Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12107] 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) 
First Reading 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration. 
As the House is well aware Statutes Amendment bills are a useful vehicle for making minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. They allow amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed. This is achieved with the support of all members of this House. 
The House has only recently dealt with the Statutes Amendment Bill. The reason for the second bill being introduced so soon after this is primarily to regularise the annual timing of the Statutes Amendment bills following requests from members of this Parliament needing to plan their consideration of the proposed amendments within their annual parliamentary schedules. 
 I thank members for their feedback on the Statutes Amendment bill process and for their cooperation with the revised process as all members had input into it. I also thank members for their consideration of the amendments proposed for this bill and for expressing their support for the amendments included in it. I acknowledge the splendid work of the various officials coordinating the administrative aspects of the development of the bill and those who have provided very valuable support and information for members while they have been considering the proposed amendments. 
The bill as introduced amends 14 Acts administered by eight different departments. Proposed amendments include an amendment to the Crimes Act 1961 to correct and remove a reference to the death penalty which was abolished some time ago and an amendment to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995 to substitute the term “video record” for the outdated term “video tape”. This change in terminology is to reflect the definition in the Evidence Act 2006 which is broad enough to cover digital video recordings. An amendment to the Historic Places Act 1993 amends a drafting error and removes ambiguity in a provision that creates an offence of and imposes a penalty for the damage or destruction of a property under the control of the Historic Places Trust. An amendment to the National Parks Act 1980 removes an incorrect statutory reference and corrects a drafting error. An amendment to the District Courts Act 1947 removes subsections that also reside in the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 to clarify in which court certain proceedings should be brought. 
Amendments to the Veterinarians Act 2005 close a gap in the legislation that permits people who hold a recognised veterinary science degree to be registered only on the basis of their qualifications. Veterinarians will now have to satisfy the Veterinary Council of New Zealand of their fitness to practise in order to be registered. This change brings the Veterinarians Act up to date with comparable legislation for other professions—for example lawyers and teachers. I particularly want to thank the Green Party for its support of these amendments to the Veterinarians Act 2005 being included in the bill. 
To conclude I point out that the examples of amendments I have mentioned that are included in the bill demonstrate the value of Statutes Amendment bills as a regular vehicle for advancing technical yet important amendments to current legislation. I again thank members on all sides for their support of the bill and I commend it to the House. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 National will support the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and will support its referral to the Government Administration Committee so that the matter can be dealt with as quickly as possible. My friend the junior Opposition whip did interject on the Minister Clayton Cosgrove and ask why it was necessary to have two Statutes Amendment bills and I do not think I heard an answer—or if I did it was not in any way adequate. 
I do not think this is a good way of legislating. Indeed I refer members to an excellent paper which has just been published by the Law Commission called  
Presentation of New Zealand Statute Law 
. It is worth reminding the House when we deal with these sorts of bills that there are certain fundamental principles about legislation and it is necessary to emphasise the importance of access to legislation. As the learned authors of this text say: “It is a fundamental precept of any legal system that the law must be accessible to the public. Ignorance of the law is no excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law.” If I can interpolate there one sees that this is indeed the law if one looks at section 25 of the Crimes Act which states: “The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence that may be committed by him.”—or her. As the authors of this report go on to say: “That presumption would be insupportable if the law were not available and accessible to all. The state also has an interest in the law’s accessibility. It needs the law to be effective and it cannot be if the public do not know what it is.” 
As the Law Commission also says it is notorious that New Zealand’s statute law is untidy and one of the reasons for that is that we have to pass this kind of legislation— and I am prepared to say that we do so all too frequently. Mistakes are made and slip-ups occur when they should not occur and it comes back to that important issue of accessibility to the law given that the citizen is presumed to know the law and that ignorance of the law is no excuse. 
