Statutes Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Statutes Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8328] 
Statutes Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Statutes Amendment Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee and that the committee present its final report on or before 1 April 2010. As the House will be aware a Statutes Amendment Bill is useful for making minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. It allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed. This is achieved with the support of all parties in Parliament. In 2008 a Statutes Amendment Bill was developed but never introduced as an agreement from all parties on the proposals was not reached before the general election. The 2009 Statutes Amendment Bill includes amendments that were submitted in 2008 as well as a new set of proposals. These were originally in two separate bills but it was decided that it would be a better use of House time to combine all the proposals into one bill. This means that this year’s Statutes Amendment Bill is indeed a large one. As introduced it amends 47 Acts administered by 15 different departments. I shall give the House some examples of these proposed amendments. 
The amendment of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 1995 replaces references to “birth record” and “birth register” with references to “birth information” for consistency with other provisions of the Act. Another amendment to that Act provides that a birth certificate need not be signed by a parent who is overseas if the parent cannot be contacted within a period of time that is reasonable in the circumstances. 
I also comment about the amendment to the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981. It amends section 20(3) by adding the name “New Zealand Food Safety Authority” and the abbreviation “NZFSA”. The effect is to prohibit the unauthorised use of that name or that abbreviation. That is an important point. 
The amendment to the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants Act 1996 changes all references to the “Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand” to the “New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants” in order to reflect the change that the institute has made to its name. 
The amendment to the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 amends Schedule 1 to correct an error relating to the year of the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 which currently is incorrectly stated as 1981. 
An amendment to the Social Security Act 1964 amends section 73 to remove outdated references to a former jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court to confer entitlements to the relatives of a deceased person out of the deceased’s estate. 
An amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 amends section 31 by omitting references to “registered post” as a means of delivery and substituting a requirement that the delivery use a “traceable system”. This change is made because “registered post” is no longer available but the item to be delivered still needs to be traceable. 
I believe that I have traversed a range of some of the important parts of the Statute Amendment Bill. There are a whole lot of others and I am sure other members across the House will make a very valuable contribution to what is a very important Statutes Amendment Bill. It is a way of advancing technical yet important amendments. I commend this bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I will begin my brief contribution this evening by thanking the Labour spokesperson on justice matters the Hon Lianne Dalziel for delegating to me as her associate the responsibility for liaising with the Government on Statutes Amendment bills. I also thank in the same vein the Associate Minister of Justice Nathan Guy for his scintillating contribution. 
Labour will support the amendments contained in this Statutes Amendment Bill but we reserve the right to reconsider any individual amendment in the select committee and obviously in the Committee of the whole House if and when further information arises. I will point to just one or two bits of the legislation that raise some concerns and I signal to the Minister that they are concerns we are going to need to hear more about. These concerns arise in respect of nine of the proposed amendments that appear in the legislation. I did flag these matters to the Minister when I wrote to him on 8 September in response to his letter consulting the Opposition dated 24 August but I think it is appropriate to register the concerns at this very early first reading stage. 
The first of the nine concerns that Labour has relates to the definition of “foreshore” in the National Parks Act 1980 because there is a proposal that that should be amended. At the moment the National Parks Act refers to the definition contained in the Harbours Act 1950 but that has been repealed. So the new definition proposed in clause 103 is: “… any land covered and uncovered by the flow and ebb of the tide at mean spring tides”. In my letter to the Minister I expressed concern that this could have unintended consequences given that there was in progress a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act at the time of the letter. Now the review has been reported and is being actively considered by the Government and we all await its outcome with baited breath. The Associate Minister of Justice has assured me that the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General are both satisfied that the change will have no direct effect on the 2004 legislation or the review; we will certainly be keeping that matter under close review. 
