Mackey Moana: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMackey Moana: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 April 2014. Volume:698;Page:17347. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MOANA MACKEY (Labour): In response to the member who has just resumed his seat Colin King I am not sure that the words “very interesting” and “Statutes Amendment Bill” should actually go in the same sentence but I am pleased that Statutes Amendment bills are what float his boat. That is good to know. In fact these really are bills that are used to fix botch-ups little mistakes. They are non-controversial everyone in Parliament supports them and so we put them all together in an omnibus bill to pass them through.I have to say it is not surprising that we have had so many Statutes Amendment bills in this term of Government and in the previous term of Government given the complete disregard for due process that this Government has. A number of times when Labour members have been on our feet discussing various pieces of legislation we have pointed out that we were rushing legislation through Parliament and rushing it throughthe select committee process. I think of the emissions trading scheme legislation. That legislation went through the select committee in 7 weeks including the calling for and hearing of submissions. And then we are surprised that we have to pass so many Statutes Amendment bills to fix up all the mistakes! Those mistakes would have been picked up if the piece of legislation in question had been allowed to have a proper process through the select committee with a time frame that did not put the select committee under enormous pressure to return the piece of legislation before we had due consideration and before submitters had time to consider the legislation put their thoughts on paper and come before a select committee to discuss it.We have had pieces of legislation where we have set a deliberation date the following week before we have even seen a report before we have even seen a revision-tracked version of what the bill would look like. It is just: “Oh we’ll do that all next week.” Well that is not good process. It is therefore no surprise that once again we are passing a Statutes Amendment Bill to fix up all those errors which due process probably would have dealt with in the first place.The second reason it is not surprising we have had so many Statutes Amendment bills—and I notice that in this bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) there are a number of justice amendments in the name of the Hon Judith Collins—is that Ms Collins is a particular Minister who is under pressure. This is a Minister who tends not to read things. She tabled a report in the House on ACC in question time yesterday claiming that the decision to take away the payment of ACC entitlements to people who have refused to sign a document allowing the ACC to distribute their private details was a decision made by the Hon Ruth Dyson. No it actually was not—she tabled a document saying that that was a decision made by the Hon Ruth Dyson in 2006.But interestingly enough what the document showed was actually exactly the opposite of that which was that the Hon Ruth Dyson said that in no way at all should conditions be applied to the entitlements of ACC claimants and therefore if they choose not to sign that document they should continue to receive their entitlement. So I am not surprised at all that there are so many justice amendments in this particular bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). The Hon Judith Collins as I have just described—and as we saw in response to the questions today by my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway—does not read the documents that are put in front of her. She does not read the official information. If she had read the particular document that she tabled she would know that it actually said the opposite of what she was claiming it said that it was in fact a National Government that allowed that to happen on its watch and that it was a Labour Government under the Hon Ruth Dyson as Minister for ACC that said that there are not to be conditions attached to the payment of entitlements to ACC claimants. So she does not read documents.The second reason I am not surprised that there are so many amendments in the bill under the name of the Hon Judith Collins is that she is under a lot of pressure at the moment. She is under an enormous amount of pressure due to a very real conflict of interest that was carried out in relation to her husband’s company Oravida and a ministerial visit that she did to China. So given the pressure that has come on her to come clean and be transparent around who exactly was invited to a meeting and what exactly was discussed I am not surprised that she has been making a number of mistakes.I always apply theOccam’s razor principle in these situations which is that the simplest solution is usually the right one which is that they were in a room with a Chinese border official who is able to influence products going into China. Her husband’s company had written to the Hon Tim Groser and the Hon Nathan Guy and said: “Please help us get our products into China. Anything you can do would help.”She was sitting in a room with members of the Chinese Government and we are expected to believe that they never ever discussed her husband’s company that they never discussed Oravida. Well I thinkOccam’s razor principle would tell us that that is highly unlikely and that in fact the simplest solution is usually the correct one which is that that is exactly what that meeting was for; it was not private. I have a great respect for public servants. I do not tend to invite them to my private dinners. I do not know whether that is a failing on my part