Statutes Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStatutes Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15043. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Statutes Amendment BillIn CommitteeLOUISE UPSTON (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave to take the Statutes Amendment Bill as one debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is Parts 1 to 30 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Parts 1 to 30 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): This is just another example of the Opposition helping the Government to do its work. The idea that the Statutes Amendment Bill which is a bill that by definition passes unanimously is all of a sudden urgent after hanging around the system for well over 12 months is just a farce. It is a sign of the very very poor organisation on the part of the Government that we are dealing with it. You are looking a bit anxious Mr Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No no not all—not at all. I was interested in your comment.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well that makes a pleasant change for any member for you to be interested in the comments that I am making. I want to thank you. I have got a dram upstairs if you are available later.This bill is traditionally one that picks up a wide range of very minor amendments. They are circulated around all members of Parliament to make sure that there is unanimity on their passing. Hearings are held and have been held. The Government Administration Committee did some very good work under the very able chairpersonship of Ruth Dyson. We made some minor—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is a point of order I take it?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No not at all.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Oh it is a call. OK.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is a call. It is still going.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My apologies.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I noticed you were listening intently and trying to work it out.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My apologies because the member stood on a point of order and that is why I acknowledged him on a point of order. I am happy that you are taking a call. You have got 3 minutes 29 seconds remaining.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Thank you thank you thank you Mr Chairman.Hon Member: When are you going to get to the point?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It was a long point of order.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: With not much point to it and not a hell of a lot of order from the Chair. I am slightly lost for words and wonder whether I should start again.The point that I am making is that the bill is one that is supported unanimously. The idea of doing it under urgency is very dangerous from a Government point of view. If the Opposition was not cooperative then we would not have had it as one question. We could have debated up to four calls each on every one of these parts. It could have taken the House the entire period of urgency to deal with this. But as we have gone relatively soft under the new shadow Leader of the House and the new whips we will be cooperative and we will focus our debate on the Unit Titles Act amendments which of course should not have been part of this bill.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member the Hon Ruth Dyson.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Thank you Mr Chair. That is really helpful because that is my name so it is a very useful thing for you to do. Can I first of all express a little bit of surprise that the Minister who is in charge of this Statutes Amendment Bill the Hon Chester Borrows is not taking a call. When bills go through under urgency unless they are urgent it is my view that the Minister should address not only the substance of the legislation but also the reason that the bill is being put through the House under urgency.The Government Administration Committee which I have the privilege to chair spent a lot of time and effort rigorously considering the Statutes Amendment Bill which had already gone through a very good process of deliberation amongst parties. That is usual and appropriate for a Statutes Amendment Bill. It should be non-contentious. I think that this bill with the work that we put into it has been returned to the House in a better condition than that in which it was given to us. However we are now required to pass it under urgency and I think the public of New Zealand just needs an explanation for that.Labour totally supports the substance of the bill itself. Our select committee made some alterations to it and they are outlined in our select committee report so I have gotno need to go over them. I just think that it really is the mandate and the responsibility of the Minister to explain why after such good process up to this point we are considering it under urgency. I assume that it is incompetent management of the House by the Hon Gerry Brownlee but if there is some different explanation then I look forward to the Minister confirming that either by him not contradicting me or by giving a different explanation for the mismanagement and this bill therefore coming through under urgency.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I do want to thank the Hon Chester Borrows for confirming to the Committee by way of his silence the fact that there is no good reason for this Statutes Amendment Bill to be passed under urgency; or that the only reason that it is being done under urgency is the mismanagement by the National Party whips and by Gerry Brownlee.There are a number of members around in the Chamber. I am slightly surprised that Jonathan Young has not taken a call. He is the chair of the Commerce Committee and there are massive repeated amendments based on changes in the Companies Act that run their way through this bill. I am sure he is across the top of it and that he could have made some contributions there. There are areas of change to the Defamation Act which I know is of particular interest both to myself and Judith Collins. I know that I read this very carefully in order to make sure of the effect of it; I am not absolutely certain that she did.The question that I am asking the Minister in the chair the Minister for Courts is whether there is anything in this bill that requires passing before Parliament finishes at the end of this year; if so why? Because at the Government Administration Committee other than some relatively—I am not going to say important; no relatively important compared with the other things in the bill—important changes to the Unit Titles Act we did not get the impression that there was anything that was urgent here.The question that flows from that is that given the House has over recent years developed a very good practice of having extended sittings on a Wednesday and a Thursday morning can the Minister tell us why this bill did not go through in 5 or 10 minutes during one of those extended sittings rather than coming along in a period of urgency? It is almost like the way our Parliament works. It is an invitation to have a bill that is non-contentious debated more than is appropriate and I would be very happy if the Minister could make a contribution and indicate the reasons if any. We will assume that there is no good reason and that it is his incompetence and that of Gerry Brownlee if in fact he chooses not to talk a call.LOUISE UPSTON (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave for the Statutes Amendment Bill to be taken as one question for the vote with the exception of Part 25 which will be taken separately.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. This is how we will have to do it honourable members. There will be three motions put.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Tremain the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 362 in the name of the Hon Chester Borrows the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 329 in the name of the Hon Chester Borrows be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 25 not agreed to.Parts 1 to 30 excluding 25 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.The Committee divided the bill into the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill (No 2) the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill (No 2) the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 3) the Companies Amendment Bill (No 3) the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill the District Courts Amendment Bill the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) the Extradition Amendment Bill the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Amendment Bill the Gambling Amendment Bill the Health Amendment Bill the Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill the Insolvency Amendment Bill the Legislation Amendment Bill the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 3) the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 4) the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill the Passports Amendment Bill the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Amendment Bill the Real Estate Agents Amendment Bill (No 2) the Road User Charges Amendment Bill (No 2) the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Amendment Bill the Social Welfare (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 2) the Statistics Amendment Bill (No 2) the Tariff Amendment Bill the Telecommunications Amendment Bill the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Amendment Bill the Wills Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Wine Amendment Bill (No 2)pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 352.The Chairperson reported the Statutes Amendment Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into 35 bills.Report adopted.