Hon Christopher Finlayson

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the Regulatory Improvement Bill be now read a second time. In so doing I thank the Commerce Committee for its consideration of the bill, and I also acknowledge those who made oral and written submissions. The committee’s report includes some useful recommendations that I believe will improve processes and, importantly, reduce compliance costs. The bill provides an opportunity to improve the quality of regulation in New Zealand by recommending small but none the less very important amendments to nine Acts. As was indicated in the Minister’s first reading speech, the provisions in the bill came out of the Quality Regulation Review undertaken by the previous Government in 2006 and 2007. I thank the member for Christchurch East for initiating and championing the work that has resulted in this bill.

The changes proposed cover a diverse range of policy areas and legislation. They are all designed to improve the regulatory framework and to reduce the compliance burden on business. They are a move towards creating a regulatory environment that positively impacts on how businesses operate. Overall, the changes address regulatory duplications, gaps, administrative errors, and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation. Fixing them is a positive move towards a more prosperous and successful nation that is driven by the initiative and hard work of individuals. The Government is committed to a regulatory reform programme that ensures that new and existing regulations do not impose unnecessary costs on businesses, and do all that they can to address the barriers, be they big or small, that can hold back New Zealand business from reaching its fullest potential and greatest growth.

With the current economic challenges our businesses are facing, our goal to minimise compliance costs is more important than ever. As an omnibus bill it provides an effective and efficient legislative vehicle to fast-track small changes to legislation to fix problems. A single Regulatory Improvement Bill is an administratively efficient way of progressing uncontroversial but none the less important amendments that will have a positive impact for business. Similar bills aimed at improving the regulatory environment for business are intended to be a regular fixture on the legislative calendar.

The bill proposes amendments to the Companies Act 1993, the Conservation Act 1987, the Designs Act 1953, the Fisheries Act 1996, the Gas Act 1992, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995, the Weights and Measures Act 1987, and the Reserves Act 1977. I can tell from the Assistant Speaker Eric Roy’s interest that that is a piece of legislation dear to his heart, as a huntin’, fishin’ Southlander.

Most submitters were supportive of the bill, and the committee has not recommended any substantive changes to the proposals. I will outline the most significant changes that were recommended by the committee and the reasons for them. First, I will refer to the Designs Act 1953. The submitters who commented on the proposed amendments supported the proposals for amendment. The main change suggested by submitters was that the Act provide for the restoration of lapsed design applications. The submission was accepted by the committee, and the bill, as reported back now, provides for the restoration of those types of applications. The new amendments will bring the Designs Act into line with the Patents Act 1953 and with the Patents Bill, which is currently before Parliament, both of which include provisions for the restoration of lapsed applications.

The committee has also recommended the amendment of the commencement clause to make it more certain when the amendment to the Designs Act 1953 would come into force, the insertion of a clause that will explicitly authorise publication of bibliographical details of design applications so that the public is kept informed of applications being made, and the inclusion of clauses to allow the restoration of lapsed copyright in registered design.

The second Act that is worthy of some comment is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. The committee has recommended an amendment of clause 46 of the bill along with the insertion of a new clause. This clause amends the section in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that relates to incorporation by reference of material into regulations and other instruments. The clause was drafted in 2007 and differs from the Parliamentary Counsel Office’s proposed new standard clauses for incorporation by reference. The standard clause as prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel Office give effect to principles established by the Regulations Review Committee in its inquiry in 2004 into material that is incorporated by reference. In its 2008 report on the matter, the Regulations Review Committee recommended that such clauses be included in the Legislation Advisory Committee’s guidelines and enacted in a statute of general application so that they need not be re-enacted each time they are required.

The committee has recommended that apart from two exceptions, the bill be amended to conform to the proposed standard clauses. Those two exceptions are, first, that the mechanism in the bill for amendment to incorporated material by notification in the Gazette should be retained. In doing so, it has specifically safeguarded this mechanism with an express requirement that the material be brought to the attention of the Regulations Review Committee. The second exception is that the requirements for consulting on, and access to, amendments to material incorporated in the instruments involved should match the requirements that already apply in the Act for the instruments themselves.

The main concern for submitters on Part 6 of the bill was the change to the notification for applications to release hazardous substances from being mandatory to being at the discretion of the Environmental Risk Management Authority. The issue is really the balance between the benefits of public participation and the associated costs and delays. Reducing unnecessary costs and delays also contributes to innovation through the timely introduction of newer, typically less hazardous, chemicals. The change reflects the experience of the Environmental Risk Management Authority.

The reality is that of several hundred applications on hazardous substances that have been publicly notified since 2001, only 19 percent have attracted any submissions at all, and the majority of those submissions have come from both local and central government agencies. Only 4 percent of applications have attracted submissions from the public, with most of these being for veterinary medicines. The general concerns raised by submitters as to potentially harmful effects to certified organic producers and to trade are matters the authority would take into account in deciding whether there is likely to be significant public interest in a particular application.

There were a number of other submissions. Particularly, I should refer to two submissions, which sought amendments to those parts of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that address genetically modified organisms. However, nothing in this bill addresses or affects the regulation of genetically modified organisms.

This bill has been introduced under Standing Order 264(a), now 259(a). The Standing Order provides that a law reform or other omnibus bill to amend more than one Act may be introduced if the amendments deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a broad policy. It is intended that the bill will be divided into separate bills at the Committee of the whole House stage. I commend the bill to the House.