Regulatory Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Regulatory Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 22 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4672. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Regulatory Reform Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 This piece of legislation the Regulatory Reform Bill is in the name I believe of the Hon John Banks—no. Well actually it is very interesting because the bill still has for some reason—I do not know whether this is an error—the Hon Rodney Hide’s name on it. That casts a sort of a nightmarish shadow over the debate for— 
Kris Faafoi 
: A throwback. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes a sort of genetic throwback. Well we have got the genetic throwback actually. He replaced Mr Hide in Epsom of course. This is an interesting piece of legislation because the legislation that we are dealing with was brought in in the form of an omnibus bill and was part of the outcome of the Quality Regulation Review which was led and initiated by the previous Government. It is a bit I suppose like a Statutes Amendment Bill in some ways in that it tidies up a whole series of small technical amendments to a whole series of bills. 
It is interesting because without getting into detail this bill when we last debated it was in a slightly different form. Part of that bill that Mr Banks brought to the Parliament was to repeal 31 Acts that were spent—spent. I recall that when I spoke in the last debate on this I asked the Clerk because I am not a lawyer: “What is a spent Act?”. The Clerk was good enough to inform me that it is effectively an Act that does not exist in effect. It has no effect on anyone and has no compliance cost on any business or any individual. So one of Mr Banks’ great contributions as he was hauled back out of the political crypt and then got into some very sticky and gooey political stuff over the last 3 months—the great reformer that John Banks is; the Minister for Small Business—was to bring a bill into this House that repealed 31 Acts that do not exist. I say and I said last time and I did mean it that that takes a certain particular type of genius to achieve that in the annals of the Parliament. 
I say this: it is interesting that this Regulatory Reform Bill does have some merit. It deals with for instance the reclassification of videos DVDs and those sorts of things. I went and visited the movie people who produce these up in Auckland— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Part 1. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes I am coming to Part 1 absolutely. I am dealing with Part 1 and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Part 1 is about agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines. It is a long long way away from other things. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well only in interpretation though I would say. You could say you have a few animal control and veterinary medicines required over the other side of the Chamber. The point that I will jump at—and I will use those as the examples—is that yes this bill does deal with a large number of technical amendments and some of them are very worthwhile. But let us get a bit real about it. This bill does not deal for instance with the big issues of reform in terms of compliance costs for small business. Yes it deals with some components that will assist some small businesses but it does not go anywhere near the big slash-and-burn promotion that Rodney Hide and now his successor the Minister for Small Business John Banks said they would do. They came in and said that they would slash compliance costs. What did they actually do? They did something profound. They changed the name from the Regulatory Improvement Bill to the Regulatory Reform Bill. That was the great campaigning the great slash into the future that Mr Banks did. Then because they changed one word in the title they claim credit for this whole process. 
I just say as I said in the first debate that this is a good process—a heavyweight process—but a lightweight content. This is dressed up—it has a bit of weight to the bill—as something magnificent something that will reduce compliance costs; millions of dollars will flow from this and reduce compliance costs for small business. The truth is this is an omnibus bill. It tinkers around the edges and makes some technical amendments in the areas that we are debating now with Part 1 as you said Mr Chairman but it in no way actually addresses the big issues that Mr Banks said he was going to come in and deal with—you know really cutting through compliance costs saving money for small business. The guts of it is 31 Acts that do no exist he repeals. No wonder Mr Banks is now sort of appealing to the deity for help because his contribution as a Minister is marred with scandal but even over and above that is marred with a lack of work ethic. There is a lot of puffing a lot of blowing but he presents a bill to the House that will do very very little in a practical sense for small businesses whether they be in the agricultural field or in other sectors—a lot of bluster a lot of billowing but it never actually delivered the goods. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 It feels a little bit surreal speaking today in the Chamber on a bill that repeals 31 Acts that no longer exist the Regulatory Reform Bill especially when the Minister who has charge of that bill John Banks suffers from what can only be called documented memory loss. 
Brendan Horan 
: Amnesia. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Amnesia or documented memory loss as I choose to call it. Convenient memory loss not the Regulatory Reform Bill or any other bill in his name is his current claim to fame—forgetting whether he had met with Kim Dotcom whether he had flown his helicopter to Dotcom’s mansions and whether he had asked for been offered or received donations from that very same Mr Dotcom. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are on agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines—nothing to do with Dotcom. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Well in the circumstances I think it would be pertinent to ask whether the Minister actually remembers what is in the bill given the documented memory loss. I was going to suggest that we give him a wee test and ask whether he can name the 31 non-existent Acts that are being repealed. 
The bill is not actually even his bill originally. It was actually originally a Labour bill in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel and then it became Rodney Hide’s bill. Now it is John Banks’ bill. There is certainly nothing wrong with this bill and Labour supports it as we have through all of its stages to date but most of the changes in this bill are small and technical in nature and are hardly slashing red tape. 
Although it is all about I guess a bit of tinkering our view is that perhaps Mr Banks should have made its passage more worthwhile by introducing his regulatory reforms for schools into this bill. They are regulatory reforms that as Mr Banks has been known to say on many an occasion are all about removing red tape and slashing red tape. The reforms are about fundamentally changing the school system and introducing charter schools which were not in the policy of this Government going into the election. They do away with a number of what I am sure Mr Banks considers to be trivial and pesky regulations which the Prime Minister might say people should not be hung up on—the fact that teachers without qualifications will be able to teach New Zealand children at those charger schools. 
Since that announcement I think it was described by one academic as being a case of you can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig. It was a rebranding exercise that clearly demonstrates that the Government has recognised— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I want to refer to new section 44A of the Regulatory Reform Bill inserted by clause 11 which I believe is part of the part that we are debating. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Correct. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is very interesting because in this it talks about recognised agencies persons and classes of persons. Particularly I want to ask the Minister in the chair the Minister of Commerce what the ramifications of new section 44A(b) are because (b) states: “establishes a procedure for the recognition of persons or classes of persons who are to carry out specified functions and activities for the purposes of this Act;”. My question to the Minister—and I take it that the Minister in the chair the Hon Craig Foss is not Mr Banks and we take it that his memory is a lot better than Mr Banks’—is how it is that we can have a Minister of the Crown who has such a bad memory on all sorts of issues. 
This is very germane to this bill. How would he for instance recognise a person or classes of persons who carry out specific functions? How would the Minister for Small Business Mr Banks actually recognise it? Of course as we know through illustrative evidence the Minister—not the Minister in the chair to be fair—struggles to remember his own name or his reflection in the mirror whether he is on a helicopter or whether the brown envelope was a sack or a brown envelope. So I think it is very very germane. I would invite Minister Foss who I am sure has some insight into these things—or he may wish to take some advice from a specialist in amnesia or something like that; I do not know whether the Ministry of Health has those people—to state whether Mr Banks as the responsible Minister is actually accountable and can be held accountable for this particular provision in the legislation. 
I would have thought that in order to establish a procedure for the recognition of persons or classes of persons who carry out specific functions and activities for the purposes of this bill one would have to have a reasonable memory. One would have to know what day it is for instance or what one’s name is. One would have to recognise and remember these persons. I see Todd McClay nodding. He knows that this is an important part of this bill. You cannot have a bill implemented by a Minister who is incapable of remembering the basic facts—the basic facts—of any particular proposition. 
Brendan Horan 
: What time the House is debating his bill. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleague says what type of house he is entering. What he had for dinner. How big the bodyguard was. How big the envelope was. Whether he did declare it or whether he did not. These are all sort of evidential propositions that would lead somebody to believe that a Minister who is in charge of this may not be able to carry out and be accountable for the particular clauses in this section and that is a worry to the New Zealand public. 
That is a real worry because I think especially in our agriculture and our other— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. This debate is interrupted. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Minister of Consumer Affairs. Sadly Mr Banks is not in the chair. I am sure the ghost of John Banks out of the crypt is emanating around the Chamber somewhere and I am sure he is here. I know he is here somewhere in spirit if not in person. 
Louise Upston 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes a point of order and the member does not need to tell me what it is. I did give the member a look. He will desist from making references to the absence of people even if it is by implication. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I want to go back to where I concluded which was—I know my colleagues over there are interested in this—where we talk about new section 44A in new Part 3A “Recognised agencies persons and classes of persons”. This is an interesting piece of legislation because this was a piece of legislation developed by the Labour Government. It is akin I suppose to a Statutes Amendment Bill. It is an omnibus bill and it deals with a whole lot of technical amendments. 
The point I made before the break was that the bill if you look at it is actually in the name of—and I can refer to his absence—the Hon Rodney Hide “The Ghost Who Walks”. It is still in his name in the printed version. Maybe there has been a mistake. Mr Chairperson you might want to take advice from the Clerk. But you know he is “The Ghost Who Walks”. It is still in the Hon Rodney Hide’s— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Famous columnist. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am sorry? 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: He’s a famous columnist. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes apparently so—apparently so. 
What I say is that this is a heavyweight process developed by the previous Government to deal with a whole set of issues but sadly the Minister who inherited the bill the Hon John Banks—bit of an oxymoron that—came and made the same claim as his predecessor the Minister for Small Business who was then the Hon Rodney Hide that he was going to slash through red tape. Sadly this is mere tinkering—mere tinkering. For instance we know that as part of this legislation it repeals 31 spent Acts. 
As I said before the break at the last debate we had some weeks ago—because we know the Government has hidden this. Since Mr Banks has had his troubles it has been “deep six” buried hot riveted and welded down because the Government did not want anything with John Banks’ fingerprints all over it. Suddenly the police have said: “Well we know he’s got a bad memory.” He was not sure whether it was a sack or a brown envelope but he is back out of the crypt in the land of the living. We are going to deal— 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on this Regulatory Reform Bill and I also want to acknowledge the Minister John Banks for bringing this bill to the House. It was Rodney Hide’s bill originally but John Banks is continuing the good work that Rodney Hide did in the last term. It is about making New Zealand a better place to do business it is about making New Zealand a better place to live in and it is about improving the lives of all New Zealanders. The changes may seem small to some across the aisle there but to the industries that this bill impacts to the people whom they employ and to the consumers who buy their products they are significant indeed. 
This bill as has already been stated here tonight is about getting rid of unnecessary regulations and about making it easier for businesses to do business. 
