Curran Clare: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Curran Clare: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 23 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4754. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I started off talking in the House last night on the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill by saying that it was surreal. It was surreal speaking on a bill that repeals 31 Acts that no longer exist. Well last night certainly turned into a surreal experience when it was more like karaoke than normal practice of the House and we certainly had some challenges before us. Certainly parts of the discussion and debate last night deteriorated into farce due to the issues that we were confronted with. But the real reason why it was so surreal was because the Minister for Regulatory Reform who had brought this bill to the House—the latest Minister to bring this bill to the House—was John Banks who as been referenced by a number of speakers has certainly been suffering from documented memory loss. 
I just want to refer to what the previous speaker said on a couple of issues because he said that there have been a lot of niggles raised on this side of the House about this legislation and the issues that lie in behind. I would just like to say to him that they are more than niggles. This legislation is about tinkering with regulatory reform but the niggles that the members on that side of the House seem to have such an issue with are serious issues. They are issues of probity—the probity of a Minister and the ability of that Minister to actually bring legislation before the House and have credibility on that. They are issues about the principles of regulatory reform what those principles actually mean and whether or not the Minister who brought this legislation to the House has the credibility to bring those issues before the House. 
The member on the other side of the House also talked about a better policy environment. Well you know that is a bit of a joke really when you think about it because the better policy environment that we have at the moment includes things that that Minister who has brought this legislation to the House has got some sort of responsibility for. It includes charter schools—charter schools which are actually using taxpayers’ money and interfering with our important State school system. He has got memory loss. He has got memory loss about donations. This legislation does contain a lot of information and a lot of change around the probity of how organisations such as New Zealand credit unions operate. 
Cronyism is another major issue that is before this House and it is before this House again today. The latest issue of cronyism is around the appointment of Wayne Mapp’s private secretary to a position that is doubtful— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! We have had some very clear instruction as to what the topic that is acceptable to this debate is and the member has strayed outside it. I ask her to return to the third reading speech. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: I will turn to the legislation because the legislation in the third reading does make some important changes. 
I would like to reiterate that this legislation is actually legislation that came out of the work that was done by the previous Labour Government. This legislation sat on the Order Paper for several years and has not been progressed despite resulting in some quite significant money saving that could actually have already been taking place. There are four particular issues that it deals with. The Companies Act is amended and it will save money on using electronic shareholder participation. That could have been in place for the last 2 years if this Government had not lagged on bringing this legislation back to the House. The Unit Trusts Amendment Bill amends the Unit Trusts Act so that financial statements and accounts can be distributed electronically. We had a lot of discussion last night about amending the Films Videos and Publications Classifications Act. Millions of dollars could have been saved on this in the last couple of years. Then this legislation aligns inconsistency in all food-related Acts. So we support this legislation. It came out of work that we did and that we did in the previous Government. It should have been brought before this House before now and that Government and that Minister who brought it before the House have some serious issues.