Fenton Darien: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Fenton Darien: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11514] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Statutes Amendment Bill. May I say this is the first Statutes Amendment Bill that I have experienced as a member so I have had to bow to those members who have been here a bit longer than me on how this process works. It has been a learning experience. The bill is an omnibus bill that makes miscellaneous technical amendments to Acts in order to fix discrepancies. Other speakers have referred to the fact that the Statutes Amendment Bill amends 50 different Acts. Its format allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed. 
I add my thanks to those of others to all of the parliamentary parties for their consideration and feedback on the bill. I acknowledge the work of the various officials who coordinated the administrative aspects of the development of the bill. I also echo the comments of the chair of the Government Administration Committee Shane Ardern. The bill is a constructive approach to getting something done—to getting very necessary work done. 
Fifty Acts are to be amended. I do not want to talk about 50 Acts but I want to mention a few. One amendment that really struck my attention was to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. It allows court officials to use facsimile copies of warrants. That seems to be very simple and very necessary. We are also proposing to change the name of the Ministry of Energy (Abolition) Act to the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Act which again is non-controversial but has good reasons behind it. Other members have mentioned the amendment to the Racing Act which would allow a suitable replacement to sit on the Racing Board nomination advisory panel in the place of a panel member who cannot be present. Another amendment would allow customs inspectors to seize imported goods that have not been declared or goods that have been declared using misleading or fraudulent documents even if the goods are not at-risk goods. 
One amendment that struck my attention was the update to the Human Rights Act. The amendment is about extending section 136 of the principal Act to apply to civil unions and de facto relationships. It corrects an oversight in the passing of the Relationships (Statutory References) Act 2005. This is consistent with New Zealand’s excellent commitment to human rights. Human rights legislation is very necessary because it protects people in New Zealand from discrimination in a number of areas of life. Just in case people do not know what discrimination is I will tell them that it happens when a person is treated unfairly or less favourably than another person in the same or similar circumstances. 
Statutes Amendment bills are designed to provide technical and non-controversial amendments to existing statutes. The amendments in them cannot effect policy change. Because unanimous cross-party support must be obtained prior to the inclusion of an amendment in a Statutes Amendment Bill many of the debates and issues have been sorted out before the first reading. However one of the things I learnt very quickly is that should just one member object to a clause in the bill during the Committee of the whole House stage that clause is struck out which means that only those provisions in Statutes Amendment bills that are acceptable to all the members of the House can proceed. 
I note—and it is in our report—that there are members who will object to Part 36 of the bill which amends the Public Audit Act 2001 on the basis that the amendment does not fit with the conventions relating to Statutes Amendment bills because it is not minor or non-controversial. Part 36 of the bill provides for the Auditor-General to perform services in relation to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. As the bill was introduced the services that could be performed are review inquiry or reporting services that are currently provided for under the Standing Orders. It is important to recall for the benefit of listeners to this debate just what the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament is and how it came about. The Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill was introduced in 2003 and as a consequence the House amended its Standing Orders in 2005 to provide a system for members of Parliament to register their pecuniary interests—in other words the assets debts and gifts they may each have accumulated or received. The purpose of the pecuniary interests register is in line with other steps of public accountability that are very important in an open democracy.  
The World Bank basic score card describes 10 transparency reform components. No. 1 is interesting; it is the public disclosure of the assets and incomes of politicians. It actually goes a bit further than that and includes the public disclosure of those matters by candidates public officials and their dependants. Some people’s wives might have something to say about that. The World Bank governance indicators rate New Zealand very highly in the anti-corruption stakes. Again going back to the World Bank governance indicators we score enormously well—way up in the high 90s—on most things. Voice and accountability in 2006 was at 97.1 percent political stability in 2006 was at 93.8 percent Government effectiveness was at 96.2 percent regulatory quality in 2006 was at 96.9 percent rule of law was at 97.6 percent and the control of corruption was at 98.5 percent. That is a record for us to be proud of.  
Thus the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament is a vital tool for ensuring that New Zealand has transparency in its politics regarding members of Parliament. I understand the right of members to object to the inclusion of the powers of the Auditor-General as set out in Part 36 of this bill but I thought it was worth recalling for the benefit of listeners to this debate what that issue is about.  
The chair of the Government Administration Committee Shane Ardern has mentioned that there were a small number of submissions on the bill. One submission that has led to a proposal for change was about issues around the proposed amendments in clauses 32 and 33 to the Companies Act 1993. Consequently the committee is recommending that those amendments be deleted. There was quite a long discussion about the Companies Act and about what happens in liquidations and so on. I thank the officials for their patience with the committee in helping us to understand those issues and for taking us through them. The other change that is being proposed is with regard to the Local Government Act 2002 where the committee is recommending that the bill be amended by inserting clauses 108A 109A and 109B. The main effect of those amendments is to confer on Watercare Services Ltd the same protection that is currently afforded to local authorities under section 225(1) of that Act. There are also consequential amendments. 
Of course many other statutes are to be amended and I am sure that other speakers will mention them. Some are laws that I did not know existed. Somebody may be able to tell me exactly how many statutes we have on the book in New Zealand. I suspect it is many. 
Hon Member 
: Lots and lots. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The member says there are lots and lots and I am sure that is right. It was interesting to find that there were things like the Tokelau Act the Gas Act the Biosecurity Act—well I knew about the Biosecurity Act—and some other Acts that people mentioned I think in the first reading that were quite obscure Acts but that I am sure are very very important. I am looking forward to some debate on the various amendments during the Committee of the whole House stage. 
Once again I record my thanks to everyone involved in putting this bill together. As other speakers have said it is a rare moment when we agree on something in this House a rare moment of consultation and of working together to do the business that really needs to be done.