Street Maryan: Third Readings 
Street Maryan: Third Readings 
[Volume:635;Page:6544] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this series of bills having had the privilege of sitting on the Commerce Committee that examined the Business Law Reform Bill as it then was which is now split into its composite parts. I risk repeating things that I said in the first and second readings and at the Committee stage of the Business Law Reform Bill. These bills—the five that are currently under discussion in their third reading—show again that the Labour-led Government is prepared to invest in the incremental improvement of the business legal environment by ensuring that legislation surrounding the operation of businesses is clear efficient and effective. To that end we have listened to the submissions from the business community and from business representatives who had a number of things to say but were to a person in favour of the kinds of reforms that these bills represent. 
The amendments are intended to clarify commercial law statutes by removing conflicts within and between existing legislation. They are also intended to remove unnecessary compliance costs. This is an issue that we on this side of the House have addressed previously because it is something that despite the mythology to the contrary is of great importance to us. If we can reduce unnecessary compliance requirements and costs we believe we should do so. There is no benefit to be gained in continuing to heap additional compliance costs upon businesses—especially upon small businesses. This set of bills arising out of the omnibus Business Law Reform Bill is designed to achieve that end. 
For example the Companies Amendment Bill proposes to exempt some overseas companies from some reporting requirements. This does not lessen the stringency of reporting requirements in this country but it does take away unnecessary requirements from companies that are based overseas but are trading within New Zealand. Similarly the Financial Reporting Amendment Bill is aimed at improving the workability of the financial reporting system. The Insurance Companies’ Deposits Amendment Bill will prohibit an entity incorporated in New Zealand from using the word “insurance” in its name if it does not offer insurance. That is one of those common-sense kinds of amendments that allow business operations to run smoothly and without impediment or unnecessary bureaucratic interference around the name and the application of that name within the New Zealand business context. Also the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill will give credit unions more room to grow their businesses. I welcome that because credit unions are frequently those organisations that ordinary New Zealanders are most likely to have access to for investment and return. The Dumping and Countervailing Duties Amendment Bill will allow the Minister of Commerce to specify the date from which new and reassessed rates of anti-dumping and countervailing duty will apply. 
One of the issues that I take up in particular relates to the report from the Regulations Review Committee. My colleague Russell Fairbrother commented on this before. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Ah! I’d like to hear about this. 
MARYAN STREET 
: The member opposite is suddenly alert and attentive at the mention of the Regulations Review Committee. This is because he chairs that committee. I am delighted that he has chosen to pay attention at this moment. 
 What is really important about the scrutiny that the Regulations Review Committee applies to legislation is that it protects the prerogative of the House to provide the ultimate scrutiny of the law. That is a very fundamental and critical democratic purpose of this House and of the legislation and the process surrounding legislation before it. So the Regulations Review Committee rightly considered what are basically the “Henry VIII” provisions in the Business Law Reform Bill as it then was. The members of the committee—including myself because I am also on that Regulations Review Committee—considered that it was worth drawing to the attention of the Commerce Committee that the delegated authority in the Business Law Reform Bill was such that the Commerce Committee was required to think about it again. Delegated legislation should not be allowed to creep into regulation without the scrutiny of the House so the Regulations Review Committee drew these provisions to the attention of the Commerce Committee and said: “What about this? Have a look. This isn’t really how things ought to go.” 
It was a very important debate and it was a very important issue that was brought to the attention of the Commerce Committee as my colleague Russell Fairbrother said previously. But on balance the Commerce Committee decided that the delegated authority was acceptable because the issues around it are to do with the size of a company—that is the number of people employed by the company the size of the assets of the company and so on—and the size of a company could easily be determined by regulation without further recourse to the House for amending primary legislation. In other words the risks of allowing this delegated regulation to go through were far outweighed by the convenience and the benefits of allowing this delegated authority to proceed in the form of regulation. But it is worth drawing to the attention of the House because the process is important. The checks and balances around legislation that comes before this House are important and the upholding of them through the very able and competent chairing of the Regulations Review Committee that my colleague opposite Dr Richard Worth embodies is also a significant contributor to the democratic process. 
The omnibus bill now broken up into the five component parts represents an incremental improvement in the business legislation environment and business groups and business owners throughout the country will welcome the passage of these five amendment bills.