Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLand Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5133. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) BillFirst ReadingHon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):I move That the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill be now read a first time. This bill clarifies the power of local councils and other road-controlling authorities such as the New Zealand Transport Agency to set speed limits through their by-laws. The bill corrects some technical legal issues in the powers available to make some speed limit by-laws and the review process for local government by-laws. This bill ensures that these by-laws and the speed limits made under them remain valid and therefore enforceable. The ability to set speed limits and enforce them is essential to public safety. Crashes on New Zealand roads claim lives cause injuries and devastate families and communities. Councils and other road-controlling authorities were always meant to have powers to set speed limit by-laws. This bill makes these requirements clear.Recent information has suggested that some road-controlling authorities may have made speed limit by-laws under powers that may not have been available to them or have omitted to comply fully with their bylaw-making powers conferred by local government Acts by not reviewing speed limit by-laws within the required time. In the interests of removing doubt and providing clarity this bill validates all speed limit by-laws and confirms they were made correctly under appropriate legislation—either local government or land transport legislation. Although this bill addresses a potential problem with some speed limits set as far back as 2004 it is an urgent matter. Simply put we cannot run the risk that some speed limits might be invalid while others are not. Passing this bill under urgency will prevent anyone from taking advantage of the speed limit validity question.The bill will make minor amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998 removing any doubt that road-controlling authorities can make speed limit by-laws under land transport legislation. This bill does not impact on speed limit by-laws made by airport authorities or Ministers of the Crown under legislation specific to them. Part 1 of the bill sets out what by-laws are covered by this amendment. Part 2 of the bill validates any by-laws and the speed limits made under them and the enforcement actions taken in relation to them.The bill also continues existing procedural requirements for certain by-law makers such as airport authorities which are subject to separate legislation concerning their bylaw-making process. The bill also deems existing by-laws to have been made under the Land Transport Act 1998. This will mean those by-laws originally made under local government legislation cease to be Local Government Act by-laws and will not be subject to the review requirements in the Local Government Act 2002.The bill by validating speed limit by-laws is retrospective. Retrospective legislation is rare but in this case I believe it is necessary. I have inquired as to what other options exist to correct these matters. I can advise the House that there are no valid options. Although road-controlling authorities could make new speed limit by-laws this would take some months to complete—a period during which many roads could have no valid speed limits other than 100 kilometres per hour. This creates clearly a public safety risk. I would not want police to be unable to enforce anything other than a 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on our local streets. In addition a road-controlling authority could not validate a previous by-law. This creates uncertainty as to the legality of enforcement actions. Therefore we must move swiftly to protect public safety and provide certainty in this matter.This bill makes it clear that local councils will continue to be responsible for local decisions about speed limits which should reflect consultation and discussions with local communities. Local councils play an important role in road safety and are expected to work closely with other agencies such as Police and the New Zealand Transport Agency. Setting by-laws is therefore a function of local councils.We need to move swiftly to eliminate confusion. This bill makes it clear that these by-laws were as generally understood and were intended to be valid at all times and that they remain so. No matter what causes a crash speed directly affects the force of impact and sometimes of course whether there is any impact at all. This means we cannot tolerate any ambiguity or uncertainty in the validity of speed limits. I commend this bill to the House.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):Labour is supporting the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill at this first reading. I think there is nobody in this House who likes the idea of voting for retrospective legislation. It is undesirable but in this case we believe that this is a necessary bill and we will talk about some of the reasons why that is the case.The Minister has given us a bit of a thumbnail sketch of how this situation arose. The basic facts I think are these. Under Local Government Act 2002 councils were given the powers to set local speed limits in built-up areas and outside schools and so on and along with that power councils were required to review those by-laws. I think if my memory serves me correctly the by-laws must be reviewed after 5 years and then every 10 years thereafter. What has happened in this case is that the Kāpiti Coast District Council discovered in May this year that its speed limit by-law had been inadvertently revoked in 2012. That has obviously led to quite a bit of scurrying around by officials looking at how this happened and it appears we are advised that there is a significant number of other councils who may find themselves in a similar situation. The upshot of all this is that it seems that there are tens of thousands—I do not think it is known exactly how many but there could be tens of thousands—of speeding infringements that are technically invalid because of the failure of an unknown number of councils to follow the prescribed rules set down in the Local Government Act 2002. So that puts the Government in a very tricky position and there are a whole lot of consequences that have to be considered as a result of that.Our view is that although retrospective legislation is undesirable mistakes do happen and this is a pretty good example of mistakes happening on a fairly large scale. We believe that for reasons of public safety for reasons of public confidence in our road safety system of which speed limits are obviously an essential part and for fiscal and other practical reasons it is important that these mistakes are put right and that the laws and the speed limits that everybody has assumed have been in place over these years and all of the infringements that were issued under these laws are not overturned. That I believe would be untenable. It would be untenable for the communities that are protected by our road safety system and by speed limits. It would be untenable I think for the thousands of New Zealanders who committed speeding infringements that they and everybody else assumed were valid.So let us talk a little bit more about some of the detail. The background to this is that there is the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003 otherwise known as the speed limits rule. It basically sets a default 100-kilometre-an-hour speed limit for all roads unless this has been reduced by the relevant authority like a council. Then under that local councils all around the country have the power to set local speed limits and I think that that is as it should be. It is an entirely appropriate thing for local communities to have that power. But the Local Government Act 2002 does require that the by-laws setting those speed limits are reviewed—first after 5 years and then every 10 years after that.What the solution that this bill brings to the House does is it sets out to validate speed limits that have been created since 2004 regardless of whether they were promulgated under potentially invalid by-laws. I repeat: as far as I have been advised it is unclear about the possible scale of this problem. I think we know with certainty that the Kāpiti Coast District Council has put its hand up and said that that is the case but there may well be potentially quite a large number of others. It also validates enforcement actions that have been carried out in relation to those by-laws since 2004.What the bill does is it removes any ambiguity or it attempts to clarify the powers in the Land Transport Act 1998 for road-controlling authorities like the councils to make a speed limit by-law and then it clarifies the procedural requirements for those