Indeed the Law Commission report goes further to state that where there are substantive amendments to legislation given that New Zealand’s legislation is amended very frequently it should be necessary to revise the legislation. Well these are not substantive amendments. They are as the Minister said in the nature of minor amendments but that does not mean to say that the principle I have outlined about the need for this place to take greater care in legislating and about how those who advise the legislators need to dot the i’s and cross the t’s does not apply. 
With those comments I turn to this bill. There are a number of reasons why one has a Statutes Amendment bill and they have been outlined by the Minister. The first is to correct minor errors that may have crept in and I refer to Parts 5 and 9 of this bill. A second reason will be to deal with minor changes to ensure consistency with other legislation—for example Parts 4 and 12 of this bill. The third reason will be to make minor improvements that were overlooked when the legislation was being dealt with; I refer members to Part 7. Finally some minor changes may be required consequent upon administrative acts—like for example a name change—and I refer members to Parts 8 and 10 as illustrative of that principle. 
With those general comments in mind I will now make a couple of comments about aspects of the bill. I do not intend to comment on Parts 1 and 2 but I will say something about Part 3 because it does illustrate the point I have been making about the need to dot the i’s and cross the t’s and the tendency of this Parliament to be sloppy. Part 3 deals with an amendment to the Crimes Act 1961. It amends section 35(a) of that Act by removing an outdated reference to an offence punishable by death. As the explanatory note states: “Offences punishable by death were repealed by the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act”—an Act that came into force on Boxing Day 1989. I simply cannot understand why it has taken almost 20 years for the draftsman or some official in the Ministry of Justice to come to the conclusion that section 35(a) needed to be amended. Section 35 “Arrest of persons found committing certain crimes” provides in paragraph (a) that any person—not just a constable but any person—may arrest another person where he or she finds that person “committing any offence against this Act that is punishable by death or for which the maximum punishment is not less than 3 years’ imprisonment.” So it is obvious that that provision should have gone many years ago. 
Part 4 amends the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. The changes there are simply to insert a definition of “video record” that is the same as the definition of “video record” in the Evidence Act 2006. Not too much can be made of that. The Evidence Act was the subject of a lot of work last year and that definition should be standard throughout the statute book. 
I will not dwell on Parts 5 and 6 but a couple of changes have been made in Part 7 that I will dwell on for a minute. The changes are amendments to the Historic Places Act and they are examples of amendments that should have been dealt with last year when we dealt with legislation amending the Act. As far as I can recall we were dealing in particular with the constitution of the Historic Places Trust. Clause 26 proposes to insert after section 43 of that Act a provision dealing with extraordinary vacancies to the board and I suggest that this is the sort of thing we should have dealt with last year. 
Parts 8 9 and 10 are of no great moment—nor are the other parts—so I will not take the time of the House in commenting on them. They are in the category of minor changes or fall into one of the categories I mentioned earlier in the course of this speech. 
But I come back to the fact that I do not think it should be necessary to have two Statutes Amendment bills following on from one another as they have here. I agree with the Law Commission that New Zealand’s statute law is untidy. I think that Statutes Amendment bills should be the exception rather than the rule but at times in this place they seem to be the rule. At the end of the day bearing in mind the obligations on all citizens to know the law—because ignorance of the law is no excuse—it is absolutely essential for legislation to be accessible to the public. When minor amendments such as these are introduced by Statutes Amendment bills that important issue of accessibility to the law can be compromised. With those comments in mind I reiterate that National will support this bill through its first reading and going to the select committee but I certainly hope we do not have another Statutes Amendment bill this year. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. A tena tatou katoa e te Whare. In considering this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) I am reminded of the fact that like this bill the Westminster style of Parliament is an exercise in precedent and ritual established over hundreds of years which is expressed nowhere more obviously than in the movie  
Amazing Grace 
. 
The move is about a British politician William Wilberforce who over a period of 20 years led a fierce political battle to abolish slavery and its trade throughout the British Empire. His campaign culminated in an impassioned speech by Lord Grenville in the House of Lords during which he criticised fellow members for “not having abolished the trade long ago” and argued that the trade was “contrary to the principles of justice humanity and sound policy”. That was followed by a second reading in the House of the Slave Trade Bill the bill passing by 283 votes to 16 and the Slave Trade Act gaining Royal assent on 25 March 1807. 
