O'Rourke Denis: Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5873. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Legislation Bill wholeheartedly. We think it is a very good piece of legislation. Indeed we think it is high time that this country had it. I would like to begin by acknowledging the work of the Ministers involved of the Regulations Review Committees past and present and also of course of the officials who have been involved in producing this very good piece of legislation. For me I think the improvements it will make to public access—what I call understandability and what is called navigability in the regulatory impact statement—are the most important aspects of the bill. I can tell you that when I was admitted to the Bar in 1972 things were a lot more difficult for people then when they tried to navigate their way through legislation. I remember staggering into courtrooms with arms full of statutes or regulations in case I had to refer to some obscure part of one of them and track my way through various amendments. So Phil Goff’s reference to dusty volumes was very real for me in those days. But of course things have much improved and this particular bill is going to make things better still. I think accessibility and understandability not just for judges and lawyers but particularly for the public are what I particularly like about this piece of legislation. 
It is very important legislation dull though it may be to many people because it does govern the drafting of legislation in this country. It also concerns some new definitions of roles for the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. Principally it will be replacing the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 which is an old and rather out-of-date piece of legislation the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989 and the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989. More important still will be the programme for a 3-yearly review on a systematic basis of New Zealand legislation. I think that is extremely important as well. I do think also that the functions of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel in ensuring that legislation will be published in an electronic as well as a printed form are equally important and that he will be able to issue official versions in an electronic as well as a printed form. That is also important. 
I do however particularly want to refer to something that is stated in the regulatory impact statement when giving an example of why it is important for people to be able to navigate their way through legislation. It says: “For example the law on one topic can be scattered with provisions sometimes hidden in unlikely statutes; and Acts are amended many times before they are replaced. This can lead to inconsistencies with obsolete and redundant provisions remaining in force.” Those are exactly the sorts of problems that this bill addresses and it is why New Zealand First is so happy to support the bill. 
I do want to refer especially to clauses 31 and 33 because I think that these are most important parts of the bill as a whole. The most important part of all is clause 29(2) which sets out the purpose: “The purpose of revision is to re-enact in an up-to-date and accessible form the law previously contained in all or part of 1 or more Acts but (except as authorised by this subpart) revision is not intended to change the effect of a law.” That is the crux of the whole thing I believe. I also note that in clause 33A(1) it says: “A revision Bill as introduced must not contain any proposed change to the effect of the law unless the amendment is authorised by section 31.” So that is repeated there again. I note with some pleasure also the requirements for certification in clause 33 which I think are a very valuable safeguard. 
However if I were to express any concerns at all—and I must say that they are not great concerns—I would have to refer to clause 31 which does provide the revision powers. It refers particularly to some I think important items in clause 31(2) which states that “A revision Bill may—(a) revise the whole or part of 1 or more Acts and for that purpose combine or divide Acts or parts of Acts:”. I do not think that is likely to cause any difficulty with regard to the requirement not to change the law. However if you look at clause 31(2)(f) it does state that it is possible to “include new or additional purpose provisions outline or overview provisions examples diagrams …” and so on. So actually that does make it possible for some change in the substance of the law to be introduced. However with the certification provisions I think the risk of that is minor. The greatest risks—if there are any of course—are in clauses 31(2)(i) and (j). Clause 31(2)(i) says that it is possible to “make minor amendments to clarify Parliament’s intent”. The problem is of course that we will never really know what the word “minor” means and “to clarify Parliament’s intent” can be a lot more difficult than the words as stated might on the surface mean. Clause 31(2)(j) refers to updating “any monetary amount” and so on—those sorts of things. So there is some scope for a change to the substance of the law to be introduced as part of a revision bill. However I think care has been taken in the bill as a whole to make sure that that will not happen especially the certification provisions. Indeed clause 31(3) states quite explicitly that “A revision Bill must not change the effect of the law except as authorised by subsection (2)(i) or (j).” which are the very ones I referred to under which such a change is possible. 
But I think the safeguards are quite sufficient and New Zealand First for that reason is very satisfied with the bill as it stands. We believe that it will result in legislation being regularly updated that it will be much more understandable or navigable as it says in the regulatory impact statement and that certainly from the public’s point of view it will be much much more accessible. For all of those reasons New Zealand First will be very happy to support the bill as amended at this stage.