Brendan Horan 
: Speak up. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: I want to thank Brendan Horan over there. He did not turn up to the rugby on Saturday after spending 1 minute on the field 2 months ago—he smiles over there—but his leader turned up and gave a speech without playing the game. But coming back to this bill we all know what the problem is. It is about the effects that outdated and irrelevant regulations continue to have on our economy. It is about growing the economy because our Government believes in focusing on the things that matter. It is not about gay marriage. It is about regulations. It is about jobs opportunities and the things that matter to New Zealanders whether it be health or education. I am pleased because in my electorate of Maungakiekie we have got companies that actually welcome this bill. I go around and talk to these companies. Last week I was at NCI packaging in Mount Wellington and the one thing they said to me was: “It’s about getting rid of compliance regulation.” Such regulations burden businesses unnecessarily and are ineffective. 
I want to come to the bill—I want to come to the bill. There is amendment to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 which Mr Cosgrove did not talk about but I want to say what it does. The Regulatory Reform Bill provides for greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997. What does it do Mr Cosgrove? Mr Cosgrove did not tell us in the last speech but what it does is it will remove the requirement for product manufacturers’ details to be included on the public register. That is one thing that it does. 
Secondly it also allows the Director-General to cancel non-compliant and obsolete trade name product registrations where those registrations and any required prerequisite approval for the product or a specific component or ingredient of a product have been revoked under other legislation. He has got that bit right. Mr Cosgrove has got that bit right. But it is also about where the registrant cannot be located or where non-compliance continues to follow suspension of the product’s registration. That is some of the stuff in Part 1 that we are amending. 
These amendments will also remove requirements that are unnecessary and excessively costly. How much is it? It is $50000 per year under this part of the bill—$50000 per year. Again they might scoff at that amount but that amount is still significant when you think over the long term of the amount of money that will be saved under this part of the bill. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How much? How much? 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: I said it is $50000 per year. Please listen when I speak; I give Mr Cosgrove the respect of listening to him when he speaks. 
So these amendments will really increase the consistency across food safety - related legislation and will reduce red tape costs. The ability to recognise a class under this Act will reduce potential compliance costs and minimise the disincentive for applicants to become recognised. That is what the bill does I say to Mr Cosgrove if he was wondering because he did not refer to the bill. 
Much of the poor regulation if I can summarise afflicts our businesses right across the board. Some of the regulations that we have had to amend certainly under this administration the National administration have been mistakes made under the previous regime. 
Hon Members 
: Oh oh! 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Oh and they laugh. Let me point out another piece of legislation that we had to amend under the last term. There was the financial advisers and financial service providers legislation— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Hang on—relevance? 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: —just as an example to draw an analogy about what we are doing compared with what the Labour Government did. We had to clean up this legislation because the finance company failures were hurtful. We had to make up for the mistakes that were made under the last Government. When we came in in 2009 we said that we would make two major commitments—two major commitments that pertain to Part 1 of the bill. We said that we would introduce new regulation only when we were satisfied that it is required reasonable and robust. I refer to the financial advisers legislation and I refer to the financial service providers legislation because in 2008 that legislation was passed and we had to amend it almost immediately. 
 The second part of our reform agenda was that we would review existing regulations in order to identify and remove requirements that were unnecessary ineffective or excessively costly and that is what this bill does. This bill amends those costly regulations that were put in under the last Government. So this is another promise by the National Government that we are fulfilling. 
Just to summarise this is another promise that we are fulfilling around reducing the costs of compliance reducing bureaucracy reducing red tape and promoting jobs and opportunities for all New Zealanders. That is what this National Government stands for. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The Hon Clayton Cosgrove. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I know—sadly Mr Chairperson there is no one else but me. I have got to say that that was a stunning speech. That was a stunning speech because poor old Sam Lotu-Iiga was brought out as the sacrificial lamb tonight to say that this Regulatory Reform Bill is a stunning bill because do you know what it does? It saves 50000 bucks a year! That is spread over however many small to medium sized enterprises there are. That is a lot of money to the average Kiwi I accept that and it is spread over the thousands of small to medium sized enterprises in this country. Poor old Sam Lotu-Iiga was reeled out. He drew the short straw in the caucus tonight. He is on the ginger ale. He has been told “Come down and try to justify this.” A bill from a Minister for Small Business who— 
Hon Member 
: By Banksy. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —in the name of his predecessor “The Ghost Who Walks”—Rodney Hide—who came in like Rodney Hide and said that he would slash through compliance costs. As I said some weeks ago Mr Banks must have been affected mortally by his officials who told him to come down. This was the big hit for John Banks because within this legislation we have 31 Acts that are going to be repealed which are spent Acts and which effectively do not exist. I think it takes a certain amount of intelligence and class to come up with a policy where you come down to the nation’s Parliament to expunge from the books 31 pieces of legislation that have no effect on anybody have no compliance costs and have no effect on any business—that takes a special type of person in my humble view. Then Sam Lotu-Iiga says: “The Government works on the things that matter.” Well by God can I ask the member what contribution is made by expunging from the books 31 Acts that effectively do not exist? Can I ask the member what contribution to small business is being made by saving a paltry $50000 per year—a paltry $50000 per year? 
But I want to turn to a very interesting section: new section 44A(b) in clause 11 and I did allude to this previously in the evening— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! That is in Part 3. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No I think if you check with your predecessor Lindsay Tisch he ruled—and I made a speech on this—that this is part of Part 1. So with respect until you have taken advice I will keep going. 
What we have got is section 44A(b) and what that states is that new Part 3A “establishes a procedure for the recognition of persons or classes of persons who are to carry out specified functions and activities for the purposes of this Act;”. Effectively what that means is you have got to have a damn good memory to recognise persons who have specific functions to carry out the Act. The difficulty we have is there is a lot of not only anecdotal evidence but quasi-judicial evidence I would wager to say about the Minister in charge of this bill. This is not the Minister in the chair Simon Bridges whose great policy that he brought to the select committee was based on clamping. I have said he is a great clamper this man—an absolutely great clamper. Wheel clamping was his great policy so I do not direct my comments at that member. I direct them to John Banks the Minister who owns this bill. 
The Minister who is accountable for this bill has to have a damn good memory in order to recognise agencies persons and classes of persons. The difficulty we have with this is that the Minister for Small Business John Banks cannot remember his own name. He cannot remember his own reflection who he is whether it was a sack or a brown envelope how big the bodyguard was whether it was a helicopter a Learjet or a MiG-16 what house he was in how big it was or how big the bodyguard was. So if the Minister who is accountable for implementing the provisions of section 44A(b) cannot remember his own name then I have a question for the Minister in the chair. I know he will have done some work on this. He will have consulted the Ministry of Health in respect of what one does in respect of amnesia. He will have consulted those officials those officials in high office and he will have an explanation for us. 
So I ask the Minister: can he give us a guarantee that the Minister administering this bill will recognise agencies persons and classes of persons under section 44A(b) who have specified functions and activities for the purposes of this Act? That is what worries the people of New Zealand. You cannot get $250000 a year the BMW the warrant the flash house and all the baubles of office if you cannot remember your own name. You are actually running a country here. This is serious. I say to Mr Banks and to the Minister in the chair that we would like an assurance around this. But I say in all seriousness that the Minister came in and said: “Well I am going to slash through compliance costs. I am going to make the big breakthrough. I am the impact player for the Parliament and this is lightweight lightweight content in a heavyweight process.” The heavyweight process was actually initiated by the last Government. 
I am sure Mr Banks will make a contribution tonight. I am sure he will be itching to given that he has had his clearances given that his memory has returned and given that he knows where he is who he is what he is and how much he took. I am sure he will wish to take a call now. I say to Simon Bridges to not be afraid Minister to vacate the chair for Mr Banks. Do not be afraid to do that because I know that this Parliament will want to hear from him. This Parliament will want assurances from him. But actually this Parliament will want to know why it is that he brings this sort of technical bill—after how many months in office—as the big hitter for ACT who was going to deregulate and to slash through red tape. This is the best he can do. 
I will acknowledge that there are a few pages in this bill. It probably weighs—I do not know—a quarter of a kilogram. It is 144 pages plus Supplementary Order Papers. There has been a bit of work in this a bit of ink and a bit of paper. But what does it actually do? Well the best we have heard is from Sam Lotu-Iiga and I will say that I feel sorry for Sam Lotu-Iiga. I really feel sorry for him. We have all been in his place where the whips have told us “Come down. It’s your turn. You’re out on the pole. They’re going to have a peck at you. They are going to have a go at you. But it’s your turn to take the hit for the Government and try to justify this.” We have all been there. Fair enough. And I like Sam. He is not a bad bloke. But I say this: the best he could do was say this bill will save $50000 per year. Well how many small to medium sized enterprises do we have in this country? Hundreds thousands of small to medium sized enterprises. Well if you spread 50 grand over all of them it is not a big contribution. 
I just say to the Government that he talked about growth did my colleague across the aisle. He talked about growing the economy—all objectives that we across the Chamber want to achieve. But I have got to say is this it—is this the 121st point of the 120-point plan? Is this the new one? Is this the big hit? Is this the best the Government can do? I know that it has buried this legislation. It has buried section 44A. It has buried the whole thing. We know for instance because I talked to the Hollywood guys that this legislation has cost the film producers $50000 a week every week because the classification issues have not been dealt with. The Government sacrificed them because it did not want any legislation with John Banks’ fingerprints on it. It did not want a profile for him. So suddenly after he has got his alleged clearances it is back in the Chamber and I know that the Minister will be itching—itching himself probably—to take a call in this debate. He will want to take a call. He will want to actually justify what he has done to earn his pay because I have got to say as an ex - small business person myself that this is piffle. This does nothing to help small business. 
It will help the Hollywood guys. It will save them $50000 a week and that is fair enough. That is a good thing. But for every carpenter plumber sparkie and small business person out there this is nothing. The Government is prepared to stand up—and we will keep the speeches; we will keep Sam Lotu-Iiga’s speeches—and say: “This is the best we can do. This is the best we can do thanks to John Banks.” I know Sam is going to go out to all these small businesses and hand them a copy of this bill and say: “Don’t you feel good about the National Government? Don’t you feel good about us? You should thank us. You should go down on bended knee and thank the National Government because this is what we have delivered for you.” Well I have got to say to my colleague over there that I sympathise. I would be saying to the whips: “I want leave for a month after this. I have made the ultimate sacrifice defending the indefensible.” And you have got to ask why it is that the Minister John Banks in the last few hours has not taken a call. Even “Cue Ball” over there is willing to have a go but Mr Banks will not take a call. 
