Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20386] 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to talk in general terms about the process with regard to Statutes Amendment bills although I know that Part 1 of this bill is about the Alcohol Advisory Council Act. I do not intend to take a call on each part. When we debated the second reading of this bill it became very evident at that time that the Government was introducing Supplementary Order Papers at the eleventh hour that we did not have a chance to debate. We had read the bill talked to our various spokespeople on the issue and gone to the Government Administration Committee but subsequent to that a number of Supplementary Order Papers were tabled. I made the point very strongly during the debate on 5 April that that was unsatisfactory and that the process needed to be streamlined. I have had an assurance from the Minister that that will be the case in the future and we are happy to support Supplementary Order Papers 342 and 349 as we go through the process on this bill. 
However—and I bring it up now because I think it is important—we were notified last week that there will be once again a Supplementary Order Paper comprising pages on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) which is currently before the Government Administration Committee and on which I spoke during the first reading debate. Given the point I made during the second reading debate on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) about late Supplementary Order Papers being unsatisfactory when the support and the agreement of the whole House is necessary and given the fact that the Government has flagged that there will be substantial changes to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) that will add other significant requirements one has to ask whether there needs to be a Statutes Amendment Bill (No 6) to cover those points. So I say to the Minister in the chair Rick Barker that the points I made when we debated the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) are still relevant to the progress of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) which is currently before the select committee. 
As I said National members will not be taking calls on all parts of this bill. We have thoroughly vetted them. I will make a couple of points as we go through the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: In relation to Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker I signal the Government’s objection to Part 1 standing part. 
Part 1 objected to and struck out of the bill. 
Part 1A agreed to.  
Part 2 Conservation Act 1987 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I do not specifically object to the clauses in this part but I think there is a question surrounding the Department of Conservation’s role in its wider advocacy if you like on behalf of conservation. Of course live aquatic life is very much a part of that. But there appears to me to be a significant conflict of interest within the Department of Conservation when we realise that it has not just an advocacy role not just a management role and not just a governance role but all three roles. I am at something of a loss to understand why that is still the case. Whether it is to do with live aquatic life which this particular part of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) refers to or whether it is to do with the wider conservation field it is widely accepted by any of us who have some experience of the Department of Conservation that the combination of all three of the department’s roles is totally inappropriate. We know that in any corporation or organisation each role is absolutely independent—absolutely separate one from the other and one accountable to the other. For example in the role of governance the role of a board of governors or of the board in control is to set the rules and it is for management to apply those rules and get on with the job of managing the organisation. 
But in this part the department has an advocacy role as well as a governance role. Anybody with any modicum of understanding of the business world and of best practice knows that one cannot combine all three roles. I think that has caused significant problems for the department as well as for those who have land neighbouring the conservation estate the sea or whatever it may be. Tragically—and I say this genuinely—the department is becoming known as the neighbour from hell. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Clauses 5 and 6. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I hear I am being pointed back to the particular clause about the transfer or release of live aquatic life. But if there is an application to transfer some live aquatic life say from the North Island to the South Island for a farming purpose—and we are increasingly moving into aquatic farming—then it appears to me that there is a conflict immediately. The department has the role of ensuring through its advocacy that the purity if you like of that life stays the same in the North Island but if it is shifted to the South Island there is the question of whether the strains would remain pure and so on. It seems to me to be totally inappropriate for one department to be able to have that sort of overarching control of that wider area. I say again that the issue is not just about live aquatic life; it is reflective of life right throughout the spectrum. But that certainly is an issue and it is one that we will no doubt hear a lot more of in future. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take it we are looking only at Part 2 on its own and that Part 2A is a separate part that will be looked at separately. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes it is—most certainly. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 2A Constitution Act 1986 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The procedure as I understand it on a Statutes Amendment Bill is that we agree to everything because we have been briefed in advance by the Minister so there is really no cause for debate. This part of course is slightly different because a Supplementary Order Paper has been put forward. Discussions took place on the Supplementary Order Paper and my understanding was that section 20(1)(a) substituted in clause 6C would be redrafted to differ from this particular draft. Am I correct in thinking that and will an amendment be moved? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: There is an amendment. 
DAIL JONES 
: There is an amendment? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Yes there is. 
DAIL JONES 
: We have not seen it— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: It is on the Table. If you give me a chance I will speak to it. You beat me to it. 
DAIL JONES 
: Is it on the Table? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Yes it is. 
