Parker David: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5146. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):I feel like the junior drafting assistant of Denis O’Rourke. He is exactly right. Could I draw the Minister of Transport’s attention to the wording of clause 6(1) and clause 6(2). Denis O’Rourke has just said that he thinks that because of the insertion of the words in clause 6(1) “and to be and always have been valid” that stands alone irrespective of the list. He may or may not be right in that as to that being the effect of it but he is right that it is unnecessarily confused drafting because the same words appear in clause 6(2) which says that for the avoidance of doubt every one of these designations “is declared to be and to always have been lawfully set or designated.” You do not need to say it twice.This would be better drafted as Denis O’Rourke suggested if the words the first time they appear in subclause (1) were deleted so that it then read “every specified bylaw is declared to have been lawfully made despite any 1 or more of the following circumstances applying to it”. Then there is the list from paragraph (a) to paragraph (c) and then subclause (2) still takes effect and would say: “To avoid doubt every speed limit set by a specified bylaw validated under subsection (1) and every designation of an urban traffic area is declared to be and to always have been lawfully set or designated.” The way to fix that is to just delete the words “and to be and always have been valid” from the first time they appear in subclause (1). It will still have the same effect but it will not have the ambiguity that Denis O’Rourke referred to. I have put an amendment on the Table Minister and again you can consider that with your officials but I think that Mr O’Rourke is right that you do not need to say it twice and that saying it twice makes it worse than if you say it just once.I will talk for a little bit longer so that the Minister and the officials can have time to consider that before we actually move to the voting stage of the Committee stage in this rushed urgency process because unless I do I suspect that the Minister might use his votes which outnumber the Labour Party and the New Zealand First votes and he might try to push this through. Using the time that I have available to me it is hard to read clauses 10 11 and 12 or particularly clauses 11 and 12 without having the statute they amend in front of me. So I want to have it clarified by the Minister that the sections that are being amended are the mechanism by which we remove the obligation to have the 5-yearly reviews. So I would like the Minister to clarify which of the sections that we are amending and replacing with the words that are set out in clauses 11 and 12 of this bill—section 22AB(1)(d) or section 22AD(1)—is the one that specifies the 5-yearly reviews that are now being done away with.