We are debating the Regulatory Improvement Bill, which makes a number of amendments to a number of Acts. Stuart Nash outlined the Acts earlier this morning, and they include the Companies Act, the Conservation Act, the Fisheries Act, the Gas Act, and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I will focus my comments on two particular Acts: the Designs Act 1953 and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995.
In relation to the Designs Act, we note in the commentary on this bill that its provisions have been drafted to come into effect on the day after the bill is given the Royal assent, with the exception of most of the provisions that are changes to the Designs Act. When the bill first came into the House, there was a provision for the changes to the Designs Act to become effective on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council or the date when the Governor-General gave the Royal assent, but there was no fixed time for that. That time provision could have dragged on for a number of years. In fact, we heard a member of the Labour Opposition mention this morning a particular instance whereby it took some 8 years for some regulations to come into force.
The Commerce Committee, of which I am a member—I have to say that I did not play a large part in this bill’s deliberation; nevertheless, I am a member of that committee—was concerned to ensure that there was some certainty. An amendment was put forward and Labour members have spoken at length on that this morning. There was a provision that notwithstanding the balance of the bill, for which all of the other changes were to come in immediately, the changes to the Designs Act were to come into effect on the earlier of two dates: the Governor-General giving an Order in Council, or the date of a year after the bill receives Royal assent. The reason for making that change was to provide certainty. In the commentary, the select committee said that members of the public need to have certainty, and there should be only very rare and exceptional circumstances when we do not provide that certainty or when it is justifiable not to have some certainty and not to set a date for provisions to come into effect.
That set my mind thinking as to when else we would have those rare and exceptional circumstances. I went back to the passing of the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill last November. We were told in this House that that bill would be based on the Australian scheme, that the officials could make all the regulations they wanted, and that they would have more than sufficient time because all they had to do was copy the Australian regulations. Well, I realise I should keep the debate to the particular issue of the Designs Act, but the point I am making is that that Act deals with copyright and designs. Therefore, it was considered that a year should be more than sufficient time to make those regulations. It is not surprising that a year was thought sufficient because the regulations that were to flow from the emissions trading scheme legislation all had to be made in 6 months. That should not have been a problem, because we were copying the Australian legislation. The only problem was that there was no Australian legislation—no Australian legislation, at all—so now we are going where no country has gone before.
That leads me to my next point concerning the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995. This Regulatory Improvement Bill makes some amendments to that Act. The primary purpose of those amendments is to remove the penalty regimes applicable under the Act for non-payment of cost recovery levies as they are already provided for in the Fisheries Act 1996. We are making amendments here to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995 to ensure there is not a duplication of penalties.
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) : My understanding is that this is the second reading debate on the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I was not intending to take a call on this bill, but I have been listening to Mr Stuart Nash this morning and I have heard very little about the bill and the things that are in it. In fact, Mr Nash used his opportunity to promote Lianne Dalziel. I was not counting, but I understand that Mr Sam Lotu-Iiga was, and I think her name was mentioned nine times.
I need to respond to some of the comments that Mr Nash made about Lianne Dalziel. I agree that Lianne Dalziel is a good listener, and she is a very good chair of the Commerce Committee. I had the pleasure of attending a function in Hawke’s Bay with her just on 2 weeks ago, when she launched her member’s bill. In fact, Mr Nash knows that well, because he was there on the day, initially, as well.
We also heard from Mr Nash that the Labour Party is the true party of business, and he talked about a consultation process. He said that Lianne Dalziel had travelled around the country from North Cape to the Bluff, consulting and listening. But then, sadly, Mr Nash could not pass up the opportunity to try to screw the knife in. He said that he could not see Rodney Hide and Simon Power travelling around and consulting the country. As an ACT member, I cannot allow those comments to go unchallenged.
Hone Harawira: Hear, hear!
JOHN BOSCAWEN: I thank Mr Hone Harawira for that. Those comments cannot go unchallenged, because Mr Rodney Hide, the other three ACT MPs, and I are the only MPs who are listening to the people of New Zealand on the emissions trading scheme. We are the only people listening.
I find it interesting that Mr Nash talks about the Labour Party being the party of business. If Labour had had its way and won the last election, we would have already had a 10 percent increase in the price of electricity. From 1 January this year, we would have had a 10 percent increase in the price of electricity. We would have had massive windfall profits going to those power generators that produce electricity from hydro sources—renewable sources—and then do not have to pay the emissions trading scheme tax because they are not burning up coal or gas.
Mr Hide is a listener. He fought virtually single-handedly against the emissions trading scheme in the last Parliament. He absolutely, totally opposed it. I attended a breakfast this morning with European parliamentarians, where the comment was made that there is a general consensus between Labour and National on the emissions trading scheme, and that it would have been a very tough job for Mr Hide to represent the views of the people and to stand up and speak out against it.
Mr Hide listens; I cannot speak for Mr Power. I hope that Mr Power—
Hon Lianne Dalziel: Nine times.
JOHN BOSCAWEN: Oh, nine comments, was it, for Lianne Dalziel? I have mentioned her name a couple of times myself. I hope that Mr Power is listening to the voices of business. I hope that he is listening to consumers, I hope that he is listening to families, and I hope that he is listening to farmers. We are introducing a tax on our farmers that will result in windfall profits, and I cannot let those comments go unchallenged. Thank you