Hayes John: Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Hayes John: Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13815] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I was really interested in that bitter twisted perverse and almost racist speech made by the member Iain Lees-Galloway on the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is unacceptable. The member cannot accuse anybody of racism. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The point of order is upheld. 
JOHN HAYES 
: I will withdraw “racist” and substitute “patronising”. I point the member to— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at the member’s comments and ask that you request him to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The point of order is not upheld. 
JOHN HAYES 
: I point the Labour member for Palmerston North Iain Lees-Galloway in the direction of the Law Commission report published in October 2008. I have reason to believe that the boss of the Law Commission is a former Labour Prime Minister. Is that right? 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: What’s your point? 
JOHN HAYES 
: My point is this and I quote from Sir Geoffrey Palmer: “A further problem with the current state of the New Zealand statute book is that a number of redundant Acts remain in force and needlessly clutter the law. Some old Acts still appear in the annual tables but are totally obsolete.” Mr Palmer points out: “For example the New Zealand Institute of Journalists Act 1895 and the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885 both remain in force and are both completely disused and unusable today.” We have been having earthquakes in Christchurch so let me tell members about another piece of useless law—the Hawke’s Bay Earthquake Act 1931. Let me quote Sir Geoffrey again: “This Act still exists but has not been reprinted since 1931—it was not even included in the supposedly comprehensive 1957 reprint.” Kamal Bakshi my very sensible colleague has read this and he understands that nothing is to be gained from cluttering the statute book with the presence of these obsolete Acts and provisions. As Sir Geoffrey an erstwhile Labour leader said: “They add clutter but no value to the statute book. Repealing them would be of great value. An accessible navigable and clear statute book should have as little “dead wood” as possible.” 
I suggest to the Labour Party that it could get rid of its Palmerston North dead wood because that man does not have a chance of being re-elected in the next election; Palmerston North will return to National. I commend my colleague Mr Kamal Bakshi for a very very sensible— 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is an important part of my culture that Indian names be pronounced properly. The member has made no effort and I ask him to do so. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure. There was so much noise that I am not able to determine or make judgment about the accuracy of the nomenclature that was used. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: It is certainly not Mr “Kamal”—or something like that—Bakshi. He has a wonderful name given to him by his parents. The member should at least try to pronounce it properly. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Yes and it is a Sikh name not an Indian name Mr Assistant Speaker. I simply suggest that people should stop being misled by obsolete law that masquerades as live law. With those words I support 100 percent my colleague and his bill. I look forward to it coming to our select committee.