Tisch Lindsay: Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11803] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 As National’s spokesperson on commerce Simon Power has said we will be supporting this Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill’s first reading and referral to the select committee. 
I guess the broad goal of the bill is to provide investor confidence in the market. It will allow the councils to have the flexibility that they have not had to borrow money to invest in the infrastructural challenges they face. The explanatory note states: “Local authority long-term plans show that local authorities are undertaking some $30.8 billion in capital works … in the 10 years to June 2016 …”. That is a significant development a significant investment which needs to occur within the regions if we are to get the infrastructure right. There are challenges there particularly in roading and water supply. There are other areas like telecommunications but local authorities are not necessarily involved in those particular areas. 
The point that Simon Power made which I think is important is that the select committee will be wanting to see exactly what the structures are and how this will work. This document talks about regulatory impact statements. One of the concerns I have is that this Government does not have a good record of actually complying with its own legislation in terms of regulatory impact statements. Page 5 of the explanatory note under the heading “Adequacy Statement” states that “The Ministry of Economic Development (MED) confirms that the Code of Good Regulatory Practice and the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) requirements including the consultation RIA requirements have been complied with.” and that the Ministry of Economic Development has no difficulty with them. Well the Ministry of Economic Development is in fact a Government agency and I would say that over the years legislation has got through without any regulatory impact statement. A classic example of that was KiwiSaver. No regulatory impact statement accompanied KiwiSaver—absolutely none whatsoever. So although we have a statement here that the Ministry of Economic Development considers the regulatory impact statement and the regulatory impact analysis undertaken to be adequate one of the questions I want to ask at the select committee is about robustness and transparency. Where is the robustness and the transparency that show that compliance costs will actually be controlled by this legislation? I do not have confidence at the moment that this is as straightforward as it may seem. I hope to be proved wrong because I think this bill is a move in the right direction and National is supporting it. 
If people want to buy a home or a business or whatever they will go to the market—usually a bank—to borrow money. People do not wait until they have the money in their pockets before they make those investments. The same applies to local authorities. This bill allows two councillors to sign up to a project rather than the whole council having to sign up to it—we would never get the agreement of a whole council—so that we can see some progress. This is what differentiates local authorities from a company operation. Company directors tend to operate under the principle of collective responsibility but no such obligation exists within local government. So this is certainly a move in the right direction. 
I am particularly concerned about the whole area of compliance. Although the regulatory impact statement says it is adequate and the Ministry of Economic Development is satisfied with that we must remember that the ministry is a Government agency. It is the one that is actually scrutinising Government policy. I am looking for robustness and transparency and I suggest that there needs to be an independent body to do this work. We need a watchdog agency as opposed to a Government agency which will be telling the select committee and this Parliament that everything is kosher and that there will not be regulatory creep as I call it or increased compliance costs associated with this. If there are we need to know that a cost-benefit analysis has been done that shows that the benefits will outweigh any additional costs associated with it. 
As Simon Power indicated—and I am sure other speakers will as well—the reinstatement of the exemption for local authorities will provide them with a reduced disclosure regime due in part of course to those disclosure regimes and requirements that are already in the Local Government Act 2002. They are already met under that Act. This is a move in the right direction but I flag to this House that there will be significant scrutiny as to exactly what the regulatory impact statement and the regulatory impact analysis have to say about compliance costs.