Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12293. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Third Readings 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill the Animal Products Amendment Bill the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill the Building Amendment Bill the Charitable Trusts Amendment Bill the Chatham Islands Council Amendment Bill the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) the Conservation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Copyright Amendment Bill the Coroners Amendment Bill the Court Martial Amendment Bill the Court Martial Appeals Amendment Bill the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons United Nations and Associated Personnel and Hostages) Amendment Bill the Crown Entities Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill the Dog Control Amendment Bill the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) the Epidemic Preparedness Amendment Bill the Fire Service Amendment Bill the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Amendment Bill the Immigration Advisers Licensing Amendment Bill the Incorporated Societies Amendment Bill the Insolvency Amendment Bill (No 2) the Juries Amendment Act 2008 Amendment Bill the Marriage Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 2) the National Parks Amendment Bill the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants Amendment Bill the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill (No 3) the Property Law Amendment Bill the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill the Public Finance Amendment Bill the Public Records Amendment Bill the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill the Real Estate Agents Amendment Bill the Securities Amendment Bill (No 2) the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 4) the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 2) the Statistics Amendment Bill the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill the Takeovers Amendment Bill the Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre (Wairarapa) Amendment Bill the Telecommunications Amendment Bill the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill and the Wild Animal Control Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
By its nature statutes amendment legislation does not address significant policy matters. The process by which such legislation is developed and the requirement for support across the House means that it is designed to ensure that only minor technical and non-controversial amendments are included although this evening we had a change to that procedure when the part of this legislation that directly focused on the Wills Act did not progress through. The amendments to that Act will need to be addressed further down the track and I will make a few comments in a moment’s time about that. 
The range of amendments advanced by the current legislation serves to emphasise the value of Statutes Amendment bills as legislative vehicles for progressing matters that could not hope to receive priority in the House on their own. This legislation amends some 48 Acts administered by 15 different Government agencies. Many of the changes are designed to correct drafting errors such as an omission of the word “land” in the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 or to correct cross-reference errors such as those in the Telecommunications Act 2001 and the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. Some changes reflect the use of new terminology such as the insertion of the term “code company” in the Takeovers Act 1993 or enable the use of new technologies as in the case of the changes to the Statistics Act 1975 which authorise a full range of transmission modes by which people may receive fill in and return schedules for surveys. Unobjectionable refinements to machinery provisions may also be advanced such as the amendment to the Juries Amendment Act 2008 which allows deferral of jury service to be made to a time period rather than to an exact date. 
I think it is appropriate that I make a couple of comments about the amendments to the Wills Act 2007 that we could not progress through as part of this legislation. Those amendments were intended to make it clear that the 2007 Act does not change the law about the formalities for making a will as set out in its predecessor Act. I have received correspondence and I know that the Minister of Justice has also received correspondence from beneficiaries who have been adversely affected. Some executors who have applied to the registrar for probate have been refused on the basis of the provisions of the 2007 Act and they have been required to make an application to the court to obtain probate. Executors of some estates have been delaying applying for probate until these amendments are passed as they are afraid that the wills may be invalid under the 2007 Act. As these amendments were not made some wills that were made in accordance with the law at that time may be found to be invalid. Having done everything in accordance with the law at the time the will-makers whose wills have been affected by the 2007 Act are not given the respect that they deserve. That issue will need to be addressed in a future Statutes Amendment Bill. 
In closing I thank the Government Administration Committee which has been instrumental in the passage of the statutes amendment legislation. I commend these bills to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I will address the comments that have been made by the Associate Minister of Justice in my third reading remarks; I will confine myself to responding to those remarks. I put on record for the House that we on this side of the House made it clear to the Associate Minister that if an application for leave had been forthcoming to refer the particular amendment to the Wills Act which has been the subject of most of the debate this evening to a select committee such as the Justice and Electoral Committee for a proper discussion on its merits no one on this side of the House would have raised an objection. The Government has not chosen to avail itself of that procedure in the House tonight notwithstanding the fact that it might have. Let us not have too much rhetoric about the unfortunate effect of declining leave to allow the amendment to the Wills Act to proceed tonight. A remedy was open to the Associate Minister; he simply did not take it. 
I hope the Associate Minister has learnt from tonight’s proceedings that statutes amendment legislation should contain matters that are truly non-debatable in a technical sense; they ought to be non-controversial. If they are controversial then they should not be included in this sort of legislation. Really that is the be-all and end-all of the rules relating to statutes amendment legislation. They are an essential part of parliamentary procedure. They play an important part. The Opposition will always attempt to be reasonable and find ways forward when a particular proposal does not fit into that category as we tried to do in respect of the amendment that has been debated tonight. The offer that we made unfortunately was not taken up so the Minister is right: it will have to be the subject of a further substantive amendment in future. That is a consequence of the fact that the amendment clearly requires substantive debate substantive input and expert evidence as to the effect that it may or may not have if it is passed. 
With those comments for the record I simply commend the surviving parts of the statutes amendment legislation to the House. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I will speak on the third readings of this legislation. The previous speaker Charles Chauvel is quite right: this omnibus legislation is generally non-controversial. In this case a couple of years’ worth of statutes are being amended—some 47 of them if I read my papers correctly. I have to say following the contribution of the previous speaker that the Government Administration Committee’s consideration was thorough but I do not recall any particular discussion on any problem the Opposition had with the Wills Act. I want that noted in  
Hansard 
. 
A number of interesting statutes are amended by this legislation; some are quite unique and obscure. For instance this bill amends the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 which seems reasonably obscure. With those words I commend the legislation to the House. 
Bills read a third time.