Curran Clare: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
Curran Clare: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would like to speak on the second readings of these two bills the Regulatory Reform Bill and the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill which are being read together tonight. I would first like to say that it was a sensible decision to hear both bills together. The Commerce Committee took that view when it heard submissions and deliberated last year. Both these bills seek to improve the regulatory environment. The first one amends 13 Acts to reduce compliance costs and regulatory burdens on business and the second one repeals 31 Acts that are out of date and no longer have any effect because they have been superseded. 
I would also like to remind the House that the Regulatory Reform Bill is essentially a Labour bill. It certainly did not come from the mind of the new Minister for Regulatory Reform John Banks and it certainly did not come from the former Minister Rodney Hide. It actually came out of the Quality Regulation Review which was led by the Hon Lianne Dalziel who also chaired the select committee last year that heard submissions on it. My colleague Lianne Dalziel introduced the first Regulatory Improvement Bill when Labour was in Government and it was passed under this Government which then took credit for it. The Quality Regulation Review—I think it is always important to hear a bit of history when we talk about these bills so that people understand the context from which they came— 
Maggie Barry 
: Selective history. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Well you know it is also important that members—especially new members in the House—go and do a bit of research and actually research the facts on bills before they pipe up with their uninformed comments. The Quality Regulation Review report was released in September 2008. That is a fact and I say to new members and especially new members who have been broadcasters that it is always important to speak to the facts. It addressed the regulatory barriers to business growth which Labour was then very committed to addressing. Labour was and remains committed to regulatory reform with a balanced approach that delivers solutions that work for business and benefit the New Zealand economy as a whole. Labour has believed and still does believe that annual regulatory improvement bills are a sensible way of ensuring quality regulation. 
However the changes in these bills taken together are hardly all-encompassing; most are small and technical. Although I believe that the intent is important and that there will be some reductions in compliance costs and regulatory burdens—of which I will speak in a minute—it is hardly earth-moving legislation and it will not lead to great quantifiable changes in our economy. But there will be savings made and regulatory improvement gained. 
Here is a quick summary to remind everyone what we are talking about tonight just in case they have forgotten. We are amending the Companies Act 1993 to allow companies to choose whether they use electronic shareholder participation. When speaking about this bill last year the former Minister Rodney Hide said that that could save New Zealand companies $1.5 million in total each year. Another change is to amend the Unit Trusts Act 1960 so that financial statements and accounts can be distributed electronically. That is very important and it is highly overdue. It will result in cost savings to unit trusts especially in respect of printing and postage. That might sound boring but actually it is quite important and there are huge savings to be gained there. The third thing is amending the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act of 1993 to modernise labelling. That it was argued would reduce compliance costs by an estimated $2.4 million in the first year and $3.1 million in year 5. 
I want to spend a couple of minutes on this particular item. The Commerce Committee is an interesting committee. It can be quite dry. You know a lot of the bills for many people other than us who sit on the committee may make their eyes glaze over. However we do get impassioned submissions to us on the most interesting issues. One that really did stand out during the consideration of this legislation was from the Video Association of New Zealand. It came before us and seriously gave quite an impassioned submission on how a simple change to the law could allow the printing of classification labels on the sleeves of video cases rather than someone actually having to sit down and physically put those labels on which is what has to happen at the moment. 
Hon Chester Borrows 
: Jobs! 
CLARE CURRAN 
: The House might be surprised to hear this. It is a very arcane process although many of us actually do spend some of our time licking envelopes and putting things in them so that they can get out to people. But actually physically fixing labels on to video case sleeves is something that still goes on in this country. The Video Association of New Zealand asked us—implored us—to make a change that would result in considerable savings for it of more than $2 million a year and that would result also in supply chain efficiencies in that the product would be able to be supplied to the consumers more quickly in these times of high demand. It was pointed out that the actual number of physical video games and videos is diminishing in our lives as I think we all probably know as more and more people are turning to the online environment. Hopefully if they are downloading videos and games etc. they are doing that in a legal environment rather than an illegal environment. 
However there is something that I do hope the Minister will address. Because the Regulatory Reform Bill has taken quite a long time to get to the House for its second reading after the select committee process the bill before us today actually refers to an issue that was raised during the select committee and is reflected in the bill—that is that an amendment may be sought in the Committee of the whole House by way of a Supplementary Order Paper to bring forward the commencement date of this part. It is my belief that that is likely to have been superseded now because the bill has taken so long to get to the House but it would be quite useful for that to be clarified as soon as possible so that the members in the House—and certainly anybody who is watching particularly the Video Association of New Zealand Inc.—know that the savings that can be made once this bill is passed should it pass will come into effect as soon as possible. 
Finally wrapping up I would like to reiterate what my colleague from the Greens said when speaking before me tonight on Part 7 of the Regulatory Reform Bill around the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982. It essentially removes the cap on the amount that can be deposited in a credit union which is a sensible move. We on this side of the House are very supportive of cooperatives and friendly societies and the concepts that lie behind them. We would have liked to propose an amendment to confer legal status on credit unions in the discussion on this bill. At present credit unions are required to have trustees in whom the assets of the credit union are vested. We considered that to be a cumbersome and costly arrangement. Unfortunately the scope of this bill did not include that. In the commentary on this bill we have mentioned this tabled it and flagged it as an issue that does need to be addressed in this House. 
Despite the fact that these bills do on the face of it seem to be fairly mundane there are a lot of quite important regulatory issues that lie beneath them. We commend these bills to the House.