Dalziel Lianne: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11253] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker I know that you will be surprised that I am taking the call given that the chair of the Government Administration Committee was referred to earlier but now that a member of the committee has given such an erudite explanation of the details of the report back from the committee I am sure that my colleague does not mind that he is not taking this call. 
I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about some of the things that I think are really important about the process. The first of course is that I do like the omnibus bill approach as I have said in this House on numerous occasions. Statutes Amendment bills are specifically focused on very minor technical and non-controversial amendments to existing statutes. They are issues that are not really open for debate but they are certainly matters that need to be addressed. They do not however justify the attention of the House as separate items of business. 
I think that there should be more opportunities for omnibus bills and as I have said in this House on several occasions the area of regulatory improvement is one that I like to see. I note that the Government has taken up the bill that was in my name—that is the Regulatory Improvement Bill—and has decided to adopt that as an annual process. 
This particular bill contains a controversial matter but it is not controversial because of what it is intending to do; it is controversial because of the decision that occurred prior to our having to amend the law to reflect a change that took place outside of this place. I will mention that in a moment. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Thank you. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have got members hooked now have I not on a Statutes Amendment Bill. 
The other thing I wanted to refer to in respect of the report back from the select committee was that the committee identified an error in terms of one of the 47 statutes administered by 15 different agencies that it is amending. It found a small issue in clause 156(2) and it recommended an amendment. However the committee made the very sensible suggestion not to require the reprinting of the bill for such a minor amendment. I thought that was exceptionally well considered and I congratulate the chair of the committee who obviously led that decision. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He’s been silenced by the Government! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That is right! But anyway it is worth mentioning that when we are dealing with non-controversial legislation such as this sensible arrangements can be entered into. Actually a bit of leave for the chairman of the committee to speak on the bill might have meant that members did not have to put up with this very lengthy speech—as it is turning out to be—but that is all right. 
The one issue that is controversial not because of the bill but because of the decision that preceded the bill is Part 29 “New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants Act 1996”. The reason for the controversy around this is the institute’s appalling decision to change its name from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand to the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants! I just think that is an outrageous thing for it to have done! 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Start a campaign. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I know. It was so much easier to talk about “consulting ICANZ”—everyone knew exactly who one was talking about. Now it is “NZICA” which sounds like “NZ-EEKA”. We cannot help ourselves; we have to turn everything into an acronym of some sort that makes some sort of sense. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Even if it doesn’t make sense. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes like “NZ-EEKA” which does not really sound like the worthy body that our chartered accountants actually are. But seriously the particular amendment is required because the organisation changed its name quite some time ago and it is time we updated that particular statute to bring it into line. 
I understand that the Minister at some point during the Committee stage will provide some information on the Wills Act 2007. I think it is important to put that on the record because an important aspect has been raised in respect of a late submission on clause 196(1) concerning the validity of wills according to the Wills Act 2007. Finally there has obviously been a bit of debate around the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. I agree with the select committee’s recommendation in that regard in the sense that no further change has been made to clause 119 but that the review is to address any remaining concerns about section 94A. I think that is a very sensible way to address the particular issue that was raised by way of submission. 
I am very pleased to see the bill back in the House. Again I commend the chair of the Government Administration Committee for the superb work he did with a very dedicated team obviously assisting him very ably in that process.