Nash Stuart: Regulatory Improvement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Nash Stuart: Regulatory Improvement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 30 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:10160. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. Why? Because it is very much a common-sense bill. I will tell the House why I like the bill and then I will tell the House how it came about. 
The reason this bill is so good is that it provides a framework for the process of continuous legislative improvement. It makes it easier to get things done to do business to make regulatory change and to make legislative change in areas that affect the everyday lives of hard-working New Zealanders. The bill is an example of one of the many pieces of legislative innovation that Labour championed and brought to the House. As we all know this bill was introduced to the House by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. It is amazing that we are considering it under urgency about 2 years after it was first brought to the House but that is OK; at least it is coming into the House. Let us give credit where credit is due. I certainly know there will be many businesses out there that understand what this legislation represents. 
As the former Minister of Commerce and instigator of the process the Hon Lianne Dalziel said in one of her speeches in the House on this legislation: “It is really important that we have regular opportunity as a Parliament to tidy up those issues that are not perhaps insignificant enough to make it into a Statutes Amendment Bill but not significant enough to warrant a bill in their own right. Although it is fair to say that the amendments contained in the Regulatory Improvement Bill are not particularly dramatic the bill itself is another deliverable of the Quality Regulation Review.” That statement was from Lianne Dalziel and she did a fantastic job in bringing this legislation to the House and also chairing the Commerce Committee. I give my congratulations to her. The reason why I like this bill is that it makes progress. It is positive and represents the outcome of a plan that resulted from consultation. It is good legislation. 
Let me tell the House how this bill came about. It is a very good example of how to do things properly and make a difference in a way that is truly measurable informed and representative of the wishes of the core constituency our employers—the people of New Zealand. Let us start at the beginning. As I have already mentioned hats off to the Hon Lianne Dalziel because the Quality Regulation Review undertaken by former Minister Dalziel addressed regulatory barriers to business growth. We all know that the Labour Party is the party of business. This legislation is just another example of how Labour members go out there talk to businesses and implement the legislation that businesses want. We are for the many not the few; for the many businesses not the few—we all know that. 
The Quality Regulation Review was a broad review that looked at anomalies inconsistencies and duplications across the Government’s regulatory framework. As well as correcting errors the review aimed to develop ways of ensuring new rules were efficient from a business perspective. The review established that when businesses deal with the Government they do not see discreet agencies like the Inland Revenue Department the Accident Compensation Corporation and the Occupational Safety and Health Service of the Department of Labour. Rather they see a single entity: the Government. Accordingly businesses were frustrated by having to provide the same information over and over again to different agencies. The Quality Regulation Review confirmed that New Zealand’s regulatory environment is generally in good shape. Of course it would be in good shape; there were about 8 years of a Labour Government before this bill came into place to get the stuff sorted out that had been put into such disrepair by the Bolger Government. After 8 years the regulatory environment was in pretty good shape. New Zealand consistently ranked highly in the World Bank’s Doing Business database. In fact the 2010 global survey found that New Zealand is the second-easiest country in which to do business and I think we can thank the previous Labour Government for that. Adding to the positive reputation as a business partner that New Zealand enjoys we consistently rank highly under Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. We were first in 2009 and first equal many times before then. 
Business was closely involved in the review process. Business networks for example the chambers of commerce Business New Zealand the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and industry associations have acted as a conduit for business input into the review. In fact 130 individual businesses in the four sectors were interviewed about what they see as priorities and issues. The former Minister Lianne Dalziel heard from focus groups. Imagine setting up a focus group and actually talking to people! That is a novel approach for members on the Government side of the House but Labour did it the whole time during its 9 years in Government. 
The Minister set up these focus groups nationwide and we received submissions from individual businesses through the Business Consultation Website. It was a very involved and a very consultative process. It was not done under urgency; it was done in good time under proper procedure. Labour and Lianne Dalziel looked at the regulatory framework and at how new regulations were made from a business perspective. As well as introducing this bill the previous Government strengthened the regulatory impact analysis regime to ensure that future regulation properly identified the problem and looked at all options for resolving it. Once again Lianne Dalziel and the Labour Government went out and talked to people. They talked to the people who were affected by this sort of legislation. This is why this is such good legislation. 
