Lees-Galloway IainIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): You almost make it sound like it is a shame Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well—IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Ha ha! I thank Minister Dunne for his responses to the questions that other colleagues have raised. I wonder whether the Minister could address at least one more issue in Part 2. It is an issue relating to clause 54 which was actually raised at the Government Administration Committee by the—oh what are they called? The legislation advisory committee with the D" in it. I cannot recall what the "D" stands for—anyway the people who offer us advice on how to craft good legislation to make sure that legislation actually says what we intend it to say. The issue that was raised with clause 54 was that clause 54(1) says: "A person must not light or allow another person to light a fire in open air in an area that is in a prohibited fire season." The issue that was raised was what exactly "allow another person to light a fire" means. The question that was raised by the committee—the legislation drafting and advisory committee—was: what relationship does the other person who allows someone to light a fire have to have with that person?The penalties for allowing someone to light a fire are not insignificant. They are the same as actually lighting the fire yourself: "a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years or … a fine not exceeding $300000 or both:". I note that a person commits that offence if they "knowingly or recklessly [contravene] subsection (1)"—so if they knowingly or recklessly allow someone else to light a fire. You could knowingly allow someone else to light a fire just by happening upon someone who is lighting a fire. You may not have the means immediately available to stop that person doing it but you would knowingly be allowing them to do that. I see that the officials said that their intention is that this would apply in situations where the fire is lit in a remote area and more than one person is present at the time that the fire is lit. That may very well be the policy intention but that is not clear and I think that is the point the legislation drafting and advisory committee was making as part of what was a lengthy submission on this bill. The point that it was making was that that policy intention is not clear in the legislation.So my question to the Minister is that this has not been addressed by the select committee nor has it been addressed by the lengthy Supplementary Order Paper 262 that makes a number of amendments which has been tabled by the Minister: is he satisfied the policy intention is adequately captured by the wording in the legislation? It seems that the wording is rather broad and that a person who has no connection to someone who is committing an act of arson or is lighting a fire during a prohibited fire season could potentially be captured by this and could therefore also be at risk of receiving a significant term of imprisonment or a significant fine. It just seems strange to me that an organisation that has no particular axe to grind that is purely here to assist us as parliamentarians to craft legislation that does what we think it should do has raised a fairly straightforward issue that would be easy to deal with yet the Minister has chosen not to address that in his Supplementary Order Paper. I wonder whether he would be prepared to go on record as to what the policy intention exactly is and to explain why he is comfortable with the wording as it is currently done."