Dalziel Lianne: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7228. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I was not expecting to be taking this call at this particular minute. I thought that the Government might take a call after my colleague Charles Chauvel’s extensive traversing through the detail of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3). I am certainly very pleased that he has managed to get through such a significant number of different provisions that are addressed in the legislation. 
While he was speaking though I did actually have cause to reflect on the particular change that is proposed to the spelling of a word in the Dog Control Act 1996. I actually found it quite extraordinary because I could not quite understand why we were omitting the word “thar”—and I presume it is pronounced as “thar”—and substituting the word “tahr”. When I looked it up on the internet I discovered that in fact “thar” is an alternative spelling for “tahr” so it may in fact be— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Yep. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well according to Wikipedia it is so that may not be a very good source but in both instances the reference to the word is indeed to a Himalayan mountain goat. I think the Deputy Speaker who is in the chair would certainly agree with that. And given that that conclusion was drawn from the same reference that accepted the alternative spelling then that may in fact be correct. I am obviously going to have to do some further research on the matter—not that it is going to be of much import when this legislation is passed because we will be instating the correct spelling the accepted spelling. In fact this is the spelling that is accepted on the Department of Conservation website. 
What I also discovered in my analysis while my colleague was going through such a detailed analysis of the other parts—I really wanted to pick a part that he had not dealt with—was that in fact there is an entire tahr control plan dating back to 1993. I suspect that the Deputy Speaker himself has some knowledge of this given where this is in relation to. Then I discovered in fact that the tahr creates significant threats to sensitive alpine and sub-alpine plant communities and that there is a tahr eradication programme that actually involves inviting people to come and shoot tahr in our country so it is also part of our visitor programme as well. 
Charles Chauvel 
: In Whanganui it’s pronounced “taarr”. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Thank you Mr Chauvel. But what I have not got to the bottom of yet is why it is in the Dog Control Act 1996. So that is a little mystery. 
I hope that my sharing of the controversy surrounding the correct spelling of the word “tahr” has in fact added some levity to an otherwise potentially dull piece of legislation. But the reason seriously that I wanted to take a call is really to back up what my colleague said in relation to the importance of Statutes Amendment bills. The reason I mention this is that legislation can take up an awfully long time in the House particularly when we are coming back to amend things that are relatively minor technical amendments that people agree to. The Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) as a process is an omnibus bill that is accepted as an omnibus bill because it has the unanimous support of Parliament. I think that is its strength and it enables us to actually deal with technical amendments that are relatively minor and things that are not controversial but may be significant. But if they are not controversial and there is essentially that unanimity about the need to deal with things then the Statutes Amendment Bill process is a great opportunity for that. 
Statutes Amendment bills are not the only exception to the omnibus bill rule which does not allow for omnibus bills unless there is that common theme. We have a couple of others as well. I have championed what was then known as the Regulatory Improvement Bill. That became the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. Again that is picking up a commonality of theme. They might be somewhat more controversial and they may not be the technical amendments that can be dealt with in Statutes Amendment bills but in fact they are all elements of improving the regulatory framework where there is substantial agreement around the House in order to deal with these matters. Having been a Minister of Commerce I can tell the House how frustrating it is to get ministerial colleagues to agree to prioritise something in their work programme when it is a minor amendment but one that might have such a major impact for improving the regulatory framework. 
 I will just use one example of something that could not fit within the scope of a Statutes Amendment Bill but could fit within the scope of a Regulatory Improvement Bill if it had been around at the time. That was an amendment to the sale of liquor legislation that would have allowed for people operating in an environment where they were not dealing with the public. I am thinking of one of our very large wineries up in the Hawke’s Bay and the owner of that winery. Because of I think an oversight of Parliament in 1989 when the Wine Makers Act was disestablished by the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 a relatively open regulatory framework a relatively simple regulatory framework for winemakers was suddenly overtaken by the very detailed provisions of the Sale of Liquor Act which then had only four licences. I think that that was problematic in terms of imposing a set of regulatory requirements on top of a regime that was never intended for that purpose. A very well-established winemaker who was not serving wine to the public and who was not selling it at the cellar door ended up in a regime where he had to have a liquor licence and a manager’s certificate. Even the district licensing authority said “Why are we seeing you in front of us for authorisation for this purpose?”. That is when we realised that there was a significant problem in the legislation. 
Getting that on to the agenda of the justice ministry was hugely challenging because we were just about to enter into some regulatory reform around the sale of liquor. This is going back to 2007. At the end of 2007 or really at the beginning of 2008 I was given the role of Associate Minister of Justice with responsibility for sale of liquor legislation and the priorities of the ministry were changed. The point I am making is that it is hugely challenging to meet the requirements of Parliament to bring matters to the House as a Minister when you are competing against all of the other urgent attentions that can exist. 
So I just really want to endorse the process of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) that we are debating this morning but also say that there does need to be room for flexibility around omnibus bills. I think that it is possibly time for Parliament to revisit this issue again. The reason I say that is that the original prohibition on omnibus bills covering multiple Acts dates back to the 1980s when it was a process that was abused. A former Prime Minister of this country Sir Geoffrey Palmer wrote a book called  
Unbridled Power 
 and part of the unbridled power was actually in relation to the fact that the omnibus bill technique was used to cover for massive changes that were never communicated to the public such as the Social Security Amendment Bill that contained massive benefit cuts and all sorts of other things or a finance bill a finance measure that would in fact cover many many pieces of legislation. So I am a great supporter of omnibus bills. I do think they need to be constrained so they are not abused but I think that the Statutes Amendment Bill process is one that has really stood the test of time. I am very pleased that this bill is going to be completing all of its stages today.