The second substantive issue I wanted to draw to the House’s attention was the intended amendment in clause 25 to section 9 of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationship Registration Act 1995. The intention is to substantively change the meaning of when a parent is unavailable within the meaning of the legislation to sign a birth registration form. Although we in Labour concede that that is a sensible amendment on its face we think that it sails quite close to the definition of what would be a substantive policy change so we want some assurance that it is merely a machinery change. 
The third matter relates to the proposed amendment to section 26ZZQ of the Conservation Act 1987 as substituted under clause 53. The proposed amendment seems to extend the scope of an offence rather than merely correct an error. Again at the select committee or in the Committee of the whole House we are going to want some reassurance about that. 
I will deal more briefly with the other six concerns that I have pointed out to the Minister. First the Juries Amendment Act 2008 is legislation not yet in force that amends the 1981 legislation. That Act is amended by clause 96 to expand the range of jury districts from 30 kilometres to 45 kilometres. That might well just be a sensible amendment but we will want to test the reasons for it. There is also an amendment under Part 26 to the Marriage Act 1955 to change the criteria for the appointment of celebrants. Again it will be important for us to be satisfied that that is appropriate. 
There is an amendment to the Property Law Act 2007 in two sections under clause 117 section 139 and section 156 concerning the circumstances when a mortgagee obtains a court order for possession of mortgage property. The suggestion is that possession should be backdated to the date of the application so that the mortgagee can collect any income from the property from that date. Again we will want to go through and understand the justification for that. 
An amendment in clause 119 to section 94A of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 which concerns the independence of witnesses to enduring powers of attorney seems to be a policy-related amendment. Again we will want to understand the justification for it. 
There are two proposed amendments in Part 35 to the Radiocommunications Act 1989. These will allow regulations to be made concerning the importation for supply and the offering for sale of radio apparatus in the same way that regulations can be made that control the supply of that equipment. We want to be satisfied that that is merely a machinery change. 
Finally there are amendments under Part 5 to sections 405 and 412 of the Building Act 2004. The concern that I have personally as chair of the Regulations Review Committee is that there will be through these proposed amendments a diminution of the ability of the House to scrutinise certain instruments. Although this legislation might simply be correcting a drafting error generally speaking members on this side of the House will not be supportive of legislation that diminishes the House’s duty to scrutinise the delegated power of the executive. 
Other than those nine matters which Labour will be paying close attention to in the course of the passage of this legislation through the House I am happy at this stage subject to the comments that I have made to commend the bill. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to take a very short call on the Statutes Amendment Bill just to reassert National’s support for this bill which is all about getting on with the business. This Parliament of course is often in the news because of contention over bills that come before the House. But by its very nature a Statutes Amendment Bill is supposed to be a vehicle for technical and short amendments to a range of Acts. In this case 47 Acts will be amended. It is not appropriate to include in such a bill amendments that will be by their very nature contentious. Therefore that is why we will be dealing with such a large number and a wide range of amendments in the bill. 
The 47 Acts that will be amended range in subject from wild animals to wills and from takeovers to telecommunications rates marriages drugs and national parks. So in fact a wide range of things will be discussed within the select committee presuming that anyone does seek to submit on these amendments—that they generate enough interest. In the nature again of this Statutes Amendment Bill it is likely that some people will say “For goodness sake let us just get on with it.” because this will make the law more streamlined and simpler. 
Let me give members just a couple of examples in relation to the changes to the Wills Act which was passed only in 2007. One amendment is that “a will-maker need not actually sign his or her will in the presence of witnesses but may acknowledge in the presence of witnesses that he or she signed the will earlier and that the signature on the will is his or her own:”. The other is that “a witness need not include a statement of his or her attestation but statements of this kind made by at least 2 witnesses are evidence of the will’s valid execution.” 
Another example of getting on with the business is the amendment to the Securities Act 1978. The amendment in clause 135 of Part 38 of the bill to section 68B(1) of that Act corrects a cross-reference error. This is yet another good example of the nature of this bill. It is non-contentious and is about getting on with the business. This is the sort of thing that we talk about out in our electorates—the fact that this Parliament is not always dealing with legislation that we argue about. Somewhere around 60 to 65 percent of the bills that travel through this House have unanimous or close to unanimous support. 
