Seymour DavidNEW ZEALAND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION ACT REPEAL BILLSecond ReadingHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Well thank you Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this bill at its second reading.Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order Madam Speaker. Far be it from me to help the Minister but he's got to move the second reading.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh yes I know; I was just going to actually take care of that. So have you got the words there to move the second reading?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes I thank the member for his assistance. I move That the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time.I have been listening very carefully and I've got to say that if a competent Opposition is essential to democracy then our country is in big big trouble. I listened carefully to Duncan Webb the lead critic on this file from the largest Opposition party and what I got from him was that he thought that it was a contradiction to praise the work that has been done to note that it will still be available and yet decide there are better uses for the funding going forward. There is no contradiction. He said it was a contradiction and several people echoed this that it was an ACT Minister who introduced a policy and an ACT Minister who got rid of a policy. Well let me just reflect on that for a second. There was someone John Maynard Keynes who said When the facts change I change my mind." I think it's actually a good thing that politicians are allowed to change their mind. I think it would be a good thing—and I think just giving a bit of free advice to the Opposition if they want to be back in Government this decade then they may actually need to change their mind about a few things they got wrong. So I don't see it as a bad thing to change your position on a policy occasionally when the facts change. I think it's highly revealing of the Opposition that they work themselves into a lather because someone's done that. We believe the money can be better used for a ministry of regulation and that is the policy that the Government is now undertaking.I have to thank James Shaw for a much more constructive contribution. It's certainly true that any policy can be improved over time. It's certainly true that there was not a statutory requirement for the Government of the day to respond to Productivity Commission reports and I agree with him: had there been perhaps the reports might have got a little bit more coverage and attention. On the other hand James Shaw was a Minister in a Government for six years—in fact many of the people who have spoken tonight had six years to do exactly that thing. I thank them for making the contribution now but it's about six years too late.I heard Grant Robertson echo that the set-up wasn't perfect but he actually didn't say anything new that we hadn't already heard from Duncan Webb. And then there was Ayesha Verrall who I don't think had anything particularly new to say other than a series of political attacks but what she did manage to say is that there should be a regulatory impact statement on this bill. Well let me be clear: one of the things I intend to do in this Government as the Minister for Regulation is make sure that regulatory impact analysis is focused on regulation that actually puts restrictions on the use and exchange of private property. There is no need to do regulatory impact analysis on the Government deciding it's no longer going to operate and spend money on a department—Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Rubbish—Rubbish!Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —because that is not affecting the use and exchange of private property out in the rest of the society. There's Duncan Webb yelling and yelling away and I suspect the reason that he is so angry is that while he cannot quite bring himself to say anything positive in this debate he has to reflect on all the things he didn't do in the fleeting chance that he himself had as a Minister. In fact there was a little bit of that in Ayesha Verrall's speech. I heard her make the bizarre accusation that the reason I want to establish the ministry of regulation is not because you know over-regulation poorly made regulation is one of the biggest challenges facing the New Zealand economy in people trying to work and produce each day; it's because I want to "lord it over my predecessors." There's another person that is nice to quote from time to time a guy called William Shakespeare. I think he would've said that she's measuring the minds of others by her own. I think that comment probably tells us more about how Ayesha Verrall thinks about policy. It's not because there's serious problems we need to solve; it's because we're trying to get one over another politician. I thought that was a sad contribution.I gave the rationale and the Government's reasoning in my first reading speech. In this second reading speech there having been no amendments at select committee obviously I've tried to respond to some of the contributions that have been made by the members opposite. I make these comments because I know that soon we'll get to the committee of the whole House stage and that will be to debate whether the wording of the bill reflects the policy decisions made on this second reading. The members opposite if they have policy points to make I highly recommend they make them in this reading where they failed in the first because if they don't have any good policy points to make in the second reading we won't be entertaining or replying to them. I can tell them I won't be replying to them in the committee stage because that has a very specific and technical reason.Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Arrogant!Hon Grant Robertson: What an arrogant man.Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: And they say "How arrogant"—to actually read the Standing Orders and understand what each part of a debate is for! I mean imagine that—reading the Standing Orders and understanding the place we're a part of and actually following the rules! In fact I would say that's the opposite of arrogant. But I tell you what—I tell you what—it sure does make the Opposition angry. All I can say to the Opposition is: try being a little bit constructive talking about the policy talking about the bill fewer of the personal attacks and you might just finally get somewhere. Thank you Madam Speaker."