If you are so proud of your performance if this is the big hit for small businesses if you are going to be carried aloft in every province of the country by the chambers of commerce saying what a wonderful human being and what a great man you are then surely as a Minister you would come down and take a call. Well I call on Mr Banks to take us through in detail how much it is going to save small business how many when—all those things. Because at the moment there will be a few people in agriculture reasonably happy about this for the odd label but your average Joe your average Kiwi on Struggle Street in a small business knows what this is. I said in the last contribution I made that this is bull—high-quality bull but it is bull none the less. New Zealanders and small businesses can smell it they know it and they know when they are being conned. I say to the National Party for God’s sake have some sort of righteous indignation over this. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 It is very difficult to follow on from that incredible contribution from my colleague Clayton Cosgrove but I do want to follow on from him because I think he has absolutely nailed the core issue here. I was the chair of the Commerce Committee when this Regulatory Reform Bill which has taken such priority from this Government was referred to our committee on 15 February 2011. We set a closing date for submissions of April Fool’s Day 2011. We received and considered 20 submissions from interested groups and individuals and we heard six submissions. The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill was referred to the Commerce Committee on 17 February 2011. The closing date for submissions on that bill was also April Fool’s Day 2011 and we did not receive any submissions on that bill. We were able to report this bill back in good time and yet it has taken until now until this date—and I am not even sure what date we are up to now— 
Hon Member 
: 22 August. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —22 August 2012 and somehow this has become the Government’s top priority. I think that my colleague has actually identified one of the major problems that we have with this bill. 
I have been at a conference today. The New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development has had a very good conference today. I had the pleasure of hearing Rodney Hide speaking. Rodney Hide is of course the person whose name still appears on this bill because this bill was introduced by the Hon Rodney Hide. He made some interesting comments which I think are very relevant to this bill. He said that when he was in the Government he proposed that he should take control of all council budgets as the Minister of Local Government but that his Cabinet colleagues were not as “ballsy” as him. That was the description that he gave to the meeting today and it was greeted with a degree of incredulity—if that is the right word to use—in responding to such an assertion that Cabinet colleagues were not as ballsy as him to take all of the finance responsibilities off local government. When we actually look at what this former Minister did in practice he introduced the regulatory reform bill that did what this bill does which is very little indeed. I think my colleague Clayton Cosgrove has described that very well. So what we are seeing here is the Government trying to push this forward as a major innovation in a number of areas and yet we have had almost no examples from the speakers for the Government in support of this particular piece of legislation. 
Of course Part 1 amends the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997. I recall that this was the part of the bill that attracted some of the submissions and I think we actually heard a couple of those submissions. People were somewhat concerned at some of the amendments that were being suggested that may in fact involve the Director-General not being required to consult in a way that one would expect the Director-General to consult. 
But before I come to the specifics of this particular part I just want to comment on the point that was made by a number of those who submitted on the legislation as a whole which was that in many respects people were left with the concern that there was not proper attention being applied to the individual amendments to the particular pieces of legislation. I actually reject that assertion because I think that the concept of a regulatory reform bill—we would call it a regulatory improvements bill—is a very very good concept because what it does is it enables Parliament to deal with issues that may be vaguely controversial and so do not necessarily meet the test of a Statutes Amendment Bill and to remove some of the regulatory barriers to business growth in an integrated way rather than on a piecemeal basis. If you could imagine that we were debating the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act Amendment Bill then it probably would not have made it to the House because the Minister concerned would not have been able to persuade his colleagues that that alone was sufficient to warrant a high enough place on the legislative programme. So the Regulatory Improvement Bill as we called it—or the Regulatory Reform Bill as it was renamed by Rodney Hide when he was the Minister in order to make it look like he had done something different from the Government—is actually a good process to enable these things to be dealt with. 
This particular issue though did raise some concern. The concern that was raised was whether it was going to enable changes to be made to the recognition of agencies without the degree of consultation that one would normally expect under the particular provisions of the legislation. So what the bill actually does is it not only enables the Director-General to “recognise that person as an agency that is responsible for the management and carrying out of specified functions and activities.” but it also gives the power for that recognition process to be overturned. So the grant of recognition is not a permanent grant of recognition. It is an advantage—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is an advantage that ideally means—if anyone can hear what I am saying; I am getting the feeling that the sound system has been turned off. So I think that the point I would make is that it also enables the suspension of recognition to— 
Hon Member 
: See you Lianne. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Come on Mr Chair. Tell her. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I am happy to speak without anyone hearing what I have to say. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! I am sure that those people responsible for the sound system—we might be back on again are we? No. They are working on it. I ask the Committee to show a bit of decorum in the adversity that we are now facing without amplification and just bear that in mind. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Is it being broadcast? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have no idea whether it is being broadcast. It is not being amplified. I cannot answer that question. 
David Bennett 
: Well nobody’s listening anyway. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Yeah nobody’s listening anyway. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I can hear my colleague across the Chamber I can only presume—I am afraid that the member across the Chamber said that nobody was listening anyway. I am perfectly happy with that outcome—I really am—because I do not actually feel that anyone is taking the issue as seriously as I believe they should be taking the issue. This bill does not allow for the suspension of recognition of recognised agencies persons or parties. This was the issue that was raised with the select committee and I think that as a result of that we have a responsibility to take it seriously. If we do not take these matters seriously then there is no point in people making submissions to the select committees. If they make submissions to the select committees then I believe that this House has a responsibility to hear what they are saying and to actually take advantage of that. 
So Mr Chairman I am not sure why one is looking at one in that particular way— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well I can respond to a question the member asked a moment ago: is this being broadcast? The answer is affirmative. It is just the amplification that we are short of. 
Kris Faafoi 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have had word from people watching the TV that this is not being broadcast. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well I am talking about radio. 
Kris Faafoi 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Television is not being broadcast either I am being told. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It does not have to be. The Hon Lianne Dalziel—you have got about 2 minutes remaining. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Sorry? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: You have got 2 minutes of this call remaining. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The point that I was making is that the process of this legislation is an important one because it does enable us to deal with a range of regulatory improvements on a collective basis rather than on an individual basis. What I have been saying is that maybe the individual amendments may not have sufficient weight on their own to carry them across the line when one is talking about a legislative programme with the Government but what happens when you are able to collectivise them and put them into a single piece of legislation is that it enables the House to deal with them with them part by part within the context of a single piece of legislation and that can then cross the line. 
But the point that I am making is that this piece of legislation is not necessarily proceeding through the House in a timely fashion because we had it referred to us in February last year when I was still the chair of the Commerce Committee. There were people who made submissions on this who actually expected that this process would be used in a way that would facilitate the passage of the legislation in a timely fashion but this Government has completely ignored it. It is not taking it seriously. We are not getting the calls from the opposite side that would suggest that those members are treating this in the way that it should be treated. We are taking it seriously on this side of the Chamber because we think it is a very very important piece of legislation not only in terms of the individual parts but also in terms of the collective of what it represents as a whole— 
Louise Upston 
: Tell us about the part then. Tell us in detail about the part. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have told you about the part. It does not give the opportunity— 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am aware that there may not be a requirement for this to be broadcast on the radio and on television but I am just wondering because of the technology whether this is being recorded for the purposes of  
Hansard 
 and whether this debate should continue if it is not being broadcast. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have had no indication that Hansard is under any difficulties and I assure the Committee that it is being broadcast on radio and that the television broadcast has sound. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call as the Minister in the chair. I want to say I have never heard a better speech from the member Lianne Dalziel. That is because I could not hear it. I also want to say that despite everything the other side has said this bill the Regulatory Reform Bill is a worthy bill. Actually it is important that we clear these sorts of statutes that have been sitting on the book that serve no purpose and that in fact get in the way of businesses. The statutes need to be taken off the books. We on this side of the Chamber wholeheartedly support this bill and think this bill is going to do a good job. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I think that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Consumer Affairs is actually mocking the reality of this situation because what he has referred to—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member but I have asked for some tolerance of the situation. Members will walk if they do not heed that. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: What the Minister did just then was to take a call and refer to the fact that a number of these statutes need to be taken off the book. That is the regulatory reform repeals part of the bill that we are debating here the Regulatory Reform Bill. I am happy you know because the Minister has raised that to respond to that. But every single one of those pieces of legislation— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague. There is a difficulty. I have just come down from my office and I have seen your rulings on the sound. I have come down to report to you that you are audible the Minister is audible— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am—sorry? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You are audible the Minister is audible but for some reason on this side of the Chamber my colleague is not. Labour’s acting whip took a number of calls and they were not audible. I can also confirm for you that it is not only the television. It is also radio being piped into the parliamentary system. My question to you is simply this: the proceedings of the House— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Speak up. Can’t hear you mate. Speak up. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Well there’s no point in having a point of order if we can’t hear it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Mr Henare I have cautioned you. You are on your last warning. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I cannot hear. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Right. The member will now leave the Chamber. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What for? I can’t hear. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member will leave the Chamber—you can hear that. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Only because you spoke up. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am waiting for the member to leave the Chamber. 
Hon Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am just aware that it appears to us that—now my microphone has started working— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes it is working. 
Hon Jo Goodhew 
: —but other microphones have not been working. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes—I am waiting for the member to leave. 
Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I do not intend politics in this one but I can clarify for my colleague that there appears to be a major problem unless it has been rectified since I walked downstairs. What I am saying to you Mr Chairman is that you interpreted that the radio is working; it is not. You are audible your colleague beside you is audible but everyone on this side of the Chamber is not. I have not heard a speech from your colleague—maybe they are—but there is a difficulty in that it is not being broadcast unless it has been rectified since I walked down to the Chamber. 
