are responsible for the explosion of violent crime in New Zealand which is at the highest rate we have seen in a decade in terms of murders; and is not that claim just a continuation of the despicable attack on beneficiaries aimed at driving a wedge between those the Government believes are battlers and those it writes off as bludgers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: If that member is going to start to quote me she should quote the entire piece. I said that intergenerational welfare dependency is actually a driver of crime. If members want to consider that they should just think about the Harris Brothers gang about whom the Minister for Social Development and Employment alerted the public just a few days ago—gang members on benefits and too sick to work according to that member. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: To the Minister— 
Hon Members 
: Oh oh! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I said a moment ago any member of this House has a right to ask a supplementary question. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: So is the Minister saying that when statistics show more crime under Labour that means there was more crime but when the statistics show there is more crime under National this means the Minister is doing a good job? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I say to that member that not once as the Minister of Police will I ever blame the sun and the moon for a rise in crime as Annette King did—not once. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception to that comment. A retraction of those comments was put in the  
New Zealand Herald 
—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to resume her seat for a moment. I say to the Government benches on this occasion that a point is being heard and it will be heard in silence although I point out to the honourable member that if she wishes to make a personal explanation she should seek leave to do that. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Hon Annette King 
: It was reported in 2007 that I had said that the moon and the weather were responsible for a rise in crime. In fact what I said was misreported. I was reporting something that was said to me; it was not something that I said. I have corrected that in the House before and I expect my word to be taken. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member and that will be the case. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I contest the answer given by the Minister. It did not address the question at all. It talked about an extraneous quote which we now know is not true; it did not address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that if the member reflects he will see that when asking the type of question he asked he will get an answer that he hardly expects. I think that is what he got and we have had a personal explanation to deal with that answer. I cannot expect a more precise answer to that kind of question. 
Social Development and Employment Associate Minister—Statements 
5. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she agree with all recent comments by her Associate Minister the Hon Tariana Turia? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I do 99.9 percent of the time. 
Hon Annette King 
: When her Associate Minister Tariana Turia claimed on Radio New Zealand on Tuesday that: “At the last minute we were given a copy of the reforms. That makes it really difficult to have an input into them.” was she given a copy of the proposed benefit reforms called Future Focus announced last week or a copy of the social services 2008 National Party manifesto? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As has been quite clearly identified over the last few days it is a policy we have been working on for a long time. It was in our manifesto which we obviously went into the election with. There have been many different versions of it as it went through the normal process. So she has seen the manifesto she has seen the proposal at the end—the last one—and she saw many copies of it in between as well. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I made that question very precise. In light of Tariana Turia saying she was given a copy of the policy at the last minute I asked the Minister whether it was a copy of the proposal announced last week or whether it was a copy of the National Party manifesto. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As I pointed out there have been many different versions that the Minister has seen. I cannot possibly make a comment on which one she was talking about at that time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That seems a reasonable answer to that question. Although the member said it was a precise question if one takes the question in its totality there is no specific answer to it given the various versions of the policy that exist as the Minister has explained. It is a difficult question to answer any more precisely. 
Hon Annette King 
: When she stated in Parliament on Tuesday that the policy had been through the normal process many times including consultation with the Maori Party on 16 February well after her Associate Minister returned to work was she consulting on proposals agreed in principle by Cabinet on 14 December? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: And other developments since then. The member can cut and slice this however she likes. There is no great conspiracy theory. The reality is that there is an immense amount of respect and admiration from me for Minister Turia and I think she has it in return. I think the work we are doing for children and whanau in this country will be better than we have seen in many many years. 
Hon Annette King 
: What was her response to the statement of the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment the Hon Tariana Turia on 15 January issued considerably earlier than she said she would return to work stating that she intended to challenge the Minister and seek a meeting with her in January to go over the proposed benefit changes because the changes had not been discussed with her? Did this meeting take place? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Minister Turia mentioned yesterday that she had been away for some time so no there had not been a meeting with her prior to that conversation. The member is obviously quoting from 15 January. It is a relationship that is healthy and that is dynamic; we have conversation. We challenge different areas of the portfolio— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sure it is of great interest what the relationship is but that is not what the member asked. The member asked specifically what the Minister’s response was to an alleged document of 15 January if I remember the question correctly from the Associate Minister Tariana Turia. Given the primary question the member may not have that information available today but I think some attempt to answer that would be helpful to the House rather than an explanation of the wider relationship. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I heard a quote that she gave from the radio interview I presume not a particular paper at that time. I was merely getting to the crux of the relationship which is what I think this whole conversation is about. I do not think the papers will be running a special edition on the conspiracies of the Labour Party on the relationships that we have with the Maori Party. 
Hon Annette King 
: In light of the obvious confusion about the meaning of consultation with her Associate Minister can she guarantee that the recent consultation has sorted out that there will be no preferential treatment in Whanau Ora as promised by the Prime Minister there will be around $1 billion available for the policy as indicated by Tariana Turia and that Te Puni Kokiri will be running Whanau Ora as implied by the Minister of Maori Affairs? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The only people who I am hearing who are confused about consultation are members on the other side of this House. 
Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Consultation Document 
6. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: What are the key aspects of the Government’s preferred approach in the foreshore and seabed consultation document released yesterday? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The key aspects are: first to repeal the 2004 Act and replace it with new legislation; second to remove Crown ownership of the public foreshore and seabed; third to create a public domain that recognises and balances the interests of all New Zealanders; fourth to restore any uninvestigated customary title that was extinguished by the 2004 Act; fifth to restore the fundamental human right to seek access to justice through the courts; and sixth to provide for public access and the continued operation of existing use rights. 
Paul Quinn 
: What are the key differences between the current Act and the Government’s preferred approach? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There are a number. First it provides for the recognition of customary title which the current Act extinguished; second it removes Crown ownership of the public foreshore and seabed and places it in a public domain; and third it restores the fundamental right of New Zealanders to seek access to the courts in this regard. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister agree that designating the foreshore and seabed as public domain which United Future has advocated since 2004 is the best way to ensure that the traditional rights and interests of all New Zealanders can be protected? Is this the reason why he is now promoting the creation of a public domain as the Government’s preferred option? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes I do. I acknowledge that United Future has been advocating this position since 2004 and with respect I think it is right. I commend the member and his party for the contribution that they have made to this debate. 
Paul Quinn 
: Under the Government’s preferred approach what rights and practices would be protected? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There are a number. First public access to the foreshore and seabed would be provided for; second any part of the foreshore and seabed that is privately owned would be unaffected and there are about 12500 titles around the coastline that fall into that category; third existing fishing and navigation rights would remain unchanged; and fourth all existing use rights such as costal permits would remain unchanged until the end of their term. I will add in this respect that most New Zealanders will not notice any dramatic change but that those people who had their rights taken away will. 
Hon David Parker 
: Are the rights that Maori hapu or iwi may obtain under customary title claims under the Government’s preferred approach similar to those achieved by Ngati Porou in their agreement with the previous Labour Government? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: They could be. I have studied very closely the Ngati Porou agreement which some on the member’s side of the House have characterised as being an agreement under the Foreshore and Seabed Act. In fact those rights are not the same; they go beyond those provided for in the Act. In analysing the awards and the tests I have endeavoured to look at what is currently there under the 2004 Act and under the Ngati Porou agreement then to take that to customary title. In this respect it is different: customary title will be a species of property right. It will not be able to be sold public access will be retained and there will also be a right to develop. 
Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Prime Minister’s Statements 
7. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his recent comments about proposed changes to the Foreshore and Seabed Act that “I don’t think people will notice a lot of change.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes because for most New Zealanders public access to the seabed and foreshore will be protected. But for those who gain the right to access the courts again it will be a significant change. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: How can the Prime Minister reconcile that comment with the comment made by the Hon Pita Sharples on  
Checkpoint 
 yesterday that this is very different to the current law? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: This whole issue has arisen because of different points of view about what it means for the Crown to have designated ownership of the seabed and foreshore or for it to be available for claims in customary rights. For those— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Once again we cannot hear what the Minister is saying. Nothing provocative is being said—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard and there will not be interjection. I have heard the member’s point of order and it is a perfectly fair point of order. There was absolutely unnecessary noise—from the Opposition benches on this occasion. The Minister was not being provocative. He was asked a serious question and was answering it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to listen to the tape of what Rodney Hide said. First of all he said that he could not hear the Minister and then he said that nothing provocative was being said. Both cannot be true. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no need to take this matter any further. I am not going to take the matter any further. The member had asked a question and the Hon Bill English was answering. The question asked how the Minister reconciles some things and the Minister was explaining how he reconciles those things. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Those statements illustrate the challenge of finding a lasting solution to this issue. The fact is that it will look different depending on one’s point of view. Under the proposals in the discussion document for most New Zealanders there will be little change because their interest in the seabed and foreshore consists of access to it and that will not change. But many Maori want the opportunity to test their customary rights and I think Labour members just have to accept that the bill they passed did not amount to a lasting solution. I hope they can apply themselves to finding a lasting solution this time because last time they failed. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I could not quite hear. Did he just say that there would be little change? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must not seek to litigate an answer by way of point of order. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: No I am asking. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member—[ 
Interruption 
] A point of order is being heard. If the member could not hear he has only his colleagues to blame. I invite the Hon David Parker to ask a supplementary question and I ask members to have a little more reasonableness with interjections. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by his position reported on page 1 of the  
Dominion Post  
this morning that the Government would stick with the status quo if agreement could not be reached? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. 
Taxis—Improving Driver Safety 
8. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What steps is the Government considering to improve taxi driver safety? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yesterday I met with representatives from the taxi industry to discuss options for improving the safety of taxi drivers. After considering all the options the industry representatives and officials believe that mandating for cameras to be installed in taxis in the main centres would bring the greatest benefits. That is widely supported by the industry. It is unfortunate that we have to consider this step but two drivers have been murdered recently and the number of serious assaults has been increasing over the last decade. It is my intention to take recommendations to Cabinet shortly. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What benefits would installing cameras in taxis have? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: In Australia cameras have proven to be effective in reducing violence against drivers by around 70 percent and they have reduced fare evasion by a similar amount. In addition the cameras provide enhanced safety for passengers and can be used by the police when investigating other crimes where the offender has used a taxi. I stress that any introduction of cameras into taxis would be accompanied by rules governing the use of images to protect the privacy of passengers. 
Accident Compensation—New Sexual Abuse Clinical Guidelines 
9. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Is he satisfied that the new sexual abuse clinical guidelines used in ACC’s Sensitive Claims Unit are offering “the best treatment possible”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The new guidelines are a consequence of work initiated under the previous Labour Government. The launch of the  
Sexual Abuse and Mental Injury: Practice Guidelines for Aotearoa New Zealand 
 was done by Steve Maharey in 2008. I have consistently refused to interfere in clinical decisions in this sensitive area other than to emphasise the importance of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) complying with the Act and ensuring these vulnerable claimants receive the best possible clinical treatment. To ensure I am satisfied this month I am initiating a clinical review. 
Lynne Pillay 
: When will the Minister admit that the new imposed ACC guidelines were not designed by Massey University which has publicly dissociated itself from those guidelines; and that those new guidelines do not give the best treatment possible; rather they re-victimise victims of crime? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is quite the contrary. I assure the member that ACC’s clinical guidelines were based on the research report launched by Steve Maharey and done at Massey University. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Who has he offered to consult on the membership and terms of reference for the independent clinical review of ACC’s sensitive claims? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In the House and in writing I have offered to consult with the Labour Opposition on both the personnel and the terms of reference for the clinical review. I am disappointed that Labour has refused input and this shows that Labour is more interested in politics than the genuine clinical care of sexual abuse victims. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Does the Minister not understand that Labour will not participate in this sham review of the ACC pathway because it would be a complete waste of time and taxpayers’ money given that ACC’s figures show that 18 months ago some 300 people were approved for counselling each month and now fewer than 12 people are approved in a month? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think what might differ between members of the Government and the Opposition is our view that clinical decisions should be made by clinicians. I am disappointed that when the Opposition was offered a role in the appointment of the independent clinical review it refused. When I offered to consult with the Opposition about the terms of reference of the review it refused. It is a bit rich for those members to say the review is a sham when it has not even started. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Is the Minister aware that the New Zealand Association of Psychotherapists passed a unanimous resolution at its annual conference calling for the imposed ACC sensitive claims pathway to cease and to return to a system that ensures that survivors of sexual abuse receive the support they need and deserve? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I get different views from different clinical professionals. The view I have taken is that my expertise is not in this sensitive area. That is why I have said that the best way forward is an independent clinical review of those guidelines that were launched as a consequence of work including that by Steve Maharey done when Labour was in Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Lianne Dalziel. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise. The member was calling a point of order but it is withdrawn. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Is the Minister saying— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that Lynne Pillay had the call prior to Lianne Dalziel. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker is the sole judge of who will be called. I apologise for that interruption. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Is the Minister saying that in fact there has been no change to the operation of the guidelines since the National Government has been in place and has he received any representations from the Minister of Justice about the impact the changes in implementation have had on the work he has been doing in respect of victims of sexual violence? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first point I make is that the Government as in Ministers has had absolutely no influence on the work of the clinical guidelines because I have taken the quite appropriate view as a Minister that it is not for me to be involved in setting— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very straight question: “Is the Minister saying that the guidelines are being implemented exactly as they were prior to the change in Government?”. The Minister is attempting to talk about whether he has had any interference. There was nothing in my question that asked whether there was ministerial interference. I would have to assume that that would be— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume her seat. The member’s point of order is perfectly fair up until that point— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —I am on my feet—questioning whether the Minister was answering her question. The question asked whether the implementation of the guidelines changed as I understand it from those being administered by the previous Government. The member wanted to raise a point of order in response and I will hear the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The difficulty with the member’s question is that she asserted that the Government had changed the process of the guidelines implying that Ministers had. I wanted to make it plain to the House that that assertion— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is entering into debate. I suggest that the easiest way to resolve this is to ask the member to repeat her question without penalty and for her to keep it brief. If she adds further phrases to it the Minister is at liberty to pick on whatever part he chooses. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Is the Minister saying that the guidelines are being implemented exactly as they were being implemented prior to the change of Government and has he received any representations from the Minister of Justice about the impact that the change in implementation has had on the work that is being done with victims of sexual violence? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have had a number of discussions with the Minister of Justice about this sensitive area. In respect of the guidelines the new ACC guidelines were based on the guidelines developed by Massey University which were launched by Steve Maharey in March 2008. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The Minister has done exactly the same thing again. I asked whether— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume her seat. I listened very carefully to the member’s question. I have warned the member about adding two parts to a question. The Minister picked up on the second part of the question and answered it perfectly fairly and properly and that is as far as I can assist the member. The remedy is in members’ hands when asking questions. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I seek leave to table a copy of a resolution that was passed unanimously by psychotherapists calling for a halt to the imposed ACC pathway and a return to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I seek leave to table my correspondence to the Hon Nick Smith stating that Labour would not participate confidentially in an ACC review process— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I seek leave to table correspondence from Massey University stating the rules for sexual abuse claims were not developed by Massey University but by ACC itself. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Canterbury—Hurunui River Water Conservation Order Application 
10. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When did he first learn that the Minister of Agriculture the Hon David Carter had spoken to applicants for a water conservation order on the Hurunui River suggesting they freeze that application and what action if any did he subsequently take? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yesterday. The Prime Minister’s office then talked to the Minister’s office to establish the facts of the situation. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Can he guarantee that prior to yesterday he had not received any reports or correspondence alerting him to the fact that David Carter had asked the applicants for the water conservation order to freeze it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The facts of the matter as I understand them are that in conjunction with the Hurunui Mayor Garry Jackson and Bede O’Malley chair of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy steering group the Minister of Agriculture discussed with all parties involved in the water conservation order process including the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society the possibility of an integrated approach to try to avoid the issue’s escalating to the Environment Court. This collaborative approach was undertaken in an attempt to avoid the combative and expensive court route and reflects the approach recommended by the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. All parties were initially positive about this approach but subsequently some withdrew their support and decided to proceed with the Environment Court action. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In light of that answer which confirms the fact that the Minister of Agriculture approached the parties before they went to the Environment Court does he stand by the statement he made in the House yesterday that it was a “wild and unproven” allegation for me to bring this matter to his attention? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the unproven element of the allegation was that somehow the Minister was acting out of personal interest. Of course he was not; he was acting as the Minister of Agriculture trying to bring together a collaborative strategy to get a better result for the management of water in Canterbury. That is what we would expect the Minister of Agriculture to be doing. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is he concerned by the contradiction between David Carter’s answer to written question No. 14809 from October last year when he said that he had not discussed the water conservation order process with any of the parties associated with the Hurunui River and his press release of yesterday which said that he had? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Minister of Agriculture has been quite open publicly and with the Prime Minister about the facts of the matter. The member should take up the issue of the parliamentary question with the Minister. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it an acceptable standard of behaviour for a Minister to answer a written question “No.” when asked whether he had discussed with any of the parties plans for an appeal against the application for a water conservation order on the Hurunui River and then in his press release yesterday to say that he had discussed it with the parties? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We would not want to jump to conclusions on the basis of that member’s description but all Ministers should strive for accuracy in answering parliamentary questions. I think the important point here is that the Minister was attempting to adopt the collaborative approach that has been behind the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. In the end that did not work and the parties ended up choosing the expensive court process. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that you do not agree with the tabling of questions generally but the Deputy Prime Minister has just said in his answer that he does not take my word for what the question said. So I seek leave to table the answer to the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister did not actually say that he did not take the member’s word at all. I did not take that implication from what he said. The problem I have is that the written answer is available to all members. I hesitate to seek leave to table such a document when it is readily available to all members. The member has more supplementary questions. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider something. We are seeing examples at question time where a questioner says: “the Minister said this” or “the Prime Minister said that” when what is being said is clearly not correct. We saw it just then and you picked up on it in the point of order where in actual fact the statement made by point of order was not strictly correct. It gets read into the  
Hansard 
 and interpreted by the media as something entirely different. I accept that it is harder in question time but I think to introduce incorrect statements on points of order is a mistake. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need to hear further on this. I do not think we need to take further time of the House. I respect the member’s point of order because it was to do with the order of the House. But I believe that the member is reading more into this situation than deserves to be read into it. I think that what the Deputy Prime Minister said was available for interpretation and that a member could have felt that it was questioning the member’s word. Therefore I do not consider that Dr Russel Norman was misrepresenting the situation when he then sought my view as to whether he could table the answer to a written question. It is a very marginal case but I do not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister impugned the member’s integrity; neither do I believe that the member was totally wrong in feeling that the Deputy Prime Minister might have done. I think that on this occasion it is not worth taking more time of the House. The member’s questions have been dealt with with what I think was a lot of sincerity by the Deputy Prime Minister in trying to answer the member’s questions. The member has further supplementary questions should he wish to— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A similar problem happened yesterday I think as well. I think that this problem could be resolved if members when quoting from answers to written questions gave the number of the question. That means that members can go back and trace it. It is quite hard to find it otherwise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fairness to Dr Russel Norman I say that if I remember correctly he gave the number of the question. I think on this matter we are all being just a little bit sensitive. The member is pursuing a matter of interest to him with his supplementary questions in a fairly effective way. I ask him to continue. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that under the resource consent on the Hon David Carter’s farm on the Hurunui River the irrigation is required to stop when the water in the river goes below a minimum flow and that if the Hurunui irrigation scheme goes ahead the water in that river will be maintained above that flow and the irrigation on Mr Carter’s farm will be enhanced as a result? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not aware of the details of the consent on the Minister’s farm. I am aware that he has been involved with discussions around irrigation in Canterbury for a number of years. The circumstances of his farm ownership are well known. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Minister of Agriculture has had any involvement in any discussions in Cabinet or Cabinet committees regarding the changes to Environment Canterbury? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Minister for Agriculture has an interest both in his capacity as Minister and in his capacity as a Canterbury member of Parliament. He has participated as most Ministers in Cabinet have in work on general policy matters relating to Environment Canterbury. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked whether he could guarantee whether the Minister of Agriculture had been involved in any of those discussions in Cabinet and Cabinet committees. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister’s answer quite carefully and I believe he just told the House that the Minister had been. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society to the Prime Minister dated December last year regarding the intervention of the Minister of Agriculture in the water conservation order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table a file note from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society’s South Island manager regarding the intervention of the Minister of Agriculture in the water conservation order process. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table a map that illustrates the relationship of the Hon David Carter’s farm to the Hurunui irrigation project area. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.  
Question No. 9 to Minister 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I seek leave to table my letter to the Opposition on 24 March last year offering to consult with Opposition members on the clinical review of the sensitive claims mentioned. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Just while we are in tabling mode and bearing in mind your rulings I seek leave to table a document from the Hon John Banks Mayor of Auckland in which he states: “The latest crime statistics shame this country and create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I just seek guidance: is this is a press release or is it a— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Yes and if I could just tell you why— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Bearing in mind as I said at the start your rulings about matters not being freely available to this House the reason I seek an exception in this case is that this release was released only a matter of an hour or two ago and will not be available to this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Building—Licence System 
11. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: What progress has he made in terms of introducing a building licence system that will give New Zealanders confidence in the skills of the builders they employ? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I have good news. From today the number of licence classes for builders and designers will reduce from six to two making the licensing process much simpler. That means competent professionals will now find it easier to find the licence that is right for them. From today there will be just one licence for design and another for site practitioners. Reducing the number of licences cuts costs and makes licensing a whole lot easier. We listened to the industry and we took its feedback on board. The message was clear: the system was too complex and cumbersome. Today we have fixed it. 
Melissa Lee 
: What other streamlining changes has the Minister made recently? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: In February I launched a product called the Better Building Blueprint which has a range of measures. We made it quicker and cheaper to get consents for designs being built across the country through what we call the National Multiple-use Approval Service. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Excellent. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I know my colleague wants the House to carry on so I will try to be brief. We introduced a streamlined approvals process for qualified tradespeople to become licensed builders. We launched a consultation paper on improving the Building Act by cutting red tape and bureaucracy without compromising quality. The list could go on for the rest of the afternoon. It is all good news. 
