Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6753. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Legislation Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 13 November. 
Clauses 1 and 2 ( 
continued 
)  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 It is a delight to be able to rise and make a contribution in what has been an exciting debate to date in the Committee stage of the Legislation Bill. It is great to see that Chris Tremain is the Minister in the chair for these purposes. I know that with the assistance of the officials he will be able to answer all the questions that I and my colleagues have for him today on this significant piece of legislation and in particular in the debate on the title and the commencement clause. 
Seriously for a moment first of all I want to say just a few words about clause 1 the title. The provision says simply that “This Act is the Legislation Act 2010” but this is a fantastic example of parliamentary understatement. This little bill with its plain little title hides a number of treasures. I know that Mr Bridges is itching to take a call on this very issue because he also knows of the jewels that lie beneath this modest little title of this particular bill. Although we are going to refer to the Act as the Legislation Act 2012 when it is eventually enacted—because that is how long the process has taken to wend through the select committee and through the House—what I think members and the people listening to the broadcast seeing us on television and seeing us here in Parliament today need to understand is that there are a number of exciting things that this Legislation Bill will do that we really are not given a proper clue about by the title. 
First of all let us have a look at the Acts that this legislation will replace. Again with a simple look at the title there would be no clue as to the complexity that this legislation starts to simplify. Instead of having a Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 an Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989 and a Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 those three Acts of Parliament are going to be streamlined and brought into substantial effect on a modernised basis by the Legislation Bill and not before time. The modernisation that the Legislation Bill effects with its modest little title is really quite significant. We have as we have heard in the Committee stage a bill before us that despite that modest little title will revolutionise and modernise the publishing the reprinting and the revising of legislation in New Zealand. That is a most significant innovation. 
 We have a complete re-enactment of the scheme of both the Regulations (Disallowance) Act and also the Acts and Regulations Publication Act at least as far as those two pieces of legislation relate to this new category of disallowable instruments which will be recognised by our law under that terminology for the first time. We have a re-enactment of the important way in which the Regulations Review Committee ensures that scrutiny of delegated legislation will occur because the procedure that is set out in the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 will be substantially re-enacted by this bill. I know that the scheme of the disallowance regime is well known to many members of this House including you Mr Chairperson but it will be set out in a modernised form with reference to that concept of disallowable instruments by this plainly titled Legislation Bill. 
Also very significantly—and this was a matter that did not get great attention in the select committee process—the legislation that currently governs the Parliamentary Counsel Office the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 will be completely modernised by Part 4 of the Legislation Bill. For the first time there will be a proper statutory setting out of the basis on which the Chief Parliamentary Counsel holds office—a definition of the relationship between him and the executive and this body. It is a tripartite relationship as the acting Chief Parliamentary Counsel acknowledged in two select committee appearances that he made today which I was present for—one in the Regulations Review Committee and one in the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
There are some other important innovations that simply would not occur to the reader of the name of this plainly titled bill. There are some important provisions relating to the staff of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. They have really had quite an ambiguous status in law in respect of a number of important issues including the issue of whether when they provide their important and valued drafting and interpretation advice to Ministers or to members when they are assisting select committees or with members’ bills they actually have a client whom they are dealing with or whether there is some more ambiguous relationship that is on foot here. Of course the importance of this is all about whether or not they have an expectation relating to legal professional privilege around the advice and the representation that they provide to these figures including members of Parliament and Ministers. It is important that we are clear that that is the duty that we are clarifying. 
As well there is another important innovation that the bill—not apparent from its title—provides and that is to extend the same sort of protection from liability that public servants enjoy at the moment. That is extended to the Parliamentary Counsel Office and to the staff working in it. So if they do something in good faith and within the powers that they are given by the legislation then they are protected from liability. They cannot be sued as individuals. Bizarrely that was not a position that has been clear in the law until now. It is something that the Regulations Review Committee when we looked at this legislation thought was an anomaly. Why should public servants subject to the State Sector Act have those protections but the valued staff of the Parliamentary Counsel Office on whom we rely so greatly day to day in this office—why should they not have exactly those same protections? I am glad to see that those provisions are brought into effect by this bill. 
It is also good to see provisions ensuring that parliamentary counsel are to be appointed on merit and that the Chief Parliamentary Counsel is to establish procedures for notifying vacancies and appointments and for reviewing appointments. 
This is good modernising legislation. It is timely. It is the sort of thing that the office deserves and needs and I am very very pleased that under the guise of this modest little title we are doing all those things today. 
Just a word on commencement. Originally the legislation provided for most of the bill to come into force on 1 July 2011. Then there was a dual scheme put in place to allow for much of the rest of the legislation to be brought into effect by Order in Council or were those Orders in Council not made by 1 July 2013. That is a proper way to do things. It is appropriate for legislation such as this which deals with matters such as delegated legislation to ensure that when there is a legislative scheme that is to be brought into effect by regulations it is not on the never-never. There is a drop-dead date if you like by which the legislation must come into effect if the executive fails to bring into effect Orders in Council to enact the legislation or at least to have it in force. 
I see that there is a Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 127 which will change that scheme somewhat. It will push out the latest date by which the legislation must come into force but it is still a specified date. So it can be brought into force earlier by Order in Council but there is that very appropriate commencement formula by which the final date on which all of the important pieces of legislation that comprise this measure must be brought into effect and that is 1 July 2014. 
I am delighted that we are finally progressing this bill. It is good to see all these important provisions coming into force. I certainly commend the bill in its entirety and in particular clauses 1 and 2 to the Committee. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take yet another call on the Legislation Bill which as my colleague Charles Chauvel has pointed out is a very important piece of legislation. It is curious given what the bill does in relation to the status of legislation—completed and concluded legislation—the publication of it and the role of the Parliamentary Counsel Office that it should be given such a bland unappealing and really uninformative name as the Legislation Bill. Really I think that if we are serious and want to meet the spirit of this legislation itself then we will find a more creative name something that in fact does it justice—no pun intended. 
I will relay a recent experience I had. I found myself yesterday in the company not only of a QC and one or two other lawyers but actually of a High Court judge in an interesting exercise which I will not go into. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Where was that? 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: It was at the Auckland High Court. I do not want to go into too many other details except to say that there was a very satisfactory outcome for all concerned. It was a very satisfying—satisfying and satisfactory—outcome for all concerned particularly that party that I think had the biggest legal bill to pay. But anyway the point is this: while we were there engaging in a very mutually satisfying and satisfactory conversation with all concerned— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Was this in the courtroom? 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: This was before we held hands and exchanged beatific smiles with each other. The High Court judge a most respectable and honorary fellow came to the room equipped with large printed and hard-bound editions of legislation and a highly respectable legal text. I sat there in that room observing this highly respectable and honourable High Court judge thinking: “If only His Honour the Justice had the benefit of the Legislation Bill currently going through Parliament.” 
Hon Annette King 
: Did you think that? 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: I did think that. In fact were it not for other issues that were occupying those of us who were there I might have raised the issue because His Honour the judge would have been most assisted by an electronic publication of the legislation he was consulting at the time which from memory I think was something like the Defamation Act 1992 although I could have that wrong. It was a large bound volume of legislation. I thought to myself “Isn’t it a pity that at this very point it is not a requirement that an official version of the legislation is published electronically?” because had that been the case then His Honour the judge may well have been able to turn up with a nifty little iPad or even a laptop or some other hand-held device on which he could have brought his legal texts along with him and it would have saved him having to wander through the vast cavernous regions of the Auckland High Court to come to our little room to play his very important role. So that is what I think is very good about this legislation and why— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.