Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a call in support of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). As has probably been raised by prior speakers to the bill a Statutes Amendment Bill can include only items that are approved by all of the parties to this Parliament as being non-controversial amendments. Because of that we're allowed to have an omnibus bill that is not limited in scope as to any one of these subject areas that are covered but that can make individual amendments to a wide range of Acts of Parliament in the same piece of legislation. That of course saves time in this Parliament—not quite as much time as we were expecting tonight because the Opposition don't seem to be taking any calls. But I see that the former Attorney-General the Hon Chris Finlayson has come to the rescue. I'm sure he's willing to take a call so as to explain some of the finer points of Part 9 which relates to the Crown Proceedings Act 1950 and related amendments.These amendments are I think seen as non-controversial by the House because they arise from a report of the Law Commission which is titled The Crown in Court: A Review of the Crown Proceedings Act and National Security Information in Proceedings. These amendments which were recommended by the Law Commission make amendments to the Crown Proceedings Act and the Bail Act in accordance with the recommendations of the commission.I understand that these amendments to clauses 29 to 31 and 34 to 36 repeal section 21 of the Crown Proceedings Act which is an old piece of legislation dating back to 1950 and make related amendments to the Bail Act 2000 and the Electoral Act 1993. That's because section 21 of the Crown Proceedings Act is now used generally in respect of bail money and otherwise applies only to election petitions under the Electoral Act 1993. So instead of doing it through the Crown Proceedings Act this amendment changes the Bail Act to replace what used to be in section 21 of the Crown Proceedings Act. I think that seems pretty sensible and therefore I can see why that is recommended as a course.The other very important matter I would bring to the attention of the House—Andrew Bayly: How many more minutes? Oh 6½ minutes.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well one of the many other important matters—it's a challenge now. It's a challenge now. I was going to do five but I've got six minutes 42 seconds to go according to the challenge from Opposition members. The next one that I would refer to is Part 13 lucky for some or unlucky for some.Part 13 deals with changes to the Family Proceedings Act 1980. Now this is a very minor change to the Family Proceedings Act but it is an area of law that needs considerable attention because to be frank the Family Courts are not working very well in New Zealand as a consequence of some of the amendments that were made by Hon Judith Collins which stripped out the participation of lawyers have caused a proliferation of ex parte orders where they are made without reference to the other side. The courts have been so clogged up with ex parte orders that people who are adversely affected by an ex parte order made without notice and without their knowledge have to wait many months in order to get it sorted out which is a terrible thing when children are effectively being held away from one parent by ex parte orders. There's something there that needs to be sorted out. That will be an issue of more controversy that cannot be dealt with under the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) because I would've thought that the National Party having been responsible for that poor process in the Family Court would probably not agree to it being fixed here. But they have agreed to this minor change and so I celebrate them for that.This change is to clause 44 which amends section 162B and quite sensibly it says that where there has been a lawyer appointed in a family proceeding to represent the interests of the child or just to assist the court—because that sometimes happens when the parties aren't legally represented or there's an unusual issue that arises and the judge thinks that there's a need to have some assistance for the court to tease out the issues—at the moment those invoices where there's a lawyer appointed to represent the interests of a child or to assist the court you can't get those things paid except by clogging up the process and going back to the original court. That is no longer going to be the case now because it seems that everyone in this Parliament agrees that it would be sensible for that minor matter—the approval of the bill that has been caused to be necessary to be paid because the courts have already ordered that a lawyer be appointed to represent a child or to assist the court. Now the registrar of the court if this amendment proceeds is going to be able to authorise that expenditure.The next part that I would like to refer to is Part 15. Part 15 relates to the Fisheries Act. There's a section in the Fisheries Act and I'm told it's section 255(6) which already protects banks from forfeiture of quota. Now this is what happens if someone's found to be breaching the Fisheries Act and plundering our fishery if they are taking one species and recording it as another fishing in the wrong zone or using a net that's the wrong size—all of these things can create a risk of forfeiture of quota and it is that penalty that the fisher that acts illegally is at risk of. It's actually one of the most effective penalties that keeps the fishing industry honest and minimises breaches of the Fisheries Act. In respect of that if you're going to forfeit quota you've got to be a bit careful that you're not prejudicing people other than the offender. So it would be unfair just to rip the quota away and say that the person that had lent money effectively secured by a security like a mortgage over the quota—if they lost out as well that would be unfair. The law already provides at section 255(6) of the Fisheries Act that banks be protected from the forfeiture of quota that might otherwise occur simply because the bank has a financial association with the offender. [Bell rung]Thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker. If you're someone that has got a financial association with the offending fisher and you've got some security interests well you're at risk because you ought not to be able to avoid the consequences of this in that circumstance. But if they're a bank who has no financial association with an offender they're already protected. Now what the amendment does is extend that protection to non-bank deposit takers. So the protection that is currently afforded to banks is now being afforded effectively to other lenders who carry out similar functions to banks. I think that is a good amendment partly because we know that as our banking system is very reliant on the large Australian-owned banks and they're a force for good in New Zealand it does mean that if you want to have competition from other financial providers to the banking sector you've got to afford them the same protections that the banks get otherwise they will be suffering a point of competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis the banks. Their risks would be higher when lending to a fishing company and therefore they would have to charge a higher interest rate and that would make them uncompetitive. That's poor public policy because we want competitive pressures on the big Australian banks. And so that—that that that—is the purpose of Part 15 of this bill which amends the Fisheries Act 1996.I'm afraid I'm not going to have time to cover in detail the amendments to the Government Superannuation Fund Act 1956.