Phil Twyford 
: What reports has he seen on the last time a National Government changed the building regulations and shut down apprenticeship in the 1990s and what impact did that have on the confidence of New Zealanders in the skills of the builders they employ? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am reminded by a colleague alongside me that the Hon George Hawkins has said that Labour’s work achieved all that had been done. But this Government is focused on the future and on getting some damn good product out there for the people without compromising quality. We are not looking backwards. 
Phil Twyford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister what reports he had seen on the last time a National Government changed the building regulations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I listened carefully to the member’s question. He made all sorts of claims of supposed fact in the question and the Minister responded in any way he chose. With that kind of question he really was at liberty to do so. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Coromandel 
12. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Will she be visiting the Coromandel during Easter to gauge for herself the depth of resentment against proposals to allow mining of sensitive schedule 4 land? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I have prior engagements this Easter but I am wondering about what other invitations the member has in mind. 
Hon David Parker 
: When did the Minister last visit the Coromandel? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have visited the Coromandel in my capacity as either the Minister of Conservation or the Associate Minister of Conservation. If the member wants to know the specific date I can certainly provide that at a later stage. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does the Minister not acknowledge that because Auckland has no mainland national parks the protection of conservation lands in the Coromandel is all the more important? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I am mindful of the protection of conservation lands and that is one of the reasons why we have a discussion paper out there for submission. It is actually a discussion paper not a decisions paper. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Government’s decision to undermine water conservation orders in Canterbury which occurred under urgency this week yet another example of how her Cabinet colleagues are ignoring her efforts to advocate for the environment; or did she support the undermining of the water conservation orders on the Rakaia and Rangitata Rivers and of the application relating to the Hurunui River? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the honourable Minister I must say that that is a fairly long stretch from the primary question about visiting the Coromandel during Easter to gauge feeling about— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am still considering this point of order. But I will hear the Hon Dr Nick Smith as long as it is a genuine point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The legislation is very clear that responsibility for water conservation orders rests with the Minister for the Environment not the Minister of Conservation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for that clarification. Because this is the last question in this sitting of Parliament I will invite the Hon David Parker to ask a further supplementary question that is a little closer to his primary question. 
Hon David Parker 
: Was the Government’s decision to proceed with the consideration of mining in Coromandel but to exclude consideration of mining in Kahurangi National Park because although it was worried that it would lose Nick Smith’s seat it was not too worried about Sandra Goudie’s? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: We have made no such decision to proceed. We made a decision to release a discussion paper. I would ask why it is OK for a Labour Government to approve and allow mining in or on national parks but it is not OK for the National Government even to discuss it and talk about it. 
Third Readings 
Debate resumed. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Whenever the House has to consider an omnibus bill such as the Regulatory Improvement Bill which these bills came out of we must be careful to ensure that vital issues are not overlooked. In relation to this legislation the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill is one particular bill that has been overlooked. 
The Maori Party supported this bill at its first reading because it satisfied the party’s desire to see more community and less bureaucracy. As a principle we support initiatives that help reduce unnecessary cost and uncertainty caused by an overlap or inconsistency between different pieces of legislation. But after hearing from submitters on the Regulatory Improvement Bill we have changed our view—particularly in respect of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill. 
The Soil and Health Association was particularly concerned that applications to introduce new hazardous substances will shift from public notification to being publicly notified only at the discretion of the Environmental Risk Management Authority. The association’s concern was echoed by Organics Aotearoa which said that leaving the decision to the authority undermined the principle of transparent and open governance—the very issue that led to the Maori Party opposing the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill 
last night. 
Our nervousness about dropping public notification is important because in respect of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill dropping public notification eliminates an important check on an agency’s decision-making process increasing the risk that the Environmental Risk Management Authority will make bad decisions about whether hazardous substances should be released into the environment and increasing the risk that such substances will be introduced to Aotearoa. Wyeth New Zealand said that public notification was vital to meaningful public debate on hazardous substances. GE-Free New Zealand noted that genetic engineering still posed unknown economic and environmental dangers and that silencing the public voice simply to save money actually worked against the intentions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. 
The Maori Party supports the reduction of barriers to economic growth but not at the cost of the environment. Because public involvement is being set aside in respect of new applications under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act through the proposals being considered here today the Maori Party cannot support the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Act. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge the work of the Minister for Regulatory Reform the Hon Rodney Hide who has graciously acknowledged several times during the passage of this bill the work of my colleague the former Minister— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: There is a lot of noise in the House and it is very distracting. I know that we are getting close to the end of a long week but I just ask for a little less noise. I invite the member to continue. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: I will acknowledge the Minister for Regulatory Reform the Hon Rodney Hide again. He graciously acknowledged several times during the passage of this legislation today the work of my colleague the former Minister Lianne Dalziel. I also acknowledge the Hon Lianne Dalziel not only for her extensive work in bringing this legislation to the House but also for her work that underpinned it and her work as the chair of the Commerce Committee. The Hon Lianne Dalziel has been rightly acknowledged in this House many times today and I am not proposing to beat the record set by my colleague the Hon David Parker. 
This legislation is important if we are to have an efficient regulatory environment that is fair to businesses. I remind the House that there is no reason to push this legislation through under urgency. This haste is beginning to define the National-ACT Government’s approach to lawmaking which is to have no consultation. It is also important to remember that it was a Labour Government that came up with these changes not a National Government although National is doing the right thing by continuing with this legislation. It makes small uncontroversial but important changes to the regulatory environment. It is built on the foundation of the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s extensive consultation with business. Labour is thankful that this consultation was undertaken while it was in Government as it is obvious that this is not how a National-ACT Government intends to operate. 
This legislation is a response to the opinions of businesses heard by Labour on what would make the regulatory environment easier for them to operate in and it came from the wide consultation process that the Labour Government underwent via the Quality Regulation Review which involved 200 businesses and was led by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel. The review also greatly enhanced the regulatory impact statement regime of which Labour is very proud. It was also led by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel. 
The Quality Regulation Review was announced by the Labour Government in May 2006 to ensure that New Zealand’s regulatory environment was supportive of the Government’s economic transformation agenda which was to address regulatory barriers to business growth. That review investigated ways of eliminating duplication inconsistencies and uncertainties where multiple regulatory frameworks intersect and looked at improving the Government’s own processes for assessing and monitoring the impact of regulations. We often look at how one regulation works across the economy but we seldom look at the cumulative impact of all regulations on one sector or industry. The fact that Labour looked at both angles has developed a richer perspective on the impacts on business and a better understanding of how we can best resolve any concerns. Many of the ongoing work programmes that have been established as a result of the review are addressing these interface issues. Because the Labour Government spoke directly to businesses it was able to get very specific feedback about how regulations look from their viewpoint and has been able to build their needs into the strengthened regulatory impact analysis regime. 
This legislation confirms that New Zealand’s regulatory environment is in good shape which fits with the World Bank’s assessment of New Zealand as second in the world for ease of doing business. But there is room to improve the ways that rules are communicated to business implemented and enforced. Getting regulations right is a matter of continuous improvement. I think the Minister acknowledged that earlier today and Labour supports the intention to have annual regulatory improvement bills. 