The surprising thing for me though is how in 200 years Parliament has hardly changed. There is the same layout of the debating chamber with tiered rows the gallery up above the Speaker of the House the heckling the back-door deals the speech-making the practices the processes and the rituals. Indeed apart from the wigs and the dress it seems that little has changed at all. 
I raise the matter of the history of ritual and procedure because it seems that the process of getting to the first reading of a Statutes Amendment bill is something of a ritual in itself—one of those rare occasions when the full cooperation of the House is apparent. Eulogies and events of national and international significance are the other occasions. 
The process gives me cause to raise another matter of international significance that had widespread national support from within Maoridom but no support whatsoever it seems from either the Government or indeed the Labour Maori caucus. I am talking about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—a declaration emphasising the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions cultures and traditions. The declaration is supported by 143 countries of the world and opposed by four including this Labour Government. 
In line with the efforts of those slaves freed men and women parliamentary speakers and community leaders who fought for the rights of all men women and children of colour to be free from the bonds of slavery I am mindful also of the efforts of our own indigenous leaders who spoke up for the declaration over the past 25 years. 
 As we give thought to the historical processes behind the acceptance for bills such as this one the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) I would like us to consider the fact that although Nanaia Mahuta spoke against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples history will tell us that Sir Robert Mahuta and indeed Te Atairangikaahu were both strong supporters of the declaration. 
Again as we debate the historical development of change in legislation that gives rise to the amendments suggested in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) I would like us to consider also the fact that although my whanaunga Shane Jones spoke against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples history will also tell us that Shane’s and my whanaunga Sir James Henare and Dame Mira Szaszy were noted supporters of the declaration. 
In a final reference to the history behind the technical changes to legislation necessitating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) I would like us to consider also the fact that although Mita Ririnui is recorded as a member of the Government that opposed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples history will also tell us that the late Whakahuihui Vercoe was a member of an indigenous delegation that travelled to the United Nations to support the declaration. 
Indeed historical references that give us the background to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) also enable us to reference the historical support given by other individuals such as Sir Paul Reeves and the late Syd Jackson as well as organisational support from groups such as the Maori Women’s Welfare League the New Zealand Maori Council and the National Maori Congress for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the face of opposition to the declaration from the Labour Government and the Labour Maori caucus including Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels and Shane Jones. 
On the eve of the 2007 Maori Women’s Welfare League conference I am happy to note that its support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the same as that given to the declaration by the Maori Party. 
There are a couple of very important amendments to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) that I would like to speak on. I note with horror but no surprise being a Maori that section 35 of the Crimes Act still includes reference to the death penalty which was supposed to have been abolished nearly 50 years ago for heaven’s sake! 
We have a history in which New Zealand carried out legalistic and ritual murder from 1842 to 1957 a history in which New Zealand legally executed 83 people and a history in which Maori people have featured disproportionately—again to the surprise of no Maori. It is a history of death by formal execution that began with the killing of Maketu Wharetotara son of the Ngapuhi chief Ruhe of Waimate but it did not end there. It is ironic that at a time when England was fretting over its new colony peopled by lawless pox-ridden land-grabbing white whalers sailors traders double-dealers thieves mongrels and scum of the white nations of the world the first person who was executed happened to be Maori. Why are we not surprised at that? 
This history includes the execution of Te Whakatohea chief Mokomoko and four others Heremita Kahupaea Hakaraia Te Rahui Horomona Poropiti and Mikaere Kirimangu for the murder of the missionary Carl Völkner. Yet for Mokomoko as for many other Maori execution was only the middle punishment. Prior to that colonial militia had been allowed to rampage through Te Whakatohea territory looting pillaging and burning villages and crops in order to smoke out Mokomoko and his comrades. After the execution the land-grabbing white settler Government proceeded to steal thousands of hectares of Te Whakatohea land as a further reprisal. 