Hon Jo Goodhew 
: Mr Chair—oh I am on. But the member Tau Henare’s microphone was absolutely not on at any time. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No that was not a point of order. I am not taking that as a point of order. I have made myself quite clear. I had direct eye contact with the member and he did resist me in a way that necessitated some action after a warning. I have made it quite clear—I am taking advice as I sit here so I have not got any predetermined outcome about this. I just ask for some tolerance from members in the Chamber and I am not sure what is happening on this side now. There is some life that has come back in on this side to the audio system. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. So I am just going to ask for some tolerance. It is an instruction that the House should be broadcast but not a requirement if you can understand the Standing Orders on that point. It is preferable—I have had a look at the Standing Orders. In the absence of that if we show some accommodation to each other we can hear what is going on in here. I thank the member. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you because—[ 
Loss of audio 
]—in an appropriate way. My question which maybe you could answer is that if it cannot be broadcast in the media—i.e. television or radio—should that not be rectified before proceedings continue? That is one problem. The second problem is I—[ 
Loss of audio 
] Mr Henare has illustrated the third problem: some members cannot hear the contributions of others so is it appropriate that the Committee taihoa for a moment until the technical difficulties can be fixed? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Let me just tell members that the Standing Order I referred to is Standing Order 44(1) which states: “The proceedings of the House are broadcast on radio during all the hours of sitting”. Nowhere in the Standing Orders is there a requirement that says that if they cannot be broadcast the proceedings of the House will be adjourned. There is no instruction in that form. Having worked with the difficulties that we are in the Clerk has brought us a microphone which we will pass to any member who has the call. They can use a handheld microphone. That is the best we can do in the circumstances until it is rectified. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. With respect Mr Chair I do not want to in any way impinge on you as I think what you are doing is absolutely appropriate. But I think it is worth you seeking some advice from a higher authority—if you can hear me Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think others should hear you. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Yes I will approach the bench. 
Hon Member 
: “Karaoke Cosgrove”. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I do commit to the Committee that I will not break into karaoke. I do not wish to impinge on you because I think you are trying to navigate through this. But I think there is an issue as to whether the House should be suspended until this problem is worked through. I am happy to move to recall the Speaker but if I do that I do not want any imputation put on the fact that I am challenging your integrity because I think you have acted absolutely admirably. But I would suggest and I am happy to move that we recall the Speaker to just get some advice on this. But I do not want to impinge on your integrity. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will respond to that. We now have a microphone that works. I know that it is not the best that it has to be moved around— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is it being broadcast? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes it is. You are booming loud and clear here and my presumption is that it is being— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: But on the television and the radio? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I cannot answer that question. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been able to follow the progress of this debate on television but I got the feeling also that some of the things that were being said by you Mr Chair were being broadcast as well. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Can I simply request the following: that if we cannot get verification that it is being broadcast through the normal medium could we seek advice from the Speaker on the premise that I do not wish—normally when the Speaker is recalled it is a negative conclusion on the Chair and I want nothing drawn from that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is understood. The member has only to move that the Speaker be recalled. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Chairperson report progress to obtain the Speaker’s ruling regarding the failure of the sound system and whether the Committee could proceed while not being broadcast. 
Motion agreed to. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No we have now moved to recall the Speaker. We are past that. 
House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Mr Speaker the Committee finds itself in—[ 
Interruption 
] Is this microphone going? Mr Speaker I think the technical difficulties that the Committee has been enduring are now apparent by the activities that took place when you came in. About 15 minutes ago there was a bit of a pop and the sound went dead in here. I asked for the Committee to show some tolerance and by and large it did that but then we became aware that various parts of the Chamber were being broadcast on radio and on TV without pictures or at least that is what was reported. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Oh sorry Mr Speaker. Consequently an issue has arisen: Standing Order 44(1) which states: “The proceedings of the House are broadcast on radio during all hours of sitting …” became a bit of an issue. We are not entirely sure in how many positions around the Chamber that was happening. The Clerk arrived with the temporary microphone which I have now seen. We are still not exactly sure how widely this is being broadcast. As you are aware sound is being amplified inside the Chamber. So it was determined that your advice be sought on this and that possibly also gives some time for remedial action to take place technically. We look forward to your advice on the matter Mr Speaker. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I just reiterate my commitment: I have agreed not to sing. I want to say for the record that normally when the Speaker is recalled it is a negative on the Chair. The Chair has done an admirable job to try to navigate through this. The simple proposition is that I and other colleagues have ascertained that from time to time the Chair and the Minister in the chair could be heard. A colleague over there could be heard at one point. I sat up in my office after having made a speech and a number of colleagues the acting whip and my colleague Lianne Dalziel could not be heard audibly. A member was asked to leave the Chamber for a variety of reasons including perhaps that he could not hear. The question we simply wanted to ask and be answered—and this is no implication at all on the Chair—is whether the proceedings of the House should continue whilst there is no audible noise through Radio New Zealand the broadcasting system our internal system or the television broadcast. We have not checked the internet. It cannot be heard. It may be that it is sporadic or patchy through here but we wish to seek your advice in respect of that. 
LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I have not found anywhere in the Standing Orders that there is a requirement for Parliament to be broadcast. Surely the debate occurs within this Chamber. I would like to request that we continue. 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 I think from the Opposition side we are most concerned that the Opposition is not being heard but not just in New Zealand because across the world people are live streaming. Admittedly in Finland and Hungary they have turned off from New Zealand but we do not want the rest of the world to think we cannot operate a simple sound system. So please take that into consideration in your ruling. Thank you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members for their comments. 
Clare Curran 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does Clare Curran wish to speak? 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 The member made a very valid point around the importance of the internet. I think this has actually thrown into relief that the issue we are dealing with here particularly on this side of the House is that members cannot be heard. Whether it is just the Opposition side of the House or not it is unknown whether or not they are able to be heard on radio. The member made a very important point about the internet and the importance of being able to communicate the proceedings of Parliament via the internet. The other point I would like to make is that since the sound went off there have been issues of order in the House and one member has been ejected because of the amount of disorder. So I would ask you to take that into account. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I think it would set a dangerous precedent to state that unless Parliament was being broadcast by television and radio it could not continue with its important proceedings. The Chair of the Committee quite appropriately ruled that the Committee should be able to continue. In fact this Parliament performed for over 70 years without microphones and without radio and the precedent that would be set in the event that you rule that we must have Parliament broadcast for it to be able to proceed with the business of the House in my view would be quite detrimental. With a little bit of courtesy there is no reason why Parliament cannot continue with its important functions. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 There are two points. Firstly we seem to be in a vacuum here in terms of anyone with technical expertise who has come and advised us. Much of this seems to be done just from various people’s opinions. I am somewhat aghast that perhaps the Chairman and the Speaker have just simply not asked the technical people to advise what the situation is. Is it a temporary situation or could this be ongoing? If it is ongoing then obviously it causes a more difficult situation. Secondly I think the point that has been made by several of my colleagues is the fact that one side of the House still appears to have a reasonable amount of amplification although the Opposition side of the House does not. Therefore if it was evenly balanced it would not be too much of a problem. But the fact that the people out there who are listening to the broadcast are simply not hearing the Opposition viewpoint does compromise the whole debate and therefore on the basis that it compromises the whole debate and that only the Government’s position essentially can be heard it must put the whole debate into question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear finally from the Hon Simon Bridges. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I appreciate that we want to get on with this but it is a relatively rare point that we are not likely to deal with commonly. I concur with Louise Upston. I do not think there is a rule directly on this. I would also just make the point which is really related to the point that the Hon Dr Nick Smith made that this is a debating chamber and the central point of this Chamber is that members can hear each other. We can now do that with that microphone. Anything else I would suggest is really ancillary to that point. The other point I would make which relates is that because this is now being done by microphone it is not as if Hansard cannot transcribe and record this. It can do that. So anyone who wishes to following this debate will be able to see what is said verbatim. In fact people outside of this Chamber whether it is being broadcast live or not will be able to pick up what is said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I appreciate your restraint in this difficult situation. I must say—if I could be a little bit facetious for a moment myself—I was watching this while chairing another meeting and when I saw my colleague here the Hon Clayton Cosgrove with a microphone in his hand I wondered whether he was actually singing to the Committee. I was most impressed. I thought this was a new talent that one of my parliamentary colleagues was demonstrating to the Committee. Little did I realise the reality of the difficulties being confronted by members. 
I think some of the points being raised by members are very important. Were the situation to result in some parties’ contributions to this debate being heard in public and other parties’ contributions not being heard that would be a pretty unacceptable situation. That would result in the views of one party getting through to the public and another party’s views not getting through and I think it would be hard to argue that that was not an unacceptable situation. Some members have asked why this technically cannot be fixed up right away. Apparently one of the problems is that the system is highly computerised. Work is going on at this moment to try to rectify the problem. The first job was to find out exactly what was going wrong. Now work is going on to rectify it but it will not be done immediately. 
My advice is that sound is getting through on Radio New Zealand television and web streaming—members raised that issue earlier. But what would be needed from members is a preparedness to be a little helpful in this situation. Where the microphones are working—which seems to be more on the Government side of the House—that is fine but what I would ask the Chair of the Committee to do is to allow a little more time for one of these handheld mikes to be made available to all other members because where they are being used the sound is being transmitted I am advised and is being received over radio television and web streaming. 
So if members could just be a little more—well not more cooperative; you have been very cooperative so far. I ask members to be prepared to be that little bit cooperative during these difficult times and perhaps Mr Chairman you could make sure that the time on a member’s contribution during the Committee stage is set from the time the member has a microphone in their hand. I think under those circumstances as long as the public is getting equal feed from all sides of the Chamber—and that is I am advised what will happen if these handheld mikes are used where the desk mikes are not working—and if we just make sure time is allowed no member will be disadvantaged through waiting for a handheld mike to be delivered. And I ask the support staff here in the House to assist with making sure these microphones are delivered to members as quickly as possible. I really appreciate members’ preparedness to be constructive during a difficult time. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for that. I just wanted to touch on one point. You have been advised that the sound is audible through the normal systems—correct? My question simply would be this. If there is a failure later this evening or whenever what is the position of the House if that does drop out? I would just like some guidance so we do not have to go through this again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Obviously we do not know whether that is going to happen but to me the issue that I would find—and this is me as Speaker almost thinking off the top of my head here—unacceptable would be for some parties in the House some members in this House to be heard by the public during a debate when other members cannot be heard. That to me would be an unsatisfactory situation. However members have also pointed out that there is no Standing Order requirement for the broadcasts. If in fact there was unfairness on what was going through it would be totally within the Standing Orders of the House to close down the broadcasts. As members have pointed out the rules cover the debate in this House. They facilitate the broadcasting of the debate. 