Labour supports business but it is more than that; Labour listens to business. Unlike the National Government Labour did not rush its end of the legislation namely the groundwork the consultation and the creation of the foundation on which this legislation now stands. The National Party is not the only party that stands for and supports Kiwi businesses. After 9 years of Labour Government New Zealand was one of the easiest places in the world in which to do business. This legislation demonstrates the enormous benefit that real listening can provide by asking businesses what they really thought. It is the cumulative effect of making small changes on a number of what seem to be small issues that can add up to significant change. So this afternoon as we commend this legislation and its amendments to the nine Acts it affects we should remember that it was Labour that listened to businesses and it was Labour that came up with legislation to support them and foster their growth. 
There can be no justification for bringing this legislation through all its final stages under urgency but because we originated the measure and because it is good legislation we will not oppose its passage. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have been advised by the Labour whips that they intend to split the call. The second part of the call goes to Raymond Huo. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise to take a very short 1½ minute call in support of the nine bills that arise from the Regulatory Improvement Bill. 
There are two important aspects I wish to focus on. Firstly as my learned colleague Charles Chauvel noted in the bill’s first reading the content of the bill is only half the matter; the other half is the process that led to it. Secondly in relation to the Regulatory Improvement Bill we have to engage in two-way communication; we have to ask the businesses or stakeholders what the issues are go through a meaningful consultation process and then make sure we respond in a judicious and proportional way. 
It is particularly important in light of the impression I got from the Minister for Regulatory Reform that such a bill will become part of the normal proceedings of Parliament. It is very good that we have a regular opportunity to tidy up some issues that may not be insignificant enough to make it into a Statutes Amendment Bill but are not significant enough to warrant a bill in their own right. The Hon. Lianne Dalziel made history in September 2008 and set a good precedent for us to follow. 
I commend the bills to the House. Thank you. 
Companies Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Conservation Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Designs Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Fisheries Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Gas Amendment Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a third time. 
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Amendment Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Reserves Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time. 
Weights and Measures Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Unit Titles Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Housing 
: I move  
That the Unit Titles Bill be now read a third time 
. I am really pleased to be involved in the final stage of a bill that I think is bringing the whole issue of units and multiple unit blocks into the 21st century. I am delighted to know that this legislation has the support of the whole House. I am pleased that those living and working in unit title developments will finally have up-to-date contemporary legislation that reflects the best practice in property management and maintenance. 
Two or three of the key elements of this bill that I think will make a huge difference are certainly those to do with the voting rights issue. When the unit titles legislation was first put before this House many many years ago the average size of a block of units was three or four units. They were just a couple of flats here or a couple of flats there and things like having to have 100 percent agreement whenever one wanted to make a change to the body corporate made sense. They really did. 
But now huge blocks of apartments have been built—in Auckland we can see them on the skyline wherever we look. It can take just one particular tenant to hold up the process of getting a body corporate to make an agreement because the unanimous agreement of all the tenants is needed. The tenant may not even be doing that deliberately as he or she might be an absentee tenant living overseas. The requirement for unanimity has been changed in this legislation so that a 75 percent vote of all the tenants can make changes to the body corporate. 
From my perspective in the building and construction portfolio there is one more important part in this bill and that is the requirement on the big blocks and apartments to have a schedule for long-term maintenance that will be required and a long-term maintenance fund to fund it. One of the things that we are finding in some of the big buildings in Auckland is that they have not had any maintenance done. So 15 or 20 years after they are built they have serious problems with cracks leaks and so on. Those buildings would not be leaky buildings if right from day one they had had proper maintenance and had been looked after and cared for. This bill forces the big bodies corporate to publish their schedule and to maintain those buildings just as we would with our motorcar. The warranty for our motorcar would be void if we did not keep putting oil into it looking after it and so on. Well it is the same thing now with buildings. 
New Zealanders choose two very different lifestyles in this country. A lot of New Zealanders like the quarter-acre section. They like to live in their dream home by themselves. But an increasing number pursue what I think is the more urban lifestyle. They take advantage of the best that our inner-city communities have to offer. Both options are pretty good. I think it is fantastic that this bill makes urban and intensive living an attractive and viable option for those who want to live that lifestyle. 
This bill does not just provide choices for people at the fast-paced urban end of the spectrum. The best thing about this bill is its versatility. It provides a framework for creating new and innovative communities through the layered developments provision it caters for small suburban developments through exemptions from some financial management and governance provisions and it ensures the regulatory framework is scalable to the size of the development. It enables commercial developments such as office blocks or shopping malls to make good property choices that lower the cost of doing business. It provides protection for all in unit title developments and in particular for those most vulnerable to being taken advantage of such as people living in small-scale pensioner housing on unit title tenure. 
The key benefits that this bill will have for those New Zealanders living and working in unit title developments are the provisions that relate to management governance and maintenance. The changes will mean that unit owners and bodies corporate will have the necessary tools to get things done quickly and efficiently. I think that that is the key thing about this bill. They will be tools for the modern era which will allow things to be done quickly and efficiently for the benefit of the majority of the owners. I know of too many cases already where one owner has caused huge problems for the rest of the tenants just by not being prepared to agree to what I would have thought looked like a very sensible proposal for the body corporate. 
These benefits are particularly relevant for those unit owners and bodies corporate in leaky buildings because the changes clarify their rights and responsibilities. In addition the passing of this bill means that they will be able to act more quickly and decisively when they need to make decisions about taking claims and getting repair work done. 
I am pleased to stand here this afternoon and shepherd through the House this small but I think integral part of the solution that this Government is looking to try to get with regard to leaky homes but it has a far wider range for all of those New Zealanders who live in apartments and unit titles. As the Hon John Key said in his statement to Parliament this Government is committed to better regulation and the Unit Titles Bill is certainly an excellent example of better regulation. 
I thank all of those who were involved in this bill from the long passage where it started back with the previous Labour Government—and I give absolute credit to Labour members for the genesis of where this legislation came from—to a whole lot of people who contributed through submissions to the Social Services Committee to the various organisations like the New Zealand Law Society the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors the Property Council the Property Institute of New Zealand the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Crockers Strata Management the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland City Council. The list goes on and I do not want to spend the rest of the afternoon listing them because I know that members want to get away for Easter but a lot of people contributed to this legislation. It is great legislation. I commend it to the House. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to finally be able to take a call in the third reading debate of the Unit Titles Bill. This legislation has been sitting on the Order Paper for a while and I think we are all very very pleased to finally see it passing into law. I will not say that we are pleased to finally see the back of it because that would not be true. It was very interesting. Certainly when members of the public come into our offices now with unit title questions members of the Social Services Committee will be more than well equipped to deal with those issues. In fact if anyone needs any help I suggest they forward their queries to Katrina Shanks chair of the Social Services Committee. She is available day and night to help members of the public with their queries on unit title legislation. 
I thank the Acting Minister Maurice Williamson who has just taken his seat. I thank him for his wonderful 2 weeks as Acting Minister of Housing— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: 5 weeks. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Is it 5 weeks? It went so fast. It went so fast it went by in a blur. We had a wonderful time facing off against each other for that short period of time and he will be sadly missed. But he does remain in the portfolio of building and housing which of course has crossover to this legislation. 
I thank the members of the Social Services Committee and the officials and also all the submitters on this very technical but extremely important legislation. I think everyone in this House recognises that the Unit Titles Act 1972 is highly outdated. It is archaic and it certainly is not flexible enough or modern enough to deal with the range of unit title developments that exist in New Zealand today. 
