Cosgrove Clayton: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2012. Volume:678;Page:1132. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Party will support this legislation—I want to make that very clear—given that the originator of this legislation back when we were in power was our then Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel who put this in place. Mr Banks’ predecessor Mr Hide came to this Parliament and gave a very similar speech actually to Mr Banks’ saying that this was going to be an earth-shattering reform. We support the concept of this legislation. It is a good process and a good concept. What we are going to highlight tonight are some of the absurdities. You would think that this legislation was going to change the constitutional business framework of this country the way Mr Banks trumpeted it. Really what it is is lightweight content in a heavyweight process. It is lightweight content in Parliament. 
If this is Mr Banks’ first salvo as the Minister for Small Business small-business men and women on their so-called to quote him crystal sets will be hanging on every word tonight I am sure as they read through the 31 Acts that are a spent force and will be repealed by the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. I went and asked the Clerk because I am not a lawyer and I said to the Clerk: “Am I right? Does a spent Act mean basically it has been dealt with it does not exist it has no compliance cost and it has no impact on anybody except Mr Banks and his sort of internal emotions?”. The answer was yes it is basically like an Act that has been repealed. So the first great contribution from Mr Banks as he came out of the political crypt and into this Parliament has been to repeal 31 Acts that have no effect and no compliance costs on any small business or on anyone. I should move that we have a minute’s silence in respect of Mr Banks’ great contribution. He is the man who came to this House and who in his speech talked about getting the hands out of the pockets of small-business people getting off their backs and stopping these grotesque spending and compliance costs. 
I too am an ex - small-business person and can I say that this is coming from the biggest spender in Parliament other than Bill English whose last claim to fame as Mayor of Auckland before they booted him out was to treble the debt that Auckland City had with his spending not including the debt that the new super-city took on. That was Mr Banks—“Hey big spender”. So I just say to Mr Banks congratulations what a great contribution to the Parliament it is to bring in really good legislation a good process. 
The Regulatory Reform Bill was called the Regulatory Improvement Bill then Rodney Hide made an equally staggering substantive contribution to this Parliament by changing its name from the Regulatory Improvement Bill to the Regulatory Reform Bill. I know that every small-business person around the country that Mr Banks represents will be getting their hands out of their pockets and putting their hands around the back into their back pocket grabbing their wallet and thanking Mr Banks from the bottom of their heart for changing that one word from “Improvement” to “Reform”. How much compliance cost will that save a small business? I imagine that it is millions of dollars although I would have thought that the wording on some of the forms might have had to be changed. 
But the great contribution—the first kick-off contribution—from the big spender from Auckland is to repeal 31 spent Acts that have no compliance costs because they do not have any effect on anyone or anybody or on any business in New Zealand. I say that this man deserves a knighthood. What a great contribution. He has made history in this place. The dinosaur has come back. It is  
Jurassic Park 
 all over again. He has made history in this place by repealing 31 Acts that have no effect on anybody. Actually this could be  
Yes Minister 
 all over again. Obviously he has read all the briefing papers the officials have put in front of him. The officials have convinced him: “Minister this is your big day. This is your big hit. This is your penultimate hit. You have just been appointed Minister for Small Business. You can kick a goal for the people of New Zealand and small business by repealing 31 Acts that have no effect on anyone or on any small business.” 
I just say this: as we are trying to reduce slash and burn compliance costs through this legislation I wonder whether Mr Banks has gone to his small-business folk and said “This is the amount of parliamentary time and your money small-business people—because you are taxpayers—we are going to take to repeal 31 spent Acts that do not have an effect or a cost on anyone.” That is a compliance cost Mr Banks that every small to medium sized enterprise that that Minister represents is going to pay. I invite the Minister given the detailed and substantive Minister that he is to maybe go and cost the amount he has spent on time-wasting by bringing in this amount of lightweight piffle—apart from I will say some decent provisions in here in respect of credit unions. 
And there are one or two other provisions like the amendment to the Companies Act which Mr Hide himself said would save New Zealand companies—most of whom tend not to be small to medium sized enterprises by the strictest definition but I am sure that Mr Banks knows that—$1.5 million. Well $1.5 million is a lot of dough; I accept that. But when you spread that over the thousands of people in small to medium sized enterprises—they are pretty practical folk and they try to work it out in dollars and cents. They are not into this sort of fluff; they want to work out how much this will save them. I reckon if you spread $1.5 million in cost savings over every small to medium sized enterprise in the country it would not come to a hell of a lot. This measure of course deals with voting and proxies and the particular provision here deals with whether you can use electronic shareholder participation. I do not know how many one and two-person plumbing firms—and you know the odd carpenter the odd electrician may have three or four people working for him or a couple of young apprentices—are going to sit there tonight and say “Hell’s teeth what a wonderful provision! I can now choose to lodge my documentation as a shareholder and participate electronically.” What a brilliant awe-inspiring genius I say. I think this is a moment we should cherish. 
Then of course we have another provision that I think is a good one—the amendment to the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 to modernise labelling. I concede for those in that trade—and I offer this as an olive branch to the senior old codger over there the old Minister the old tumbleweed—that Mr Hide said that that would save $2.4 million in its first year going up to $3.1 million in year 5. I do not know how many video firms there are in the country but that will be of some assistance I grant you to them. Likewise the issues that the Minister outlined around friendly societies and credit unions will assist. 
I say that the process that we as the former Government brought in is a good process and a good legislative framework. It is something we should do. But let us not get too carried away. This legislation was trumpeted by Mr Banks and his predecessor old Rumpelstiltskin who is now floating around Auckland Mr Hide. He was going to slash through red tape and slash through compliance costs. This is what he was going to do. He sent Uncle Fester in as the nightwatchman from Epsom Mr Banks. Mr Banks equally gets up and says he is going to slash through red tape slash through compliance costs and assist the small to medium sized enterprises. Millions of dollars would flow back into the pockets of these small to medium sized enterprises through Mr Banks’ good works in slashing compliance costs. And then we pick up the bills. They have got a bit of weight to them I suppose. There are a few pages in them. We pick them up and what do we find? Yet again mutton dressed up as mutton. That is what it is: mutton dressed up as mutton. I was not referring to the Minister; I would have said pork. But I was not referring to him; I was speaking in respect of the legislation. 
Then what do we find? We find the big hit the big moment in the sun. I am going to go out to all my small to medium sized enterprises in Canterbury. Ms Dalziel will too and she will say “Look this Minister is akin to Mother Teresa in political terms. Do you know what he has done? He has repealed 31 Acts basically that have no effect on him.” I am sure they will carry Mr Banks through the streets of Canterbury and Epsom in Auckland showering him with rose petals laurel leaves the lot in Romanesque-like proportions celebrating what a great champion of small to medium sized enterprises this great man is. Then they might also ask why it was that he trebled the debt of the Auckland Council in 3 years. That is an achievement. That is an achievement that will have more impact on small to medium sized enterprises I wager than anything in this legislation that we pass. 
So I say to Mr Banks that he has stepped forward with the old cricket bat tried to slug one over the boundary for six runs and got caught in the slips behind. It was not a good effort not a good start not a bad rousing speech but I say to Mr Banks that the one thing you have got to remember—and maybe you have been away from the small to medium sized enterprises movement too long and you have had your nose in the trough of local government for too long—is to think of this. Small to medium sized enterprises Minister—through you Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch—are not stupid. They know and they can smell bull when they see it and this is seriously high-quality bull.