Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm thrilled to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and take a call on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2).It is always a joy to follow my colleague David Parker. Not only does his intelligence shine through at any contribution that he makes to this House but his fine eye for the detail in important legislation such as this never ceases to impress. I think that is why it's so disappointing that the Opposition—an Opposition that said they were going to participate that they were the largest of Oppositions at whatever time in history and that they were going to make sure they were going to scrutinise legislation and scrutinise this Government—doesn't appear to have understood the legislation or thought that parts of it were important enough to contribute on.For my contribution I would like to just draw people's attention to the amendment to the Animal Welfare Act 1999. I will just read what clause 4 does and why that's so important because I think the public of New Zealand will be particularly interested in this particular clause. It replaces section 36(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Section 36(1)—for those who don't know—obliges any person who sets a live-capture trap or causes a live-capture trap to be set to ensure that the trap is inspected within 12 hours after sunrise on each day—each day—the trap remains set beginning on the day immediately after the day on which the trap is set. Now it's important to know that failure to comply with this inspection requirement carries an infringement offence and it will attract an infringement fee of up to $1000. So that's up to $1000 if you set a live trap and you don't go back within 12 hours after sunrise to check that trap.Now you might think that the purpose of this amendment in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) was for the welfare of animals but it's not. It's not for the welfare of animals at all. It's very interesting. The explanatory note of the bill goes on to say The purpose of the amendment is to enable the use of remote monitoring technologies instead of [the] daily manual inspections of traps. These technologies include the use of capture sensors and wireless communication networks." and so on.So it's interesting. I would have thought that the Opposition would have wanted to have some conversation about the fact that while it is the Animal Welfare Act 1999 the reason for this amendment is actually not necessarily just the welfare of animals. It's a recognition of a technological advance and I believe that this Government's going to be doing some work around trapping in the next three years so I think it's opportune that during this Statutes Amendment Bill—Simon O'Connor: Which of the 33 pages is that on?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Please take a call Mr O'Connor. There is no better time to take a call and have your voice heard and put on the record so that the New Zealand public knows that you've read the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and have an opinion. But what I think is most interesting too though is the fact that there has been an increase in the fine with regard to an offence. The explanatory note of the bill goes on to say that "If a person relies on the use of [an] electronic monitoring provision the system … must enable the person to meet the person's obligations"—e.g. check that trap—and "provides that any live animal found in the trap"—Matt King: Six minutes to go.Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —yes Mr King that's right—"must be removed or cared for or must be killed without delay. A person who commits an offence against section 36(2) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5000 (for an individual) or $25000 (for a body corporate)."So while these are non-controversial amendments they're not insignificant. So again I articulate that it's disappointing that the Opposition doesn't see the need to rise and articulate their view around what are quite significant changes: if a body corporate should ignore the amendments that have been made—when this bill goes through its final reading—there is a $25000 fine. The public needs to know this because ignorance of the law is not a defence of the law.The other section I'm particularly interested in is around the amendments to the Biosecurity Act 1993. It's a very small change but an important change. The amendment through clause 9(4) replaces the words "goods before they are given a biosecurity clearance" with the words "uncleared goods to which the authorisation relates". Now you might think that's not important but actually words matter and Mr Finlayson will know that words matter particularly in the law. Because with the words "goods before they are given a biosecurity clearance" there was the impression that those goods would automatically receive a biosecurity clearance and that is not a given. Hence the change and the words "uncleared goods to which the authorisation relates". This gives the Biosecurity Act 1993 the opportunity should those goods be received—because that's who it's for; it's to put responsibilities on to persons who are receiving uncleared goods. So the change makes it clear that they do not get a guarantee that those goods will be cleared.So language is important words matter and amendments like this matter—because this is about the small tweaks and nuances that we have inside the legal system and it is where people will get tripped up possibly if they find themselves in front of the courts. And that's why it's important to have a full outing of statutes amendment bills like this in this House with all members of the House participating in the conversation and highlighting and bringing hopefully their skills and their perspective to the legislation.I've got only a couple more points that I may have the time to touch on but as the Minister for Children I do want to mention the Care of Children Act 2004 amendment the Child Support Act 1991 amendment and the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 amendment. All of these are a small change to the way a lawyer who has been appointed to represent a child or to assist the court may submit his or her invoice for fees and expenses. We heard from the Hon David Parker the reason why this needed to be changed—that there is a clogging up around the system. I mean there are certainly other areas of this legislation that will need to be addressed in the future. There are other things that need to be reviewed or focused on inside certainly the Family Court but this is just a small little administrative nuance that will create some efficiencies going forward.There are some fascinating other parts that the bill covers—[Bell rung] Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. The Domestic Violence Act 1995 is mentioned. I would have thought the Hon Amy Adams would have highlighted that particularly. The Films Videos and Publications Classification Act—I would have thought that Chris Bishop would have been down here with bells on because of course he has a member's bill tomorrow that also wants to amend that particular Act. I know he has an in-depth knowledge around censorship and the rules so I thought perhaps he might have been interested in that.I see that my time is coming to a close so unfortunately I will be required to take my seat. But as I say on behalf of New Zealand First we commend the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House. We know how important these non-controversial changes are. We encourage the Opposition to stand up and participate because we know that the people they represent would like to hear them articulate and participate in the debate and the conversations inside this House on every piece of legislation as every piece of legislation affects their lives. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."