Nash Stuart: Regulatory Improvement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Nash Stuart: Regulatory Improvement Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 30 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:10174. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I will talk a little bit about some of the provisions of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. It is good that the bill is being dealt with as one question as each part relates to a different Act so that decision makes a lot of sense and is expedient. I will give a little bit of background. As members have talked about this bill came out of extensive reviews and consultation with industry representatives up and down the country by Lianne Dalziel and the rest of the Labour team. It is a very good bill that makes a lot of sense. It is common-sense legislation which is what we are here to pass. 
As mentioned this omnibus bill amends nine Acts. Let us have a look at them; the first is the Companies Act 1993. The main provision under this bill is that under the Financial Reporting Act certain companies with overseas ownership will no longer be required to file audited financial statements with the Registrar of Companies. Those companies at present must appoint an auditor under the Companies Act 1993. The provision makes sense. Most other companies may by the unanimous resolution of shareholders elect not to appoint an auditor so the bill puts such companies with overseas ownership in the same position as other companies. Members of the Committee will remember that a number of bills have gone through the Finance and Expenditure Committee to tidy up a lot of this sort of legislation as well. This bill will reduce the unnecessary compliance costs for those companies due to the inconsistency between the two pieces of legislation. If there is one thing that Labour has worked very hard for—and did work very hard for in its 9 years in Government—it is to reduce unnecessary compliance costs and I think it has been very successful in that role. This bill continues with that because as we know this was a bill introduced by Labour and the Hon Lianne Dalziel. 
Let us now look at the provisions for the Designs Act 1953. As my colleague Charles Chauvel has mentioned that Act is an old piece of legislation; it is about time it was amended. The bill provides restoration of lapsed copyright in a registered design in circumstances where the lapse is a result of neglecting to pay a renewal fee or failing to make the necessary application. The Commerce Committee recommended that in addition to allowing the restoration of lapsed copyright in registered designs the bill should allow the restoration of lapsed copyright in design applications and that is becoming more and more applicable in this day and age of globalisation. A country like New Zealand needs to protect its intellectual property—of that there is no doubt. I know that my colleague Clare Curran is very hot on this topic and no doubt she will speak extensively on this bill that is about to come before the House for its third reading. 
The committee also recommended that the bill should give specific authorisation for the commissioner to publish bibliographical details of design applications. Again that is another common-sense amendment. When I heard there were 14 votes against this bill being read a second time I was not too sure why that was because it is common-sense legislation. The bill makes it easier to do business; it simplifies and streamlines processes. As mentioned this legislation has resulted from extensive consultation up and down the country. 
I move on to the provisions about the Fisheries Act 1996. The bill provides for the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries to consider requests from commercial fishers to be granted catch balancing relief provided that set criteria are met. That has the effect of allowing inadvertently incurred deemed value debts to be reviewed. Commercial fishers will benefit from a more timely and efficient consideration of their requests for the relief of debts that are inadvertently incurred through the end-of-year balancing process under the quota management system. The bill provides for delegation of the power to consider these requests to the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries instead of the current requirements for ministerial approval. That is again another piece of common-sense legislation. It streamlines the process and makes it easier for businesses involved in fishing. 
There is a provision pertaining to the Gas Act 1992. The bill clarifies that any regulations and rules that the Gas Industry Co. Ltd can recommend under Part 4A of the Gas Act 1992 will cover gas used as a feedstock. 
There are many provisions for the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. This bill enables the delegation of technical design-making power by the Environmental Risk Management Authority to the chief executive and other staff or to other persons. It enables applications to import develop or test non-genetically modified organisms known as non-GMOs in containment to be treated consistently with each other and with applications to import or develop low-risk genetically modified organisms in containment in terms of rapid assessment of low-risk organisms and the discretionary notification of other applications. As the Committee will be aware all that this does is streamline a process. It brings up to date the practice by which we need to continue our competitive advantage in this area. The bill enables applications for the conditional release of low-risk non-genetically modified organisms to be treated consistently with applications for full-risk or non-risk genetically-modified organisms. It allows the Environmental Risk Management Authority to publicly notify hazardous substance release applications that do not otherwise qualify for rapid assessment under section 28A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and gives the ability to delegate non-notified applications to its chief executive. It enables test certifiers to issue a conditional test certificate for hazardous substance locations where on reasonable grounds they consider the non-compliance to be minor and technical. The bill extends the purposes for which the approved persons now including the chief executive of the New Zealand Fire Service may search the register of test certificates to include emergency response planning purposes for hazardous substances. 
Again that is all common-sense stuff that has needed to be done. It is good that it will be done. As Lianne Dalziel mentioned I think that it is agreed upon—by the two major parties certainly—that this is the sort of bill that we will see in the House every year going forward. 
The bill empowers Biosecurity New Zealand to recover the costs of conditional release compliance enforcement under the Biosecurity Act 1993. It removes duplication of reporting requirements in the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s statement of intent. An annual monitoring report extends the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s power to revoke test certificates on the grounds for revocation. The bill more closely aligns times to lay information for new organism and Biosecurity Act offences Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act offences and Health and Safety in Employment Act offences respectively. It allows changes to material incorporated by reference to have legal effect and notification in the  
Gazette 
. It recasts the scope of standards that can be incorporated by reference. It aligns the Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act enforcement responsibilities for aerodromes and extends the alignment for health and safety and Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act powers of entry and inspection to all agencies with enforcement responsibility under both Acts for places of work. Finally it allows the incorporation of material via reference to standards requirements and recommended practices of national as well as international organisations. 
There is also work on the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995. This bill removes the penalty regimes applicable under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act for non-payment of cost-recovery levies. Commercial fishers will now have greater certainty—which is what we are after in business; of that there is no doubt—and reduction of compliance costs around the penalty regime for debt repayment. The bill will remove the requirements under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act for the Ministry of Fisheries to charge all clients a 10 percent penalty fee when they fail to pay their statutory incurred debt within a prescribed time frame. The provision overlaps with the sanctions already provided by the Fisheries Act 1996. This duplication is both inappropriate and unnecessary. I think we will find that a common theme through this bill—and a common theme through the consultation process—is the inappropriateness of duplication. It is just red tape in the way of businesses driving forward. As I mentioned it is good to see that Labour is the party that has put this bill forward. 
Let us look at the provisions for the Reserves Act 1977. The bill provides for 10-year—currently 5-year terms only—licences over vested reserves. Licences under the Reserves Act enable licensees to occupy reserve land or to carry out an activity on reserve land. 
There are provisions for the Weights and Measures Act 1987. The bill provides for the control of LPG in gaseous form to be under the Gas Act 1992 only and not under the Weights and Measures Act. 
As I have mentioned there is a lot of good stuff in this bill. Let us hope that the Government takes the bill forward and that another bill is introduced this year. Next year in 2011 I have no doubt that a Labour Government will be producing a similar one as we continue the process of streamlining regulations and legislation to make it a lot easier for businesses and companies to do business in New Zealand and around the world. Thank you.