Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): It is a pleasure to take a call on this the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Workplace Relations) Amendment Bill. I do want to start by praising Mr Bayly in particular although I would like to include Minister Bridges and I think Mr Young also deserves to be included in the praise. I think in their case less is more. Mr Bayly proved that with his 30-second contribution to the House and I do commend the Minister for taking all of 2 minutes to tell the people of New Zealand what is in this legislation why it is good for them and how it will change their lives. It was probably the best contribution I have heard from Minister Bridges in years or for at least as long as I have been in this House.So I would like to continue on this positive and collegial motif if you will and say that it is genuinely nice to speak in favour of Government legislation when New Zealand First agrees in the main with a large proportion of the legislation. I do accept for once—well not for once" but very rarely do I accept that the intent of the legislation as described by the Government is what will be achieved by the legislation it actually provides to the House. But in this case I have to say the intent is good and actually the legislation itself backs it up and does what the Government says it will.I think there is a reason for that. I think that we have to reflect on the fact that we are talking about legislation that originated from the—I think it was July; no June—June 2014 Productivity Commission's report. It made the note at the time of how difficult it is to repair and fix up legislation in the House. It takes time and it is quite difficult to get it advanced. We are talking about 20 pieces of legislation here that need—it was described as repairs and maintenance. I think it is fair to say that 2014—it has probably taken a few years too long for this Government to progress this legislation this far. We are talking about businesses and people who have missed out on potential flow-on benefits or who have had to bear a burden of extra or entrenched costs because this legislation had not been changed in a timely fashion.I have had several conversations with businesses and individuals about this legislation and I have to say what I have heard from them actually reinforced the submissions to the select committee. These amendments will achieve effectiveness and efficiency by clarifying and updating statutory provisions. That is a very rare and privileged thing for me to say in regard to Government legislation. These bills will reduce the chance of regulatory failure and the unintended consequences that can harm the well-being of New Zealanders. The amendment bills will improve the laws that affect business building and housing energy communications commerce and consumer affairs and workplace relations regulatory systems. In the main each of the changes are small and again I agree with the Government that they do not warrant stand-alone legislation. [Interruption] No no Mr Ross.There was an exception to that and actually the Local Government and Environment Committee progressed I think it was clause 20 of the commerce regulatory amendment bill which is around unit titles where the committee said that it was probably out of the mandate and that we should not go there. But to be fair to the select committee that was what was done.It seems to have worked with the tax legislation—this kind of pre-conversation and engagement with the public before the Government actually drafts these bills. These regulatory reform bills are a case in point where the Government did use—what did it call it—an exposure draft. It was an exposure draft being used effectively. Actually although I commend the Government's legislation on this day what I think it reflects is engagement with the community before it actually drafted the legislation. It actually listened—well not to the submitters but to the feedback from shareholders and stakeholders. And then it did not actually attempt to change that feedback too much because in the mind of the Government it was small and inconsequential as it were.With not too much time to go—it seems to have been a theme in the House to acknowledge in particular the changes to the Construction Contracts Act. New Zealand First and I acknowledge along with others—and actually I do wish to acknowledge individually—the work of Clayton Cosgrove on the select committee with regard to his efforts to broaden the way that the retention of money for subcontractors is protected.I do just want to dwell on that part of this legislation because it is worthy of note. New Zealand First has for a long time been making the call for those protections. The amount of engagement we have had—particularly with those subcontractors in Christchurch who have had to deal with you could say dodgy business practices especially the sole-operator business down in Christchurch and what it has meant to individuals' lives. If you will permit me Mr Assistant Speaker the committee did propose several changes that made it clear to apply for those retention obligations. From the end of this month I believe the Construction Contracts Act will require that retention of moneys which will be held under commercial construction contracts in trust. This ensures that developers and head contractors must protect retention money for the benefit of those subcontractors or payees.The feedback was fair though that it does make it hard on some of those big operators in terms of retention of that money in trust and then their working capital. But then again to the credit of the select committee it acknowledged that it would be expensive and difficult for some payers under the Construction Contracts Act requirements so they were given options basically. New Zealand First did support the committee's proposed amendments which will give two options—the second being an insurance or payment bond as an instrument to provide third-party protection for the retention of said money. The committee did make it clear that any financial instruments obtained must meet strict requirements.I will just take this brief opportunity to again acknowledge the Government's efforts here. These actually are good fix-up bills. They are good tidy-up bills. New Zealand First is pleased to for once commend legislation to the House. Thank you."