Dyson Ruth: Third Readings —Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Third Readings —[Sitting date: 24 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2499. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Mr Speaker I certainly do wish to take my remaining 9 minutes 30 seconds. I recall that when I started my contribution on this legislation on Thursday evening of the last sitting week the member of Parliament for Invercargill had just resumed her seat and had been praising the community trust and the work it does in Invercargill. I was disappointed that she had not continued her contribution because I thought that after a pretty rigorous week in Parliament it was a very pleasant way of ending with a local constituency member praising an organisation in her own electorate. So I am sorry that she did not take up the remaining 30 seconds but I want to commend her for that contribution.It is also fitting that a debate on a statutes amendment bill is not as partisan as some of the other debates that we have in this House because the nature of a statutes amendment bill is such that if any single member of the House disagrees with a provision in it then that part does not proceed as part of a statutes amendment bill. It has to be unanimously agreed. That is pretty unusual. It is also unusual in the fact that statutes amendment bills are—particularly this one—omnibus bills so they cover a wide range of legislation. From memory this legislation which we are putting through its third reading now covers 34 different pieces of legislation which is a lot. That is why it has been divided into 34 bills for the third reading and then of course it amends 34 different existing Acts.The nature of the amendments within a statutes amendment bill are generally technical. They generally clarify policy that is unclear because of the drafting so that the original policy intent is reflected in the amended drafting. They are not meant to involve any policy changes at all. It is for this reason that during the select committee consideration of this legislation some of the proposed amendments outlined in the original legislation were struck out by the committee. The Government Administration Committee which considered this legislation considered that some of the provisions as they were outlined were not appropriate for inclusion in a statutes amendment bill and in other parts of the legislation the committee just recommended changes. So we struck out some provisions and we recommended changes in others.It is ironic to reflect that during a debate that contains no policy alterations at all—although these are important changes to make they are not policy changes—we are having a full parliamentary debate and we have had select committee scrutiny. And it is quite an irony when you consider that on something that is much more important because it involves people’s lives and it involves New Zealand’s security and our integrity as a nation—the issue of sending troops to Iraq for example—there was no parliamentary vote at all. So here we have the juxtaposition: a statutes amendment bill that does not have any policy at all goes through an entire select committee process including submissions—not very many in this case—the Committee of the whole House and a vote at every stage; but for something as important as sending our young men and women to be involved in combat in Iraq we did not have the opportunity for a parliamentary vote.As I said at the beginning this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) contains amendments to 34 different Acts. It is very helpful that it is in alphabetical order. It starts off I think with probably the Animal Welfare Act—yes the Animal Welfare Act—and it goes right through to the Wildlife Act. It does not cover every letter of the alphabet but it does a pretty good job. You might ask: “How does it have more parts than letters of the alphabet?” Well that is because we have several letters repeated. For example we have got the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act we have got the National Parks Act and we have got Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Act. My colleague Adrian Rurawhe spoke on that in the earlier part of the debate—at the Committee stage I think; yes—and I hope he might make a contribution in the third reading as well.I want to acknowledge the officials who worked on this legislation. Of course as I said it does not have the rigour of a partisan debate but it does require quite rigorous consideration by the select committee and the officials of course helped us in that regard. Some of the amendments that we considered were fixing up previous errors. I have to say that the Government Administration Committee has not always made those corrections in the way that it intended and sometimes other committees that have considered these legislative proposals have had to come back in subsequent statutes amendment legislation to correct what they thought was a correction. So we did not always get it right but we certainly tried. The officials worked really hard to service the committee in that regard as did the Clerk’s staff who support our committee so I want to commend them.I also want to make particular acknowledgment of the members on the committee four of whom are no longer members of the Government Administration Committee. Mojo Mathers was on this committee and still is so I certainly acknowledge her but others who were on the Government Administration Committee who are no longer on that committee are Trevor Mallard; the deputy chairperson Chris Auchinvole who has recently turned 70 is now sporting an elegant beard I understand and is very happily residing in his retirement from Parliament on the West Coast; Eric Roy a former presiding officer of the House; and Kanwaljit Bakshi who is still a member of the House of course but is not on the Government Administration Committee. So I just want to acknowledge them and their contribution.We did give this legislation some rigorous intent as I have said to the point that we recommended that parts of it were not suitable for inclusion in a statutes amendment bill and then we also made amendments to provisions that we left in. These are important considerations. Some of them caused political debate in the committee even though that is not the point of a statutes amendment bill.The provisions in Part 23 of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) which contained alterations to the Official Information Act caused me particular amusement if I could just digress momentarily from the debate specifically on the legislation. I have been making a lot of Official Information Act requests to the Earthquake Commission because in our part of the world we have a lot of earthquake-related issues and of course under the provisions of the Official Information Act there is a limited time frame within which Ministers or Government departments and agencies—anyone covered by the Act—are required to respond.The Earthquake Commission was at one stage taking 6 months to respond to requests under the Official Information Act and I certainly took the opportunity to mention that in passing in regard to the alterations just to see whether we could make it a provision under the statutes amendment bill amendments that the Official Information Act had to be complied with. But of course that is not necessary. I am pleased to say that the Earthquake Commission is now complying with the legislation through quite a lot of the intensive work that it has done. They might not be satisfactory responses but at least it is complying with the legislation.So with those comments can I just say that this is an unusual way of having legislation changed. Generally it is done within a policy setting. This is an entire piece of legislation covering 34 different Acts of Parliament that does not make any policy changes at all. It makes technical alterations. It clarifies the original policy intent of the legislation which had not been properly carried through from original drafting through to the final provisions of the legislation and it also updates legislation. It is good legislation. It should receive the unanimous support of the House because that is what a statutes amendment bill requires in order to proceed.I enjoyed being the chairperson of the Government Administration Committee which considered this legislation. I think that the staff and the members of the committee gave it rigorous consideration. I hope there are no faults in it as we have progressed through this third and final reading because if there are we will be back here correcting them in a future statutes amendment bill. Thank you.