Gilmore Aaron: Regulatory Reform Bill — First Reading 
Gilmore Aaron: Regulatory Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16751] 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the Regulatory Reform Bill which is yet another plank in the National Government’s economic reform package. I will first talk about one of the wonderful things about this bill. A whole lot of particular examples in this bill actually help small to medium businesses and large businesses address their costs help employ more people and get our country growing again. I will spend a fair bit of my time on one particular example that exists in this bill which I am very happy to see in the bill. My local video shop has had problems with the labels that go on its DVDs. One wonders what sorts of problems there would be. Well quite a large Deaf community surrounds that video store. One of the particular issues that people in that community have is the ability to read and access the labels that exist. The labels have had to go on the inside cover of the DVDs; they have had to be affixed to rather than displayed upon the DVDs. 
One thing this bill does is allow some changes to the labelling that goes on videos and DVDs at the local video store and I think that is a good thing. It is an example of the little extra costs that that video store owner and many others up and down the country will no longer have to incur due to double labelling which takes time and effort and is a right utter pain—in his own words—for customers. This little change in itself might not mean anything to the people listening tonight unless they are particularly affected by that change but a change of two or three small words in a bill can mean a massive reduction in cost for those people in that community. I am very pleased. I spoke to some of the people affected and told them about this change. They were ecstatic. In fact I had to calm them down and tell them that I was not responsible for the change. But they promised me that they were very happy with the change and they thought it was a wonderful move. That change is made by a small clause in a bill that has a significant number of changes. 
This is the second regulatory reform bill that has been brought before this House. Last year we spoke about some of the changes in the first bill that related to the requirements to audit the accounts of companies of a certain size. One of the benefits of that change was a saving of $10 million to $15 million a year in terms of audit fees that would no longer be required for certain types of statutory accounts. I am pleased to report that I have spoken to a number of leading audit firms up and down New Zealand and sure enough that is what has happened. The auditors’ fees have dropped the accountants are very grumpy and the companies that pay the audit fees are very very happy. I think that is a wonderful thing. That money can be better spent on employing people innovating our businesses and growing our economy overall. 
Another example which the previous speaker spoke about is electronic filing and the receipt of documents. To most people that seems an absolute given. If one wants a piece of paper or a bit of information these days one goes to the Internet and asks for it. One literally puts it into one of the various search engines and one finds it. As a result of that one is sent things via email. The stupidity of the historical nature of some of the details of the law meant that that could not happen. That is another example of some of the strangeness that exists due to bits of regulation not keeping up with the way the economy has been progressing. I think that is a classic example of why a regulatory reform bill needs to be undertaken on an annual basis. Technology moves very very quickly. Mr Foss who is sitting in front of me has a new iPad which is a wonderful piece of technology. I know he speaks very well of it and of some of the applications that exist. Three years ago such technology did not exist and the ability to access certain documents as a shareholder would have been very difficult. I know that Mr Foss and other people around the country would very much welcome the ability to access shareholder voting and other documents electronically rather than have to get weighty bits of paper in the post which is estimated to cost in the order of millions of dollars. Those millions of dollars saved would be able to be reinvested in those things that matter such as training building people’s skills helping innovation and employing people in many other forms. 
One of the other aspects that members from the Labour Opposition have touched on that I want to talk about is the issue of the removal of the regulatory impact statement from the bill. The regulatory impact statement is a classic example of regulatory reform in itself. Regulatory impact statements are publicly available to anyone who wants to find them. The issue is whether they have to be attached to every single bill every single time. If they were then that would mean that every single bill would be longer and weightier. Not everybody wants to read the regulatory impact statements but they are publicly available and they are easy to find for those people who are interested in them. Not every person is interested in reading those documents but they are a useful document to read. 
Those are examples of reduced costs and administration that occur from a need to have regulatory reform and an ongoing process that exists. I will talk a little bit more about some of the other detailed issues. We have heard previous speakers from my side of the House talking about some of the crazy regulations that have existed and that needed to be changed. Examples were given particularly around offensive products that in their mind might be seen as dangerous such as Toilet Duck and Persil Surf. If they are the sorts of products that have the potential to be seen as dangerous and difficult in reality all that was really needed was changes in terms of the rules and regulations around labelling. That made some sense. But to take it to the far extent that the previous Labour-led Government did seemed a little bit over the top and related to a whole lot of unnecessary costs being incurred which did not make a lot of sense at all. 
The bill overall is about the impact of reducing red tape and costs to businesses particularly those small to medium sized businesses out there. I look forward to these bills coming forward every year and to being able to stand up every year and say that last year we made a change to a regulation and that this is what happened to certain businesses. My family are involved in many small businesses and every year they moan and groan about various bits of paper they have to fill in or bits of regulation they have to deal with. They are very unhappy about it and I get it in the ear every family birthday wedding Christmas and every other occasion. Having 56 cousins I get it quite a lot. The reality is that these sorts of changes every year will bring about additional positive changes to reduce the costs to Kiwi businesses so that there is more money to help employment and innovation in New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.