Hague Kevin: Regulatory Improvement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hague Kevin: Regulatory Improvement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 30 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:10157. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I will begin by picking up exactly where Charles Chauvel left off with the principle in relation to urgency. The Regulatory Improvement Bill has been on the Order Paper for some years. It originated with the Quality Regulation Review in 2007 and it seems extraordinary to me that Parliament is now in urgency to consider its remaining stages. There seems to me to be nothing about the bill that would justify urgency. There is nothing urgent about the implementation of any of the detail of the bill so it fails to meet the test of urgency for this Parliament. On that basis I register the Green Party’s objection to the use of urgency to progress the bill. 
The previous speakers from both the National and Labour sides of the House have spoken about the background to not only this bill but this type of bill and about the principle of examining existing legislation and regulation with a view to streamlining them both so that the interests of civil society and of business are advanced without cost to the public. I guess the Green Party would lend its support to the principle that in situations where we can streamline legislation and regulation without cost to the public we ought to do so and to the principle that an omnibus bill is an appropriate way to advance the necessary changes to regulation that are identified in that way. We support that principle. 
In the first reading debate on this bill there was considerable discussion about the principle that such a bill should be uncontroversial and I have heard the Minister the Hon Chris Finlayson repeat that principle in the House today—that this bill should be about uncontroversial measures. This is where the Green Party parts company with National and Labour on this bill. That raises an important constitutional point. Our Parliament has moved from the elected dictatorship of first past the post to an MMP environment so the fact that National and Labour agree on the provisions of the bill does not make the bill uncontroversial. In the first reading debate I outlined the Green Party’s strenuous objections to several of the provisions in the bill. I raised some concerns about the changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and in particular I spoke about the proposed changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act which seem to me to be entirely objectionable and not to fit the tests for inclusion in the bill—and I will speak some more about those matters. For that reason the Green Party will continue to oppose this bill. 
I want to talk some more about the principle on which this bill is based because again I have heard the Minister the Hon Chris Finlayson repeat in the House today the statutory basis or the Standing Orders basis for this kind of bill. He has again cited Standing Order 264(a) which has now become Standing Order 259(a). That states that an omnibus bill to amend more than one Act can be introduced if “the amendments deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy”. The Government in the explanatory note of the bill claims that that single broad policy is to improve the regulatory framework and reduce the compliance burden on business. Then it goes on to further elaborate on that broad objective. 
For example it states that the initiatives in the bill address “regulatory duplication gaps administrative errors and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation that collectively create unnecessary compliance costs and uncertainty for business.” The Government states: “In keeping with the scope of the Review they”—the measures—“target poor implementation and administration of various regulatory frameworks.” The explanatory note of the bill then goes on to talk about how “these many small gains can make a larger overall impact in removing barriers to economic growth.”—I will not debate the desirability of economic growth although that is a live debate in this House—and again uses rhetoric about transformation. 
The Government claims that this bill contains a broad suite of measures to address all those goals that they are uncontroversial and that for that reason they meet the test set out in Standing Order 259(a). The Green Party is strongly opposed to the changes in the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act and that means the bill is not uncontroversial. I note the Government’s intent to split the bill in the Committee of the whole House into separate bills but at this stage during the second reading debate the bill stills fits under the umbrella of Standing Order 259(a). I will submit to you Mr Assistant Speaker at the conclusion of this speech that in fact the bill does not fit the test required by that Standing Order and should not proceed. 
The concerns that I talk about in this debate are ones that I raised during the first reading and it is disappointing to me that the Commerce Committee did not consider the issues that I raised at that point because the problem that I am raising today could have been dealt with at that time by the select committee. In my first reading speech I offered the Green Party’s cooperation to all sides of House to deal with those problems and it is a disappointment to me that the offer was not taken up. 
I will talk in particular about the changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act because they do two things: firstly they raise the maximum period of a concession from the current maximum of 5 years to a maximum of 10 years and secondly they also provide for there to be discretion not to publicly notify such concessions. I say neither of those measures in fact meets any of the objectives set out in the explanatory note of the bill or required by Standing Order 259(a). Most of the provisions in the bill do meet the test of being regarded as implementing a single broad policy—in this case the broad policy of improving the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business—but neither the changes to the Conservation Act nor the changes to the Reserves Act meets the test. Neither of those is about that at all. In fact those changes are about other measures that the Government has chosen to put into this omnibus bill. Therefore they fail to meet the test and the bill should be ruled out of order on that basis. 
The increase in concessions—for example moving the maximum period for a concession from 5 years to 10 years—does not improve the regulatory framework at all. Sure it probably reduces the compliance costs for the particular business that has that concession but it actually increases costs and creates barriers to good business practice for every other business. Also it creates problems for the New Zealand public because the New Zealand public have an interest in the conservation estate and that interest is not well served by that increase in the concession period. I will talk about that during the Committee stage. I will wind up my speech at this point but I will immediately take a point of order. 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Regulatory Improvement Bill does not meet the test set out in Standing Order 259(a) which requires that the amendments in such an omnibus bill “deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy”. The specific changes that are proposed to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act do not fit within the broad policy objectives set out in the explanatory note of the bill of “improving the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business.” That is not what the changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act are proposed to be about. Therefore the bill—because all of the changes in the bill are currently still under the umbrella of that Standing Order—does not meet the test and should be ruled out. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Which Standing Order is the member quoting from? Is it 264(a)? 
KEVIN HAGUE 
: Standing Order 264(a) has now become Standing Order 259(a) if I am correct in hearing the Attorney-General’s first speech in the second reading. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Very briefly there are two issues. The first is the question of timing. It is too late to take that point. It should have been raised if it was to be raised at all when the Business Committee was dealing with the bill. Secondly if members look at the report of the Standing Orders Committee they will see Speaker’s ruling 98/3 which states: “The current [omnibus bill] rules allow for an approach that facilitates … the inclusion in a single bill of a number of interrelated amendments that improve the coherence of provisions ….”—so far so good—“Proposed amendments must have a common purpose”—in my second reading speech I went through a number of those purposes—“or be linked to some broad policy objective.” 
KEVIN HAGUE 
: In responding to the points raised by the Attorney-General in that contribution I say his speech in the second reading did not refer to the changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act which are the specific ones that I say do not fit the broad policy objectives required by that Standing Order. Regarding the first point raised by the Attorney-General it is my understanding that the Standing Orders are still live at any point while a bill is being debated. This bill is still being considered by the House under the rubric of that Standing Order and therefore the fact that this issue was not raised in the Business Committee does not mean that a point of order cannot be taken at this point.