DAIL JONES 
: Thank you very much. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The honourable member Dail Jones is exactly correct: Supplementary Order Paper 349 is on the Table. It has been agreed to by the Standing Orders Committee and discussed with the Clerk and there is unanimity. One small contextual change has been made to the Supplementary Order Paper and there is an amendment in my name on the Table to that effect. If people look at section 20(1)(a) substituted in clause 6C they will see a semicolon and the word “but”. The amendment deletes the semicolon and the word “but” and replaces them with a colon. That has been agreed to and I understand that with the inclusion of this amendment there is now unanimity on that particular provision. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to proposed new clause 6C set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in his name be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) in section 20(1) theword “; but” and substitute the expression “:”. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 2A be agreed to. 
Amendment as amended agreed to and Part 2A as amended agreed to. 
Parts 2B to 4 agreed to.  
Part 5 Fire Service Act 1975 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call on Part 5 “Fire Service Act 1975”. That is an issue. I agree with the changes made but I want to draw to the attention of the Committee the huge significance of the National Rural Fire Authority throughout—naturally enough—rural New Zealand. Some real concerns are being expressed by those of us who live in the hinterland over the powers that the National Rural Fire Authority has been given. When those powers are exercised appropriately there is no problem but we tend to be finding a little bit more especially in the dry regions of the South Island that the responsibilities of the authority which indeed can often involve the Department of Conservation—members will note that that department rears its head in a lot of places—are being taken to the extreme in so far as when a controlled fire takes place too often the panic button is pushed for the fire authorities to come in with their bright shiny new gear and put out a fire as often as not at huge cost to the landowners concerned. 
That is a real problem that really does need to be addressed yet so far as I can see it has not been. As often as not those fires are caused by that thing called an unexplained cause and as often as not it can be a passing tramper a cigarette butt or whatever. But if the fire is put out on rural land it is the responsibility of that landowner and that is where the cost falls. So of course that requires a very significant insurance policy which in terms of the premium is increasing on a pretty rapid basis as those fires become more and more expensive and as helicopters are used as the primary tool if you like to put those fires out. That cost is falling back on the rural landowner. 
Many of us are starting to ask if the cost is to fall on the rural landowner then why does the cost of putting out a fire in a city not fall on the owner of that particular house? That would be deemed to be rather unfair in the urban arena and we deem it to be so in the rural arena as well. Unfortunately as I said earlier the Department of Conservation is a fire authority and it is inclined to push the panic button far too soon and go in with massive resources. As soon as the resource goes in so too does the cost. 
Many of us in rural New Zealand would say that a timely fire is a hugely appropriate way of controlling potentially devastating fires in the future. As we have learnt from other countries such as Canada America and Australia a timely burn is highly appropriate as long as the area is not burnt every few years. But I would like to see the responsibilities of the National Rural Fire Authority or the fire officer curtailed somewhat by ensuring that the key local land groups for example in the regions are consulted before the fire authority hits that button. This is a hugely important aspect for most of us especially in the drier regions of the South Island. 
I do not have much more comment to make other than to say that I think we will be addressing this issue in the not too distant future especially when we talk about the fire safety margins in clause 25. I see that the Department of Conservation has a responsibility to ensure that they are kept in a state if I can put it that way to ensure that a fire does not carry from a private property through the safety margin and on to the Department of Conservation estate where as often as not very significant flora and fauna may exist. So my question really is how on earth will the Department of Conservation control the massive number of margins that exist right throughout this country? Nothing in this bill indicates how that responsibility will be carried out. 
Part 5 agreed to. 
Parts 6 and 7 agreed to.  
Part 7A Government Superannuation Fund Act 1956 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek some clarification on this part particularly of clause 33B. The Minister does not need to make a speech about it; he can just nod in agreement or shake his head. I understand that the provision here is directed at police officers who to get their money out at the age of 50 years will perf in order to get their superannuation but who then cannot be re-employed. I do not know whether that is correct in fact and I ask whether the Minister if he is able to could shake his head or nod in agreement to confirm that the changes that are being made will allow members to access their funds and receive a lump-sum payment without being disadvantaged. Am I correct in that assessment of what Part 7A and specifically clause 33B is about? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to any of those clauses? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I just wondered whether the Minister could give me a nod about that. I ask whether I am correct in that assessment. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I just want the member to repeat the question. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The situation as I understand it is that when police officers turn 50 they will be able to access their funds. Rather than being able to do that at present they perf in order to receive their superannuation but then they cannot be re-employed. I understand this clause will allow members of the police to access their funds so that they will not be disadvantaged. All I want is clarification about that point. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: My officials advise me that that is correct. 
Part 7A agreed to. 
Part 8 agreed to.  
New Part 8A Judicature Act 1908 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to insert new Part 8A be agreed to. 
New Part 8A agreed to. 
Parts 9 to 11 agreed to.  
