Worth Richard: Statutes Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Statutes Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7857] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 A fascinating insight into the Statutes Amendment Bill was offered by the previous speaker Clayton Cosgrove. As he has said no fewer than 50 statutes are to be amended by this bill. I will talk for just a moment about the policy behind this type of legislation then look at two examples one of which is of concern to the National Party—though I am bound to say that it generally supports this legislation. 
The Statutes Amendment Bill of course is the archetypal omnibus bill. It consists entirely of amendments to other Acts of Parliament including provisions as we see here that repeal other Acts. Unlike other bills provisions are included in a Statutes Amendment Bill only if all other party spokespersons on a subject have indicated beforehand that they agree to the inclusion of the clause in the bill. That does not mean of course that all of the provisions will inevitably be passed because any member still has the right to object to a clause in a Statutes Amendment Bill at the Committee stage. In such a case the clause is struck out of the bill. That arrangement is intended to enforce the longstanding convention that a clause in a Statutes Amendment Bill that is objected to will be withdrawn. 
I note that a select committee—in this case the Government Administration Committee if this bill passes the next stage—considering a Statutes Amendment Bill can with unanimous agreement add clauses to the bill amending Acts not already amended by the bill as introduced. 
I will now pick up two particular provisions that are contained in this legislation. The first is in respect of the Cook Islands Act of 1915. This is interesting legislation in constitutional terms because the Cook Islands Act is significant legislation. It was passed in 1915 when we had two Houses in our Parliament the House of Representatives and the Legislative Council. We also had a Governor not a Governor-General. Even today the constitutional curiosity continues that the realm of New Zealand includes the Cook Islands but in addition to the Governor-General having responsibilities in respect of the realm we nevertheless have in the Cook Islands a Queen’s Representative. 
In any event 14 years earlier than 1915 in 1901 the Governor proclaimed the Cook Islands as part of New Zealand. If one looks at the principal Act one sees that it ran for many pages. Much of the material has been repealed. The Act covered things like island councils which were like the High Court—the Supreme Court of New Zealand as it was called. It dealt with criminal offences the law of evidence extradition Crown land native succession adoption of children by natives marriage and provisions relating to criminal lunatics. Now we see in Part 11 of this Statutes Amendment Bill a number of other changes being made. First a raft of statutes are repealed. Second a significant number of regulations—3 pages of them in fact—are revoked. 
I just focus on one of the changes in clause 36(2). That subclause relates to the plan to repeal the definition of “Asiatic”. That change seems to be somewhat unusual but in section 2 of the Cook Islands Act 1915 “Asiatic” was defined in the following way: “ ‘Asiatic’ means a person belonging to any of the Asiatic races (other than the Jewish race) and includes a half-caste and a person intermediate in blood between a half-caste and a person of pure descent from those races:”. Clearly it is hugely appropriate that that definition should vanish from the statute book and National would support that particular amendment. 
But I am bound to say that we are much less keen on those changes that are planned to be made to the Public Audit Act in Part 36 of the bill with particular reference to services in relation to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. What is happening here is very unusual I would suggest. The position is that in our Standing Orders under Appendix B Part 2 there are elaborate provisions for a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament to be maintained. In fact just in the last few days it has been an obligation on all MPs to make returns of their pecuniary interests on a special form provided by the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests to that office. 
In Standing Order 15 forming part of Appendix B there are detailed provisions for the Auditor-General’s review and inquiry. Not content with that it seems it is proposed that there be a new section 19A which will give to the Auditor-General wide-ranging and wholly unnecessary powers to perform services in relation to that Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. I give notice to the Government that certainly from my perspective National would not support legislation that would give to the Auditor-General power to examine on oath power to enter and break down the doors of premises and a raft of ancillary powers that are surely not necessary for MPs who are honourable members.