Others in the list of those receiving the death penalty that is referenced in this bill include: Maroro in 1849 Taherei in 1863 Ruarangi in 1864 Nikotema Okoroa in 1864 Whakamau in 1869 Hamiora Peri in 1869 Kereopa in 1872 Nutana in 1875 Te Mohi in 1877 Tuhiata in 1880 Wiremu Hiroki in 1882 and the list goes on and on to Edward Te Whiu in 1955. 
I have called out that roll of 17 names deliberately to remind us of our shameful history of racism and to remind us that in taking steps to remove the words “punishable by death” we do not forget the history of legitimised murder and land theft that is part of our colonial history. 
On a personal note I say that in 1981 a number of us were picked up and jailed in Mount Eden Prison during the Springbok Tour including Shane Jones’ relations such as Haami Piripi Mangu Awarau my brother and myself. Following a revolt against prison regulations we were split up. Haami got left in remand I got sent down to the separation wing Mangu got sent to the pound and my brother Arthur was put in a cell where they used to hold guys just before they hanged them. It was a freaky experience he tells me and a good note on which to end that part of my korero. 
The Maori Party will be voting for this bill to enable the necessary changes to be made to tidy up legislation. But we remind the House that in doing so we must never forget the history behind many of the cruel bigoted intolerant and unfair laws that have blighted our history and we must never forget the role that this Government and the Labour Maori caucus have played in making a cruel bigoted intolerant and unfair decision that will blight our future in voting against the rest of the world’s support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. On behalf of New Zealand First I would like to make my party’s contribution to this debate. I should say from the outset that New Zealand First will certainly support this bill going to the Government Administration Committee. We have always believed it is important that the people of New Zealand should be given the opportunity to express their views on any legislation and what it might be all about. By referring the bill to a select committee we give the people of New Zealand that opportunity. I know that a number of people around the country are interested in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). These people include Barry Hegley in Howick; Mr and Mrs Jim Stewart who are also in Howick; and Reene Peach in the Piako electorate. They all seek the opportunity to have a say in the formulation of the laws of our land and by referring this bill to a select committee we give those people and everyone else that opportunity. 
I note the citation from the National Party speaker in regard to the Law Commission’s comment about statute law being untidy. I am not in a position to question that comment and I certainly do not question the Law Commission but if an august body like the Law Commission should make comments about the statute laws of New Zealand then it is certainly incumbent on this Parliament to do something about it. I think this bill addresses that concern—probably not in its entirety but it is certainly going in the right direction. 
The bill amends a number of Acts and I am particularly interested in one or two of the statutes that this bill seeks to amend. I make reference to the Fisheries Act 1996 and the amendment that will allow the Minister of Fisheries to make a decision in terms of particular species particularly where those species are under threat. I hope that as part of the select committee process the issue surrounding the authority that is intended to be extended to the Minister—over and above his present authority—will be discussed and given due consideration by the committee. 
The other amendment that I am particularly interested in is the one regarding the Veterinarians Act 2005. It is good to know that the amendment intends that those wanting to enter the profession will not only have to have the qualifications but also have to satisfy the profession’s own council before being able to practice. 
I do not have too much to say on the bill other than that it will help to keep our laws up to date thus hopefully making our legislation more appropriate and relevant to today’s needs. On behalf of New Zealand First I say that we support the bill being referred to a select committee. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 For all those people now out there in their vehicles heading up the Kapiti coast snarled up in congestion I am taking a call on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). They will interested in the comments I want to make as will the farmers listening out there in their cowsheds while they milk the cows. I am sure that they will be interested in the comments I am about to make because I wish to cover Part 6 which talks about the Fisheries Act; Part 10 which talks about the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act; and quite an important issue in relation to Part 14 the Veterinarians Act 2005. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Quite a panoramic sweep. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Mr Worth is right it is very panoramic indeed. This legislation is very much a tidy-up bill. Mr Finlayson made a very good comment before in relation to the third reading last week of a Statutes Amendment Bill. We now have the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). One would think that if the Government were on to it it would have had this all tidied up in one bill. But once again the Government Administration Committee will have to sort that out. 
