Mahuta Nanaia: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11251] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I will take only a brief call on the Statutes Amendment Bill. It is indeed correct that most times when these Statutes Amendment bills are put before the House they are for minor technical amendments. However my colleagues have raised a number of issues that will be debated with some vigour at the Committee stage for the simple reason that every bit of legislation that passes through this House should be scrutinised by members of Parliament certainly through the select committee process regardless of whether the amendments that it makes are controversial. That process in itself enables the public view to be expressed and some considered advice to be put before members of Parliament because members do not have a monopoly of knowledge on the number of issues that are brought before us. We can also perhaps then consider making further amendments as a consequence of that process. With that in mind I reinforce the comments put forward by my colleagues with regard to this Statutes Amendment Bill. 
I want to put a frame around “minor technical amendments”. There is probably only one member currently in this House who is not with the Labour Party now but who will remember that it was said with some frivolity in our Labour caucus that a minor technical amendment was brought in to amend the State-Owned Enterprises Act and arising out that amendment we had a number of actions that led to the New Zealand Maori Council injunction on the sale of State-owned enterprises and also to the Waikato-Tainui injunction in terms of the sale of Solid Energy. All of that was brought about by a minor technical amendment. 
My colleague Steve Chadwick raised specific issues in relation to the definition of “foreshore” in the National Parks Act coming into line with that in the Foreshore and Seabed Act. I present just one issue and it is in relation to tourism ventures. One could easily apply this thinking to the Abel Tasman National Park and that provision may or may not impact on tourism operators. If we look at the inclusion of the foreshore definition we see it could or could not enable kayakers to land their kayaks on the foreshore of the national park and be charged or not charged for doing so. When we say to members an amendment could have consequential effects those are the types of issues that this House has no knowledge of. I was not on the select committee but I would appreciate hearing informed debate from colleagues who were on the select committee to give me a sense of whether this minor technical amendment will have an impact on tourism operators. I know that tourism operators who run a business in Abel Tasman National Park and who land their kayaks on the foreshore will want to know whether their business will be affected. It is quite simple and very practical and it should be something that members in this House give due regard to. 
The ability to debate and discuss these types of issues is very important. If an amendment affects businesses—and in this case it may or may not do so—by affecting the ability of tourism operators to do the things that they are currently doing lawfully and perhaps causing a negative down-flow effect then they should know about that very quickly. It should be brought out through further clarification from the select committee process when debating the issues arising from this Statutes Amendment Bill. I know that we do not have much more time left before the dinner break but I do believe that if we were to ensure that bills such as this one were debated with the fullest of knowledge by all members then those select committee members who participated in this debate— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The Hon Nanaia Mahuta has the call— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Hon Nanaia Mahuta is unable to complete her call and I understand that the Hon David Parker the chairman of the Government Administration Committee wishes to complete the remaining part of her call. I believe she has about 4 minutes remaining on that call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: If the Speaker had not been informed in the first instance the member would have to seek leave because a call has been taken. If the Speaker is informed first that there is to be a split call— 
Hon David Parker 
: I will seek leave. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I am not sure whether a split call was sought because I was not here. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member is seeking leave to complete the call of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course? There is.