but I do not tend to invite them—and if other members have I apologise—particularly public servants from other countries.So I am not surprised that the Hon Judith Collins has a number of amendments in this particular Statutes Amendment Bill. We have got the Judicial Conduct Commission and Commissioner Conduct Panel Act 2004 the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 the Official Information Act 1982 the Ombudsmen Act 1975 the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Summary Proceedings Act—Iain Lees-Galloway: 2012—that wasn’t very long ago.MOANA MACKEY: No 2012 was not very long ago at all. We have the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. That is a large number of Acts for one Minister but as I said I am not surprised. In response to questions about ACC today she clearly does not read documents. Actually an even worse explanation would be that she does read them but she does not understand them—Iain Lees-Galloway: Or she just misled the House.MOANA MACKEY: —or she just misled the House as my colleague said. The second reason we have got so many Acts being amended or being fixed up because of mistakes being made by the Hon Judith Collins is that she is under enormous pressure at the moment to be transparent to come clean with the New Zealand Parliament and the New Zealand people about what exactly went on during a taxpayer-funded ministerial visit.I want to come to some of the other legislation in the Statutes Amendment Bill. First of all the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994 is being amended. The amendments that are being made are very good but again it is disappointing that when we dealt with the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserve Bill large tracts of that particularly in the marine reserve were withheld because the Government Ministers decided that in the future they might want to carry out some economic activity there that would be detrimental and opposed to the purposes of the Marine Reserves Act. So they just left them out.So I am really disappointed that we do not see in here some protection for those parts of the Subantarctic Islands that were left out deliberately from the piece of legislation that this Parliament passed and the Labour Party supported. We support those marine reserves. We would like to see proper protection not just partial protection in areas where there is never going to be any economic activity—so it is easy low-hanging fruit—and proper actual protection in terms of marine reserves in this country and in the subantarctic area.I come to the next Act that is being amended which I would like to comment on and that is the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978. Would it not be great if it was considered non-controversial to have in this part of the Statutes Amendment Bill proper protection forHector’s andMāui’s dolphins? Would it not be fantastic if that was considered a no-brainer? It should be a no-brainer as this is the most endangered dolphin species in the world. It should be a no-brainer that we put in place every single protection we can. No Government should sit by and watch a species go extinct on its watch when there is something it could do about it.So we have got amendments here to the Marine Mammals Protection Act which are clarifying stuff around a warrant being issued to more than one officer. Would it not be fantastic if this amendment to the Marine Mammals Act was introducing non-controversially proper protections forHector’s andMāui’s dolphins? But of course we are never going to see that under this Government. What we are going to see are token gestures. What we are going to see are halfway measures that make it look like the Government is doing something when in fact it is likely to preside over the extinction of a native species despite the fact that there are things that it could have done about it but chose not do.I come next to Part 21 “National Parks Act 1980”. Again would it not be great if in this part of the bill we saw the removal of the rights of the Minister of Energy and Resources to have half the say about consents for mining or Department of Conservation concessions on conservation land for mining which used to be the sole ambit of the Minister of Conservation and is now shared in a decision-making power between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources? Would it not be wonderful if in Part 21 of the Statutes Amendment Bill—and Kate Wilkinson is in the House.I remember when the announcement was made and there was Gerry Brownlee the then Minister of Energy and Resources sitting next to Kate Wilkinson. Kate Wilkinson did not say anything throughout the entire press conference as Gerry Brownlee was trying to convince us that this was an equal partnership that they had equal say and that this was not going to change anything. The optics as Steven Joyce would say really said it all. Kate Wilkinson sat there in the shadow of Gerry Brownlee saying absolutely nothing.Would it not be great if in this Statutes Amendment Bill we saw the removal from the National Parks Act 1980 of the rights of the Minister of Energy and Resources to have half the decision-making power or under a National Government 100 percent of the decision-making power to grant concessions on Department of Conservation land for mining activity? And would it not be great if we saw the removal of the economic benefit test which applies only to mining and does not apply to any other economic venture in the Department of Conservation estate—for example tourism? Those are things that it would have been nice to see in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). Those are things that should not be controversial in a Statutes Amendment Bill but unfortunately under a National Government they are.