Dalziel Lianne: Regulatory Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Regulatory Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 22 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4680. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 It is very difficult to follow on from that incredible contribution from my colleague Clayton Cosgrove but I do want to follow on from him because I think he has absolutely nailed the core issue here. I was the chair of the Commerce Committee when this Regulatory Reform Bill which has taken such priority from this Government was referred to our committee on 15 February 2011. We set a closing date for submissions of April Fool’s Day 2011. We received and considered 20 submissions from interested groups and individuals and we heard six submissions. The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill was referred to the Commerce Committee on 17 February 2011. The closing date for submissions on that bill was also April Fool’s Day 2011 and we did not receive any submissions on that bill. We were able to report this bill back in good time and yet it has taken until now until this date—and I am not even sure what date we are up to now— 
Hon Member 
: 22 August. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —22 August 2012 and somehow this has become the Government’s top priority. I think that my colleague has actually identified one of the major problems that we have with this bill. 
I have been at a conference today. The New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development has had a very good conference today. I had the pleasure of hearing Rodney Hide speaking. Rodney Hide is of course the person whose name still appears on this bill because this bill was introduced by the Hon Rodney Hide. He made some interesting comments which I think are very relevant to this bill. He said that when he was in the Government he proposed that he should take control of all council budgets as the Minister of Local Government but that his Cabinet colleagues were not as “ballsy” as him. That was the description that he gave to the meeting today and it was greeted with a degree of incredulity—if that is the right word to use—in responding to such an assertion that Cabinet colleagues were not as ballsy as him to take all of the finance responsibilities off local government. When we actually look at what this former Minister did in practice he introduced the regulatory reform bill that did what this bill does which is very little indeed. I think my colleague Clayton Cosgrove has described that very well. So what we are seeing here is the Government trying to push this forward as a major innovation in a number of areas and yet we have had almost no examples from the speakers for the Government in support of this particular piece of legislation. 
Of course Part 1 amends the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997. I recall that this was the part of the bill that attracted some of the submissions and I think we actually heard a couple of those submissions. People were somewhat concerned at some of the amendments that were being suggested that may in fact involve the Director-General not being required to consult in a way that one would expect the Director-General to consult. 
But before I come to the specifics of this particular part I just want to comment on the point that was made by a number of those who submitted on the legislation as a whole which was that in many respects people were left with the concern that there was not proper attention being applied to the individual amendments to the particular pieces of legislation. I actually reject that assertion because I think that the concept of a regulatory reform bill—we would call it a regulatory improvements bill—is a very very good concept because what it does is it enables Parliament to deal with issues that may be vaguely controversial and so do not necessarily meet the test of a Statutes Amendment Bill and to remove some of the regulatory barriers to business growth in an integrated way rather than on a piecemeal basis. If you could imagine that we were debating the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act Amendment Bill then it probably would not have made it to the House because the Minister concerned would not have been able to persuade his colleagues that that alone was sufficient to warrant a high enough place on the legislative programme. So the Regulatory Improvement Bill as we called it—or the Regulatory Reform Bill as it was renamed by Rodney Hide when he was the Minister in order to make it look like he had done something different from the Government—is actually a good process to enable these things to be dealt with. 
This particular issue though did raise some concern. The concern that was raised was whether it was going to enable changes to be made to the recognition of agencies without the degree of consultation that one would normally expect under the particular provisions of the legislation. So what the bill actually does is it not only enables the Director-General to “recognise that person as an agency that is responsible for the management and carrying out of specified functions and activities.” but it also gives the power for that recognition process to be overturned. So the grant of recognition is not a permanent grant of recognition. It is an advantage—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is an advantage that ideally means—if anyone can hear what I am saying; I am getting the feeling that the sound system has been turned off. So I think that the point I would make is that it also enables the suspension of recognition to— 
Hon Member 
: See you Lianne. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Come on Mr Chair. Tell her. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I am happy to speak without anyone hearing what I have to say. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! I am sure that those people responsible for the sound system—we might be back on again are we? No. They are working on it. I ask the Committee to show a bit of decorum in the adversity that we are now facing without amplification and just bear that in mind. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Is it being broadcast? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have no idea whether it is being broadcast. It is not being amplified. I cannot answer that question. 
David Bennett 
: Well nobody’s listening anyway. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Yeah nobody’s listening anyway. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I can hear my colleague across the Chamber I can only presume—I am afraid that the member across the Chamber said that nobody was listening anyway. I am perfectly happy with that outcome—I really am—because I do not actually feel that anyone is taking the issue as seriously as I believe they should be taking the issue. This bill does not allow for the suspension of recognition of recognised agencies persons or parties. This was the issue that was raised with the select committee and I think that as a result of that we have a responsibility to take it seriously. If we do not take these matters seriously then there is no point in people making submissions to the select committees. If they make submissions to the select committees then I believe that this House has a responsibility to hear what they are saying and to actually take advantage of that. 
So Mr Chairman I am not sure why one is looking at one in that particular way— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well I can respond to a question the member asked a moment ago: is this being broadcast? The answer is affirmative. It is just the amplification that we are short of. 
Kris Faafoi 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have had word from people watching the TV that this is not being broadcast. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well I am talking about radio. 
Kris Faafoi 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Television is not being broadcast either I am being told. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It does not have to be. The Hon Lianne Dalziel—you have got about 2 minutes remaining. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Sorry? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: You have got 2 minutes of this call remaining. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The point that I was making is that the process of this legislation is an important one because it does enable us to deal with a range of regulatory improvements on a collective basis rather than on an individual basis. What I have been saying is that maybe the individual amendments may not have sufficient weight on their own to carry them across the line when one is talking about a legislative programme with the Government but what happens when you are able to collectivise them and put them into a single piece of legislation is that it enables the House to deal with them with them part by part within the context of a single piece of legislation and that can then cross the line. 
But the point that I am making is that this piece of legislation is not necessarily proceeding through the House in a timely fashion because we had it referred to us in February last year when I was still the chair of the Commerce Committee. There were people who made submissions on this who actually expected that this process would be used in a way that would facilitate the passage of the legislation in a timely fashion but this Government has completely ignored it. It is not taking it seriously. We are not getting the calls from the opposite side that would suggest that those members are treating this in the way that it should be treated. We are taking it seriously on this side of the Chamber because we think it is a very very important piece of legislation not only in terms of the individual parts but also in terms of the collective of what it represents as a whole— 
Louise Upston 
: Tell us about the part then. Tell us in detail about the part. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have told you about the part. It does not give the opportunity—