But to me the thing that would be unreasonable would be if any one member’s or party’s views were getting through to the public on important issues and other members’ or parties’ views were not. I personally would find that unreasonable and I stress I am talking off the top of my head here. It would seem to me that the only fair way to deal with that would be to actually close down that unbalanced broadcast. I do not know but I imagine that it is technically possible to close it down. I think that would be the most sensible way to deal with that situation. The Standing Orders do not require the broadcast; they facilitate it. If it is an unfair broadcast I think we should not allow an unfair broadcast. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point of order that I raise is in regard to a tweet from Parliament today from @ParliamentNZ which states: “Sound problems hit Parliament again. Dalziel plows on undeterred and Minister in chair does not realise his mike is on”. And that was the point my colleague Clayton Cosgrove made when he came down to the Chamber which is that the broadcast system was picking up the Minister in the chair’s mike but not anyone else’s mike. That does indicate that in fact there is an unfair disadvantage in that some members are able to be heard publicly but not others. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to make sure that the Minister in the chair is aware of this issue. I think it is pretty easy to tell which mikes are working and I think we must make sure that before a member’s time has started the Chair of the Committee is satisfied that the member’s microphone is working and then— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: And it’s being broadcast. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because if it is working it will be broadcast. If the— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Publicly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: My advice is that where there is a microphone that is working it will get through in the public system. That is my advice. So if a member starts to speak—and it is quickly obvious whether the microphone is working or not—I would ask that the time be stopped until the member is delivered a hand mike. Then the broadcast is fair to all members in that their contributions to the debate are getting through in a fair and reasonable manner. I do apologise. I apologise to all members in the House. This is unsatisfactory. It is beyond the control I think of any of us but I appreciate very much your cooperation during a difficult time. I want to make sure no member is disadvantaged by it. And I ask the Chair of the Committee to ensure for me that no member is disadvantaged by it. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a separate point of order. Prior to your being recalled Mr Cosgrove was speaking in the Chamber and the Hon Tau Henare was called upon to leave the Chamber. I was sitting closer to both the Chair and the speaker at the time in the debate and it was not clear to me—let alone I would assume Mr Henare—whether it was a speech or a point of order that was made. We have heard from members in the points of order previous to this that there was difficulty with microphones on the Opposition side of the House and that it was extremely difficult to be heard. Indeed the Chair at the time said that he was able to see Mr Henare but actually to be able to see somebody and to hear the instruction on whether it was a point of order or a speech I would suggest are different things so I wonder— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I see where the member is going and I must point out to him and to save the House’s time that that is a matter for the Chair of the Committee. The Speaker cannot interfere in that matter. That is a matter for the Chair of the Committee. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to prolong this any further and I think it is probably a discussion that will need to happen in another forum. This is not the first time the House has had difficulties with the sound system. In fact we have encountered difficulties before where everything that occurred in the debating chamber was broadcast whether the member’s microphone was audible within the Chamber or not. I want to raise with you that I think this is becoming quite a problem and I would like some assurance that it is going to be dealt with finally so that we do not have these recurring problems. It has been a recurring problem the entire time I have been a member of Parliament—4 years—since I understand this current sound system was put in place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member’s point. Every endeavour will be made to ensure that it does not happen again. Sadly modern electronic systems are not totally foolproof yet. But the member makes a perfectly good point. Every effort will be made to ensure we are not let down like this again. I do apologise to members. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 1 Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 ( 
continued 
)  
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The House in Committee for the Regulatory Reform Bill is resumed. I think the Hon Lianne Dalziel had the call and she has just over 4 minutes remaining. I think I should respond to ejecting someone from the Chamber. I have been informed that this microphone has been live the whole time. Whether or not it was having spent my formative years as a drum major I am quite sure the member heard me. The reason he got ejected was for interjecting while I was on my feet and he clearly can see even if he cannot hear. But given the complexities that the House has been in he is able to return to the Chamber at 9 p.m. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I just want to clarify the amount of time that I have to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Four minutes. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Four minutes? So I have not lost anything as a result of this? OK just checking. I think that before this interruption I was identifying that the Minister of Consumer Affairs himself had spoken with probably a broad-brush approach on the whole regulatory reform repeals element of this legislation which he said gets rid of a whole stack of statutes that are holding business back. They are costing business money and they want to cut through the red tape in order to get things done. Not one single piece of that legislation exists in practice. This is a tidy-up piece of legislation that he is referring to which simply removes things from the books that are printed there in technical fact but have no practical impact at all. So it really is not a very good argument for the Minister to make and I am disappointed actually that he would make those assertions in this Committee because they really do not make any difference to the sum whole of any of the compliance issues that business might face. 
The removal through a repeal Act of legislation might remove some printed words from the statute book but it does not do anything practical to assist the small to medium sized enterprises of this country. I think to get up and say in this Committee that that is what this legislation is all about when in actual fact it does not make any practical difference—I am all for the tidying up of the legislation but I just do not think that the Minister should stand in this Committee on this part of this bill in order to make that point when I do not think it is particularly relevant to this particular part. I also do not think that it is relevant to the debate that we are having. It is not relevant and to assert that small businesses are going to be better off as a result of the changes that this legislation is making is simply an inadequate response from the Government. 
I do not think that the Government has been taking this bill seriously. That it could allow this bill to be introduced in February last year—I mean we have had a general election since then. I was the chair of the Commerce Committee and we treated this seriously. We actually dealt with it relatively quickly. We reported it back to this House in a timely fashion and this is what we are treated with. We are down to August 2012. So the Government does not think that this is very important and then we get these platitudinous speeches in the Committee from—what is the name of the guy from Auckland? 
Rino Tirikatene 
: Sam. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Sam Lotu-Iiga was saying that this is the best thing since sliced bread and it is a fantastic Government that has been able to deliver it. Yet you just cannot for a minute see that this Government has shown an ounce of interest in this particular matter which actually does verify the fact that this is not a piece of legislation that is going to have a major impact at all. 
That being said I am pleased with the approach. But it is the approach that we developed when we were in Government. We said you need to have a particular format for regulatory upgrades that enable a number of regulatory measures to be dealt with in a single hit rather than dealing with them as individual pieces of legislation. The reason that we went down this track is we knew that Ministers were going to struggle to get their colleagues to agree and that the agricultural compounds amendment bill or whatever it is—the amendment to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997—was not going to get the standing it needed. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would like to speak to Part 1 of the Regulatory Reform Bill again and take a little issue with my colleague Clayton Cosgrove. Although I support the vast bulk of what he said on the bill in his previous erudite speech I would like to say that Labour is the party of restorative justice. It stands for restorative justice and rehabilitation. I think that is a really important point to bear in mind when we are talking about the issue of documented memory loss and the effect that that can have. 
In particular I refer to section 44A(b) in clause 11 and the point that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove was making around whether or not the Minister in charge of this bill John Banks could actually establish “a procedure for the recognition of persons or classes of persons who are to carry out specified functions and activities …”. It was unknown whether or not he could actually recognise those people and whether he would have the memory capability to do so. I think given that we know that there is a phenomenon known as recovered memory syndrome that it is possible that he could actually recover his memory and be able to fulfil and carry out his functions as the Minister in charge of this legislation. In particular I refer to section 44A(c) in clause 11 which says this part “sets out the duties of recognised agencies recognised persons and recognised classes and when their recognition can be suspended or withdrawn;”. The bill goes on to talk a bit more about recognition and the importance of recognition and recognised agencies recognised persons and recognised classes. I do take issue with what Clayton Cosgrove said around the ability of the Hon John Banks to actually recognise those things and whether or not he was able to. 
I would like to follow on from my colleague Lianne Dalziel who chaired the Commerce Committee that saw this bill through and did a very good job. I am sure that all of the erstwhile members of the Commerce Committee in the last term would agree that she did a very good job on that. 
The summary of changes includes quite an important issue—which we have not discussed tonight—around amending the Companies Act 1993 to allow companies to choose whether to use electronic shareholder participation. I suppose when thinking about this bill that that particular aspect of the bill is actually quite important and one would think that it would have meant that this bill came before the House a lot sooner than it did. I understand that a number of companies have wanted to use an electronic means for shareholders to cast a vote but because of their inability to do so under the current legislation they have not been able to. Just to set out the issue with that the Companies Act 1993 does not permit companies to use electronic technology for shareholders to vote during meetings nor does the Act permit shareholders to elect to receive notices and other documents from the company electronically. The impact of this bill—which as Lianne Dalziel has said came out of the regulatory changes that came from the previous Government—will enable companies to use electronic technology for shareholders to vote during meetings. This is 2012 and one would think that we could have sorted this issue out a couple of years ago at least. You have to ask yourself: “I wonder how many companies have actually been precluded from using that mechanism to get their business happening in a more timely and easily managed fashion?”. 
LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Animal Products Act 1999 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Companies Act 1993 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question now is that Part 3 stand part. Are you taking a call? You must call.  
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. One of the issues with the lack of sound in the Chamber is actually the inability to be heard when one stands and attempts to seek a call. So I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to that that that is an issue on this side of the Chamber which is the Opposition. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes I am very cognisant of what the Speaker said. I looked around to see whether any member was on their feet seeking a call. When that did not happen I proceeded. I will do that on each occasion. I said: “Is any member seeking the call? I will put the motion.” 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not going to challenge the ruling that you made in Part 1 where I did try to seek a call at the very end of that debate. But I get the funny feeling that you may not have seen me stand up or heard me speak when I asked for a call on Part 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes I did see the member stand up and I chose to let the Committee determine whether it would take a closure motion. I saw that. I then was very careful on the next occasion as I will be now as I put the question that Part 3 stand part. 
Clare Curran 
: Mr Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Are you seeking the call? I call Clare Curran. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 For the second time! I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I accept that I do not have the loudest voice in this Chamber but I have on two occasions now stood up here and said: “Mr Chair” attempting to take a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I did not see the member stand when I looked around. I did not see the member and I looked around. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I accept that I am not the tallest member in the Chamber either but I have on two occasions now stood here and said: “Mr Chair”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: In regard to a call? Because I asked whether anybody was seeking a call. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: In regards to a call but I did not have the microphone and my point is that without the microphone the Opposition members in the Chamber are compromised unless they have extraordinarily loud booming voices or happen to be maybe around 6 foot tall. 
