Chauvel Charles: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4950. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As we have heard the Legislation Bill arises out of two Law Commission reports one dating from October 2008 and the other dating from May 2009. It is clear I think that those reports set out a compelling case to update the law relating to the publication of New Zealand legislation. The original Act that is on the books at the moment the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act dates back to 1920 so given the changes that have occurred in our society and in this institution since then it is I think timely to be having a look at those Law Commission reports and implementing their recommendations. The Regulations Review Committee was very happy to be part of that process to hear submissions on the Legislation Bill and to make some recommendations around how that bill could be improved. 
 I want to make a particular reference to some of the evidence that the Regulations Review Committee heard in respect of this bill. I want to note that we were privileged to be addressed in the committee by two former Chief Parliamentary Counsel. I want to pay tribute to each of them because they gave very careful and helpful evidence. The first person whom I want to acknowledge in this regard is Walter Iles QC. Mr Iles reminded the committee that I as chair of the committee would probably believe everything that he had to say to the committee given that his father founded the law firm in Gisborne that my father became a partner in in 1959. He is absolutely right. I did believe everything he had to say but not for that reason. The other former Chief Parliamentary Counsel from whom we heard was the late George Tanner QC. Again I want to place on record in the House my gratitude and the indebtedness of the committee for the evidence of Mr Tanner. Members will know that Mr Tanner passed away from an illness some short time ago and it seems to me that this is an appropriate juncture for me at least and I hope other members to place on record our gratitude for the tremendous service that Mr Tanner gave the House which he repeated in the evidence that he gave to the select committee which directly led to the clarifications and improvements in the bill that we are considering and that the Minister of Energy and Resources has indicated the Government will adopt. 
What are those changes? Well I think it probably is worth mentioning a couple of them. Members will be familiar with the concept of legal privilege. That is the ability to communicate in absolute confidence with one’s client. It is a necessary adjunct to the practice of law because if as a legal adviser it is not possible to know that your communications with your client are utterly secure then you cannot possibly give free and frank advice. One of the problems that we found with the original draft of the bill was that oddly parliamentary counsel did not have any automatic legal professional privilege when they were advising Ministers or members of Parliament in respect of select committee work or members’ bills. So we thought it was important to rectify that and to give parliamentary counsel the sort of protection that every other lawyer and legal adviser has in practice—the ability to ensure that their communications and advice to Ministers members of Parliament and others were utterly confidential and able never to be questioned in legal proceedings or otherwise. That will be accomplished by new clause 58B(3). 
One of the other changes was touched on by the Minister and that relates to the qualifications of parliamentary counsel. Members might be surprised to know that there is no provision in the statute book at the moment around the minimum qualifications that we would expect from those who serve in the Parliamentary Counsel Office. We have tried to rectify that by specifying that ordinarily parliamentary counsel will be New Zealand - qualified practitioners but again members will know that we have expanded quite radically in recent times the categories of person who can so practise. We have passed and the Commonwealth of Australia has passed mutual recognition legislation meaning that any person admitted in one of the states or territories of Australia may apply to become a legal practitioner in New Zealand. They have the right to so apply and it is automatic that it will be granted and vice versa. I know that there are legally qualified members of the House who have been accredited to practise in Australian states and I am one of them—I am accredited in New South Wales. That shows that the reality of our deepening trans-Tasman relationship means that we can call on a wider pool of lawyers than we otherwise could have. 
If we have a look at the way in which the Regulations Review Committee has recommended that the statute be amended we have also looked to other common law jurisdictions. Why should we deprive ourselves of the ability to call on a Canadian lawyer a lawyer qualified in the United States a lawyer from Hong Kong or a lawyer from any of the other common law jurisdictions? They might have deep administrative experience or deep law-drafting experience and might well be able to lend that expertise to the New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office. Under this legislation it will be made clear that that is absolutely welcome in New Zealand. 
Another important change is made by clause 71A. In the State Sector Act section 77 of the legislation makes it very clear that provided a public servant is acting within powers and in good faith then the public servant has no liability. The Crown incurs no liability for the acts taken by the public servant. It is a very important constitutional provision. It means that our Public Service can function more effectively without having to worry all the time about whether any piece of advice or policy implementation might give rise to litigation. There was no such provision in the statute book relating to parliamentary counsel and so because parliamentary counsel are not part of the core Public Service we have had to provide for that and that amendment has been added in in clause 71A. 
Finally there are some amendments to the definition of what sorts of instruments can be considered by the Regulations Review Committee and scrutinised on behalf of the House. We have changed the terminology in the original bill from “legislative order” to “legislative instrument” recognising that it is not just Orders in Council that will now come to the Regulations Review Committee but other types of delegated legislation will come for scrutiny as well. 
There are two other quick points before I finish. The Minister noted that the Law Commission recommended that provision be made for a select committee to be created to hear and deal with revision bills. These are bills that are technical in nature that do not need to take up the time of this House through three readings and a Committee stage but can be dealt with through an expedited procedure. I think that would make an enormous difference to the efficiency with which we do our work. I am pleased to hear that the Government intends to progress that through the Standing Orders. I urge that it happen sooner rather than later just from the point of view of being able to do our jobs better. 
Finally listeners and other members might be wondering about the reason for the delay in progressing this legislation. I said that the Law Commission reports came from 2008 and 2009. The Legislation Bill was introduced in 2010. It is only now being read a second time despite the fact that it was reported back from the Regulations Review Committee last year. We were told in the estimates process by the Parliamentary Counsel Office that this was because the Government intended to combine the Legislation Bill with the Regulatory Standards Bill. I made it very clear on behalf of the Opposition that that would not be acceptable if a bipartisan approach to this Legislation Bill was being sought. The Attorney-General abandoned that course of action. I am very pleased to say that having done that I can now commend this bill to the House.