Therefore I certainly commend this bill in its first reading. I look forward to welcoming it back into the House in some months’ time and therefore to improving all 47 of these Acts with the passage of this bill. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I too rise to support the introduction of the Statutes Amendment Bill. I thought I would focus my comments on Standing Orders 258 and 259 because of course it is under Standing Order 258 that we get to debate an omnibus bill as a type of omnibus bill that may be introduced to the House as of right. A Statutes Amendment Bill is one of those. The reason it is in the list of things that can be dealt with by way of an omnibus bill is its uncontroversial nature. That is why we have a very detailed cross-party consultation process which enables individual parties to reject any particular clause of a Statutes Amendment Bill. I think that is a very good process. It means that when the bill does arrive in the House it has general agreement subject to the comment made by my very good associate to whom I was delighted to delegate the responsibility of the Statutes Amendment Bill for the Labour Opposition which is that sometimes there is a tendency for officials to slip in a little bit of policy when somebody is not looking very closely. 
The idea of dealing with relatively minor technical amendments that do not meet the totally non-controversial nature required of a Statutes Amendment Bill has been a frustration that many of us who have been in Government have experienced over a number of years. That is why I wanted to focus on the importance of the vehicle. I think Jo Goodhew made a very good point. This morning I had a classroom of young people here from Aranui Primary School which is in my electorate. They asked me about voting. They asked what the Ayes and the Noes were for. We had to explain what those old-fashioned words meant. It was very easy actually. We just told them to knock the “A” off the Ayes and the “es” off the Noes and they then had a very clear understanding of what it was all about. 
But they wanted to know why in Opposition we did not always vote against the Government. They did not quite get that. They thought that the role of the Opposition was to vote against the Government. I said that no by and large most of the business of this House is conducted without a party vote because generally speaking we are of one mind in respect of the overwhelming bulk of the legislation that we deal with here. But unfortunately our friends in the media are not so interested in the times when we agree with each other. It is not really headline news that peace broke out in Parliament last night. Therefore the media focus tends to be when there is disagreement. 
This bill is a very good vehicle. It was one of my drivers behind having a Regulatory Improvement Bill. We have Business Law Reform bills now as an agreed Business Committee decision around the introduction of an annual Business Law Reform Bill which enables a range of legislation to be addressed as an omnibus bill instead of having to have just the one subject matter dealt with in the legislation. That has been a very useful way of dealing with business law reform. 
The Regulatory Improvement Bill which was my personal contribution to the suite of omnibus bills that we now have was really designed to pick up those particular instances where things did not quite meet the standard required for statutes amendment in that there may have been an element of controversy or the technical amendments may not be minor and the amount of red tape that could be cut or the amount of slack that could be given to business operations did not quite meet the business law reform agenda. It might be an amendment to the Resource Management Act it might be an amendment to the Employment Relations Act or something like that. It could be dealt with in the regulatory improvement framework as well. 
We are very much in favour of omnibus bills that are able to be read together as it were within a sensible frame. In this case the Statutes Amendment Bill having a number of pieces of legislation tidied up in one hit I think is very positive legislation and I am happy to see it go to the Justice and Electoral Committee I believe. Is that where it is going? I do not know whether I heard the Minister say where the bill is going but it is definitely not coming to the Commerce Committee and I am very pleased about that. 
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. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure as a member of the Regulations Review Committee to speak to the Statutes Amendment Bill. My first experience of working with such omnibus bills—which are a means of correcting anomalies or errors in the law—was when I was a staffer in this place under the last Labour Government. I went through the process and I know that it is key when working with such omnibus bills to ensuring that the amendments are non-controversial. That is required almost by their very nature and the way that the Standing Orders allow them to be dealt with. They also must be widely consulted on and there must be consensus across the House for the amendments contained in the bill. It was certainly my experience as a staffer having to consult a wide range of parties and those interested on both sides of the House that it is in the interests of this House to make sure the amendments are non-controversial and fall within the correct criteria the scope of the Standing Orders as to how such bills are to be treated and the kinds of amendments contained in them. 
