Finlayson Christopher: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2); and Bills Therefrom — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Finlayson Christopher: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2); and Bills Therefrom — 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14948. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will take a very brief call because I understand that we want the vote to be taken before the adjournment tonight. I must say as a lawyer member of this place that I do not really tolerate this kind of stuff with much ease. I think a lot of legislative drafting could be better than it is. I do not think it reflects very well on this House that from time to time we have to pass bills such as the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) because of sloppy work done in the past. 
I refer for example to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995 where reference to the term “video record” was changed to incorporate the passage of the Evidence Act 2006. How it is beyond the wit of people to deal with that kind of issue which is a very straightforward issue simply escapes me. But there we have it. Every year we seem to pass this kind of legislation to patch up sloppiness. It has been done for years and it will be done for a long time— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It was 1995. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Minister says in that plaintive voice of hers that it was 1995. The point I am trying to make is that when the Evidence Bill was going through this matter should have been dealt with. It is sloppy drafting and the Minister should be disgusted with herself. 
The other point I will make is that—[ 
Interruption 
] We will go beyond 6 o’clock if the Minister interjects on me. I will make one point and it is a very serious point to put the history right because of that extraordinary revisionist speech made by one of Labour’s trade union members Darien Fenton—mind you they are all trade union members these days. That speech tried to rewrite history in relation to Part 3 which deals with the Crimes Act 1961. That extraordinary speech for Mr Hughes’ benefit was all about how the Labour Party was responsible for getting rid of the death penalty in this country. That is simply wrong. Even in a speech to deal with this kind of minor stuff in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) Labour tries to rewrite history. Labour members are like cancer: they never sleep. 
Let the record show that the death penalty in New Zealand was done away with as a result of the sterling efforts of the former member for Invercargill the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice in Sir Keith Holyoake’s Cabinet—for Mr Hughes’ benefit—the Hon Ralph Hanan. That is the reality of the matter. The Labour Party under Walter Nash never had anything to do with it. The last execution was under Walter Nash’s premiership. So I cannot understand how in the context of a debate on this kind of issue we have Labour trying to rewrite history. 
It is like the issue—and I must be very careful not to go on too long—of privatisation because Labour members stand in this House in a shameless manner and go on and on about the dreadful 1990s. They forget of course that they were the ones who privatised Telecom and Air New Zealand. But they never stop. 
I ask Labour members to please deal with the facts as they are. I do not want to sound like Thomas Gradgrind but I ask Labour members to please give me the facts and spare me the kind of ludicrous rubbish that we had from Darien Fenton the other night. With those comments in mind and having corrected the record as to who abolished the death penalty I will take my leave. 
Bills read a third time.