Here is an example of a hard-working Minister who went out and listened to the people. She heard from people and then acted upon their recommendations. As we know this bill has gone through all the proper processes. The fact that the bill is going through under urgency is probably unfair because it was a long and involved process; in fact it should have been passed a year ago. But anyway here we are. That is what Labour does and Lianne Dalziel epitomises this work ethic. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: That’s seven mentions. 
STUART NASH 
: There was no sitting behind her desk I say to Sam. She was travelling the country talking to people and businesses and only then coming up with legislation that really makes a difference. The changes proposed in this bill cover a wide range of policy areas and legislation but they are all aimed at improving regulatory frameworks and reducing the compliance burden on business. I say thank you to Lianne Dalziel. To tell the truth—and I do not mean to be disrespectful here at all—I just cannot see Rodney Hide or Simon Power doing this. This bill would not be before the House if Messrs Hide and Power were in charge because I simply could not see them getting in their cars and travelling from Cape Reinga to Bluff consulting and talking. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Well if they had another car following. 
STUART NASH 
: The member is dead right—if there were two or three cars; a cavalcade. But they would not be talking to people because they would need all the cameras for the smile and wave photo opportunities. This was serious business of the Government; I could not see Mr Hide doing that. That is why this is a Labour bill. That is how we operate. We travel the country listening to the people. We sometimes get criticised for getting out there and talking to Kiwis up and down this wonderful country. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my friend Mr Nash but I wonder whether you could remind Mr Lotu-Iiga of Speaker’s ruling 8/4 which requires members not to refer to what is happening in the gallery. It is out of order and the member has done it at least twice. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that the ruling talks about speakers. The member was interjecting so he is not necessarily a speaker. Can I say—[ 
Interruption 
] Excuse me I am ruling here. Can we have some quiet please. 
The second point is that I have been a little bit concerned about the nature of the debate. The interjections have been responded to and we are getting a cross flow. Also members are referring to each other by their first name. I could have taken a point of order and straightened that up but I was hoping to let the speech flow so that we could get on with the business of the House. But having had the interruption I say that we will not refer to people in the gallery we will not refer to members by their first names and we will speak to this very interesting legislation which we are all seized with—the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I invite Stuart Nash to continue. 
STUART NASH 
: As I was saying we are public servants and we are employed to represent the will of the people so why would we not get out there? At the moment I am talking about the process of this bill how it came about and why it is such good legislation. I was saying that the reason why it is such good legislation is that we went out and talked to people. We talked to businesses up and down the country—well Lianne Dalziel did that. She sought feedback from wherever she was and as a consequence has come up with very very good legislation. I suppose that is evidenced by the fact that everyone in this House is supporting it. 
I come back to this bill. This is an omnibus bill that makes amendments to nine pieces of legislation with the object of improving the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business. As I was saying everyone knows that the Labour Party is the true party of business. It is the only party that has brought a bill to the House that actually reduces the compliance burden on business and they will be very thankful for that. 
The bill amends the Companies Act the Conservation Act the Designs Act the Fisheries Act the Gas Act the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act the Reserves Act and the Weights and Measures Act. There is a lot of good stuff in here. The reason why this legislation is here is that we went out and we talked to people. We asked them what they would like in this sort of bill. People said: “This is what we would like to see.” And this legislation is the result of that. 
As the Hon Lianne Dalziel said the intention is to have an annual Regulatory Improvement Bill. I hope the National Government sticks with that because every time there is one it makes life easier for companies to undertake their business. We should pay homage to the Hon Lianne Dalziel who as we all know chairs the Commerce Committee that came up with this wonderful legislation. In fact she is the only Labour chair of a select committee and I believe that is why this legislation is so good. As I said it is what she does differently. Many of the ongoing work programmes established as a result of the Quality Regulation Review address these interface issues. The reason I have outlined why I am supporting the Regulatory Improvement Bill— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that his time has expired.