Chadwick Steve: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11248] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill. I heard the Minister who spoke previously Phil Heatley the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture say these amendments are all small and non-controversial but these are the very changes to law that can make a fundamental difference and we are very wary about what gets into a Statutes Amendment Bill without due scrutiny of the House and committees. The Minister may say the amendments are non-controversial and minor but we have already expressed our concern to Nathan Guy the Minister who is in charge of the bill that some of the provisions in this bill are quite close to the edge of acceptability in any Statutes Amendment Bill. 
I refer in particular to the amendment in clause 103 of the bill to the definition of “foreshore” in the National Parks Act. This requires some debate; it is hardly small and merely technical. We have told the Government that we will support this bill—it will be very relieved to hear that—but that we retain the right to reconsider any individual amendment during the Committee of the whole House. 
I will raise some issues here. We have some reservations as I said about some aspects that have almost slipped into the Statutes Amendment Bill. One of the amendments in Part 4 of the bill the one to section 9 of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act changes quite substantively the meaning of the circumstances when a parent is unavailable to sign a birth registration form. This one rang bells for me. I think it is really important to realise that even though this amendment is sensible it is almost like a policy change and we have to be very careful when we slip things like that into a Statutes Amendment Bill and make statutory changes. That one is a bit close to the wind. 
Also Labour is concerned about the amendments to the Building Act in Part 5 of the bill. The Minister Phil Heatley who spoke first in this debate spoke about this. Sections 405 and 412 of the Building Act reduce the scrutiny of the House of these amendments through the Regulations Review Committee. We think that is poor practice. Although these amendments might be technical and minor we think they should come under scrutiny and we as a party are not supportive of including any amendments that reduce parliamentary scrutiny as a principle. So that is one area that we have concerns about; we think that such amendments should come to the House. 
The Minister will be pleased to know that we support the Chatham Islands Council Act amendment in Part 7 of the bill. This may seem small but to those in the Chatham Islands it is really big. It gives the council there the same functions duties and powers as a regional authority under the Building Act. That is eminently sensible and I am sure it is a measure proposed by the good member for the Chathams Annette King. She has learnt on her several trips to the Chathams that the council is quite frustrated about not having those broader powers especially for things like building construction on the Chatham Islands. We have no problem with that amendment. 
We have no problem with other amendments in this bill. But it is quite cavalier to come to the House and say this bill is non-controversial and everybody agrees with it. Actually we do not always agree— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Yes you do. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: No we do not on some of these things. We think it is because of the way that the law is drafted that provisions get slipped into a Statutes Amendment Bill. Although we support this bill we reserve the right to review our position when the amendments come to the House in the Committee stage. The member Jacqui Dean has been calling out that we support the bill but we reserve the right to review our position on amendments that come before the Committee of the whole House for scrutiny. At this stage we support this bill and are pleased that it is back before the House.