Katene Rahui: Statutes Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Katene Rahui: Statutes Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8332] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The statutes amendment format is one that normally avoids the need for extended discussion. In the case of a Statutes Amendment Bill by its very nature as an omnibus bill that consists entirely of amendments to Acts we know that the amendments must be minor technical and non-controversial. Indeed if there was to be any objection to a particular provision the reference to the statute requiring amendment must be removed before the bill is tabled. It can be taken for granted therefore that any amendments problematic to the Maori Party have already been deleted from the bill. I do not intend to draw out the debate unnecessarily challenging the basis for the minor drafting amendments submitted to for example the Animal Products Act or the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act. Most of the changes are clear-cut. There is the amendment to the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act which repeals section 61 as registrars and celebrants no longer keep register books. There is nothing controversial about that. 
Some of the changes will cause some angst amongst law lecturers. For example when I was a law student studying equity the word amongst students was that the law lecturer had not changed his lectures for decades. He was giving the same lecture year after year. Now with the changes to the witnessing of signatures on wills that will definitely have to be changed. It will mean that law students will no longer have to read hours and hours of case law on that subject. That will be a very popular amendment amongst law students. 
Some of the changes are thoroughly sensible. A good example is the decision in clause 53 of the bill to substitute for section 26ZZQ of the Conservation Act a new section to provide that “a person in charge of a dog (as well as the owner of the dog) commits an offence if the dog attacks and seriously injures or kills protected wildlife in a controlled dog area or open dog area.” This is about encouraging collective responsibility to protect our native flora and fauna and we should all support that goal. 
We are pleased with Part 18 which amends the Electoral Act 1993 to simplify the process for updating the electoral roll when there are changes to an elector’s details as the result of a marriage or a civil union. Any action that can assist in encouraging and promoting voters to take up their democratic entitlement to vote will always receive the full support of the Maori Party. We only wish that there were other more visionary amendments to the Electoral Act including a provision that all people should be automatically enrolled on the register of voters at the age of 18: on the Maori roll if someone is Maori with an option to transfer to the general roll or on the general roll if the person is non-Maori. We believe that such an amendment which was a proposal that came out of the Maori Party policy manifesto would do a great deal to increase the opportunities for New Zealanders to participate in the democratic process. 
Like Mr Chauvel I noted that clause 103 substitutes a new definition of “foreshore” in the National Parks Act. I would be interested to hear back from the Minister as to the precise relationship of that new definition to the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. Section 5 of that Act defines foreshore and seabed to mean: “the marine area that is bounded—(i) on the landward side by the line of mean high water springs; and (ii) on the seaward side by the outer limits of the territorial sea;”—that is 12 nautical miles. The report of the ministerial review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004  
Pakia ki uta pakia ki tai 
 reported that prior to the enactment of the 2004 Act the foreshore and seabed were legally distinct areas but that after its enactment the two are now legally coalesced into a single area. The ministerial review panel went further and I quote: “The Act has to be the biggest single land nationalisation statute enacted in New Zealand history. Defenders of the legislation could maintain however that the government was under the impression that the area belonged to the Crown absolutely in any case and that the legislation was not so much an expropriation as the correction of an anomaly.” 
I raise the question of the definition of “foreshore” as it applies to the National Parks Act because I think that the ministerial review panel has suggested that there is considerable room for variation in the interpretation of the definition of that term. We would expect the highest standards of rigour to apply in the following stages of analysis and we will be watching that debate with considerable interest. 
Finally I make mention of Part 43 which amends the Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre (Wairarapa) Act. Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre has just celebrated its 90th year of operation. It was originally established in 1919 in the central Wairarapa as a training farm for men returning from the First World War. It is a key organisation for inspiring young people to take up a career on the land and for providing them with opportunities to develop skills and have experiences of value in agriculture and other rural industries. Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre has invested considerable time in working with established tertiary training providers such as the Universal College of Learning and the Waiariki Institute of Technology as well as various Maori incorporations and trusts. I note also that included within its educational goals is the intention to increase Maori participation. So when an organisation with such a solid reputation and a vision for the future as that centre has asks for amendments to its board membership surely it is the role of Parliament to simply oblige and that is what we will be doing. 
We will support the Statutes Amendment Bill at this its first reading.