I will touch on a couple of the important changes that this bill will make. The first is about ownership and utility interests. The ownership interest is the interest that is assigned by a registered valuer to the principal and the accessory units in a unit title development and the utility interest is also assigned to the principal and accessory units. But in this particular area of interest the body corporate is able to vote to change the calculation around who pays what and in what proportions so they can get a more fair and reasonable apportionment of costs. That is very important. I thank my colleague Chris Hipkins for raising this issue with me. A constituent came to see him about existing unit titles law. His constituent had strong concerns about the inability under existing law to make sure that those apportionments were fair and reasonable. So when we were working on that in the select committee we went back and made sure that the concerns raised by Mr Chris Hipkins’ constituent were addressed. I am very very pleased to say that they are addressed under this legislation. 
Under this legislation bodies corporate will be able to apportion those costs far more flexibly and fairly. That is not to say that there was unanimous agreement amongst submitters. Under the legislation that is about to be passed into law both those interests—the ownership interest and the utility interest—will be able to be reassessed at any time as long as 3 years have passed since the last assessment. Some submitters thought that that was too long; some submitters thought that that was too short. I think that it provides a very good balance between not putting too much of a burden on the body corporate to be constantly reassessing those interests but also making sure they are kept up to date. This comes down to issues as simple as the question of who should pay for a lift in a multi-storey development. Should the people on the ground floor who get no benefit from a lift have to pay the same amount for maintenance as the people who use it regularly? It sounds like a simple issue but that is the kind of thing that can bog bodies corporate down and it is important that the law is clear that it is up to the bodies corporate to be able to apportion those interests fairly. 
One of the other things I will mention is what this bill does about the establishment and constitution of bodies corporate. Under this legislation a body corporate is automatically created once a unit plan is deposited. From that point the body corporate is responsible for the range of maintenance functions for the upkeep of the property and of the whole development. Some submitters came along and quite fairly said that they were in a really tiny development. They asked why they should go through all the rigmarole of one of the big body corporate developments when they were talking of only a few units. We as a select committee considered that and decided that given that people know when they go into purchasing one of those units that it will be a unit title development under unit title law and that it will require the formation of a body corporate that that was probably fair enough. It is also important to say that at a later point a body corporate can decide to cancel its unit plan to subdivide its land or buildings and to take up some other alternative structure if that is the will of the body corporate. But it is important to point out that the most important thing about this law change is that it will reduce the costs on bodies corporate. So the concerns that small bodies corporate have about having to shoulder all those costs will be much reduced under this legislation. Not only that the bill allows that developments of nine or fewer units will not be required to form a committee if they do not wish to do so and they may opt out of auditing requirements. So we have recognised that the situation for smaller developments is different compared with bigger ones and we have given some relief in that respect. 
I will move on to an important part which is about the rights and responsibilities of unit holders. This is an area where we have seen quite a lot of litigation over the years particularly about leaky buildings. It was important that we got this absolutely right. We needed to be clear about exactly when a body corporate was responsible and when an individual unit holder was responsible. This legislation says that in general where that property is common property then it is the responsibility of the body corporate to recover the money expended for repairs except in a situation where a unit holder has caused the damage to the property by his or her actions. In that case the unit holder will be held responsible. 
That is not clear in the existing law that is about to be replaced. I want to make it very clear because it is an area where there has been significant litigation about leaky homes. This bill under clause 122(2) will impose an obligation on bodies corporate to “maintain repair or renew all building elements and all infrastructure that relate to or serve more than 1 unit.” This is a common-sense resolution of the matter which has been subject to considerable litigation as members will be aware. When there is a leaky building issue with the exterior of an apartment complex this may manifest in a manner that affects only one or two apartments and it may be tempting to say that only those people are responsible for the repairs. However we know that the reality is that unless this is remedied it will invariably affect the entire complex and the entire unit title development. Much of the litigation that has occurred in this area has focused on whether the body corporate should be allowed to contribute to the costs of rectifying these issues. There is competing precedent in this area because the High Court has taken two different views in the cases of Young and Sunset Terraces as to whether bodies corporate are able to do that. 
I think it is important that this House makes it quite clear that in this legislation we have taken the approach of Young in the Young High Court case and this will shift the focus on to rectifying the problem as quickly as possible. I think it is very important to point out that where there is conflicting precedent the High Court may look to this House to clarify whether the intention of Parliament was to follow the decision in the Young case in the High Court and that was the way the select committee went. 
The Minister has already mentioned long-term maintenance plans. This is a significant change in the law and it is important. In the past there have been cases where there has been a significant need for capital development in a unit title development but it has been blocked. Unit title holders can be hit with a very very large one-off cost and the fact that under the existing law any one person could object has resulted in work being blocked. Any one person could object when he or she found it difficult to pay that significant one-off cost and could vote against it and block that work being carried out—not because the work did not need to be carried out but because that person simply could not afford to pay the cost. 
When this legislation was introduced it contained a requirement for a long-term maintenance plan to be developed and a requirement for a fund to be put in place to pay for the long-term maintenance plan. Submitters to the select committee said that they did not feel it was necessary to legislate that in law. We looked at three options: one was the status quo in the Unit Titles Bill; the second was that a long-term maintenance plan had to be mandatory but the fund could be opted out of by a special resolution of the body corporate; and the third was to say that both the plan and the fund were mandatory but both could be opted out of by special resolution of the body corporate. 
The select committee weighed up the options and felt we should go down the path of saying that the long-term maintenance plan is mandatory and cannot be opted out of but the way in which it is paid for can be flexible. So under the legislation the fund is mandatory but by special resolution of the body corporate it can be opted out of. I think that provides the flexibility that is needed under this bill. 
There have been a number of changes regarding disputes resolution. The Tenancy Tribunal has been opened up to the unit title holders and the District Court has been made the court of first appeal instead of the High Court. All these things will make it cheaper and simpler for unit title holders. I commend the bill to the House. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. I rise to take a short call on the Unit Titles Bill. National went into the election on a platform of streamlining and simplifying regulations and this bill offers another opportunity to achieve that goal. The bill addresses a range of problems that have been identified such as issues with joint decision-making building maintenance financial management governance information disclosure consumer protection and dispute resolution. 
The bill has attracted very positive feedback from the industry and I have been delighted to participate in the development of this legislation. In particular I commend Moana Mackey who has just resumed her seat. She has been a very comprehensive and hard worker on the Social Services Committee as the 10-minute speech she delivered before my speech demonstrated. I thank her and applaud her interest and the detailed consideration she gave to the bill. I also acknowledge the chair of the select committee Katrina Shanks who is in the House at the moment. She and her family should be proud of the work she has done in bringing the bill to the House. 
I commend the bill. Kia ora. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the third reading of the Unit Titles Bill. I will make a couple of points that have been made before but bear repeating. I appreciate the words of the previous speaker Hekia Parata. I remember interviewing her at one point for the position of chief executive of Housing New Zealand Corporation. I regret that she was not appointed to that position at that time because she would have been a very able chief executive of Housing New Zealand Corporation had she been appointed. However the proximity of that appointment to her standing in the election made it a little bit difficult in terms of the kind of impartiality that was needed. But I recognise that member’s commitment to housing and that is really the basis for what I want to say about the Unit Titles Bill. 
This bill does some good things—there is no doubt that it does; we would not be supporting it otherwise. It came from the previous Labour Government. It was introduced by Labour on 29 May 2008. It was referred to the Social Services Committee after its first reading on 5 March 2009. The select committee report came to the House on 2 September 2009 and the second reading was held on 16 February 2010. The Committee stage took place at the end of March 2010 and here we are in urgency with the calendar on the wall in the Chamber showing “March 30” but we all know that outside it is April Fool’s Day. 