The bill amends the Fisheries Act 1996 and provides that the Minister will be able to determine that stock or species subject to the permanent moratorium will not be subject to the quota management system. The important thing to realise here is that apart from tuna species there are only very small aspects that are not in the quota management system. It is really just a bit of a tidy-up around the Fisheries Act 1996 which National supports. 
Part 10 relates to the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act. In essence this provision encompasses the New Zealand Fruitgrowers Federation New Zealand Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation and New Zealand Berryfruit Growers Federation and brings them into one collective that will be called Horticulture New Zealand Incorporated. Also a big part of this provision is that it will allow the New Zealand Nurserymens Association to be rolled into and encompass the Nursery and Garden Industry Association of New Zealand. I am sure that you Mr Deputy Speaker as a very passionate gardener on the weekends will be interested in this part. 
In essence I want to talk about the horticulture industry because it is an industry that is very important to our primary production. It exceeds about $4.7 billion and it does a very very good job in terms of industry-wide issues. It is an important lobbyist for the 7000 commercial fruit and vegetable growers in New Zealand. The big issues they have at the moment are environmental and employment issues. The Government is very keen to attract employees from overseas into New Zealand to help pick our fruit and vegetables. I am interested to see that they will be paid more than our New Zealand workers because they will have their accommodation supplied and their transport costs supplemented. Also half of the cost of their air travel will be paid for. Those are the issues that this industry has to come to terms with. It is a very very important primary produce industry that nets about $4.7 billion into our economy. 
 The other provision I wish to touch on relates to the Veterinarians Act in Part 14 of the bill. In essence this will do just a bit of a tidy-up in relation to the registration and disciplining of veterinarians. I dug out the annual report of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand and I looked at just how many complaints the council has in a year. It says that there is a chance that a veterinarian will be involved in a formal complaint at some stage in his or her career. When I delved into this a bit I thought it was interesting that New Zealand veterinarians—Massey University has the only veterinary school in New Zealand—are likely to be complained about more than veterinarians from overseas. I thought that probably deserves a bit of comment. In essence that is because overseas veterinarians are here for a shorter time than New Zealand veterinarians. 
We have a shortage of veterinarians in New Zealand. Interestingly in the Primary Production Committee earlier in the year we heard from the Minister for Food Safety Annette King about how we were trying to attract veterinarians from around the world. One would have thought that we should have been able to attract more people to be trained as veterinarians at Massey University here in New Zealand. But what are the Government and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority doing? They are going on trips to London to try to attract veterinarians to New Zealand. 
Those listeners who are hosing down their cowsheds at the moment or who are out there in the drive time snarl-up and congestion on the Kapiti Coast will be very interested to know that from 14 to 20 October 2006 the Government spent $30000 at an expo in London trying to attract 10 veterinarians and it struggled to get those 10. Then from 1 to 10 July it spent $21000 on a programme trying to attract 12 veterinarians and it got six. So there is a huge cost involved in our trying to attract veterinarians to come to New Zealand even though I think fundamentally we have a very good qualification here in New Zealand at Massey University. We should be doing more to attract students to get involved in becoming veterinarians for New Zealand. 
Just to sum up this bill is really just a tidy-up. National will support it going to the Government Administration Committee which will have to do some work and explore some of the things that Mr Finlayson and I have raised here today. National supports the bill and we have some questions that need to be touched on particularly on Part 14 with regard to the Veterinarians Act 2005. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
A kia ora ano tatou Mr Deputy Speaker tatou katoa e noho nei i roto i to tatou Whare i tenei ahiahi. Tena ano tatou. Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and greetings to those members who are upholding the principles of parliamentary democracy by ensuring that debate travels across the House on legislation that wends its way through the House without there being a great deal of knowledge of it amongst the community. This bill reflects one of the key functions that our Parliament is required to fulfil; that is it turns its attention using its exclusive lawmaking powers to ensure that the law changes the law evolves and the law reflects the vicissitudes or the challenges of the time. 
