O'Rourke Denis: Legislation Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Legislation Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7262. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is happy to support the Legislation Bill. We think it improves the accessibility and understanding of legislation for the New Zealand public and it is high time that there is modernisation of legislation governing the drafting of legislation and concerning the functions of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel in the ways recommended by the Law Commission. The most important part I think provides for a 3-year programme of systematic revision of legislation. That is a very welcome move and something that probably should have been done a long time ago. The bill would also alter the functions of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. In particular the Chief Parliamentary Counsel will be required to publish legislation in an electronic as well as a printed form which of course they now do anyway and to issue official versions of legislation in an electronic and a printed form. As a previous speaker said so many people these days rely entirely on that way of accessing our legislation and other things of course as well so this will be very welcome to allow people—and I think it is the majority—to find their way through updated legislation through electronic means. This just brings the situation up to date and is most appropriate. 
But revision does not include substantive changes to the law. Clause 29(2) says: “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.” I think that is a very important issue and I think it has been well addressed in the bill. The revision programme in clause 31(2) is the crux of the bill and it includes such things as the revision of the whole or one part of one or more Acts with the ability to combine or divide them as may be appropriate; the omission of redundant and spent provisions; provision for new or additional purpose provisions; minor amendments to clarify Parliament’s intent; and the updating of monetary amounts and that kind of thing. Clause 31(3) however states that “A revision Bill must not change the effect of the law”. Therefore great care will still be needed in practice to preserve the integrity of the Acts that are being dealt with under this legislation. That is something I think the House will need to be careful of when it looks at revision bills as they come through in future. In other words we are still going to have to be vigilant. 
Clause 34(2) repeats the requirements not to change the effect of any statute but that is qualified by clause 31(3) which says: “A revision Bill must not change the effect of the law except as authorised by subsection (2)(i)”—which is the one I referred to relating to minor amendments only—“or (j).” which is the one I also referred to relating to simply updating monetary amounts and that kind of thing. Clause 33A in relation to minor policy changes to revision bills also admits some capacity to make substantive changes in revision bills but clause 33A(1) 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.” And it goes on to say in subclause (2): “nothing in this Act affects the powers of the House of Representatives to amend a revision Bill for any purpose and to pass it with amendment.” That refers back to the vigilance that I said we still have to maintain because of that provision. However having said that it is still—and it must always be—open to the House to amend bills however it thinks fit at any time. 
Concerning the functions of the Parliamentary Counsel Office I welcome the new subclause (1)(h) of clause 58 which expressly refers to the rights of the public. It says in that subclause that one of the functions of the Parliamentary Counsel Office is “to examine all local Bills and private Bills and to examine the Members’ Bills that the Attorney-General directs be examined and to report to the Attorney-General on the effect of Bills examined in particular on whether they affect the rights of the Crown or the public and on their relationship to other legislation:”. It is good to see that there will be some objective reporting on effects on the rights of the public and I think that is a good safeguard as far as this bill is concerned. I think that is a very good provision which New Zealand First supports wholeheartedly. 
With regard to the appointment of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel we completely agree with the need for that person to be legally qualified in New Zealand or in a similar jurisdiction and with the same provision for other parliamentary counsel as well. We think this is a very good bill. The amendments that have been made are supported as well. We are very happy to see it go through and we will be voting in favour of it.