The point of rehearsing that history is that this bill is one of the few things that this Government had done on housing since its tenure began at the end of 2008. Although we are supportive of this bill—as I said why would we not be as it originated with us—the fact that it has taken as long as this and we are sitting during this fabricated urgency in order to see off the third reading is an indictment on this Government quite frankly. It is in fact the only thing that has been done on housing since this Government took over. 
I applaud the fact that the bill gives greater flexibility to unit title holders and those who participate in bodies corporate. The bill was designed in its initial stages to address the 38-year difference between the original unit titles legislation and the kind of situation we have now where blocks of flats and high-rise apartment buildings have been proliferating in recent times. 
I applaud the inclusion of maintenance plans and I applaud the fact that there will be some orderly progression of expenditure in maintaining and developing any buildings that are owned or managed by bodies corporate with unit titles. That will help individual unit title owners to manage the costs of maintenance and ongoing improvement. 
But is that all there is from this Government on housing? Housing is one of the most pressing issues that we have in front of us at the moment. There has been no improvement in housing affordability under this Government. Although I am very pleased that the Unit Titles Bill will bring unit titles into the modern era there has been no progress on housing affordability nor any imagination applied to creating affordable housing since this Government took office. Despite the Government’s slogans during the election campaign that is one area where it has been palpably lacking in ambition. There is no such thing as being “ambitious for New Zealand” when it comes to this Government housing the poor or allowing people on modest incomes to get into the housing market for the first time. 
Although the Unit Titles Bill may help people who have been able to buy a unit in a block of flats or an apartment in a high-rise building and they will be grateful for the modernisation of the legislation there has been no measure taken no imagination applied and no announcements made that would give anybody the impression that this Government cares a jot about whether people can afford to buy their own houses and to live with the security that owning one’s own house provides. We have seen no affordable housing being created by this Government. In fact we have seen quite the opposite. We have seen the abolition of affordable housing by this Government. There were to be 3000 houses built at Hobsonville—1000 of them were to be affordable houses and 500 of them were to be State houses—but that project has been axed. At the very least the affordable housing and the State housing components of that project have been axed by this Government. So forgive me for showing a little irritation and impatience over this bill but it is the only thing in the housing portfolio that the Government has to show for 15 months in office. There is one disgraced Minister and one bill that the Government did not even think of. 
I am pleased to support the bill but I do not want it to go by completely unnoticed that it is the only thing the Government has done in housing. Now the Government is rehabilitating the former Minister of Housing at breakneck speed but for what purpose? Is it so that we can have another 15 months of inaction of no announcements about the Government’s fabled Gateway Housing programme? There has been nothing about urban renewal to provide affordable housing. The only thing that relates to urban renewal is this little bill which was not even the National Government’s in origin. That is a pathetic performance. For Government members to sit there and pretend that it needed to be passed under urgency when it should have been passed a year ago is shabby and inadequate and speaks of gross incompetence. 
Moana Mackey 
: Where is the residential tenancies bill? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Where indeed is the residential tenancies legislation? 
We do not even have any advertising of the previous Labour Government’s shared equity scheme. It has not been shelved to my knowledge but it certainly has not been advertised. So in respect of the creative solutions that the Labour Government came up with particularly towards the end of our tenure in office when the problem of housing affordability exploded on to the scene the fact that this Government has not addressed those solutions and all we have is the Unit Titles Bill’s third reading being debated under urgency when it could have been managed more competently in ordinary hours is an indictment on this Government. 
The Minister who is now responsible—Phil Heatley’s name was on this bill but now I see that it has Maurice Williamson’s name—may go off into his Easter break feeling proud of himself. Well I ask him to reflect on this issue. Firstly it was not his idea; secondly it has taken him ages; and thirdly he had a disgraced colleague who could not bring it to fruition himself. This bill is all the National Government has to show in respect of housing. It is not good enough. 
Labour will vote for the bill; of course we will because it had things in it that we designed in the first place. And it is good that it is finally here. But the process and the things that are missing from this Government in terms of housing are glaringly wrong. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 What a grubby churlish and confused contribution that was from the former Minister of Housing the Hon Maryan Street. It is worth pointing out to the House and to anybody listening that that former Minister has not been a part of the Social Services Committee since the change of Government. She has not been working with our committee as we have done considerable work in a very constructive manner. 
As my colleague Hekia Parata did I thank a previous Labour speaker Moana Mackey. I too acknowledge that she has a genuine and detailed knowledge of these issues and has made a very constructive contribution. 
It is very disappointing that in the third reading of the Unit Titles Bill we had to listen to an attack on members of this House and comments— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Well someone has to call it the way they see it Tim. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: —she continues to interrupt now—that wander far away from the point of this bill. Sadly I have to move on in a minute or so to a select committee and I cannot do justice to those comments. 
The Social Services Committee heard considerable contributions from a large number of submitters. They were heard very very comprehensively and their points have been taken on board. There have been two Ministers of Housing during the passage of this legislation through the House and both have given it considerable attention. I commend them for the work they have done. There is no doubt that this is very significant legislation. I acknowledge the work that was done by the previous Government but I certainly dispute the suggestion that we have been sitting on our hands in terms of bringing it back to the House. This legislation required the work it has received. 
New Zealanders have heard a lot of talk about simplifying regulations in recent times. This Government has brought this legislation to a conclusion. I am very proud to commend it to the House and I am delighted that it will soon become the law of New Zealand. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. In the spirit of urgency I will take a short call on the Unit Titles Bill. It is certainly high time for this legislation as the original Unit Titles Act which came into force in 1972 is 38 years old. The Greens will be supporting the bill in the third reading. 
The old and outdated legislation could not have anticipated new developments such as body corporate agreements and the new ways that people are living. Intensification of urban living is the trend of the last decade and good environmental and urban design practice. The New Zealand dream of the quarter-acre block although still appealing to many is not how the majority of Kiwis live any more. This is particularly true in Auckland. The Auckland Regional Council estimates that 700000 dwellings will be required to house a population of 2 million people so 300000 extra homes will be needed in Auckland by 2041. We have a choice to grow upwards or to grow outwards. 
Updating the law governing multi-unit building developments such as apartment blocks townhouses and office towers is necessary. This bill clarifies the duties and powers of unit owners the body corporate body corporate managers and developers. Decision making is made easier and more transparent. That issue was picked up in the earlier stages of the debate as well as the important issue of weathertightness. 
I was not involved in the previous stages of this debate but I acknowledge Labour’s role in the original drafting and the many years of consultation by the various stakeholders that has fed into this bill today. 
This bill will assist housing intensification. Our cities need to grow upwards not outwards. Urban sprawl has contributed to high transport costs for motorists taxpayers and ratepayers. In Auckland 16 percent of the city’s wealth is spent on transport costs. In comparison in more urban-intensive Europe which has better public transport and active transport modes the amount spent on transport is only 6 percent. The Auckland Regional Council lists some of the reasons why intensification is good: cost savings in land infrastructure and energy; reduction in housing lifestyle and transport costs; and greater physical activity and consequent health benefits. To quote a famous ACT on Campus spokesperson: “I think my argument is so powerful that it’s not necessary to talk about it.” The Greens will be supporting this bill. Kia ora. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The purpose of the Unit Titles Bill is principally to update the law in order to provide for the range complexity and size of today’s developments including large-scale projects. 