Louise Upston 
: If the member is referring to any calls in Part 2 clearly no one stood so therefore no one called in Part 2. We are now on Part 3. The member sought a call and she has been given it so I am not sure why we do not just carry on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is precisely the point. I actually took the precaution of saying: “Is some member seeking the call?” and looked around. I did the same on Part 3 and I have acknowledged that the member has the call on Part 3 if the member wants that. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on Part 3 of the Regulatory Reform Bill which under some duress in the Committee we are attempting to debate. The point that is to be made around this bill is around the fact that it achieves some measures that are going to ensure that we tidy up and provides some tinkering around a number of bills some of which are just being amended and 31 of which are repealed bills and bills that need to go. As we have heard from the Hon Lianne Dalziel and other speakers this bill came out of a process that has been ongoing for a number of years. It was the outcome of the Quality Regulation Review that was led by Lianne Dalziel during the former Labour Government when the first Regulatory Improvement Bill was introduced which was then an omnibus bill as well as we are seeing here today a number of years later. 
This bill was put in by the incoming National Government under the name of Rodney Hide and has now been transferred to the Hon John Banks. We have been calling all night for him to take a call on this bill because there have been a number of important issues and points raised around the impact of this the savings that it will make and I suppose the bigger regulatory reforms that it leaves out and that are not being covered in this bill which a number of colleagues have made reference to. We know that annual regulatory improvement bills are a very sensible way to ensure quality regulation but we have expressed a lot of concern about the process of this bill through the House and how it has been held up and whether or not it actually achieves anything particularly major. 
There are some issues that it does deal with such as with those 13 amendments to those particular Acts that it will cover and I was making reference to the importance of the electronic shareholder participation. Another change that it includes is amending the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act which will reduce compliance costs as well. We received a number of submissions on this during the progress of this bill through the House. This was quite an important issue which was referred to by submitters who had been requesting changes essentially to “the Films Videos and Publications Act 1994 since early 2009.” and stated that “The Film and Video Labelling Body … is currently permitted to cross rate film titles from Australia and the United Kingdom”. 
Andrew Williams 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member with all due respect appears to have moved on to Part 5 of the bill. We are debating Part 3 at the moment so just keep this brief and to the point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you.  
CLARE CURRAN 
: With reference to Part 3 of the Regulatory Reform Bill the Companies Act 1993 is one of the 13 Acts that are being amended. Actually there are a number of Acts that are being amended and the Companies Act is just one of them. The Companies Act is from 1993. 
Darien Fenton 
: What are the other Acts though? 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Well we have covered off the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 which actually Lianne Dalziel spoke quite knowledgably about I have to say. I think there has been some reference to the Animal Products Act 1999. 
I have to acknowledge to the member who leapt to his feet previously Andrew Williams that I did actually get ahead of myself a bit by referring to the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. There are a number of issues associated with all of these particular Acts that are being amended and then of course there are the 31 pieces of legislation that are being repealed because they actually do not exist any more. That does I suppose in the context of tonight when we are standing— 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on Part 3 of the Regulatory Reform Bill. In particular just to bring some focus on this particular part of the bill I say that we support this in that it particularly focuses on the Companies Act 1993 in relation to the use of increased electronics for the servicing of documents on shareholders and creditors and for the methods of holding meetings in allowing electronic means of holding meetings. That is most appropriate tonight in view of the electronic limitations that this Parliament has. But this bill specifically allows for companies to allow shareholders and participants of the company to participate in holding meetings via electronic means such as audiovisual and other electronic communications. So it brings it into line with modern technology which is a good thing. It allows for shareholder participation by electronic means in terms of distribution of documents by electronic means as well including the likes of proxies and other instruments of a company for the undertaking of their business. This is a good thing. 
This part of the Regulatory Reform Bill is welcome. It just means that New Zealand comes into the 21st century in terms of what would be a modern expectation for companies to undertake their business and for commerce in New Zealand to be competitive on a global stage with competitors around the world. Therefore New Zealand First certainly supports this. It will help New Zealand be more competitive in global business. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It might be to the benefit of the other side but I am seeking a copy of the bill. It is normal practice for a copy of the bill to be on the Table of the House. It does not appear to be the case at least on this side. That is a distinct disadvantage for members if they not only cannot be heard but also cannot see the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you to the honourable member and we will ensure that that happens. It is being organised. 
Part 4 Conservation Act 1987 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I have been addressing the different parts of this legislation in light of the nature of this particular bill that is in front of us today the Regulatory Reform Bill which is an omnibus bill. The omnibus bill that we have in front of us today was designed specifically so that parts like this could actually see the light of day. 
What we are dealing with in Part 4 is an amendment to the Conservation Act 1987. There is no way that the Minister of Conservation—and I am not sure who the Minister of Conservation was last year when this bill was introduced. Was it Kate Wilkinson then or was it someone else? Anyway whichever Minister was the Minister of Conservation last year he or she would never have been able to persuade the Leader of the House to place an amendment of this nature in front of the legislative programme of the Government ahead of a number of the other measures that it was pursuing. It was only by grouping a number of amendments to legislation in an omnibus bill—which actually I take some credit for as a former Minister of Commerce. I realised that there were a number of pieces of legislation that needed to be adjusted but which of themselves were not sufficient to gain a place on the legislative programme. Having been a Minister bidding for a place on a legislative programme I know personally how difficult it can be. So the idea— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: A very good bidder. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I was a very good bidder but I was not always successful. Therefore I felt that it was important to have a vehicle that enabled a number of Ministers to basically put these kinds of measures together in an overarching bill and to bring them before the House. They were never at a low enough level to qualify for a Statutes Amendment Bill because of course those have to be non-controversial and they also have to have essentially the consent of the whole House. You cannot have individual parties basically saying: “No we are not going to agree to that particular measure. We don’t want this change to the Conservation Act going through the Statutes Amendment Bill process so therefore we will not have it in there.” Of course that was the kiss of death—that was the end of it. Statutes Amendment bills enable those little tidy-up functions to be taken up on a regular and ongoing basis. 
This particular amendment to the Conservation Act 1987 would never have made the cut for a Statutes Amendment Bill because it actually had some elements of controversy around it—[ 
Interruption 
] No controversy actually. I suspect that the Green Party is going take a call on this particular part because I know that there was a concern that the Green Party raised on this particular measure when it was brought before the Commerce Committee. I know that some environmental movement individuals did make some submissions to the select committee. 
You know it is always difficult to know after having heard the evidence whether people felt satisfied with the amendments that we made in the select committee. Of course the people here in Parliament will have the bill in front of them and will see that we actually did not make any amendments to this particular part. So it will be very interesting to see whether people ultimately were satisfied with the changes. We did make a slight amendment in order to meet one of the concerns that had been raised. Essentially it increases the time around concessions applying in the Department of Conservation estate and I think that that was an issue of substance and it was an issue that did require a degree of reporting on it. 
One of the issues that I think has not been really dealt with in this debate thus far is the fact that there were a number of officials who appeared in front of the select committee every time we were dealing with this particular bill. They came from all the different departments in order to respond to all of the issues. When you look at the whole bill we had people coming from the Department of Conservation we had people from the Ministry of Economic Development we had people from the Department of Internal Affairs we had people from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and we had people from the Ministry of Fisheries. Fortunately a lot of people were covered by the Ministry of Economic Development. We had Statistics New Zealand as well and we had Ministry of Justice officials. 
 The problem that I had certainly as the Minister who had spearheaded the process and then as the chair of the select committee was feeling a sense of frustration that all of these officials felt that they had to turn up for every discussion we had on every part of every bill. What I was trying to do was to get the different departments to maybe collaborate with each other in order to reduce the amount of input into the select committee which was the whole point of having an omnibus bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I did feel a sense of frustration. I think my colleagues are sensing how frustrated I felt. 
One of the purposes of the bill was to cut down some of that interdepartmental nonsense and just allow some of the different departments to actually come together and have other departments represent their interests on these particular matters. But the Conservation Act amendment is certainly one of those that probably did require the input of the department so I would not include that in my general comments. On that note I think that is sufficient on Part 4. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 Certainly the Green Party supports other aspects of the Regulatory Reform Bill but as Lianne Dalziel has noted we have concerns about Part 4. That is because Part 4 would allow existing concession holders to continue to operate even when the concession term expires during the process by which they are applying for a replacement concession. That is not so much an issue because there is a similar provision in the Resource Management Act and it does seem sensible because it prevents business disruption while the application is considered if you have an existing concession. But where the difficulties are is that it would also allow a concession holder whose concession term has expired and who has then applied for a replacement consent that the Minister of Conservation has declined to continue to operate until the Minister has reconsidered his or her decision. That potentially means that quite high-impact activities like mining—with the access agreements and the like and the facilities that go with the mining—could continue even though the Minister had declined the concession application on reapplication. It is the fact that if the application is declined by the Minister then it should cease. 
One of the major concerns about the bill is also clause 51 which provides for new section 48AA to be inserted around regulations prescribing time limits for applications. There is no provision in that clause that the regulations are made on the recommendation of the Minister of Conservation. Given this Government’s agenda—clearly flagged in the Department of Conservation’s statement of intent—that the department should increase business activity on conservation lands and increase concession revenue this clause 51 would potentially allow Ministers like the Minister of Economic Development to push the department to— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: There is no Minister of Economic Development. 
EUGENIE SAGE 
: —for Economic Development— 
Todd McClay 
: There isn’t one. 
EUGENIE SAGE 
: —Mr Joyce— 
Todd McClay 
: Hon Mr Joyce. 
EUGENIE SAGE 
: —Hon Mr Joyce—push for regulations that constrain the department’s decision-making process. We are seeing two major tourism development applications for concessions in the Te Wahipounamu - South West New Zealand World Heritage Area Fiordland National Park—one for a tunnel and one for a monorail. They are very complex applications with a number of potential effects. The provisions here are for regulations to set out time limits to prescribe a time limit by when the Director-General of Conservation has to respond and to provide for the consequences of not meeting that prescribed time limit. 
Here we see the Government potentially introducing regulations to penalise the department in the same way that it has introduced changes to the Resource Management Act to penalise local authorities in terms of them not meeting the time limits for processing consent applications under the Resource Management Act. It potentially restricts the department’s ability through these regulations to properly consider serious applications and their impacts on public conservation values recreational values and ecological and landscape values on the conservation estate. 
