Wong Pansy: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Wong Pansy: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6531] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I think the Labour Party should apologise to the public. The honourable member Mr Dail Jones demonstrated that he has actually gone through this Business Law Reform Bill chapter and verse. We have just listened to Darren Hughes who totally convinced everybody out there that he had not even bothered to flick through this bill. He just wasted 3 minutes of parliamentary time on talking about nothing. The Minister the Hon Lianne Dalziel shows a total lack of enthusiasm. I wish the Government would give the portfolio back to the Hon Paul Swain. At least every time he stood to introduce some business law legislation he showed some enthusiasm and understanding. 
The Labour Party is actually apologising for this bill. When I read the regulatory impact and compliance cost statement in the explanatory note it was very clear to me that the Minister was making an apology because it states: “The Business Law Reform Bill is an omnibus bill that contains minor changes to a number of business law statutes”. All I can say to the Minister is to stop apologising and bring some major changes that will enable the business community to go ahead and expand their business. 
I also want to challenge the very uncharitable Minister of Commerce who accused New Zealand First of single-handedly delaying this bill for 2 years. I do not understand; all I know is that United Future members obviously intimidated by the Minister’s stand immediately got up and said that they did not understand why they should support it but that they had better do so because they do not want United Future to be named as the party that may even show some attempt to stand up to Labour and get it to do some real work. My challenge is to United Future members to take another call and explain to the public why the bill makes only minor changes. Why can it not bring along some major changes that allow the business community to go forward? 
I want to come back to this bill and challenge the Ministry of Economic Development which is headed by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. When I was on the Commerce Committee the ministry always complained that it had developed this compliance cost statement and said that each piece of legislation that comes before the Parliament has to have a detailed statement on how it reduces compliance costs and justifies the benefit of it. We are always encouraging and ask how the Commerce Committee can be helpful in giving some power to help the Ministry of Economic Development demand that various Government departments produce substantial justification for bringing legislation before this Parliament. 
When I look through this Business Law Reform Bill all the Ministry of Economic Development can say under the regulatory impact and compliance cost statement is that the bill will “remove unnecessary compliance costs associated with some legislation”. For a ministry that is supposed to show a leading fine example—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is too much unnecessary conversation going on. 
PANSY WONG 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I think the members should devote some time to reading through the compliance cost statement. Darren Hughes found time to point a finger at other members of Parliament. I wish he had found time to read through the bill and in his 3-minute speech make a better job of talking about it. 
The Ministry of Economic Development is charged with the important task of demonstrating how a compliance cost statement should be made. But all it can say is that one of the key aims of the bill is to reduce compliance costs and then gives three examples. When the Ministry of Economic Development can only produce a weak general statement of compliance cost justification how can it go ahead and complain that the various Government departments never take seriously the producing of these compliance cost statements? 
My colleague the Hon Tony Ryall is absolutely right: this bill does not do much about reducing compliance costs. Let me give one example. They are saying that this bill is trying to be helpful it is trying to say that some entities no longer have to provide full financial statements so some shareholders can write in and say: “Well the shareholder doesn’t want to get the full set of financial statements.” But guess what the requirement is? Apart from producing the full set of financial statements the entity has to produce some simplified financial statements. One can argue that that has increased compliance costs because the entity has to produce a full set of financial statements anyway. If it has mailed them to the shareholders there is the cost of printing. There is a compliance cost. Introducing an alternative simplified financial statement actually requires an additional step. I presume the entity has to send out those forms for the shareholders to select whether they want to receive the full financial statements or the simplified statements. So one can argue whether it does reduce the compliance cost requirement. 
The honourable member Dail Jones raised a good point when he mentioned clause 13 in Part 3 and said that it sounds strange that this clause omits the word “capital” and substitutes the word “capital”. I think that was a very good question and Labour members should take a call. I read through the legislation and interestingly the first word “capital” is within inverted commas and the second word “capital” has a comma within the inverted commas. I tell Dail Jones that that might mean something different. 
The only point of difference I have with Mr Dail Jones is that I am in favour of the bill going to the Commerce Committee because it does not have as many lawyers. From my previous experience when one sends a bill to a select committee that is full of lawyers they spend large amounts of time debating technically where the commas and the full stops are. My honourable colleague Richard Worth is showing some distress. I have high respect for lawyers except they seem to spend large amounts of time commenting on whether a comma or a full stop will lead to a lot of differences. Of course after they have this lengthy debate and when things do not work out and the case is put before the court then we find that another set of lawyers will come up with an entirely different interpretation. 
But I think Labour members should take another call and show the public that they have indeed read this bill make some substantial contributions learn from Mr Dail Jones and not accuse New Zealand First of not supporting this legislation. We got it from the horse’s mouth—that New Zealand First does support the legislation. Labour members should stop blaming other parties for their slackness in bringing this bill to the Parliament.