authorities around that power to make by-laws. My understanding of the bill—I have not had a chance to go through the bill in detail yet—is that although it leaves those powers and those responsibilities with the councils it removes the requirement to review them every 5 years and 10 years which is the thing that has got councils into this mess in the first place.What is the case for urgency? Why should this legislation be pushed through all stages this afternoon? Let me just touch on those. There is clearly a risk to road safety to the safety of communities throughout the country if there is any kind of confusion or perception that the speed limits that everyone has thought are in place are suddenly thought to not apply or are unenforceable. Where the New Zealand Police has enforced invalid speed limits over the last few years that obviously sets off a whole chain of consequences: demerit points fines other sanctions licences lost and so on. If this bill was not passed with urgency the people who experienced those sanctions could then argue that they have unlawfully suffered the consequences. I think that it would create a situation of real confusion including significant financial risk to the Government if all of those infringements and the penalties that followed from them were called into question not to mention the possibility of individuals seeking compensation for loss of employment disqualification or even in some cases imprisonment.The fourth point that I would raise is that it would put our police force which is out there every day on the roads around New Zealand trying to keep the roads safe protecting people and enforcing the speed limits in a very very invidious position. It would undermine confidence in the police but also in the entire road safety system.I want to make the point that although again I think none of us feels great about passing retrospective legislation the Legislation Advisory Committee has noted that retrospective legislation can be justified in some circumstances. It quotes for example bills to “validate matters that were generally understood and intended to be lawful but were in fact unlawful as a result of a technical error;” or secondly to “address a matter that is essential to public safety;”. I think it is fair to say that this bill ticks both the boxes in the guidelines that are set out by the Legislation Advisory Committee.I am going to leave it there. We are going to have more time to discuss the bill including during the Committee stage when we will be able to hopefully tease out more detail about this bill. Thank you.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak here on the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill. Yes it is regretful that we do have to do some retrospective legislation but of course every amendment bill is retrospective legislation in some respects. We are reaching back to repair a glitch in the system that came through since 5 April 2004 so that is in a period of time in the previous Government’s regime. However it has happened and it is important that we do—for the sake of certainty and the sake of safety when it comes to New Zealanders using our roads—ensure that we have a comprehensive complete system of regulation around speed limits.I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill. Thank you.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):I notice that there are four reasons given for urgency on this matter. One relates to the risk to road safety. Obviously people if they believe that the speed limits posted are not valid may decide to speed but it is not just that; it is the fact that people will be uncertain about what in fact the speed limits are if they have not been reviewed as required. Secondly it has been said that there would be risks to people’s individual rights and that is true too but the real truth here is that it would compromise the whole demerit system if this defect is not rectified.The third reason given is the financial risks to the Crown and the fact that it would cost a lot of money to undo what has been done. But then in addition to that of course is the fact that there would be a requirement for the refund I think of a huge number of fines and there is a lot of money involved in that as well. Fourthly and lastly we are told that there would be a reputational risk to the New Zealand Police. But in fact there is a much greater reputational risk to the New Zealand Government for not maintaining an adequate piece of legislation under which these by-laws are made in the first place. The legislation suffers completely from uncertainty and that is the root of the problem.This Government has been in power for the best part of 7 years and it has made many changes to the road transport legislation during that time. So how could it be that it has persevered with the provisions in the Land Transport Act that do not contain a clear and unequivocal system for road-controlling authorities to set speed limits? It is amazing to me that it should have taken this long for this Government to see that there is a problem and to move to solve it. We are told it is urgent and yet it has been years in fact since this problem was understood to be there. So the Government has persevered with procedures for road-controlling authorities to make speed limits for by-laws that are so confusing we are told that for example the Kāpiti Coast District Council has inadvertently got it wrong and told the Government so. That apparently has been the ignition point for this particular piece of so-called urgent legislation—urgent however for some years. Other councils of course might have also used inappropriate procedures. We just do not know how far really this problem has gone.How is it also possible that legislation could have been so badly drafted that if a 5-yearly review of speed limits is not done now then it results in an automatic default to the 100-kilometre-an-hour speed limit? It could and should have provided for continuation of the by-law at least until the review is completed. It is an absolutely awful situation that the default position is the way it is instead of allowing for a continuation of the by-law until a review is done. That is what people would expect to happen and that is what the legislation should have provided for. I am flabbergasted that that has been allowed to last all these years and has not been rectified.The Government does need to take responsibility for this. It is not the councils’ responsibility and it is not the other road-controlling authorities’ responsibility; it is the Government’s through its inadequate legislation and possibly not even just this Government either. I think it looks as though the problem has gone right back to the previous Labour Government as well. So neither Government can be very proud of this situation—very badly drafted legislation that should not have been allowed to go on as long as it has. The primary role of the Government in maintaining appropriate legislation is in fact to ensure legal certainty and that is the one thing that this legislation does not do. Uncertain law is in fact virtually no law at all. So the fault for this shameful situation is the Government’s.If it is the Government’s fault then it is the fault of the Minister of Transport as well. He is responsible for the maintenance of that legislation and for the supervision of it and for its certainty and for the cause in this case of invalid by-laws resulting in speed limits that cannot be enforced. This particular Minister of Transport is too often responsible for a long list of transport cock-ups including running down KiwiRail’s Cook Strait ferries; the 10 bridges proposal of which only three are going to be done apparently; closing railway lines that should not be closed; and so on. This is just one more demonstration of how badly this particular Minister is administering his transport portfolio. He must take direct responsibility for this situation. It is a Government responsibility and it is that Minister’s responsibility.The truth behind this is that the new legislation needed for this revision was first signalled as far back as 2007 under the previous Labour Government when it was decided that there was a need to consolidate and clarify the legislation so that road-controlling authorities could make by-laws to set speed limits with certainty. That was confirmed under this current Government in 2010. So what we can see is this matter should have been acted upon years ago. We are told now that it is urgent but it has been urgent for all of those years and nothing was done. That is a shameful situation; it is one that the current Government should hang its head in shame for.New Zealand First will support the bill. It will do so out of sheer necessity and the fact that it is in the public interest to do so but it does so very reluctantly. We do so very reluctantly because we do not like being put in a position where we have to vote for legislation to clean up muck-ups that should have been cleaned up years ago. That is a sad situation but we will support it simply because there is really no alternative to doing so. However we do deplore the gross delay in rectifying the situation and we do deplore the very bad lawmaking that has been maintained over all of those years and the knowing maintenance of a system that was faulty and has resulted in goodness knows how many invalid by-laws. So this is a really poor situation that should never have happened. We will vote for the bill but we deplore the fact that it has had to happen at all.