Heatley Phil: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Heatley Phil: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4948. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
 on behalf of the Attorney-General: I move  
That the Legislation Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill was introduced into Parliament in June 2010 and had its first reading on 3 August that year. The Regulations Review Committee reported the bill back to the House— 
Hon Members 
: 2010? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: —on 1 December 2010. I thank all parties for agreeing to this debate being held in extended hours this morning. I will just correct my first or second sentence—it should have been 2010—and I thank Lianne Dalziel for correcting me on that. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It was actually Ruth Dyson. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Oh and Ruth Dyson. I thank her as well. The Legislation Bill implements the recommendations of the Law Commission following its report on the presentation of New Zealand statute law and its review of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. The bill makes important changes to the law relating to the publication and disallowance of legislation it updates the law underpinning the Parliamentary Counsel Office and it contains new provisions for a 3-yearly programme of statute law revision or consolidation. These latter provisions in particular have the potential to make significant improvements to the presentation and accessibility of our statute law. 
The last major consolidation of New Zealand’s statute law took place in 1908—I will just check that with Lianne Dalziel 1908—when virtually all of New Zealand’s Acts were revised and re-enacted obsolete material was removed and 47 volumes of enactments were reduced down to five. Such a one-off comprehensive revision might not now be possible or even desirable because new Acts are passed so much more frequently these days. Instead the new Legislation Bill envisages a rolling 3-yearly programme of statute law revision. This approach will bring with it some significant advantages. It will enable us for example to rationalise and consolidate heavily amended statutes or to bring together provisions on one topic that are currently spread across different enactments. We will be able to repeal obsolete Acts and to update the language in current enactments to make it consistent with modern drafting style. Over time this will provide for a comprehensive overhaul of the New Zealand statute book making it quicker and easier for New Zealanders to find understand and apply the law that this House has passed. 
The second matter I would like to draw to the House’s attention is Subpart 1 of Part 3 of the bill which replaces the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989—that is 1989. Previous Regulations Review Committee reports have identified problems with the way that the term “regulations” is defined in legislation. The bill addresses those problems by separating the law regulating the publication and disallowance of delegated legislation. There is a new definition of “disallowable instrument”. In effect the bill reverses the current default position. At present when it comes to disallowance what delegated legislation is called matters more than what it does. Because the new definition concentrates on substance over form the bill broadens the scope of disallowance. The bill will increase parliamentary oversight of the use of delegated powers by the executive and make it more difficult to avoid disallowance. 
 The Regulations Review Committee notes that if the bill is enacted amendments to Standing Orders will be required to reflect the new definition of “disallowable instruments” and to confirm the committee’s jurisdiction. I support the committee’s recommendation and I invite the Standing Orders Committee to consider it in due course. 
As I have said the Legislation Bill was referred to the Regulations Review Committee in August 2010—2010. The committee’s report on the bill addresses the issue of revision and in particular the important matter of how revision bills should be handled by this House. These bills will not change the substance of the law but rather how it is presented so it is right that they should be capable of being passed by a more streamlined procedure than other bills. The Legislation Bill does not make this provision properly leaving parliamentary procedure to the Standing Orders. The committee supports this approach but in its report it encourages the Standing Orders Committee to consider making provision for a separate streamlined process for passing revision bills into law. Such a process should ensure that these bills will be subjected to the appropriate level of scrutiny by the House but without taking up more parliamentary time than is truly necessary. I agree with and support the committee’s recommendation in this regard. 
Aside from a revision the main focus of the committee’s amendments is in Part 4 which is the part of the bill dealing with the Parliamentary Counsel Office. Several of the recommendations are for amendments to make the bill more accessible to the reader. An example is the recommendation for the clause that sets out the Parliamentary Counsel Office’s functions to be broken up into three separate shorter clauses. The committee proposes certain clarifying amendments such as in relation to clauses 60 and 61. These clauses contain the power of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to delegate powers and functions to an employee of the Parliamentary Counsel Office if the office holder is absent or incapacitated. The committee recommends that the power should be expanded to cover a period where the office of Chief Parliamentary Counsel is vacant. The bill contains an important provision that protects the confidentiality of communications between the Parliamentary Counsel Office and its clients. The committee recommends a definition be inserted into the provision to make it easier to identify whether a person is or is not a client of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. 
Others of the committee’s recommendations are more substantive. By way of an example clause 63 of the bill requires the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to have a legal qualification granted in a common law jurisdiction. The committee has recommended amendments to this provision. The effect of these changes is to require the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to be a New Zealand - qualified lawyer or eligible to practise as a lawyer in a specified country. This will ensure that candidates for the position of Chief Parliamentary Counsel continue to be drawn from New Zealand or similar jurisdictions. However in those cases which I believe will be extremely rare where no suitable candidate can be otherwise found the Attorney-General will retain the discretion to waive the qualification requirement in a particular case. The committee makes similar recommendations in relation to parliamentary counsel and I agree with and support these proposals. 
Should the bill progress to its Committee stage I anticipate publishing a Supplementary Order Paper to improve the clarity of the bill and to bring the amendments of other Acts in the schedule of the bill up to date. I thank the committee for carrying out its work so thoroughly and for making such positive and constructive recommendations to amend the bill. I commend the Legislation Bill to the House.