Cosgrove Clayton: Regulatory Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Regulatory Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 22 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4672. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 This piece of legislation the Regulatory Reform Bill is in the name I believe of the Hon John Banks—no. Well actually it is very interesting because the bill still has for some reason—I do not know whether this is an error—the Hon Rodney Hide’s name on it. That casts a sort of a nightmarish shadow over the debate for— 
Kris Faafoi 
: A throwback. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes a sort of genetic throwback. Well we have got the genetic throwback actually. He replaced Mr Hide in Epsom of course. This is an interesting piece of legislation because the legislation that we are dealing with was brought in in the form of an omnibus bill and was part of the outcome of the Quality Regulation Review which was led and initiated by the previous Government. It is a bit I suppose like a Statutes Amendment Bill in some ways in that it tidies up a whole series of small technical amendments to a whole series of bills. 
It is interesting because without getting into detail this bill when we last debated it was in a slightly different form. Part of that bill that Mr Banks brought to the Parliament was to repeal 31 Acts that were spent—spent. I recall that when I spoke in the last debate on this I asked the Clerk because I am not a lawyer: “What is a spent Act?”. The Clerk was good enough to inform me that it is effectively an Act that does not exist in effect. It has no effect on anyone and has no compliance cost on any business or any individual. So one of Mr Banks’ great contributions as he was hauled back out of the political crypt and then got into some very sticky and gooey political stuff over the last 3 months—the great reformer that John Banks is; the Minister for Small Business—was to bring a bill into this House that repealed 31 Acts that do not exist. I say and I said last time and I did mean it that that takes a certain particular type of genius to achieve that in the annals of the Parliament. 
I say this: it is interesting that this Regulatory Reform Bill does have some merit. It deals with for instance the reclassification of videos DVDs and those sorts of things. I went and visited the movie people who produce these up in Auckland— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Part 1. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes I am coming to Part 1 absolutely. I am dealing with Part 1 and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Part 1 is about agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines. It is a long long way away from other things. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well only in interpretation though I would say. You could say you have a few animal control and veterinary medicines required over the other side of the Chamber. The point that I will jump at—and I will use those as the examples—is that yes this bill does deal with a large number of technical amendments and some of them are very worthwhile. But let us get a bit real about it. This bill does not deal for instance with the big issues of reform in terms of compliance costs for small business. Yes it deals with some components that will assist some small businesses but it does not go anywhere near the big slash-and-burn promotion that Rodney Hide and now his successor the Minister for Small Business John Banks said they would do. They came in and said that they would slash compliance costs. What did they actually do? They did something profound. They changed the name from the Regulatory Improvement Bill to the Regulatory Reform Bill. That was the great campaigning the great slash into the future that Mr Banks did. Then because they changed one word in the title they claim credit for this whole process. 
I just say as I said in the first debate that this is a good process—a heavyweight process—but a lightweight content. This is dressed up—it has a bit of weight to the bill—as something magnificent something that will reduce compliance costs; millions of dollars will flow from this and reduce compliance costs for small business. The truth is this is an omnibus bill. It tinkers around the edges and makes some technical amendments in the areas that we are debating now with Part 1 as you said Mr Chairman but it in no way actually addresses the big issues that Mr Banks said he was going to come in and deal with—you know really cutting through compliance costs saving money for small business. The guts of it is 31 Acts that do no exist he repeals. No wonder Mr Banks is now sort of appealing to the deity for help because his contribution as a Minister is marred with scandal but even over and above that is marred with a lack of work ethic. There is a lot of puffing a lot of blowing but he presents a bill to the House that will do very very little in a practical sense for small businesses whether they be in the agricultural field or in other sectors—a lot of bluster a lot of billowing but it never actually delivered the goods.