O'Connor Simon: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 11 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2183. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very confused by the last speech. I am not sure what it had to do with Northland or New Zealand First’s transport policy—very confusing.I am very pleased to take a call on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) in this its second reading. Also to acknowledge the last speech we were disappointed it could not be a double call—that we could not have got up to 18 seconds per change. But I was wondering whether this might be a signal or something of the Government and what people are thinking. I think I can state quite confidently as a member of a Government that has an excellent majority that the people of New Zealand are behind what National is doing including the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) that we are considering tonight.I do not sit on the Government Administration Committee but every so often I have been subbed in from time to time. I have got the good fortune to sit on the Health Committee and the Commerce Committee but I am conscious that the Government Administration Committee does a lot of good work across an array of areas and one of them is pulling things together such as this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). I think it is particularly good that Ruth Dyson has been the chair of that committee in the past Parliament—the 50th Parliament—and provides that continuity into this the 51stParliament. When she gave her contribution earlier I think she mentioned Chris Auchinvole whom I believe recently turned 70. Indeed—Hon Ruth Dyson: What? Fifty.SIMON O’CONNOR: 50? Was it 50—50 70 you know—we cannot count. We will have to make an amendment to that. That will be the 34th amendment. Chris Auchinvole was the National representative on the committee at the time.Paul Foster-Bell: A very fine man.SIMON O’CONNOR: He is a fine man indeed. He has stepped away of course from Parliament and is back down on the West Coast with family. But Sarah Dowie from the National side now helps to lead the Government Administration Committee. So I want to thank them for their work.There have been some accusations scurrilous or otherwise that a statutes amendment bill shows somehow that the Government is making lots of mistakes and errors. Statutes amendment bills are actually quite normal in a Westminster system. They are a fairly normal protocol. In fact if you look up the Cabinet Manual—I know other colleagues have referred to the Standing Orders but for those interested in matters constitutional matters electoral or just the political process in general if you turn to the Cabinet Manual you can see that the likes of statutes amendment bills like this one are a means to bring about technical changes. Usually those are quite small—not necessarily insignificant—but are amendments that are required.I think even having been here for only 3 and a bit years you can see even with a robust select committee process that it is not unusual or abnormal that there are going to be small technical things that pop through. Some of them arise just by the sheer volume of work that is coming through a committee and they have to be dealt with and acknowledged but also it is often when applying a piece of law that we begin to see elements that we did not anticipate. It is those unexpected unanticipated consequences which is a phrase often heard across and through this House regardless of political colour—red green black yellow purple or blue. So again it is quite normal.Statutes amendment bills—these are again an opportunity to make those changes in a timely fashion. Again when you look at the Cabinet Manual it is quite clear to Ministers that if their request is more substantial or of a great urgency they have to move fairly promptly through a different mechanism.I think the other side that we need to note around these changes is that the bill requires the affirmation of the whole House. In fact it was something that Ruth Dyson acknowledged in her speech at the start and it was something I had not actually understood—that it requires the support of every member of this House. That is not an encouragement to members on the other side to get a small headline on page 2 of the Dominion Post tomorrow to oppose this—Hon Member: Page 22.SIMON O’CONNOR: Well it could be page 22 if there are that many pages. But actually every member of the House of Representatives is required to support the bill and it is good so far to hear that everyone is in support of it.I do need to acknowledge one of the suggestions from an earlier contribution that if New Zealand had an Upper House a bicameral constitutional system we would not have these bills—that somehow a House of Lords would work. I for one am certainly not in favour of a House of Lords senate or any Upper House in this country. It works perfectly well in a unicameral system. But the other side of course is that the UK itself which has a bicameral system with two Houses of Parliament—the House of Commons and the House of Lords—also has to apply statutes amendment bills. So it is not unusual to have this process. I have to stress that context as we look at this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) tonight.The select committee has obviously considered this bill quite closely. It has recommended several amendments. One is around legal professional privilege. There had been some confusion around the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and the Official Information Act of 1982. It was basically that as written it could be seen as a restriction particularly when proceedings are in train or being contemplated. So the select committee has brought some clarification to that.Others have talked about the Official Information Act requests. I do not think that needs to be gone into any further. There have been some changes through this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) in terms of local government and so forth. There were some changes around how long after a general election—I think it is 7 days—that all the information presented needs to be summed up or tidied up. It seems if I understand correctly that that did not seem to apply to the likes of local government Acts or local government elections. Speaking from an Auckland perspective we have an election in 2016 and we can have a look at it then. It is quite timely that it is in this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) and we make it very clear that the intention as with general elections that the post-election work is done within 7 days also applies to local government and other forms of elections. So that was the work that came out of the Government Administration Committee.There was another amendment that was looked at by Louisa Wall. I think it is important to acknowledge that that was put forward. I understand it was considered by the committee but not seen as being within the scope of this bill. I do not think that has been mentioned by others tonight but I think it is important as we talk about the purpose of a statutes amendment bill in that actually anyone in the House is able to raise issues in this case through the select committee. I was not there for the deliberations so I am not exactly sure why it was seen to be out of scope from the committee’s perspective. From my own understanding of the issue I certainly can understand why. It is also an issue that probably needs firmer consideration and guidance rather than being part of what is a rather technical amendment bill.There are a large number of changes. I have a list here; I am not going to go through it of course. An earlier speaker alluded to a change to the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act. Basically if I understood it correctly you could go down to the court and seek to have your name changed but you did not have to actually prove who you were by name or otherwise. [Interruption] So it was a little odd and again just a small example of how all the best clarifications from officials the work we do at the select committee can still miss certain technicalities and more often than not it is when the tyre hits the ground if you want—I am not trying to make a reference to transport in Northland Mr Bennett which has been very popular.David Bennett: Pūhoi to Wellsford.SIMON O’CONNOR: Pūhoi to Wellsford is very popular as well. A little money for Tāmaki Drive would be very welcome too. But that was just one example. We as members of select committees whether it is health commerce or Government administration do try to think through each clause each change that has been initiated. But again statutes amendment bills often fix up those little technicalities those little elements we have not considered.Another one I just want to mention is a change in the Prime Minister’s name to the Governor-General Act. We made some changes recently and I just want to clarify that the authority that sets the funding for the Governor-General also has the power to deal with things such as KiwiSaver contributions and ACC levies. If I might I just want to acknowledge the Governor-General for something he did. There is an excellent constituent in the Tāmaki and Maungakiekie electorate. His name is Sir Don Rowlands and he is very well-known in the rowing and sporting community and also in the business community. He was awarded a knighthood by the Queen. Unfortunately his health has deteriorated quite quickly and His Excellency went to his hospital bed yesterday to do a private and early investiture. I think that is just a fantastic act. So I thought that was good and I thought I would put that on the record not only for Sir Don but also for the Governor-General.There is a whole array of other changes—changes to the Heavy Engineering Research Levy Act the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act and so on. There is a huge number and I will leave it to others to speak about them.