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Green):I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill. This bill is a bill being introduced under urgency and it has retrospective application. Both of those elements are a cause for some concern for the Green Party but none the less we will be supporting the legislation because there appears to be no alternative.This bill retrospectively validates speed limits that have been set incorrectly or probably unlawfully or enforced unlawfully previously. It retrospectively validates enforcement action that had been taken with regard to these speed limits it clears up the existing legal confusion as to how councils can set speed limits and it exempts speed limits set under by-laws from the requirement that they must be reviewed every 5 years—that is they do not have to be reviewed every 5 years once they are set.Having been involved on various occasions in attempts to have lower speed limits it has always been quite a struggle. The New Zealand Transport Agency was never very happy about the idea of lowering speed limits and there have certainly been many struggles to lower speed limits in different areas but we have managed to do it. In Wellington we have got some lower speed limits. On Waiheke Island where I used to live we lowered the speed limit there from 100 to 80 on the main straight—it was incredible that it was ever 100 kilometres an hour on such a small island. In the process by lowering those speed limits we have undoubtedly saved many lives and many injuries—the lives of not only motorists who may have been going fast and if they had an accident then they would have got hurt more severely if they had been going faster but also of pedestrians and cyclists.We have also made our urban environments a lot safer and a lot more human-friendly. The 40-kilometre speed limits and 30-kilometre speed limits that have been introduced in Wellington for example have meant that our urban environments are a lot more livable than they would be with 50-kilometre speed limits or in some places higher speed limits again. So they are a really important tool for local governments in order to be able to control the speed of vehicles in the urban environment. What this legislation does effectively is validate the work local governments have been doing to set all of those speed limits because otherwise—they are meant to be reviewed every 5 years and clearly some of them have not been—all of those lower speed limits less than 100 would have been unenforceable and the tickets that have been issued under them up until now would almost certainly be challengeable in court. So it is essential that we introduce this legislation.Of course there are a lot of things that you could do under urgency in the transport sector. There are a lot of things that we need to do. I mean if I was to think of some urgent transport projects one might be the City Rail Link in Auckland. I mean one does hope that when you hear that the Government is about to introduce urgent transport legislation it may have finally realised the folly of opposing the City Rail Link in Auckland the train link that is essential to make the city’s transport system work better. But it is of course not one of those things but none the less we are supporting the bill because it is none the less essential.As a general rule we do not support retrospective legislation because clearly if you are going to live in a society that is governed by the rule of law you need to know what the law is so that when you go about your daily business you can say: “Well this is the law and if I follow the rules I can’t be prosecuted by the State.” So the danger of retrospective legislation is that it changes the rules after you have already been through. But in this case of course we all assume that the speed limits were the rules and that they were lawfully enforceable.So what this retrospective legislation does effectively is make sure that the rules that we thought were the rules with regard to speed limits really were legally enforceable rules. So in that respect the bill is different from other kinds of retrospective legislation because it does not change the rules after the fact; it simply makes the rules that we thought were the rules at the time legally enforceable today. It means that all those enforcement actions—speeding tickets that were issued during that period—do not suddenly become challengeable in a court. So although generally we do not support retrospective legislation on this occasion I think everyone would agree that it is a matter of common sense and public safety that we support it. So for that reason we will be supporting this legislation tonight.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):Can I endorse the comments of Dr Russel Norman. I do not think there is much to add to that really. We are not creating new offences through this retrospective legislation. We should always take care in this House as a general rule to not pass retrospective legislation. But there are always exceptions to the general rule and the Labour Party has formed the view that this is a suitable exception to that normal rule that we should not have legislation pass with retrospective effect.In terms of the issue of urgency when these sorts of issues do arise as they seem to every 3 or 4 years—I can remember a prior change to one of the police Acts about 3 years ago where we had to retrospectively validate what had been happening—when there is a need to do it retrospectively it sometimes goes with the need to do it promptly which we achieve through urgency. As Russel Norman has said and I am sure other speakers have said as a consequence we are willing to say that we will retrospectively validate what these by-laws have already purported to do but in some cases have not done legally.So the change that Parliament is proposing to endorse through the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill is to validate the speed limits that have been set by councils in a way that they thought was legal but in a way which we are now being advised by the Government it is clear that in some situations it has not been legal. And in the process for the future we are trying to fix the process to remove the automatic obligation to review these speed limits every 5 years. That is not to say that speed limits cannot be reviewed. Indeed they could still be reviewed every 5 years by councils if they wanted to but they do not have to review them every 5 years in order for them to remain valid. So with those brief comments I support the bill.Bill read a first time.Second ReadingHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration)on behalf of theMinister of Transport: I move That the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill be now read a second time. This bill corrects technical legal issues and the processes used to make and review by-laws setting speed limits. These processes are contained in a variety of laws local government Acts the Government Roading Powers Act and the Land Transport Act. The bill ensures that posted speed limits remain enforceable. I want to acknowledge the contributions by various parties to the first reading and I appreciate their support for this retrospective legislation. I also want to add my support to the intervention by Dr Norman in respect of how this matter differs from other retrospective and validating legislation that occasionally comes before this House in the sense that this is simply a verification of what was believed to be the law in any event.Mr O’Rourke described the gross delay in rectifying the situation. I think I understand what the member was intending to say but one could infer from that comment that there had been a gross delay in rectifying a situation that the Government had become aware of. As the Minister of Police I want to make it very clear that New Zealand Police had no knowledge that the speed limits that it was enforcing may have had some problems in respect of the law and indeed it could not have continued to enforce those speed limits had it been aware of that. I think it is very important to make that distinction; that only very recently did this come to the attention of the New Zealand Government and that it