Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Speaker. A pleasure to be talking on the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill. I see the Minister didn't quite get to 10 minutes but anyway he did seem to traverse some of the issues in the bill.Hon Dr David Clark: Succinct. Accurate. Incisive.ANDREW BAYLY: Nicely written prepared speech for him. Unfortunately in Opposition you don't have that liberty and that support. But anyway we are opposing this bill. We're opposing this bill—I like that lovely glowing sort of summary that the Minister gave.The main reason why is this is a fundamental principle that has been broken by this Government. I'd say to you Madam Speaker that this bill actually preys on the generosity and the goodwill of the Opposition and the members of this House because it wasn't long ago that this entire House came together and recognised that the Companies Office had illegitimately inappropriately—whatever words you want to use—been cross-subsidising and charging a number of people and organisations an incorrect fee and levies over a long period of time.Somehow this mistake was brought to the attention of the Minister and the Minister brought the bill which was to recognise that illegal activity and we retrospectively passed legislation not that long ago to say that was OK. You don't normally do retrospective legislation but there was a wrong and Parliament agreed to it. Yet here we have a Minister putting up another bill which says Hey look you know how we came and saw you about this thing and said it was all wrong and let's pass the piece of legislation. Let's not worry about it; let's just enshrine it—let's have the principle going forward." Minister. What has happened in this bill is that the Companies Office will be able to cross-subsidise a whole range of registers. And we just think that is wrong; we really do think that is wrong. The main reason is for anyone who sat on the Regulations Review Committee—and I'm looking at my esteemed colleague here Mr Bishop who going back some time ago we had the privilege of sitting on regulations—Chris Bishop: We were on it together.ANDREW BAYLY: Yes I know we were on the regulation—And I see Hon David Parker over the other side. He was the deputy chair of it when Labour were in Opposition and Hon David Cunliffe was the chair. But guess what happened? Mr Cunliffe moved on and Hon David Parker took over didn't you Mr Parker?Hon David Parker: What's this for?ANDREW BAYLY: Regulations Review Committee.Hon David Parker: No I took over from Richard Worth.ANDREW BAYLY: No you didn't; you were with me. Anyway how many times did we get Government agencies in front of that Regulations Review Committee—the only bipartisan committee basically in that Parliament—and get them in? And remember we got the fishing people in because they were cross-subsidising and we got them to show us their models Mr Parker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order!ANDREW BAYLY: Absolutely related to this and I'll tell you why because it's about cross-subsidisation. I can say that member over on the other side the Hon David Parker was vigilant was keen to see a wrong put right. And we did—together. Cross-party support; we got it right. And here we are tonight Mr Parker. We've got a Minister from your party putting up this bill saying "Let's now make that the standard practice. This is the new principle."That is why we are opposing this bill. Some of the members are going to get up and say "Oh you know it's administratively easy." and I heard the Minister talking about you know efficiency. Efficiency? Efficiency? It is nothing about efficiency; it is about charging costs where they lie. This bill cuts across it and that is why we are going to oppose this bill.Certainly I acknowledge the members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee work collaboratively. We tried to improve it and there are some improvements and my good colleague over here Mr Simon Watts was heavily involved in that as all members were. So there are some improvements but it still is the precedent that will be set and used going forward. And that is why we are opposing it.So look it's going to be an interesting time at the next stage of this bill going through the House but it's fundamentally wrong and we oppose it."