Ryall Tony: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Ryall Tony: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6526] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 It was most interesting to be in the House during the last few minutes of the Minister’s speech to hear how she operates to encourage cross-party support for any future bills she might bring to the House and I will comment on the involvement of New Zealand First later on in my contribution to this bill. 
I would like to draw the House’s attention to the regulatory impact and compliance cost statement attached to this bill. The innovation of such statements was apparently to quantify to New Zealand business and to consumers the costs that would come from implementing such policies and also the benefits that would flow to users as well. I must say that it is clear from reading the compliance cost statements in this bill that the Government defines the benefits very thinly. Some examples but not many are given that would justify some action that this Minister said was all about removing “unnecessary compliance costs”. 
I remind the House that this bill does not address any of the business community’s key concerns with regard to the regulatory cost introduced by this Labour Government. In general I remind members that Business New Zealand has estimated that the increased costs imposed by recent and prospective Government policy changes add about $44000 a year to the annual cost of a company employing just 20 staff. This House needs to know that this minority Labour Government has made over 15 increases to taxes levies excises and fees since 1999 on the basis of its pledge that there would be only one increase in taxes. That was the pledge that only 5 percent of New Zealanders would pay additional income tax. We know that is a hollow pledge because 15 percent of our population earn over that threshold and this Government is doing nothing to remedy that situation. As I said this bill does nothing about the 15 increases in taxes fees and levies that this Government which promised there would be only one new tax has delivered to New Zealanders. In fact in this Parliament we are looking at an additional tax on electricity consumers. This bill does nothing about that. We are also looking at an additional tax on the burps—a polite way of describing it—of farm animals which is another tax that this Government said it would not be bringing to Parliament but it is. 
The House will want to know that the National Bank’s small business monitor survey shows that regulation the cost of compliance is the biggest problem facing small business in New Zealand today. Small businesses say that together with compliance costs and regulation the Resource Management Act is one of the big compliance stumbling blocks in the economy. What in the bill does anything about what worries small businesses in New Zealand? Not a jot! Nothing in this bill will make much of a difference to small businesses in New Zealand and nothing in it will address the community’s concerns about the Resource Management Act. Similarly I have to advise the House that nothing in this bill addresses the significant problems businesses are facing from the Employment Relations Act the Human Rights Act the Health and Safety in Employment Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. These are the issues that small businesses in this country want addressed. If we are to have a Minister of Commerce come into this House and pony up a bill that she said “removes unnecessary compliances costs” then I would have thought that the compliance cost statement in that bill would clearly enunciate those changes. 
What is there in this bill that the Government says will make a saving? Well there are few things in it for big business and some things for the insurance industry. 
Dail Jones 
: Which it may not want! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes which it may not want. There are some things in it for the big businesses that issue prospectus documents. There is some stuff in here for the big businesses that are suffering some concerns with the Financial Reporting Act. 
However it is very interesting what is included in the bill. This Government which said that people who earn over $60000 a year are wealthy and that they can afford to pay extra taxes has changes its mind. This Government has introduced legislation that actually defines what a wealthy person is. This Government has decided what a wealthy person is. It says that a wealthy person has assets in excess of $2 million and an annual income in excess of $200000. So why is this Government hitting middle-income earners with higher personal tax rates? If people are wealthy and earn over $200000 a year why then are middle-income people suffering the added consequence of higher personal taxes under this Labour Government? The biggest compliance cost for working New Zealanders today is their income tax. We know that the high rate of inflation that this Government has tolerated in the last few years is pushing more and more New Zealanders up into the higher tax bracket. Nothing in this bill does anything about it. When this Government came to office it said that only 5 percent of New Zealanders would pay higher tax. What we know is that 15 percent of New Zealanders are paying higher tax. 
What would the House have expected to be in the Business Law Reform Bill? I would have thought we would be doing something about the burden that the Occupational Safety and Health Service is putting on small businesses. I would have thought we would have something about the difficulties that a rigid labour market and the Employment Relations Act make for businesses that want to open on statutory holidays. I would have thought we would be doing something about that. I would have thought we would be making some changes to the Human Rights Act to the Health and Safety in Employment Act and to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—the things that businesses say should be acted on as priority. Where are the changes to the Local Government Act to remove the burden on small businesses that are trying to get ahead? 
Where are the changes to the Resource Management Act the biggest stumbling block to investment in this country? Where are the changes that are putting Lockwood’s investment in the Rotorua district at risk—changes that should be made to the Resource Management Act to prevent silly and ridiculous objections under the Resource Management Act that have stopped Lockwood from making its investment there? Where are the changes that will make that? I will tell members where the changes are. They are in the National Party’s 16-point plan for changes to the Resource Management Act. We promoted those in the House and members opposite have opposed them. They should look at our 16-point plan to fix the Resource Management Act. That is the sort of thing that would have encouraged Lockwood to make its investment in the Mamaku in Rotorua. If that investment does not go ahead then the people of Rotorua have no one else to blame but the Labour Government because it voted against the changes to the Resource Management Act that would have ensured that investment would have gone ahead. The Government is responsible if there are problems with that investment. We should see more in a Business Law Reform Bill than has been promoted in this one.