did so upon advice from the Horowhenua-Kāpiti district.Horowhenua-Kāpiti is an area where there has been in the past a significant challenge with road safety and an unacceptably high rate of death and injury on some of the roads within its control. The Government has invested very heavily in improving the quality of the roading network in that region and as a consequence it is seeing marked reductions in the accident rate on many of those stretches of road. I think members would agree that that is something that we want to continue to enforce and that any uncertainty about the enforcement of speed limits in that area and indeed in any other part of the country would be an unfortunate thing. So in order to rectify that immediately we have come here under urgency.Road crashes do have a terrible impact on individuals families and communities and no matter what causes a crash speed is a crucial factor in whether someone is killed or badly injured or even whether there is a crash at all. To help ensure safety on our roads for everyone it is important that there is no ambiguity about the validity of speed limits. I commend the bill to the House.Bill read a second time.In CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):Having said that we support this bill being passed under urgency I think it is important that we have an assurance from the Minister of Transport that the detail of every clause has been thoroughly checked by him and that the Minister is assuring the House that there are no more errors or ambiguities being created by this legislation which is being fixed under urgency.The reason I think it is proper that we seek that assurance from the Minister is that the Minister is asking the House to pass this under urgency without the normal protections that flow from a longer process. The protections that flow from a longer process are that persons who are in society who are interested in these matters get the chance to pore over the legislation and with the time to properly consider it reflect on whether it is clear and whether mistakes are being made.In this sort of legislation we would expect that the Automobile Association and various membership parts of the Automobile Association throughout the country would be poring over it. We would expect that the medical groups that are interested in accident safety would be looking at it. We would expect that someone in the Accident Compensation Corporation would perhaps be looking at it and checking it. We would expect that someone who practised law in these areas or who was already looking at defending a charge that had been brought in respect of these speed limits and thought that it was invalid would no doubt come along—or they might come along—and point out to the select committee why this was being done in an improper way or why this was being done in an improper way that was not correct in detail.So for those reasons—because those normal checks and balances are not there because the select committee does not have the time to read through the legislation properly and because political parties do not have the time to hear from concerned constituents and concerned members—it is all the more important that we can rely upon an assurance from the Minister that the Minister is satisfied that every clause in this bill is proper that every clause in this bill is necessary for the stated purpose in the legislation and that no further powers are being conferred by this legislation than are necessary to cure this defect in the speed limits which should have been put through a renewal process after 5 years but have not been. I might leave this particular contribution at that and let the Minister respond to that.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):With regard to Part 1 I would like to address clause 3 the purpose of the bill. The bill says that the purposes are threefold. First of all they are to “remove any doubt about the validity of speed limits set by road controlling authorities” and so on but the truth is that there has not ever really been any doubt about this. The real situation is that the law as it was stated in the legislation was quite certain especially with regard to the review provisions which seem to be one of the main reasons for this bill.The law was quite clear: the review had to take place and in some cases it did not take place. Where is the doubt about that? There is not. So the purpose in clause 3(a) really is not quite true. The fact is that there was no doubt about that; it is just that some agencies—some councils—did not do as they should have done. Unfortunately as I said in my earlier speech today the result of that was a default to the 100-kilometre-an-hour speed limit which was bad law and it should never have been drafted in that way but it was. These things are not a matter of doubt and the purpose clause should not say so so I object to that in the first place.In clause 3(b) it refers to: “protect enforcement action taken under those bylaws;”. What that really means—and I disagree with Mr David Parker about this too—is that there has been a muck-up and the law that was in force was actually unenforceable and now we want to make new laws that are enforceable. So actually it was not a case of a genuine mistake; it is a case of just plain ineptitude. The fact is that the old law did not do what was required of it and people did not follow the procedures under it and now the Government wishes to rectify that situation by actually making new law out of bad old law. So this situation is not actually in the way that Mr Parker stated it I believe. When it says that the purpose is to protect enforcement action that is really not very true either. The truth is that it is to rectify a cock-up and it cannot say it in those words but there would be words available to say it in a more decorous way.Thirdly it says in clause 3(c) that its purpose is to “provide clear authority for the setting of speed limits by road controlling authorities in the future.” What it should have said is to provide new authority because that is what is actually what was always required and that is what this bill does but it does it unfortunately in a way that has a retrospective effect. I agreed with Dr Russel Norman when he said that we should never adopt retrospective legislation especially where it relates to criminal sanctions. That is the worst possible kind of retrospective legislation. People who have already paid fines that they were not liable to pay should actually have those fines refunded and so on. But I understand that it would be very difficult and impracticable to undo all that so that is why New Zealand First is in fact supporting the bill.But we should be more honest—this is the point I am making about the purpose clause clause 3—instead of using these weasel words. So I actually object to the whole drafting of clause 3. We should simply call a spade a spade and do what we have to do but tell the truth about it and that is not what the purpose clause does in this case. It is in fact new legislation and it should not be dressed up as some kind of save-the-world move by the Government. It is actually a cock-up by the Government—and probably the previous one as well—and new legislation has been needed to redress the situation. It is not pretty; it is not good. It does have to be done but let us tell the truth about it. This clause does not and I object to it.Unfortunately New Zealand First will still have to vote for it because to fail to do so would be wrong given the whole circumstances of the case. But I just wish that we were more careful about the way that some of this legislation was drafted in those respects. I will have some more similar comments to make when we come to Part 2.