In trying to be constructive here there is Supplementary Order Paper 23 which is in my name and which proposes some changes to clause 51 new section 48AA to provide before any regulations are made that they are recommendations from the Minister of Conservation. Also the Minister has had to have had advice from the New Zealand Conservation Authority which is the statutory body that provides advice to the Minister and has a range of representatives from organisations like the Royal Society the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Local Government New Zealand iwi representatives and members of the public. The New Zealand Conservation Authority is a statutory body providing advice to the Minister and it would be a useful safeguard and a check on this power to constrain the department’s consideration of concession applications around time limits and other matters if that was on the advice of the authority given that these time limits are not set out in the substantive bill itself but are being done by regulation which the public cannot contribute to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just advise members when they have finished speaking that they pass the microphone back to the attendants. Thank you. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Some time ago tonight around 10 past 8 or thereabouts I was asked to leave the Chamber. I seek some clarification. I was watching on TV— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Point of order— 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Actually this is a point of order. It is a point of order so sit down. Sit down. You sit down idiot. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Can I just advise the member that I was watching when the member was asked to leave the Chamber and I heard the Chairperson of the Committee say that the member was entitled to come back in at 9 o’clock. I am happy to abide by that previous ruling. Right now where were we? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Will the member please be seated. The member is a longstanding member. He knows that when it comes to a point of order it has to be terse and to the point. If we get involved in the politics it leads to unrest in the Committee. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Let us start again. At around some time about 10 past 8— 
Hon Annette King 
: What’s the point of order? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: What is the point of it? If you shut up and listen I will tell you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please be seated. Can I just say to members that I know it is a bit—what is the word; I am trying to think of a good word—antagonistic tonight because the microphones are down. I appreciate that and I understand it. But can I say to members that when there is a point of order on the floor it is to be heard in silence. There have been a number of Speakers’ rulings about what happens when they are not heard in silence. I call the Hon Tau Henare and I ask him to be respectful because courtesy is contagious. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: At around 10 past 8 I was asked to leave the Chamber. I was interjecting on Clayton Cosgrove because I could not hear him. All I said to Clayton Cosgrove was: “Speak up speak up I cannot hear you.” I watched the Chairman tell the Committee that I was turfed because I interjected on him while he was standing. Can you give me some sort of clarification on who might be right in this issue? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the member that it is in the past. It is gone. I understand where the member is coming from but let us put those things that divide us behind us and move on. I am sure the member is quite capable enough of actually talking to the member concerned and expressing their surprise at what happened and I am sure that something could be worked out. But at the present stage I am bound by what I saw when I was watching Parliament. The member was asked to leave. He did so correctly and there I would like to move on. But thank you for bringing it to the attention of the Committee. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I invite you to repeat your ruling using the microphone because there are those of us who could not hear you and of course it will not be broadcast as a result of it being unheard in the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: To be brief it was basically to say let us move on and I am sure that the member is quite capable of raising the issue with the person concerned. So let us move on. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thought that personalities aside vis-à-vis who is in the Chair this is a question about the Chair to the Chair. It may be easy for you to move on but it is me who has got a strike against his name. It was the Chair—not Eric Roy but the Chair—who turfed me. What I am saying and what I hold to is that I believe that I was being thrown out because of my interjection on the Hon Clayton Cosgrove whom I could not hear. I want to see if we cannot get some closure on that issue. It is not about Eric Roy; I can talk to him any time I want. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the member that I would like to refer him to Speaker’s ruling 79/1 and that is that the member is not in order in reflecting on the actions of presiding officers. I leave it at that. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My point of order is not reflecting on the Chair. I am asking for some clarification about why I was turfed from the Chamber. You yourself said that you watched it on TV and what I am saying to this Chamber—so maybe I should take a point of order and seek leave to make a personal explanation which might work it out. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well the member is perfectly entitled to make a personal explanation. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I think the Speaker’s ruling that you have referred to is absolutely the correct one. If the member felt that he had been in some way unfairly defamed or that a reflection had been cast on his character that was unfair he could seek leave to make a personal explanation about that but he cannot question the ruling of the Chair or subsequently come back and challenge a decision of the Chairperson. But he could indeed make a personal explanation if the Committee was willing to grant him leave to do that. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is quite right. He can seek leave so the member wishes to do that? 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation with regard to the incident before. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is no objection to that course of action being taken. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Thank you Mr Chair and thank you to the Committee. Can I make it quite clear that my interjection during the issue in the Committee earlier on tonight was because firstly I could not hear what the Hon Clayton Cosgrove was saying in his point of order—not during his speech not during anybody else’s speech but during the point of order. When I was turfed by the Chairman I was of the understanding that I was being turfed because of my interjection on Clayton Cosgrove. Given the situation with the mikes I am not going to apologise for asking the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to speak up but I want to say and to put it on record that any record of this event at around 8 o’clock should be expunged because I consider my record for the last couple of years to be very very good. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 51 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
Green Party 12; Mana 1. 
Noes 106 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 12. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Part 5 Films Videos and Publication Classification Act 1993 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I would advise honourable members that Part 5 is debate on clauses 52 to 76 and the schedule. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair and my thanks also go to the messengers this evening who have an extra layer of duties running microphones around the Chamber. It is my pleasure though to have the opportunity to speak to Part 5 of this bill the Regulatory Reform Bill. For all of the rhetoric that we have heard from across that side of the Chamber about how this bill is creating fundamental reform for the business community how it is cutting through red tape and how it is making the lives of small businesses that much easier of all of the elements of this bill this is probably the one where that argument may have some legitimacy for one particular industry. 
We heard at the very beginning much discussion from the member Sam Lotu-Iiga about saving $50000 per annum through regulation changes to—what was it? Animal or veterinary services or some other description. This particular amendment when put in place will save the Home Entertainment Association of New Zealand $50000 per week. Let me explain what this particular part of this bill does. It is one very small part found under Part 5. Clause 55 “Conditions relating to display of restricted publications” says: “Section 27(4)(a)(ii) is amended by omitting ‘affixed to’ and substituting ‘displayed on’.” This is the ultimate demonstration of unintended consequence in legislation. This particular small little clause means that when products are brought into New Zealand the Home Entertainment Association of New Zealand and parts of the music industry are not able to simply affix censorship details relevant to New Zealand on to the exterior of that product. Instead of just displaying it it must be affixed to the product itself leading to a very onerous process within the industry in order to do that. The simple use of “affix” instead of “display” is costing an industry $50000 per week. 
I would argue that that probably demonstrates where something like a Regulatory Reform Bill has a place in this Parliament. It allows us to quickly and easily rectify I think a consequence that no one in this Committee would intend because it is simply a bureaucratic nonsense: if you are displaying the censorship details then that should be sufficient whether they are affixed to the product itself or to a plastic sleeve on the outside. Surely this would have been the perfect vehicle to deal with this quickly and effectively but has it? Absolutely not. When did the Home Entertainment Association of New Zealand first raise this issue? I think members over that side of the Chamber may indeed be familiar with the fact that it was raised 3 years ago with the National Government. It was first raised not with John Banks—obviously not in Parliament at that time but this is a potted history; it was raised with Richard Worth who was in charge of this particular area of legislation at that time in May 2009. Since that time it was raised with Nathan Guy. It was then raised with Rodney Hide and eventually it found its way on to the lap of John Banks under the Regulatory Reform Bill the bill that was intended to swiftly move through Parliament areas of reform that are a nonsense such as this for this industry. 
How much is it then—quick calculation any of the Labour members—if we are looking at $50000 per week for almost over 3 years I think it would be? Well roughly we can apportion the cost of that Government’s neglect on this simple change down to $7 million—$7 million. Do you know that is almost as much as the Government spent on its roads of national significance publicity campaign—not quite but almost? It is more than what the Government has put aside in its Budget to deal with the recommendations in the white paper on vulnerable children. The industry has paid $7 million because that Government was neglectful in its duty to fix a simple area of nonsense of bureaucratic nonsense in our legislation. 
This Government could have dealt with it in another way. Let us not be under any illusion that somehow this was the only option that lay in front of the Government to deal with this particular area of law. Of course we have heard from my colleague Lianne Dalziel about other options that have existed in the past. Previously these kinds of changes would have been dealt with in a Statutes Amendment Bill potentially—a yearly omnibus bill that allows us to deal with substantive issues like this that are non-controversial. This would have been a perfect fit for a Statutes Amendment Bill. Why then I ask the Minister in the chair the Minister of Internal Affairs was this particular piece of Part 5 not put into a Statutes Amendment Bill 3 years ago when it was raised with Richard Worth when it was costing this industry $50000 per week? Why was it that that Minister at that time did not recommend that perhaps it might take some time to pull together this particular bill that perhaps some of the members ushering it through the House were more controversial members of Parliament and that it might not be the speediest of processes? Why did Richard Worth not raise that at that time and allow it to be put in a Statutes Amendment Bill? 
I would be interested in how many Statutes Amendment bills have passed since this issue was first raised in May 2009. Why did Nathan Guy not make that suggestion to the industry and indeed to the Minister of Justice at that time? Why did Rodney Hide not make that suggestion? Well I think with Rodney Hide we get a clue. I think we get a clue because at that point the Regulatory Reform Bill was—what was it called back then? It was called the Regulatory Improvement Bill or something like that. At that time regulatory reform was one of the main platforms that ACT had in this Parliament. That was one of the only platforms one of the only points of distinction that ACT members had as members in this House. The basis on which I imagine their coalition agreement was set was that they could have a Regulatory Reform Bill such as this. So it would not have been in their interest to suddenly remove swathes of their regulatory reform bill and put it into a Statutes Amendment Bill even though that would have saved the home entertainment industry and no doubt the music industry in excess of $7 million had that been done. This industry has paid $7 million for the ego of the ACT Party. That is what this comes down to: the ego of the ACT Party is the reason why this has not moved to another form of passage through this Parliament. 
I would challenge any member on that side of the Chamber to stand up and give me a legitimate explanation if this was a known issue why it was not dealt with in some other form much earlier in this debate because that is what the expectation would have been on this side of the Chamber. I have seen letters suggesting to Ministers that this be rushed through and it has stagnated for weeks at No. 16 No. 17 and at times at No. 20 on the Order Paper. And why did it stagnate earlier this year? Why did it sit there dormant even though it was considered to be relatively non-controversial even though it had support for instance on this side of the Chamber? Why? Well I would suggest that John Banks’ rather controversial time in this Chamber has actually hindered his ability to represent the people this bill would have a positive impact on through the passage of this bill through the House. 
