Shanks Katrina: Regulatory Improvement Bill — First Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Regulatory Improvement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3048] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand today to support the first reading of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. First of all I would like to acknowledge Lianne Dalziel who started work on this bill a couple of years ago. It is unfortunate that she got the wheels spinning but could not get the rubber to hit the road. That is what this John Key - led Government is about—the rubber hitting the road. It is about actually getting things done actually delivering what he believes we should deliver. We can say as much as we like about putting processes in place but unless we actually manage to deliver legislation it does not mean a lot. I am pleased to stand here and support this bill. 
I am also pleased to acknowledge and support Rodney Hide the first Minister in this Parliament to be a Minister for Regulatory Reform. I think that says a lot about the commitment we have to reducing regulation in New Zealand. In fact there is a global trend at the moment to try to reduce regulation. I remember standing about a year ago to talk about regulations and particularly regulations for businesses. I remember quoting something along the lines that since 1999 more than 500 new regulations had been put in place but I am sure it is more than that. I think I am being conservative. I am sure the number is more than 500. That is a lot of new regulations being put in place. 
Regulations are constraints and regulations are costly to small business. Trevor Mallard may yawn but many businesses in his area of the Hutt are affected by regulations. He himself has been to see them and he knows how tied up they are by regulations by the reporting required by them and he knows the costs that those businesses incur as a result. Especially in our present economic environment businesses need to focus on their businesses not to spend time on form-filling and especially not duplicate form-filling which is what they are doing now. 
That is why this bill is very good. It is an omnibus bill that changes many different types of regulations. 
Simon Bridges 
: A quiet achiever. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: A quiet achiever it is. Overall these initiatives address regulatory duplication gaps administrative errors and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation that collectively create unnecessary compliance costs and uncertainty for businesses. This is what this legislation is about. It will help businesses in New Zealand to keep focused on what they need to be doing and that is to be focused on their businesses. 
There is one provision in particular that I would like to talk to and it relates to the Companies Act of 1993. I want to tell members why this provision helps the position and what we have done to get to this stage—to identify the problem and to know we have got it right. In 2006 the requirement for two classes of companies to file audited financial statements with the Registrar of Companies was removed from the Financial Reporting Act 1993. The two classes of companies are first companies 25 percent or more of which is overseas-owned provided that they do not exceed at least two of the following three criteria: annual revenue of $20 million total assets of $10 million and 50 full-time equivalent employees; and second New Zealand - incorporated companies that are subsidiaries of a New Zealand - incorporated company that is an immediate subsidiary of an overseas-incorporated company. Those are the types of companies that this provision addresses. 
The intention was to remove the requirement for those companies to have their financial statements audited. It is not clear whether that has been achieved as the Companies Act 1993 requires such companies to appoint an auditor. Requiring those companies to have their financial statements audited would impose an unnecessary cost as there is no rationale to have entities’ filing and auditing requirements out of alignment. To ensure that the policy intent of the audit and filing requirements in the Financial Reporting Act 1993 and the Companies Act 1993 can be implemented in a manner that eliminates unnecessary compliance costs the preferred option is to amend the Companies Act 1993 to make it clear that the two classes of company are not required to appoint an auditor or to have their financial statements audited. The two classes of companies will benefit from no longer being required to incur the cost of having their financial statements audited and that makes total sense when we align the two pieces of legislation. 
We consulted a number of lawyers and accountants who had requested that this amendment be made; they were consulted on it. So we have identified the problem and we have found a solution. There is duplication. There is no need for that duplication. If companies do not need to have audited accounts they certainly do not need to appoint an auditor. So the problem has been addressed. The sector was consulted; it came back and said it agreed with the provision and that is why we know we have this little provision absolutely right. That is the process we went through with all the other provisions in this bill to ensure that they were relevant to what each sector needs and relevant to the environment that companies are actually in. 
Many companies fall under this provision. I have not consulted them or asked them but I would imagine that a company like Rio Tinto Alcan would fall under it. It trades in US dollars it has contracts in the US and it is overseas-owned. Therefore it would fall under this provision which will save it money save it time and save it from having to jump over some hurdles that it does not have to jump over in order to do business in New Zealand. So that provision is one provision that is very good. 
Another relates to the Conservation Act 1987. Changes to the concessions provisions of that Act will reduce cost and the administrative burden at a saving of about $1000 per application. That might not seem much to many people but it is actually a lot of money when it is accumulated. The provision will allow permits to be granted for a term not exceeding 10 years instead of the current limit of 5 years. It will introduce discretion to not publicly notify the intent to issue licences up to a maximum of 10 years. 
Those changes are in the area of conservation. As members can see the areas are very varied. Next I could talk about changes to the Reserves Act 1977 the Designs Act 1953 or the Fisheries Act 1996. This is a very diverse bill. 
The provisions relating to the Designs Act allow for the restoration of lapsed copyright in a registered design where the lapse was because of an unintended failure to pay the renewal fee or to make the necessary application. In relation to the Fisheries Act 1996 we are removing penalty regimes applicable under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995 for non-payment of cost recovery levies as the Fisheries Act 1996 already contains an adequate penalty regime. Once again that is ironing out duplication of regulations that is not needed—going out and consulting the sector and actually doing something about the problem. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 is in the bill as well. The aim of the changes to that Act is to ensure that its policy intent can be more efficiently and effectively achieved with minimum compliance costs. 
As members can see the theme is exactly what it should be: to address regulatory duplication gaps administrative errors and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation that collectively create unnecessary compliance costs and uncertainty for business. The bill keeps within the scope of the Quality Regulation Review. Its provisions target poor implementation and administration of various regulatory frameworks. The great thing about the intent of the bill is that this process will happen every year now. We will go through regulations and pick out parts that are duplicated; we will identify them put together an omnibus bill and move forward with it and in that way we will ensure that slowly and over time we take out the inconsistencies. We are focused on doing that for the businesses of New Zealand. Thank you.