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):I just want to deal—hopefully very briefly—with the points made regarding of course the phrase in clause 3 “remove any doubt”. I understand the points that are being made—in one sense you could say quite strongly and persuasively—by the member for New Zealand First Denis O’Rourke. I think that if experience and certainly legal experience in interpretation teaches us anything—and I am not in any way casting aspersions on the member—it is that there is a requirement and say so for a certain amount of humility in these matters because laws made by Parliaments do have mistakes. I think that in a situation like this where there is one—albeit a most important piece of legislation but other ones following that therefore add some complexity—we need to deal in the realm of best legal arguments and most persuasive legal arguments. There will always be doubts and indeed good lawyers in this traffic law area can create them believe you me. But we felt on the basis of robust pored-over legal positioning on this matter which we took very seriously indeed that the Government—and I am grateful—and I think Parliament needed to act to ensure public certainty. That speaks to the retrospective nature of this bill which I will come to but also to public safety in this area.The crux of the issue is—I think as both David Parker and Denis O’Rourke have made clear in this Committee—the 2002 Local Government Act. Then post that there really is a cascade of laws that effectively sets up a by-law regime for councils. At one level and this is where I go some way with Denis O’Rourke the responsibility on councils had some clarity. Ultimately they were to pass by-laws for their speed limits and they were to review them in a 5-year period—actually they had a 2-year period of grace after that and in Kāpiti Coast District Council’s case we certainly know that that did not happen. But I would say as I have already said that there is a need I think for a degree of humility in these issues. We are dealing with legal arguments. They can go other ways but I do not think the Government or indeed this Parliament could leave it to hang on that when we had a body of clear views that said we would be putting public certainty and certainly public safety retrospectively and prospectively into jeopardy.I just want to deal briefly with the retrospective aspect of this legislation. I was not here for Russel Norman’s speech but I gather from other members’ contributions that he had some concern about retrospective legislation. I think we can all say whether we are legally trained or not that it is quite clear that retrospective legislation all things being equal is undesirable. Indeed it can be a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and we need to take those sorts of issues very seriously indeed.There are times though when retrospective legislation is necessary and where this Parliament rightly reserves the right to pass such laws and I think here we are not dealing with just one but with a number of reasons that make it very clear that retrospective legislation is on balance and having considered all of the alternatives the right thing to do. First and foremost is public safety and there is no question that we cannot have a position where there is some doubt—we have used the words “any doubt” in clause 3—that someone today can on Kāpiti coast go at a much faster rate than the speed limit we thought was the case. That would be unsafe. It would be putting lives at risk and it would be the wrong thing for us to do and that is a strong reason to be retrospective here—to clear that up for the past and for the future.I think that the other reason is also very clear in this. This is not a matter where anyone has acted in bad faith. This is a matter where very clearly—again if we take the Kāpiti Coast District Council—the signs meant that the police and the public of that area all thought the speed limits were a certain way. Everyone thought the law was that. Not only that but I would say most reasonable people throughout New Zealand thought that that is what the laws and the speed limits should be. So it is what they thought they were and it is what they thought they should be and that is what right-thinking people would think in that regard. So we are—and this is a clear area where retrospective legislation is appropriate—going back and fixing technically what might otherwise be not correct and unsafe but in a position of good faith.JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National):I seek leave to have Part 1 and Part 2 taken as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): All parts?JOANNE HAYES: All parts.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): All parts including clauses 1 and 2?JOANNE HAYES: Yes.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member is seeking leave for the Committee stage of this bill to be taken as one debate but for the votes to be taken individually.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to clarify what that means in respect of members’ ability to take calls.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I have given some thought to this and it would be my intention that we would start our count again. People will not be retrospectively disadvantaged and that would mean that members could have up to four calls if they so wish on the Committee stage. Is there any objection to this process? The Committee is agreed so we are now in Committee on all parts and the initial clauses of the bill.Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued) Part 2 and clauses 1 and 2Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):Thank you Mr Chairperson and can I thank you for your ruling in respect of calls which I think is important because with the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill being rushed as it is it is important that members have the time to get their heads around it and ask the questions that need to be asked of the Minister of Transport. Having heard Denis O’Rourke’s contribution I actually agree with him about the description in the purpose clause. I encourage the Minister who I know is a very competent lawyer to consider the amendment that I have proposed which actually endorses Denis O’Rourke’s point so that rather than saying “remove any doubt about the validity of speed limits” we simply say “it validates speed limits” because that is the proper description of what it does. It avoids as Denis O’Rourke said the weasel words and I think we should call it what it is. It makes clear that there is absolutely no doubt that it is validating them so I would ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Bridges to consider that. It does not change the effect of clause 3(a); it just validates it. It validates the speed limits. If there are some speed limits that do not need validating well we have not done anything wrong and if that was a valid complaint of the clause that would be a valid complaint about removing any doubt about the validity of them because they are valid anyway. So I would encourage him to adopt that clause.The other question I have in respect of Part 1 is about the drafting of clause 5(b). Clause 5 “Meaning of specified bylaw” states: “In this Act ‘specified by-law’— … (b) does not include a bylaw that was so made or purportedly made by a road controlling authority under any other Act …”. Given the way we use “this Act” which is a reference to this legislation in clause 5(a)(i) and then in clause 5(a)(ii) we list a series of Acts—the “Government Roading Powers Act 1989 the Local Government Act 1974 the Local Government Act 2002 the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Speed Limit Rule 2003”—I presume that we are saying that when paragraph (b) says “any other Act” it means any Act other than those listed in clause 5(a)(ii). I presume that is what it is intended to mean. I just want to check that that is the case. It might seem like a silly question and it might be a silly question but I just want that to be clarified.Now that we are talking about all parts as one I want to talk a little bit about clauses 8 and 9 because I think these are important reasons that make it easier for Parliament to agree that we should be passing legislation of retrospective effect. As I read those clauses—and the Minister can correct me if I have got this wrong—it effectively says that if an enforcement action has been taken before the commencement of the Act it is not to be treated as invalid because at the time the enforcement action was taken the by-law may have been invalid. Making it retrospective effectively means that the enforcement action is validated as well. But then we say in clause 9 of the bill which is an important exception to that general rule that “This Act does not limit any proceedings that expressly challenge the validity of an enforcement action on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2)”—which is subclause (2) of clause 9 of this bill.My understanding of that Minister is that what we are effectively saying is that if someone was already defending a traffic infringement notice or some other charge—it could be a criminal charge for reckless driving or something—on the basis of the invalidity of the speed restriction that they had already noticed then that defence can stand so we are not retrospectively imposing a sanction in respect of offences or infringements where the accused person has picked up that there is an invalidity and is standing on their rights to say: “No this is invalid. I’m not guilty.” We are not changing that person’s circumstance but if it has not previously been picked up we are not letting them take advantage of the technical invalidity of the speeding notice. I would like confirmation on those matters please.