Parker David: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5143. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):Thank you Mr Chairperson and can I thank you for your ruling in respect of calls which I think is important because with the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill being rushed as it is it is important that members have the time to get their heads around it and ask the questions that need to be asked of the Minister of Transport. Having heard Denis O’Rourke’s contribution I actually agree with him about the description in the purpose clause. I encourage the Minister who I know is a very competent lawyer to consider the amendment that I have proposed which actually endorses Denis O’Rourke’s point so that rather than saying “remove any doubt about the validity of speed limits” we simply say “it validates speed limits” because that is the proper description of what it does. It avoids as Denis O’Rourke said the weasel words and I think we should call it what it is. It makes clear that there is absolutely no doubt that it is validating them so I would ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Bridges to consider that. It does not change the effect of clause 3(a); it just validates it. It validates the speed limits. If there are some speed limits that do not need validating well we have not done anything wrong and if that was a valid complaint of the clause that would be a valid complaint about removing any doubt about the validity of them because they are valid anyway. So I would encourage him to adopt that clause.The other question I have in respect of Part 1 is about the drafting of clause 5(b). Clause 5 “Meaning of specified bylaw” states: “In this Act ‘specified by-law’— … (b) does not include a bylaw that was so made or purportedly made by a road controlling authority under any other Act …”. Given the way we use “this Act” which is a reference to this legislation in clause 5(a)(i) and then in clause 5(a)(ii) we list a series of Acts—the “Government Roading Powers Act 1989 the Local Government Act 1974 the Local Government Act 2002 the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Speed Limit Rule 2003”—I presume that we are saying that when paragraph (b) says “any other Act” it means any Act other than those listed in clause 5(a)(ii). I presume that is what it is intended to mean. I just want to check that that is the case. It might seem like a silly question and it might be a silly question but I just want that to be clarified.Now that we are talking about all parts as one I want to talk a little bit about clauses 8 and 9 because I think these are important reasons that make it easier for Parliament to agree that we should be passing legislation of retrospective effect. As I read those clauses—and the Minister can correct me if I have got this wrong—it effectively says that if an enforcement action has been taken before the commencement of the Act it is not to be treated as invalid because at the time the enforcement action was taken the by-law may have been invalid. Making it retrospective effectively means that the enforcement action is validated as well. But then we say in clause 9 of the bill which is an important exception to that general rule that “This Act does not limit any proceedings that expressly challenge the validity of an enforcement action on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2)”—which is subclause (2) of clause 9 of this bill.My understanding of that Minister is that what we are effectively saying is that if someone was already defending a traffic infringement notice or some other charge—it could be a criminal charge for reckless driving or something—on the basis of the invalidity of the speed restriction that they had already noticed then that defence can stand so we are not retrospectively imposing a sanction in respect of offences or infringements where the accused person has picked up that there is an invalidity and is standing on their rights to say: “No this is invalid. I’m not guilty.” We are not changing that person’s circumstance but if it has not previously been picked up we are not letting them take advantage of the technical invalidity of the speeding notice. I would like confirmation on those matters please.