3. Question No. 3—RegulationMARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister for RegulationQuestion No. 3—Regulation3. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister for Regulation: What problems if any does he hope to solve in his portfolio?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Thank you Mr Speaker and thank you to the member for the question. At its heart it is New Zealand's long-term disease of low productivity growth that deprives New Zealanders of not only prosperity but so many of the things that they would like to have. An element of that productivity problem is caused by excessive red tape and regulation which adds costs to doing everything from building a home to running an early childhood education centre. Part of that problem is the fact that it's very difficult for people to identify those who put the red tape and costs on to them. A Minister for Regulation will be changing the way that Government makes rules and allowing those who are the victims of red tape and regulation to see who is responsible and see a pathway out of the thicket that has stopped them growing their productivity.SPEAKER: That was a very long answer that had the indulgence that comes at the end of the year. Mark Cameron: Why is a Ministry for Regulation needed to reduce regulation?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: There's 34 public service departments. There's an estimated—and this is as close as Treasury can estimate—180 to 200 regulatory management systems and 10000 to 14000 public servants engaged in regulatory activity. Now I would have thought having one small department to give New Zealanders a chance of beating that back is a pretty good deal.Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Given that ensuring good legislative and regulatory design is already the role of Government departments the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee Treasury the Parliamentary Counsel Office the Regulations Review Committee subject matter select committees the Attorney-General and this House isn't it the case that a new department is simply duplicate excessive red tape and regulation and a waste of taxpayer's money that does not even meet his own standards of regulatory good management? SPEAKER: That was a question that matched the previous answer.Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well first of all I'd like to congratulate the member on becoming the spokesperson for regulation within the Labour Party. Now clearly the Labour Party believes that some as he would say duplication is necessary when he's got all the other spokespeople on the Opposition benches. This Government happens to believe that it is necessary to have somebody focused on regulation just as the Labour Party appears to think it's worth having him focused on it.Mark Cameron: For clarity does this mean he doesn't think we've been regulating to a high standard already?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That is exactly the point and you hear it up and down the country almost wherever you go. It's people who complain it takes longer to get permission to build a home than it does to actually build it. It's people who complain that it is almost impossible to get credit without jumping through the most inordinate number of hoops. It's people who just wanted to open kids' eyes to the world and yet find themselves—for example at an early childhood education centre—opening up alleging that they have 303 regulations to follow before they can welcome a kid through the door. Over successive Governments we have failed to regulate responsibly. We now have a Government that is going to take it seriously with—I understand for the first time—a Minister in Cabinet responsible for regulation.Mark Cameron: What are the areas he wants to focus on?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: While the Government has not made such decisions the coalition documents that formed the Government contemplate regulatory reviews going through sectors of what I might call victims of red tape and regulation" sector by sector. It contemplates early childhood education which I've already mentioned as being particularly over-regulated. It mentions the financial sector which I've already mentioned. It also mentions health workforce where there appears to be real difficulties getting people who are eminently qualified to perform a duty in New Zealand to be allowed to do so here—and we find them performing that duty for citizens of another country shortly after being rejected here. But I'm sure the member as the chair of the Primary Production Committee will be pleased to know the documents also consider a regulatory review of the agricultural sector. Thank you Mr Speaker."