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere):I am happy to take a short call on this bill. I agree with my colleagues that in a general sense we support the legislation despite the fact that most of us in this Chamber will feel that it is undesirable to be supporting retrospective legislation. Notwithstanding our reluctance about it the reality is based on the information that is available to us that we cannot be irresponsible and that we have to move forward in terms of passing this piece of legislation.I then want to congratulate and acknowledge Kāpiti Coast District Council for coming forward on this because I think that if it were not for its courage in stepping forward and identifying that maybe a mistake had been made we would not have been made aware of this. I then want to say to the Minister of Transport given the fact that this is another concern of many of us in this Chamber—the fact that in urgent legislation we sort of sidetrack the ability of the select committee to call on members of the public to have an input into legislation—by and large all of us agree that that unique process that we have involving the select committee enables good quality legislation to be passed. Therefore I hope the Minister does not mind because I think it is important that we spend a bit of time looking through the departmental disclosure statement as well as the regulatory impact statement.For my benefit it is noted that on 27 May the council advised the police and I would be interested to know blow by blow what exactly happened. I am sort wondering whether if this was an urgent situation and it was notified to the police at the end of May of this year we could not have brought this forward or is where we find ourselves now debating this close to the end of July simply because of the events that took place?Secondly I note also that although the bill in its second part validates related amendments in the regulatory impact statement it makes reference to legislation going back to 1974 but yet in Part 2 the bill does not refer to validating the legislation that also gave rise to it. I quote from the regulatory impact statement on page 3 where it says: “Subsequently by 2007 uncertainty had arisen concerning the extent to which territorial authorities could make use of the provisions of LGA02 to create speed limits. Recent research has revealed judicial decisions that cast doubt on the use of the Local Government Act 1974 provisions to set a speed limit.” I am not a lawyer so I am simply asking: if the matter goes back to legislation from 1974 and Part 2 which validates related amendments and legislation does not contain any reference to 1974 are we covering our t’s and i’s or not? That is simply the question I would like to ask.As I said because we are in urgency and because we are not going through the select committee process which gives us the benefit of ensuring that we have the benefit of contributions from the wider community and from Local Government New Zealand as well it would be nice for us to spend a bit of time trying to ensure that we are not coming back here in a month’s time or a year’s time again going over and validating what we failed to validate this time around. So I am hopeful that the Minister is able to respond to those questions.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):Just to follow on from those comments by Su’a William Sio I want to raise a couple of questions and invite the Minister of Transport to give us an explanation based on the briefings that he has had on clauses 10 to 12 of the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill.The regulatory impact statement—the section on the underlying problem—makes quite interesting reading. It explains how the councils got into such confusion really about the powers. If I can briefly summarise those comments what happened was that there was considerable confusion about the legislative framework for setting speed limits by by-law after there were significant legislative changes in 2004. Up to that point councils had had bylaw-making powers for setting speed limits under the Local Government Act 1974 and also the Local Government Act 2002. Basically confusion arose between those two powers and when legislation was drafted in 2004 it appears that there was some confusion and that the power of section 684 of the Local Government Act 1974 was in fact being relied upon by councils. In the legislation that resulted basically there was a conflict between the Local Government Act and the specific power limited to Ministers under the Land Transport Act.I suppose my question for the Minister really is to ask him to set out for us—given that we have not had the benefit of a select committee process the briefings from officials and the opportunity to tease through this–some explanation about precisely how clauses 10 to 12 resolve any of these ambiguities. In particular I would be keen to hear from the Minister about what we are advised that the bill achieves which is that while clarifying the bylaw-making powers of the local territorial authorities it removes the requirement for the regular review—first 5-yearly and then 10-yearly—of those by-laws. That is the thing that was not complied with that has led to these by-laws and all the offences and infringements and sanctions that flow from it too have been rendered technically invalid. So that is my question and I would appreciate some explanation.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):I also want to ask some questions that I think would normally be asked in a select committee process but this will have to substitute. I want to particularly refer to clause 6(1) which seems to be drafted in a very broad manner. Clause 6(1) starts off saying: “Every specified bylaw is declared to have been lawfully made and to be and always have been valid despite any 1 or more of the following circumstances applying to it:” and then it gives two such circumstances. The point I am making here is that the first few words—“Every specified bylaw is declared to have been lawfully made”—before the word “and” are very broad. What that actually does is to declare such by-laws to be valid not only for those reasons that are stated but even if there were other defects in the by-laws and we do not know whether there are or not.So I would like to draw that to the Minister of Transport’s attention and to ask him whether in fact the drafting is just a little bit too wide in the way that the words have been used in clause 6(1). I myself would like to think about that some more but there will not be the time to do that. There is not a select committee process and so that cannot really be thrashed out so easily. But I think it is a valid point. If he is satisfied then maybe I will be; maybe I will not. It seems to me not good wording anyway.The second point I want to make relates to clause 6(1)(b). It refers to “the bylaw was made or amended using a process that did not comply with—(i) the enactment …” and so on. In subparagraph (ii) it refers to “any other applicable enactment:”. I am a little bit unsure as I think it was David Parker or Phil Twyford—I am not sure; it was one of the two of them—pointed to those words as well and asked the same question. Is that appropriate and necessary in this bill; if it is how far does it really go? So I am worried about that provision as well. I draw that to the Minister’s attention too.The next point I want to make relates to clause 6(1)(c). I just want to point out here that it says: “as far as the bylaw was made or purportedly made under the Local Government Act 1974 … the by-law—(i) was not reviewed by the relevant local authority … and (ii) has been revoked by the operation of section 160A …”. The point I want to make here is a general one. It is simply that this is a case of councils and other road-controlling authorities actually not following the law. It is unfortunate that when people do that we say: “That’s OK. We’ll just validate it for you.” That actually is a very bad precedent to set. Again I will admit that there does not seem to be any other way around it but I do not think that this situation should pass without comment in the Committee. It is not a good situation where local government and other road-controlling authorities can get away with simply not doing what they are required to do and then come cap in hand to the Government of the day to say: “Oh fix this up for us. We have cocked up.” It is not good enough. It is not good enough by a long shot.The last point I want to make actually is a positive one you will be glad to hear Mr Chairman and it relates to clause 9 “Savings for certain legal proceedings”. It says that the “Act does not limit any proceedings that expressly challenge the validity of an enforcement action on any of the grounds …” such as those that we have already spoken about before the date on which this bill was introduced. That is very important. I do not know whether there are in fact any such proceedings before the courts but if there were it is very important that that provision be there. Not to do so would completely compromise the credibility of our legal system so I am very glad to see that those savings are there and I certainly approve of that.But I would ask the Minister to think about some of the specific points I have been able to identify. I am sure that if we have the time to look at the bill in more detail there might be other points as well. But at least those stand out fairly well for me and I would appreciate an answer to them.