Earlier today we heard from Mr Finlayson. I must say that when Mr Finlayson—whom I came across before I came to Parliament—stands and addresses our House I am reminded of the many orations and deliveries he gave in the High Court. There is a certain High Court quality a certain clipped quality to his delivery which reflects the man’s profession. That is permissible because we are a plurality of strengths and weaknesses in this House. 
On the question of weaknesses I have to turn to a diatribe that unfortunately came from the member from the far north from Tai Tokerau Mr Harawira. Amongst other things that the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) deals with is the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act. I am wondering whether in correcting whatever redundancies there might be in that legislation a sample ought not to be taken from that member. He has frothed at the mouth. Spittle has been sprayed around those members who sit near him. I actually feared for their health as he stood and repeated falsehood after falsehood in relation to the document that the United Nations dealt with. I do not know quite why he was allowed to do that but given that he enjoyed that entitlement I will continue it. 
Mr Harawira seems to believe that because that particular declaration was not agreed to by the Government it will never find its way into the pages of our law—and long may that prevail. Such a document was firstly non-binding. Secondly it was 24 years in its construction as if it were conceived in some sort of dinosaur fashion and went through a dinosaur-like gestation period. When the declaration finally enjoyed a vote matters that we are proud to celebrate in New Zealand that pass for our race relations had long since moved on beyond the issues that consumed the attention of the people at the UN and the small group of Maori advocates that trooped off to the UN. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would just like to clarify an issue raised by Mr Jones. I am a member of the Aupouri tribe. He is the one from the diatribe. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is a debating matter. Thank you. 
SHANE JONES 
: I thank Mr Harawira for pointing that out. The Aupouri tribe has the senior line; the junior line is usually the one chipping in when the senior is on his feet. However I will overlook that faux pas for this period of time and I shall come back to the debate. 
 Without doubt this issue in terms of the status and place of indigenous rights in our legal landscape is an ongoing debate and one day it too will find a place on a Statutes Amendment Bill. But there will never come a time when the United Nations decision-making processes largely supported by bankrupt nations such as Zimbabwe and Libya should find the moral high ground to come to our country lecture us or lay down the huarahi the pathway that we should follow as New Zealanders deriving our own remedies. We are world leaders in terms of race relations and addressing the grievances of the past and we need no lesson from Gaddafi or Mugabe which is why I share not a sliver of doubt as to the wisdom of the choice we have taken. 
I look forward to going out next year and explaining to people that it is about time we celebrate and enjoy a sense of pride about the things we achieve in this country rather than look for a bunch of nations that hover around the United Nations to come over to colonise us in terms of telling us how we should address indigenous rights. Those nations look to us as an example throughout the world of how harmony and organic developments can take place as people come together and search for common purpose and common ground. 
As part of this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) there is a Historic Places Act amendment. Of course the delivery that came from my whanaunga Hone Harawira will one day be treated as part of a historic place as well; it is reflective of a point in time of Maori and Pakeha history that we have moved beyond. His delivery reminds people not only of the gulf of difference when we look back or look ahead but also that we cannot seize on small relatively innocuous events such as the vote he referred to which is something that 99 percent of New Zealanders know nothing about. Really in the daily lives of New Zealanders the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is probably as relevant as the changes that have been made to the rear end of the National Parks Act the Reserves Act and the Radiocommunications Act. They are all very important parts of New Zealand’s lively economy but in the bigger scheme of things those changes are only infinitesimal steps forward just as his speech represents a biased account of a vote that is largely irrelevant to the days and lives of Aotearoa. Kia ora tatou. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.