As much as that Government may argue that John Banks is able to do his job as Minister with the cloud hanging over him over potential electoral fraud this bill proves that actually that is not the case. [ 
Interruption 
] If the member would like to challenge me on what cloud it is that hangs over Mr Banks then I welcome that—I do use the term loosely. But there is an impression that obviously the Government did not want to be challenged on whether or not Minister Banks was right to continue to hold his portfolios because if it was not concerned by that then it would have allowed the Minister to continue— 
Hon Member 
: Section 5 Part 5 please. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: —to pursue his Regulatory Reform Bill and Part 5 through this debating chamber much earlier than it has. It is only now that we are discussing Part 5 after many many weeks of Mr Banks finally being somewhat out of the spotlight. And that I believe is the only reason why we are now here debating clause 55 of this bill in Part 5 and the conditions relating to display of restricted publications. I urge the Government to continue the passage— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I recognise the honourable member Andrew Williams and advise members that they can interject only on the person who has the floor at the time not on each other. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in relation to the Regulatory Reform Bill Part 5 which refers to the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. It is a little bit like Part 3 which we discussed a short time ago in relation to improving the electronic regulatory side and bringing new systems and new technology into being. This is the same application in terms of the film and video publications industry. 
In this respect it is very clear from the wording of the bill that what this allows for for instance is that the chief censor will establish an electronic register for this particular medium and for classifications—and this is from 1 November 2011—rather than as previously when the classification office used to publish a monthly list of such decisions. Obviously time has moved on. We are now in the electronic age and having an electronic register rather than lists being published on a monthly basis is a much more efficient method for the industry concerned. 
 Also the industry as a result of some of the changes in the legislation here will be allowed to directly print on to the publications rather than be required to affix labels. We are told that just that simple change of methodology of printing directly on to the videos films and other publications has the potential to have significant savings for the industry. We are told that in year 1 the savings to the industry will be in the order of $1.3 million heading towards $2 million by year 5. Therefore again this is a sensible piece of legislation that brings both efficiencies and significant savings to the film and video industry. 
We have said that New Zealand First will support legislation that is good sound and sensible legislation. This is another example of legislation that will help an industry that is very important to New Zealand—our film video and publications industry. It is an industry that does need a level of assistance in terms of being internationally competitive and being able to provide film video and other such publications to the people of New Zealand at an affordable price. Everything that we can do in this Chamber to assist the industry to do that in a more efficient manner is a good thing. So New Zealand First will support this part of the bill and we commend it to the Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. Just before I call the next member can I advise members that I have been advised that the mikes on our desks are now working so there is no need to have the wireless mike any more. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on Part 5 of the Regulatory Reform Bill and I would like to say that my colleague Jacinda Ardern made some very good points about the amount of money that could have been saved on this issue on this particular part of the bill which is around film video and publication classification and how it is a travesty that this bill is going through Parliament only now. I have just done a quick calculation as to how much could have been saved and it is at least around $6 million or $7 million that could have been saved if this bill had gone through when this issue was first raised with Ministers. Essentially that represents almost half of the budget of TVNZ 7 which was canned just over a month ago. One has to ask oneself and one certainly has to ask the other side of the Chamber and the Minister in the chair the Minister of Internal Affairs why if this issue was raised—and I am going to outline specifically what the issue is—it was not addressed at the time especially if this Government is so intent on regulatory reform and cutting red tape. 
I would just like to draw the Committee’s attention to what the issue is. It is really about bringing the labelling of DVDs and video games into the 21st century and creating a harmonisation between the classification of films that are shown at the movies and the DVDs that we watch in our homes. The issue is that most DVDs and some video games that are supplied to the public have to have as my colleague Jacinda Ardern said labels affixed—that is an interesting word “affixed”; it is not a word we normally use—to them showing their rating or classification. Currently those labels take the form of stickers. They are time-consuming and expensive for the industry to actually affix because it has to do it manually. 
We heard two submissions on this particular part of the bill and it was explained to us in depth as to how all of those DVDs had to be brought in and reclassified because of this anomaly in the law. The DVDs had to be watched and if the classification needed to be changed then new labels had to be affixed which meant that they had to be done manually. So that is a group of people sitting around sticking labels on. This creates an enormous amount of cost instead of allowing the harmonisation of the difference between how the actual movie gets classified with how the DVD gets classified. It also means that consumers—as I think probably a number of us have discovered when we go to the DVD store if any of us still go to the DVD store—can be confused as the majority of DVDs and games are imported and yet they carry the New Zealand sticker label and a foreign printed label. So when you are actually going in and having a look to choose the DVD often it is a bit hard to tell which actual classification it has. 
What this bill does is it allows the industry the flexibility to either print or physically affix the labels which as we have heard is expected to result in substantial compliance savings. Those savings are lower than initially estimated because of the reduction and this I suppose is an issue that does go to the change in technology. My understanding from the submitters who did come to the Commerce Committee is that the DVD industry is still alive and well. Having recently joined a DVD shop myself I am aware of just how alive and well it still is. Not all New Zealanders are downloading movies illegally from the internet— 
Kris Faafoi 
: Or legally. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: —or legally—they actually do still go to the DVD shop. And there is something to be said for going to the DVD shop especially when you have got children but the confusion is— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 It is not my intention to take a full call now but I thought it would be important to acknowledge the role that an individual single member can have in getting legislation moved along. I want to in particular thank Jacinda and compliment her on the work that she has done in Auckland Central and on behalf of the people in the video industry. It is interesting to see when an individual hears a representation picks it up ensures it is considered by the Business Committee has a bill lifted up the Order Paper and has it debated in a way as we are doing now how one individual efficient member of Parliament can cause focus on a piece of legislation. 
Notwithstanding the fact that my copy of the Regulatory Reform Bill states that the Hon Rodney Hide is in charge of the bill I think it is probably likely that it is now John Banks who is the member in charge of it. So notwithstanding the fact that one of the most useless Ministers in the House is in charge of the bill now we have worked on the basis that another Minister who could only be more talented is sitting in the chair and saying nothing in order that the Committee can make progress on Part 5 of the bill which is something that is important to Kiwis and can save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for people involved in the industry the people who are making the purchases. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s the only thing that does things for business in this whole bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is the only thing that does things for business in the bill. There could be whole pile of complaints about it taking this long but what I just want to say is that my colleague indicated to the Business Committee through Mr Hipkins and me how important this legislation is. We had had no idea from John Banks about the importance of it. 
Hon Member 
: He doesn’t know about it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He probably does not know about it. As a result we are dealing with the Committee stage today and I am sure that the efficient Government will have it on for a very short third reading tomorrow. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Trevor Mallard and I are no longer sharing a microphone but we are sharing a bill and that was due to the— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In her case it’s normally me paying. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Paying? No I think that is a little bit unfair of my colleague. I do not think he has paid any bills but he does owe me big time so I am prepared to accept that as future commitment to pay a bill. I think there are a few people he should shout for on this side of the Chamber for a number of reasons but we will not go there. 
The reason I wanted to speak on this particular part of the Regulatory Reform Bill was that this particular measure is actually the most important measure contained within the legislation and I believe from the contribution that my colleague has just made that this explains in very clear terms why the Government wanted to see this bill pushed up the Order Paper. As my colleague has said if the Government had made that clear to the Opposition months ago we would have of course facilitated its passage because it is a bill that we have all worked on very closely and actually very efficiently at the Commerce Committee last year. I have made the point a few times in the Chamber tonight that this bill was referred to our select committee in February last year. I know that the member who was my former deputy chair on the other side of the Chamber is kind of smiling because he knows how it is—Mr— 
Hon Member 
: “Lotto Winner”. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Ha ha! Mr Lotu-Iiga—Mr Lotu-Iiga sorry. He is not my deputy chair any more because I am not the chair of the Commerce Committee and I have not had the pleasure of working so closely with him over recent times. 
But the reason I wanted to take a call on this part is that this particular measure actually goes back quite a long way and it was one of the things that was picked up in something that I called the Quality Regulation Review when I was the Minister of Commerce. The reason I conducted that review was that Helen Clark who was the then Prime Minister said it was really important that we identified what the regulatory barriers to business growth were. So I conducted the Quality Regulation Review which had a number of different elements to it but what it identified relatively quickly was that there was a huge difference between the big end of town and the small end of town. Often the small end of town had these little compliance issues that were just standing in the way of them doing good business and they wanted these little regulatory matters dealt with. The big guys the big end of town had stuff like the Commerce Commission. They had things like Part 4 of the Commerce Act. They wanted to do the big-picture stuff at their end of town but the small to medium sized enterprises of this country pretty much the backbone of a number of elements of our economy wanted to see these little regulatory matters attended to. 
What we discovered was that individual Ministers could not get these things over the line. When it came to negotiating the legislative programme they actually could not get them over the line. This was one of the ones that came up back then and of course it was something that ought to have been dealt with after the change of Government in 2008. It did not see the light of day until last year and now we have had to wait for another term of this Government to have it finally addressed. 
The Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 amendment is the most substantial part of this legislation. It is one that must pass. It actually enables the labelling provisions to be sensible and to be brought into the 21st century which I have to say is about time. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 5 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to. 
Part 6 agreed to.  
Part 7 Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 7 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 7 as amended agreed to. 
Part 8 agreed to.  
Part 9 agreed to.  
Part 10 agreed to.  
Part 11 agreed to.  
Part 12 agreed to.  
Part 13 Wine Act 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon John Banks to Part 13 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 13 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2.  
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 118 and 24 in the name of the Hon John Banks to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill the Animal Products Amendment Bill the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) the Conservation Amendment Bill the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill the Fisheries Amendment Bill the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill the Registered Architects Amendment Bill the Statistics Amendment Bill the Takeovers Amendment Bill the Unit Trusts Amendment Bill and the Wine Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 119. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will report this bill with amendment and so divided presently. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think there is an agreement that the Committee has made sufficient progress and I seek the leave of the Committee that you report progress to date to the Speaker forthwith. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is leave sought for that. Is there any objection? There is none. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill with amendment the Regulatory Reform Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into 13 bills no progress on the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill and no progress on the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill. 
Report adopted.