Part 12 Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will be objecting to clause 67 in this part concerning the requirement to supply a supplier information notice card (SIN card). Traditionally when a transaction has happened between motor traders it has been accepted that a SIN card has not been required. Therefore we have no problems with anything in the bill except when we come to section 14 (1A)(b) and (c) in clause 67 because now we have the case whereby a motor trader that may be an insurance company—in fact the request for this provision came from an insurance company—sells a vehicle that is still registered to a wrecker the insurance company maintains that it causes extra compliance costs for the trader to have to provide the SIN card. 
But the problem we have is that we are fostering another great black hole for the recycling of cars that have been substantially damaged or written-off without having any checks and balances on their repair. For example if an imported motor vehicle comes across the wharf and has any form of damage that vehicle is flagged. It is not that the vehicle cannot be repaired because it can be repaired but it must go through the correct process and have engineers’ reports etc. depending on the damage before it is called “complied” and issued with an MR2A form to allow it to be registered. An insurance company that is also a motor trader does not have to supply a SIN card under the current regulations provided that the vehicle is deregistered. If a vehicle is deregistered sold to a motor wrecker then purchased by somebody who decides to repair that vehicle it can be repaired. But again it must go through the correct procedure to make sure all the repairs are done correctly before it is reissued with an MR2A form and comes on to the market as a reregistered vehicle. 
Unfortunately paragraphs (b) and (c) allow insurance companies to sell damaged cars while maintaining their registration. Therefore nothing stops those cars from being repaired without any checks and balances then being sold to the unsuspecting public as cars that have been substantially damaged and repaired in New Zealand. 
United Future supports the idea that a transaction from motor trader to motor trader should not need to have a SIN card. However we do not accept that in the case of a trader that is selling as in paragraphs (b) and (c) to somebody with a licence granted under the Secondhand Dealers Act or the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act “who buys in the course of that person’s business as a secondhand dealer motor vehicles for wrecking or dismantling by that person;” because we maintain that is just another step in the process to allow cars to be recycled. 
So we welcome the new Motor Vehicle Sales Act coming up for review but we also flag the significant concerns in the industry over the SIN card issue. This would be a retrograde step a bad step and an indication in the wrong direction so United Future will be objecting to clause 67. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 On the basis of that objection to clause 67 I object to clause 68 as clause 68 cannot stand without clause 67. 
Clauses 67 and 68 objected to and struck out of the bill and Part 12 as amended agreed to. 
Part 13 agreed to.  
Part 14 New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 14 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and Part 14 agreed to. 
Parts 15 to 18 agreed to.  
Part 18A Sale of Liquor Amendment Act 2004 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I am not objecting to this new part but I do note that it is quite ironic that the commentary states: “As from 6 April 2004 section 37 of the Sale of Liquor Act was amended … to alter certain conditions of off-licences to provide for sales of wines from wineries on Easter Sunday”. It is interesting that last Easter a number of wineries that one would have expected to take advantage of this decided not to open. I was in Queenstown at the time and it was publicised there that because of the Holidays Act wineries were not prepared to open. I just make that point. This part will alter certain conditions of off-licences to allow sales from wineries on Easter Sunday but interestingly enough this probably will not happen to a large extent because other criteria—namely the Holidays Act—will make it uneconomic for those places to open. 
Part 18A agreed to. 
Parts 19 and 20 agreed to.  
Schedule 1 agreed to.  
Schedule 2 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and schedule 2 as amended agreed to 
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.  
The Committee divided the bill into the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill (No 2) the Conservation Amendment Bill (No 3) the Constitution Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill (No 3) the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) the Evidence Amendment Bill the Fire Service Amendment Bill (No 2) the Forest and Rural Fires Amendment Bill the Geneva Conventions Amendment Bill the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 5) the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Amendment Bill (No 2) the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 4) the Land Transfer Amendment Bill the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 4) the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill the National Parks Amendment Bill the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Amendment Bill the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Amendment Bill the Racing Amendment Bill the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) the Reserves Amendment Bill the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 4) the Telecommunications Amendment Bill and the Trade in Endangered Species Amendment Bill  
divided into the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill (No 2) the Conservation Amendment Bill (No 3) the Constitution Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill (No 3) the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) the Evidence Amendment Bill the Fire Service Amendment Bill (No 2) the Forest and Rural Fires Amendment Bill the Geneva Conventions Amendment Bill the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 5) the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Amendment Bill (No 2) the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 4) the Land Transfer Amendment Bill the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 4) the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill the National Parks Amendment Bill the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Amendment Bill the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Amendment Bill the Racing Amendment Bill the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) the Reserves Amendment Bill the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 4) the Telecommunications Amendment Bill the Trade in Endangered Species Amendment Bill 
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper342. 
Bill reported with amendment.