Cosgrove Clayton: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:414] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I will take a brief call to highlight an issue that was brought up on the taxation bill and in the case of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill it pertains to the adequacy statement in the explanatory note of the bill.  
What we have regarding this bill is a series of events. First it is going through under urgency even though it will not be implemented until April. So the first excuse for urgency is gone. Then there is no select committee process at all. There is no chance for any public input at all even though Mr O’Reilly from Business New Zealand who as my colleague Lianne Dalziel and other colleagues have alluded to is probably more sympathetic to the National Party way of thinking than to ours has said it is not appropriate to ram this measure through. Mr O’Reilly who is a man of principle even though I may disagree with some of what he says wanted there to be a public process so that there would be scrutiny and quality control of the bill. Under urgency there is no public input and no select committee input at all. Then we have a Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson who since I have been in the Chamber has not answered any of the questions about the bill that have been put up by speaker after speaker.  
I want to address something to the ACT Party given that its tanned Minister from the sunset-tan paradise of Epsom is the regulatory-buster or the Minister—what is his name— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The Minister for Regulatory Reform. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He is the Minister for Regulatory Reform. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The cockatoo! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I would not say that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: You’re far too statesmanlike! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed I am far too statesmanlike as my leader says to say that.  
Last night a bill went through the House with a regulatory impact statement that was inadequate. But that slid by Rodney Hide. Today we are looking at this bill and we see the adequacy statement states this: “It has not been possible for the Regulatory Impact Analysis Team to undertake an assessment of the adequacy of the Regulatory Impact Analysis and the Regulatory Impact Statement for this proposal within the time frames.”  
One then has to say that Mr Hide being a member of the executive being well briefed on this bill and being the regulatory-busting Minister who went on  
Close Up 
 and said: “Bring me your waifs and strays”— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Here he is! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Here he is back from the tanning machine. He said: “Bring me all your problems. Send them care of Rodney Hide Parliament Buildings and I will fix them.” He missed the first bill that went through and I could say that I am sympathetic to Mr Hide about that because he is a new Minister and he is probably still getting the office straightened out the boxes unpacked and the infrared machine set up in the bathroom. However to miss one piece of legislation where the regulatory impact statement was inadequate is one thing but now we have the second.  
I wonder whether Mr Hide would take a call and tell us why he was asleep—maybe not at the wheel but at the tanning machine—not earning his pay grandstanding in the media and saying he is the regulatory-buster who will sort all the issues out and cut through red tape. For the benefit of Mr Hide who may not have heard me because he may have been in a different part of the Chamber I will read again the adequacy statement for which he is the regulatory-buster. The statement which he will be more familiar with than I am says this on this bill: “It has not been possible for the Regulatory Impact Analysis Team to undertake an assessment of the adequacy”—I know there are a few big words in there for Rodney Hide to understand but we will give it a go—“of the Regulatory Impact Analysis and the Regulatory Impact Statement for this proposal within the time frames.”  
Hon Phil Goff 
: It’s rushed legislation. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My leader is right; this is rushed legislation. Presumably Mr Hide was in the loop—in the bathroom or somewhere. But presumably he was briefed as the regulatory-buster in the executive—the man who will cut through red tape and dispose of regulation. He will turbo-boost regulation out the door.  
This is the second bill that has passed Mr Hide by. I have not yet looked at the other bills but I suspect they are all the same. I would like Mr Hide to tell us why he is not doing his job. He is now paid a big fat salary he now has the cars and the office and he has pontificated for years about what he would do if he made it into the executive and how he would slash red tape. Yet either he was too lazy or too silly—I could use another word but I will not—or he was asleep at the wheel not in the building or not doing his job because this bill is rushed legislation. By Mr Hide’s own standard of regulatory performance he has not even had the decency the professionalism or the fortitude to stand up and say: “Hang on the ACT Party believes in getting rid of regulation or having quality regulation.” We now have our second piece of inadequate legislation in 24 hours and he is asleep at the wheel.  
Well we will hold Mr Hide the great perk-buster scam-buster and now regulatory-buster to account for that. Mr Hide is asleep either at the tanning machine or at the wheel.