Connell Brian: Business Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Connell Brian: Business Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:6149] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I will start by saying that anything that reduces compliance costs for my constituents has my support albeit what has been suggested in this legislation is rather superficial. The Minister in her introductory remarks told us that the Business Law Reform Bill is an omnibus bill that makes a number of changes to commercial legislation as suggested by Government officials and lawyers. That is an oxymoron if ever I have heard one. 
Government officials and lawyers are the sorts of people who in my experience perpetuate compliance and have a vested interest in making sure that it is not reduced. If the Minister wants to rely on that quality of advice I say to her that it is no wonder she has problems intellectualising what needs to be done to reduce compliance costs across New Zealand. The Minister went on to outline a number of amended Acts and she pointed out that the Companies Act 1993 the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act the Financial Reporting Act 1993 the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act and the Insurance Companies’ Deposits Act 1953 had been amended. I have to say that they are all worthy changes albeit relatively minor in the scale of things. The two that are most noteworthy are firstly the Companies Act where directors banned overseas will be banned in New Zealand and that makes sense. The bill goes on to say that it will remove filing requirements for foreign companies if information is supplied to the home regulator and provides an option of electronic accounts for shareholders. They are sensible amendments and of course we support those. Secondly the Financial Reporting Act 1993 is amended to provide for the removal of unnecessary reporting requirements and to increase the eligibility for small businesses to have minimal filing responsibilities. 
I am pleased to say that the Minister has taken heed of two things that were concerning business people across the country and they are probably the two items that business people advised the Minister of as opposed to Government officials and lawyers. Let us have a look at some of the more substantive issues not addressed in this bill. The first thing that comes to mind is the correlation between lawyers and the Resource Management Act. Am I the only one who has noticed in the last 10 years the huge explosion of legal practices that have developed based solely on the Resource Management Act? The Minister said in the House that she has taken advice from lawyers who have been telling her how compliance costs could be reduced. Lawyers who have practices substantially based on the Resource Management Act have a vested interest in making sure that the Resource Management Act continues unabridged in its most complex form. It is rather naive of the Minister to think that she can rely on their advice. 
This Government has increased 40 different taxes fees and levies since taking office and a further four are proposed. And the Minister says that she is serious about reducing compliance costs! The Business New Zealand latest publication  
Regulation Perspectives 
 calculates that over 2000 new regulations have been introduced since 1999. I know that the member from New Zealand First will probably take a call after me. He has a habit of quoting things I have said so I hope he gets it right. Two thousand new regulations have been introduced since 1999. Many of these regulations affect businesses and the average cost to each firm was $53000 in 2005 which is an increase of nearly 17 percent up from $43200 in 2003. 
The issues addressed in the Al Dunn report in 1999-2000 are the critical issues that the Minister should have addressed in this bill but did not. The Al Dunn report highlighted 162 compliance issues that were of such importance the Government needed to take heed of them. 
Pansy Wong 
: And this is for only minor issues! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Pansy Wong points out that this bill is for only minor issues. I am sorry; I got the wrong end of the stick. I thought it was a bill that would reduce the costs of compliance per se. 
 Of the 162 items that the Al Dunn report highlighted 143 of those said tax the Resource Management Act Occupational Safety and Health and industrial relations are the four critical issues that the Government has to come to terms with. So I read the bill carefully I looked for the components that were going to deal with tax the Resource Management Act Occupational Safety and Health and industrial relations and I am sad to have to report to the House that they have not been addressed. That explains I say to Pansy Wong why the Minister when she took her call did so in a very dispirited way. She mumbled and murmured into her microphone because she knew that the acid test of this bill would be in the detail and that when the business people whom she did not consult sat down and read this bill they would be terribly terribly disappointed. 
I leave the House with just one quick example of why compliance costs and red tape in this country have got out of control. I suggest to the New Zealand First member that if he is ever down in Hinds there is good little hotel there called the Hinds Pub surprisingly enough. I was in there speaking to constituents and a drink was forced on me. I was having a conversation with a chap who said: “Five years ago I relied on the dole to maintain my livelihood but that was leading me nowhere. So I started a business cutting firewood and have been doing that job for 5 years Mr Connell.” He was one of the respectful constituents I have. “But today I am extremely annoyed because when I got home this evening before I came down to the pub I got a letter form OSH saying that in order to pursue my chosen career I had to get a certificate that demonstrated that I knew how to use the chainsaw that I have been using for the last 5 years.” That certificate was going to cost him 250 bucks. And do members know what he said? He said: “I feel like throwing it all away.” Actually that is the polite way of saying it. What he actually said was: “I feel like taking my chainsaw to Wellington and dealing with the bureaucrats and your colleagues up there who think that this type of legislation is sensible.” 
Nowhere in this legislation do I see anything that has come to grips with those concerns that drive hard-working business people across this country to distraction. With that contribution I conclude.