I think we need to assess the Statutes Amendment Bill with that in mind and I thought it might be useful to review the kinds of criteria that the Standing Orders expect this House to keep in mind when deciding whether we are looking at non-controversial and non-contentious policy changes. As I think my colleague Lianne Dalziel might have already pointed out the criteria are set out in the Standing Orders. Standing Order 258(1)(f) states that Statutes Amendment bills must consist entirely of amendments to Acts so they therefore must be omnibus bills. Then we see in Standing Order 295 the true reason probably why they need to be non-controversial. Standing Order 295(2) states: “If any member objects to a clause standing part of a Statutes Amendment Bill (or of a bill that was formerly part of a Statutes Amendment Bill) the clause is struck out of the bill.” I think that is a very pragmatic reason why the amendments need to be non-controversial and not substantive when it comes to a policy change. 
Keeping that in mind I think that the Opposition is right to point out those areas where we will be looking for further explanation and exploration of various elements of this bill. I do think that some of them as Charles Chauvel has pointed out border on the substantive side. I think it is right that Labour has decided to support the amendments contained in the bill but to reserve the right to reconsider any of those individual amendments once they reach the select committee and of course again in the Committee of the whole House. We reserve the right to withdraw our support for those amendments. 
I noted that the last speaker from the Maori Party touched on the change in the definition of “foreshore” in the National Parks Act 1980. Given the current debate that is going on around the future of the foreshore and seabed legislation I think it is pertinent that we point out again that this could well have ramifications for that and it is very important that the select committee consider that when it looks at that particular amendment. 
Currently the National Parks Act refers to the definition contained in the Harbours Act 1950 which has been repealed. The new definition is “any land covered and uncovered by the flow and ebb of the tide at mean spring tides”. Our previous speakers have expressed concern that that will have unintended consequences in light of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. I note that we have been given some reassurance by the Associate Minister of Justice and by the Attorney-General that it will not have a direct effect but given that this is a period of fluid policy discussion I think it is important that we flag that we will be reserving our right to reconsider that. 
There has already been some discussion around the amendment to section 9 of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act which I want to touch on briefly. It is questionable as to whether this amendment is bordering on a substantive policy change given that it allows a parent to be unavailable at the signing of a birth registration form. Although it may well be a sensible amendment it is questionable as to whether it is substantive and in fact a policy change of sorts. We have also touched on some of the amendments to the Conservation Act which we would like to look at a little more closely at the select committee. 
There are several other concerns and they are in relation to the Juries Amendment Act 2008 the Marriage Act the Property Law Act the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act and the Building Act and I am pleased my colleague Charles Chauvel has raised those issues. Quite rightly and in the spirit of the way Statutes Amendment bills work in this House he has raised them directly with the Minister with responsibility for this bill. It is in good faith that we operate on these bills and it is very important that we maintain the conventions of this House in the way we deal with Statutes Amendment bills. A further 38 Acts are to be amended by this bill and we have no objection to those amendments. Some of my colleagues may have already touched on that but I think it is important to point out that although we are highlighting a few there are in fact 38 Acts that we see no issue with. 
I am pleased to continue to be involved as a member of the Regulations Review Committee and the Justice and Electoral Committee in the further consideration of this Statutes Amendment Bill and I am pleased so far at the open discussion that has occurred on some of the areas where we have concerns. I hope that both sides of this House continue to act in good faith as we consider how best to progress matters in this bill that are non-contentious and those that may on further examination prove to be. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Government Administration Committee consider the Statutes Amendment Bill 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 April 2010. 
Motion agreed to.