Unlike some of the other legislation that has come through under urgency today this is a bill that had a long and thorough public consultation process attracting over 100 submissions from the public and interested groups. During the process of consultation some very positive developments emerged including the introduction of new clause 7A which specifies that the bill does not restrict Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. 
However I would not want to give the impression that there are no outstanding issues remaining with this bill. The bill updates the law regarding subdivision development and management through bodies corporate. We have some difficulties in that the bill provides for corporate housing development but does not address the issue of facilitating Maori housing development. At present under the law there is no capacity to enable the owners of Maori customary or freehold land in a particular area or papakainga to join with one another to collectively manage their lands and do things like restrict the sale of land in order to maintain the integrity of the papakainga. The question we would like the Minister of Housing to consider further is whether a new bill can be developed to take into account special Maori needs to protect their papakainga. 
Another issue we have been considering is the relationship of Maori land to the joint ownership and management of land for the particular whanau hapu or iwi belonging to that land. There are currently serious problems with the subdivision of Maori land particularly where the Maori Land Court will not agree to the partitioning of Maori land. Getting through an application for an individual partition of land is inevitably difficult because of the thresholds of agreement needed. We need to find another way in which to protect lands from misuse and/or sale while also allowing whanau and hapu to develop papakainga housing projects if there is a reasonable level of consent. One way might be to identify land suitable for a Maori housing scheme and to lower the thresholds for partitioning those lands while also placing restrictions on the sale of the partitioned lands. 
I raise those issues in the context of this bill because I have confidence that the newly reinstated Minister of Housing has already established credibility in terms of his commitment to support papakainga housing. The Maori Party has been really proud of the work we have done with him in the Kainga Whenua project. In effect Maori who want to build on their ancestral land will now be able to through the unique partnership of Housing New Zealand Corporation and Kiwibank. Kainga Whenua establishes an opportunity for Maori to build purchase or relocate a house on multiple-owned Maori land. The Crown supports the application Kiwibank lends the finance and the whanau as long as they can demonstrate their whakapapa rights to occupy the land can borrow up to $200000 towards the house building costs or the purchase price of the house. This is such a fabulous initiative that we have every confidence that once this bill which responds to the needs of bodies corporate has been dispensed with today the Minister can turn his attention to whanau hapu and iwi. 
This bill is quite specific about its purpose to provide a new legal framework for understanding unit titles. That is when land is subdivided for development. As I said earlier the main beneficiaries of this bill will be bodies corporate and at this point I have very little information about how well Maori will be represented in this elite group. I suspect that for most Maori the large-scale projects being responded to in the context of this bill are relevant to them by virtue of their experience as tenants. While other New Zealanders have been hit hard by the challenge of property prices and rents that are seemingly out of reach for Maori it has been compounded by issues such as low incomes high debt levels poor access to finance an inability to raise house finance against multiple-owned land and a lack of information about housing ownership options. So we know that Maori are disproportionately overrepresented as tenants. This is a movement that has increased dramatically over the last two decades. The proportion of Maori relying on rental tenure has increased from 38.6 percent in 1991 to 54.8 percent in 2006. 
The Unit Titles Bill is a positive piece of legislation because it provides a socially and economically sustainable basis for the communities of individual owners. It is not by any means the panacea to all our problems but we are supportive of this bill. We look forward to an ongoing and productive discussion with the Minister of Housing about Maori housing. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call on the Unit Titles Bill. I acknowledge the work that Moana Mackey has done with such diligence in the Social Services Committee. The whole select committee worked well and I believe it was well chaired by Katrina Shanks. I think the House ought to acknowledge that. 
The Unit Titles Bill will not cover a lot of the problems in my electorate of South Auckland as far as housing goes. Housing New Zealand Corporation has admitted that people are doubling up in their houses—well it is worse than that. Sometimes there are three families in a State house—unit titles by the people. I think that that is shocking. I want that put in the  
Hansard  
record which is why I said it. People are now on the waiting list for garages. I do not think that is very satisfactory either. But this bill is a good bill and it was originally started by Labour. I must acknowledge Maurice Williamson for being in the House this afternoon. He has got the bill through so quickly. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to speak to the third reading of the Unit Titles Bill and we have done some very important work here today. The Social Services Committee worked diligently on this bill and I want to thank staff members on the committee and the officials who came from the ministry to brief us. I also thank all members of the committee on both sides of the House who I think for the first time in the short time I have been in Parliament were able to reach agreement fairly quickly on some of the important areas where we needed to make changes. In other readings of this bill I have addressed those areas at some length and I propose not to do so again today but I want to congratulate the Minister for Building and Construction the Hon Maurice Williamson—because he just asked me to. 
One point that is very important to address here is that we were informed that over the next 50 years 500000 people may live in a unit title development or unit in New Zealand. Therefore should this Parliament not have moved this bill forward today with some urgency we would have been doing a great injustice to them. I say to the Minister that it is important as members opposite have recognised that we pass this bill into law today so soon before Easter. 
One of the issues raised with us in the committee was that some unit title owners were concerned that some of their rights over common property areas and some of the gardens and developments in their unit’s grounds may be taken away from them. The children who live in these developments and apartments with their parents can sleep soundly this weekend before they search the common areas and the grounds for Easter eggs. The delivery of this bill means that those common areas their trees and so on will be protected for them for many years to come. I commend this bill to the House and I am happy to support it. Thank you. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I take a quick call on the Unit Titles Bill. As an Auckland MP this bill has real relevance to me. There are likely to be 500000 people living in the type of accommodation that this bill addresses. It will be extremely relevant in the years to come. I too commend those who have been working on it such as my colleague Moana Mackey the longstanding Minister of Housing and those others who have worked so assiduously in the Social Services Committee. 
As many others have spoken on this bill and have pointed out its good points I will touch on just a couple. One as we know is that the body corporate is capable of owning common property. That will enable the body corporate to take a collective view on repairs to things like the roof or the lift of the building which may otherwise have fallen to one unit holder. 
Another good feature of this bill is that the decisions do not need to be unanimous as was the case. Only 75 percent of people have to agree which means that some of those who held out and who held up what otherwise would have been a good decision no longer have that ability. However they do have the opportunity for redress in the Tenancy Tribunal which is the place that has been set aside for any grievances should anything like that happen. 
I acknowledge that I am possibly the last speaker standing between us and the Easter weekend. Therefore I will not speak any longer on this bill. I could be the most popular member of this House at this time! I would like to wish everybody a happy Easter. Thank you. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I hate to disappoint members over there but unfortunately there is still one more speaker. I will be very brief because I am aware that Easter is literally minutes away for many of us in the House today. 
I acknowledge all the hard work that the Social Services Committee put into the Unit Titles Bill. We spent many months on it. It was a long time coming. Labour started the review in 2004. As chair of the select committee I am very proud to stand here in the third reading of the bill and see it passed into law. 
I thank the officials who did a lot of additional work. It took a while for us to get up to speed on the bill as there were some quite complex issues in it. I thank the officials for their patience. I would also like to thank the submitters who came forward with their suggestions many of which we took on board. The bill was changed because of their submissions. This is a very brief call. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: And acknowledge the excellent Minister! 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: I would also like to acknowledge the Ministers who were involved in this bill especially the Hon Maurice Williamson. He added significant value to this bill in its third reading stage. I thank members for letting me take this call this afternoon. 
Bill read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 4.08 p.m. (Thursday)