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):I feel like the junior drafting assistant of Denis O’Rourke. He is exactly right. Could I draw the Minister of Transport’s attention to the wording of clause 6(1) and clause 6(2). Denis O’Rourke has just said that he thinks that because of the insertion of the words in clause 6(1) “and to be and always have been valid” that stands alone irrespective of the list. He may or may not be right in that as to that being the effect of it but he is right that it is unnecessarily confused drafting because the same words appear in clause 6(2) which says that for the avoidance of doubt every one of these designations “is declared to be and to always have been lawfully set or designated.” You do not need to say it twice.This would be better drafted as Denis O’Rourke suggested if the words the first time they appear in subclause (1) were deleted so that it then read “every specified bylaw is declared to have been lawfully made despite any 1 or more of the following circumstances applying to it”. Then there is the list from paragraph (a) to paragraph (c) and then subclause (2) still takes effect and would say: “To avoid doubt every speed limit set by a specified bylaw validated under subsection (1) and every designation of an urban traffic area is declared to be and to always have been lawfully set or designated.” The way to fix that is to just delete the words “and to be and always have been valid” from the first time they appear in subclause (1). It will still have the same effect but it will not have the ambiguity that Denis O’Rourke referred to. I have put an amendment on the Table Minister and again you can consider that with your officials but I think that Mr O’Rourke is right that you do not need to say it twice and that saying it twice makes it worse than if you say it just once.I will talk for a little bit longer so that the Minister and the officials can have time to consider that before we actually move to the voting stage of the Committee stage in this rushed urgency process because unless I do I suspect that the Minister might use his votes which outnumber the Labour Party and the New Zealand First votes and he might try to push this through. Using the time that I have available to me it is hard to read clauses 10 11 and 12 or particularly clauses 11 and 12 without having the statute they amend in front of me. So I want to have it clarified by the Minister that the sections that are being amended are the mechanism by which we remove the obligation to have the 5-yearly reviews. So I would like the Minister to clarify which of the sections that we are amending and replacing with the words that are set out in clauses 11 and 12 of this bill—section 22AB(1)(d) or section 22AD(1)—is the one that specifies the 5-yearly reviews that are now being done away with.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):I think that there have been some well-made points—at short notice we accept—about having this bill go through the House under urgency. I think that we would all agree it is much better if these bills can optimally go through the select committee process and have serious consideration made over weeks if not months. But we do know here as well I think that this does need to be urgent. We cannot have a situation where people having thought that the speed limits in certain areas were always such now think that they can lodge appeals and the like on the basis that it is OK to be driving that fast on those roads—to be going dangerously fast in many cases. And of course prospectively we need to ensure safety with the utmost urgency as well. I think that in this case the confidence and the safety points trump those other points.Can I say that I also go some way with Denis O’Rourke on his point that the precedent here is that we should not be validating mistakes—leave them to it. Of course we could in a sense in theory do that were it in some area where I think safety was not the case. But I think that in this situation given the seriousness of what we are dealing with—speed limits on our roads where 9½ or 10 out of 10 people travel—we do need to act in this way.Can I just say briefly that I hope I have effectively got all of the points made by Messrs Parker and O’Rourke. The analysis of clauses 8 and 9—Mr Parker’s and I think to some extent Denis O’Rourke’s—is absolutely correct so I accept what they are saying there. I think that on the point about the removal of any doubt and about the amendment that has been put forward by David Parker I understand the point that they are making. I have been in discussion with officials. We maintain that we will be sticking with the words we have because we do think that they are a more accurate summation of what the position is which is that we are not 100 percent certain that the by-law is invalid. That is what this is in relation to. That is correct—the purpose clause.In our legal arguments we believe that we are probably right but we are in a sense being belt and braces and the argument is that we want to be as accurate as we can for the courts of New Zealand which effectively interpret these laws on these points. In a sense part of me says: “Well maybe we could do what the Hon David Parker is saying here.” but I think that this is the position that I have come to in the time that we have got.If we go through clauses 11 and 12 there were comments made about those. In broad terms clause 11 is as I understand from my reading of it about putting this into land transport law where it belongs and about having it as a land transport issue and not some wider local government one. Clause 12 broadly preserves consultation provisions on by-laws which I think we all agree is the right thing to do.I accept some of what Denis O’Rourke and to some extent David Parker are saying on clause 6. I turn just quickly to that provision. I am trying to do justice to the points that they have made because as I say I am conscious that this is a bill that will not have select committee consideration.Hon Member: You’ve got to have faith in this one.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well I am about to go through it. I do not accept the unduly broad point of Denis O’Rourke in the sense that I think there are the provisos the qualifying provisions of clause 6(1)(a) (b) and (c). I think there are other clauses as well. We have talked already actually about the saving of certain legal proceedings and what that is about. I think David Parker makes some very interesting points about the wording in clause 6(1)—“have been lawfully made and to be and always have been valid despite”—and it is possible that he is right. But I am not going to go with him and I want to explain why. I think that in this bill we do need—Hon David Parker: Trust your legal instincts. Exercise your power as Minister.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Then we might be back here Mr Parker and that is not what I want. We can accept to some extent that some of this bill could be with another month more felicitously worded. Jane Austen could have been proud of it. But we have gone through it very carefully. We think that it does the job and provides the certainty and the safety that is required. We do not think that it has unintended consequences. I think that in terms of those phrases—and actually clause 6(2) which I think the member has raised—we are necessarily I think taking a belt and braces approach to this because I think we can all agree that we do not want to be back here. We do want to fix a position that has been created where by-laws have been created they have not been reviewed and on that basis have been revoked. We do want to make sure that the public of New Zealand has absolute certainty today and is absolutely safe and that the speed limits in the towns and cities that they live in are what they say on the signs.I accept the good contributions made and the spirit in which they have been made which is in good faith and I think with some learning but I think that we want to take a belt and braces approach that passes this law and keeps New Zealand safe.