Ardern Jacinda: Regulatory Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Regulatory Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 22 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4699. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair and my thanks also go to the messengers this evening who have an extra layer of duties running microphones around the Chamber. It is my pleasure though to have the opportunity to speak to Part 5 of this bill the Regulatory Reform Bill. For all of the rhetoric that we have heard from across that side of the Chamber about how this bill is creating fundamental reform for the business community how it is cutting through red tape and how it is making the lives of small businesses that much easier of all of the elements of this bill this is probably the one where that argument may have some legitimacy for one particular industry. 
We heard at the very beginning much discussion from the member Sam Lotu-Iiga about saving $50000 per annum through regulation changes to—what was it? Animal or veterinary services or some other description. This particular amendment when put in place will save the Home Entertainment Association of New Zealand $50000 per week. Let me explain what this particular part of this bill does. It is one very small part found under Part 5. Clause 55 “Conditions relating to display of restricted publications” says: “Section 27(4)(a)(ii) is amended by omitting ‘affixed to’ and substituting ‘displayed on’.” This is the ultimate demonstration of unintended consequence in legislation. This particular small little clause means that when products are brought into New Zealand the Home Entertainment Association of New Zealand and parts of the music industry are not able to simply affix censorship details relevant to New Zealand on to the exterior of that product. Instead of just displaying it it must be affixed to the product itself leading to a very onerous process within the industry in order to do that. The simple use of “affix” instead of “display” is costing an industry $50000 per week. 
I would argue that that probably demonstrates where something like a Regulatory Reform Bill has a place in this Parliament. It allows us to quickly and easily rectify I think a consequence that no one in this Committee would intend because it is simply a bureaucratic nonsense: if you are displaying the censorship details then that should be sufficient whether they are affixed to the product itself or to a plastic sleeve on the outside. Surely this would have been the perfect vehicle to deal with this quickly and effectively but has it? Absolutely not. When did the Home Entertainment Association of New Zealand first raise this issue? I think members over that side of the Chamber may indeed be familiar with the fact that it was raised 3 years ago with the National Government. It was first raised not with John Banks—obviously not in Parliament at that time but this is a potted history; it was raised with Richard Worth who was in charge of this particular area of legislation at that time in May 2009. Since that time it was raised with Nathan Guy. It was then raised with Rodney Hide and eventually it found its way on to the lap of John Banks under the Regulatory Reform Bill the bill that was intended to swiftly move through Parliament areas of reform that are a nonsense such as this for this industry. 
How much is it then—quick calculation any of the Labour members—if we are looking at $50000 per week for almost over 3 years I think it would be? Well roughly we can apportion the cost of that Government’s neglect on this simple change down to $7 million—$7 million. Do you know that is almost as much as the Government spent on its roads of national significance publicity campaign—not quite but almost? It is more than what the Government has put aside in its Budget to deal with the recommendations in the white paper on vulnerable children. The industry has paid $7 million because that Government was neglectful in its duty to fix a simple area of nonsense of bureaucratic nonsense in our legislation. 
This Government could have dealt with it in another way. Let us not be under any illusion that somehow this was the only option that lay in front of the Government to deal with this particular area of law. Of course we have heard from my colleague Lianne Dalziel about other options that have existed in the past. Previously these kinds of changes would have been dealt with in a Statutes Amendment Bill potentially—a yearly omnibus bill that allows us to deal with substantive issues like this that are non-controversial. This would have been a perfect fit for a Statutes Amendment Bill. Why then I ask the Minister in the chair the Minister of Internal Affairs was this particular piece of Part 5 not put into a Statutes Amendment Bill 3 years ago when it was raised with Richard Worth when it was costing this industry $50000 per week? Why was it that that Minister at that time did not recommend that perhaps it might take some time to pull together this particular bill that perhaps some of the members ushering it through the House were more controversial members of Parliament and that it might not be the speediest of processes? Why did Richard Worth not raise that at that time and allow it to be put in a Statutes Amendment Bill? 
I would be interested in how many Statutes Amendment bills have passed since this issue was first raised in May 2009. Why did Nathan Guy not make that suggestion to the industry and indeed to the Minister of Justice at that time? Why did Rodney Hide not make that suggestion? Well I think with Rodney Hide we get a clue. I think we get a clue because at that point the Regulatory Reform Bill was—what was it called back then? It was called the Regulatory Improvement Bill or something like that. At that time regulatory reform was one of the main platforms that ACT had in this Parliament. That was one of the only platforms one of the only points of distinction that ACT members had as members in this House. The basis on which I imagine their coalition agreement was set was that they could have a Regulatory Reform Bill such as this. So it would not have been in their interest to suddenly remove swathes of their regulatory reform bill and put it into a Statutes Amendment Bill even though that would have saved the home entertainment industry and no doubt the music industry in excess of $7 million had that been done. This industry has paid $7 million for the ego of the ACT Party. That is what this comes down to: the ego of the ACT Party is the reason why this has not moved to another form of passage through this Parliament. 
I would challenge any member on that side of the Chamber to stand up and give me a legitimate explanation if this was a known issue why it was not dealt with in some other form much earlier in this debate because that is what the expectation would have been on this side of the Chamber. I have seen letters suggesting to Ministers that this be rushed through and it has stagnated for weeks at No. 16 No. 17 and at times at No. 20 on the Order Paper. And why did it stagnate earlier this year? Why did it sit there dormant even though it was considered to be relatively non-controversial even though it had support for instance on this side of the Chamber? Why? Well I would suggest that John Banks’ rather controversial time in this Chamber has actually hindered his ability to represent the people this bill would have a positive impact on through the passage of this bill through the House. 
As much as that Government may argue that John Banks is able to do his job as Minister with the cloud hanging over him over potential electoral fraud this bill proves that actually that is not the case. [ 
Interruption 
] If the member would like to challenge me on what cloud it is that hangs over Mr Banks then I welcome that—I do use the term loosely. But there is an impression that obviously the Government did not want to be challenged on whether or not Minister Banks was right to continue to hold his portfolios because if it was not concerned by that then it would have allowed the Minister to continue— 
Hon Member 
: Section 5 Part 5 please. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: —to pursue his Regulatory Reform Bill and Part 5 through this debating chamber much earlier than it has. It is only now that we are discussing Part 5 after many many weeks of Mr Banks finally being somewhat out of the spotlight. And that I believe is the only reason why we are now here debating clause 55 of this bill in Part 5 and the conditions relating to display of restricted publications. I urge the Government to continue the passage—