O'Rourke Denis: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5145. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):I also want to ask some questions that I think would normally be asked in a select committee process but this will have to substitute. I want to particularly refer to clause 6(1) which seems to be drafted in a very broad manner. Clause 6(1) starts off saying: “Every specified bylaw is declared to have been lawfully made and to be and always have been valid despite any 1 or more of the following circumstances applying to it:” and then it gives two such circumstances. The point I am making here is that the first few words—“Every specified bylaw is declared to have been lawfully made”—before the word “and” are very broad. What that actually does is to declare such by-laws to be valid not only for those reasons that are stated but even if there were other defects in the by-laws and we do not know whether there are or not.So I would like to draw that to the Minister of Transport’s attention and to ask him whether in fact the drafting is just a little bit too wide in the way that the words have been used in clause 6(1). I myself would like to think about that some more but there will not be the time to do that. There is not a select committee process and so that cannot really be thrashed out so easily. But I think it is a valid point. If he is satisfied then maybe I will be; maybe I will not. It seems to me not good wording anyway.The second point I want to make relates to clause 6(1)(b). It refers to “the bylaw was made or amended using a process that did not comply with—(i) the enactment …” and so on. In subparagraph (ii) it refers to “any other applicable enactment:”. I am a little bit unsure as I think it was David Parker or Phil Twyford—I am not sure; it was one of the two of them—pointed to those words as well and asked the same question. Is that appropriate and necessary in this bill; if it is how far does it really go? So I am worried about that provision as well. I draw that to the Minister’s attention too.The next point I want to make relates to clause 6(1)(c). I just want to point out here that it says: “as far as the bylaw was made or purportedly made under the Local Government Act 1974 … the by-law—(i) was not reviewed by the relevant local authority … and (ii) has been revoked by the operation of section 160A …”. The point I want to make here is a general one. It is simply that this is a case of councils and other road-controlling authorities actually not following the law. It is unfortunate that when people do that we say: “That’s OK. We’ll just validate it for you.” That actually is a very bad precedent to set. Again I will admit that there does not seem to be any other way around it but I do not think that this situation should pass without comment in the Committee. It is not a good situation where local government and other road-controlling authorities can get away with simply not doing what they are required to do and then come cap in hand to the Government of the day to say: “Oh fix this up for us. We have cocked up.” It is not good enough. It is not good enough by a long shot.The last point I want to make actually is a positive one you will be glad to hear Mr Chairman and it relates to clause 9 “Savings for certain legal proceedings”. It says that the “Act does not limit any proceedings that expressly challenge the validity of an enforcement action on any of the grounds …” such as those that we have already spoken about before the date on which this bill was introduced. That is very important. I do not know whether there are in fact any such proceedings before the courts but if there were it is very important that that provision be there. Not to do so would completely compromise the credibility of our legal system so I am very glad to see that those savings are there and I certainly approve of that.But I would ask the Minister to think about some of the specific points I have been able to identify. I am sure that if we have the time to look at the bill in more detail there might be other points as well. But at least those stand out fairly well for me and I would appreciate an answer to them.