Macindoe Tim: Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — First Reading 
Macindoe Tim: Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16911] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I have heard racing commentaries that were slower less excitable and less intense than that contribution. I can only assume that Ms Dalziel must moonlight at Riccarton racecourse on a Saturday afternoon. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: As a horse! 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Thank you Mr Williamson. What an entertaining if slightly angry tirade that was from the former Minister of Commerce. It was a breathless contribution. But methinks that it was a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. 
I was pleased to speak in the first reading debate on the Regulatory Reform Bill in the House on Tuesday afternoon and I am equally pleased to speak today in support of this important companion measure the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. Again I congratulate the Minister for Regulatory Reform the Hon Rodney Hide and his team of officials on the work they have done in bringing this bill to its first reading in this House. I make the point that this bill is a significant part of the Government’s strategy to lift New Zealand’s long-term economic growth create jobs boost incomes raise living standards and provide world-class public services. 
The explosion of bureaucracy and red tape that occurred under the previous Labour administration in the first decade of this century has had disastrous consequences for productivity and jobs in New Zealand. That is why the National-led Government is determined to reverse the trend and overcome the problem. It is why the Government made two clear commitments in the  
Government Statement on Regulation 
 which was released in August 2009. Those commitments are firstly that we will introduce new regulations only when we are satisfied that they are required reasonable and robust; and secondly that we will review existing regulations in order to identify and remove requirements that are unnecessary ineffective or excessively costly. 
This particular bill will repeal 31 Acts that have been identified as redundant as was envisaged when the  
Government Statement on Regulation 
 contained the pledge to identify and remove requirements that are unnecessary ineffective or excessively costly. Some of the Acts identified for repeal as we have just heard from Ms Dalziel are even older than most of the members opposite and like those members they have long since ceased to serve any useful purpose. Ms Dalziel read out some specific examples. They also include the Aid to Water-power Works Act 1910 and the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885. I think at least one of those measures was passed when Ms Dalziel was a junior member of this House so I understand that she may feel some grief at its passing not to mention understand that party’s apparent reluctance to see any red tape removed from our statute book and regulations. But it is well past time that those Acts went. 
There is a very serious purpose to this measure as the repeal of the 31 redundant Acts will minimise the potential for confusion that firms and individuals may experience. As a Government we are working to ensure that the statutes are up to date easy to comprehend and fit for purpose. Under the  
Government Statement on Regulation 
 Ministers are required to certify that all new regulation is consistent with the two principles I mentioned a moment ago. Their departments are required to provide annual regulatory plans of all known and anticipated proposals to introduce repeal or review legislation or regulation. To assist in that aim—and an example can be seen in the 31 Acts that have been identified for repeal in this bill—a process of scanning has been adopted. This scanning process will be followed by all departments which have been directed to look over the stock of legislation and regulations that they manage and assess whether they are still needed efficient and proportionate. The current Government’s initiative is designed to minimise the burden of regulation placed on individuals and firms. There is no doubt in my mind that it will be a significant and widely welcomed procedure. 
Notwithstanding the extraordinary contribution we heard a moment ago I expect that this measure will enjoy broad cross-party support in the House. For that reason I commend the bill to the House and say we should get on with it and not have quite as much excitable nonsense as a red herring.