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):I thank the Minister for that contribution. There was one point that he did not address and it was that I was seeking a detailed explanation of how clauses 10 to 12 of the bill deliver on the intent that is set out in the briefing notes that the Government has provided prior to these debates. It says that the proposed amendment is consistent with Cabinet decisions in 2007 and 2010 to consolidate traffic by-law powers in the Land Transport Act 1998 and although this would have the effect that they are no longer subject to the 2002 Act or the 2002 review provisions other disciplines would apply.It is not clear as a layperson based on the information we have in front of us how those final clauses in the bill deliver on that intent and specifically the review provisions that got us into this mess in the first place where councils are required to review after the first 5 years and then subsequently every 10 years. I would appreciate an explanation from the Minister as to how the last three clauses—I think it is really talking about clause 11—actually achieve that.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):Just following on from my colleague Phil Twyford I seek that too because I have just had a look at sections 22AB(1) and 22AD(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998 which I have before me. These are the sections that are amended by clauses 11 and 12 of this bill. I thought until now that it was actually those amendments that removed this obligation to review by-laws every 5 years. That is why I and other members in the Chamber have been seeking clarification that that is indeed the effect of these clauses because that is how we thought this was being done. But when I read sections 22AB(1)(d) and 22AD(1) neither of them impose the obligation to renew these by-laws every 5 years. So it is actually not those amendments that fix the problem in respect of the 5-yearly reviews of these by-laws that have not been conducted.I suspect then that we actually have to look at clause 7 of the bill to find the clause that corrects or changes for the future the obligation to review these by-laws every 5 years for the speed limits to remain valid. I am still not clear enough for this to pass to the next stage. I am not clear enough in my understanding as to what provision it is in this bill that we are considering that fixes this 5-yearly review obligation for the future. I understand how we are validating the things that have not been properly reviewed in the past but I thought we were being told in the explanatory note and in the speeches we have heard from the Government so far that we are clarifying the procedures for the future so that those 5-yearly reviews are not necessary. I have still not yet got my head around how it is that we are doing that.If it is not clauses 11 and 12 that do that–and I do not think it is from my reading of the existing legislation combined with these clauses 11 and 12—I am left with searching for what else it might be. Maybe it is clause 7 of this bill which says: “(2) To avoid doubt sections 158 to 160A of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply to a bylaw to which subsection (1) applies.” Perhaps the Minister could clarify for me how in this legislation we are removing that 5-yearly obligation.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):This takes me back. I feel like I am arguing in front of Judge Harding or some such judge at the Tauranga District Court. [Interruption] No I was never that good sadly but I did win a few cases. Be that as it may I think I can help. Clause 7 makes it clear that the Local Government Act does not apply and that this is under the Land Transport Act. Clause 11 deals with the position prospectively and bylaw-making prospectively and of course—well not of course but I can assure the member that the review provisions apply only under the Local Government Act so that in clauses 7 to 11 where we are effectively making clear that everything is in the Land Transport Act there are no review provisions prospectively.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):I hope I have not run out of contributions. This might be my last one. If that is intended to be the effect prospectively is it your intended effect? Just reading clause 7 of this bill it says: “(1) Every specified bylaw”—and specified by-laws are by-laws that have been made from 2004 until the date of this bill effectively—then to avoid doubt those provisions of the Local Government Act do not apply to those by-laws. But what about any by-law that is produced in the future? Are we meaning that if the council passes a new by-law under its by-law - making authority it might not be a specified by-law under clause 5 and therefore clause 7 will not apply to it? [Interruption] You hope I am wrong.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):I know you are wrong. I do not want to go through a precise legal analysis. I am conscious that a court may one day read back this transcript and I do not want to be the bush lawyer that Clayton Cosgrove accuses me of being. But I assure the member that that is not our analysis.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 1 be agreed to:in clause 3(a) replace “remove any doubt about the validity of” with “validate”.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12.Noes 75New Zealand National 59; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question now is that Part 1 stand part. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye—Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I also had an amendment to clause 6.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes but that is in Part 2.Part 1 agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 2 be agreed to:in clause 6(1) delete “and to be and always have been valid”.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12.Noes 75New Zealand National 59; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.Third ReadingHon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):I move That the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill be now read a third time. Councils and other road-controlling authorities were always meant to have powers to set speed limit by-laws. This bill makes these requirements clear. This bill clarifies the power of local councils and other road-controlling authorities such as the New Zealand Transport Agency to set speed limit by-laws. In the interests of removing doubt and providing clarity this bill validates all speed limit by-laws and confirms that they were made correctly under either the local government legislation or the land transport legislation. This also removes any concern about the validity of any enforcement action taken concerning speed limits. The bill will remove any ambiguity and amend the Land Transport Act 1998 so that there is a clear power for all road-controlling authorities to make a speed limit by-law under this Act.The bill will make it clear for all road-controlling authorities including territorial authorities that in future speed limit by-laws will be made under the Land Transport Act 1998. We intend no change to the current need for councils to use the Local Government Act 2002 public consultation requirements. The Government will review those requirements in time and if any change to that aspect is required then that issue will be brought back to the House.The Government sees a continuing role for road-controlling authorities especially councils in determining and setting speed limits. This bill confirms this and also confirms councils’ responsibilities to continue making local decisions about speed limits which includes consultation with their own communities. Swift action is required to ensure that there is no confusion over the validity of speed limits and that road-controlling authorities such as councils were always meant to have clear powers to set speed limits. I commend the bill to the House.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):If there was ever any evidence needed that the process of pushing legislation through under urgency is flawed it was in that speech from the Minister Simon Bridges—and the limits of this rushed and truncated process. It does strike trepidation into the hearts of the members of this House.Having said that we on the Labour benches are supporting the passage of this bill for the reason that is laid out I think very clearly in the departmental disclosure statement which explains that consultation on the issues and solutions to do with this bill have been restricted to central government officials departments and the New Zealand Transport Agency because of—and I suppose this is the essence of the justification for this validating legislation going through under urgency this afternoon—the potential public safety risks from motorists deliberately disregarding speed limits on the basis that they may be invalid should the issue become widely known. If urgent parliamentary action is not taken on the matter it could take months for a road-controlling authority to correct speed limit by-laws. This would be due to the need to advertise and consult on any new by-laws using the Local Government Act 2002 consultative requirements.So there you have it. The House is between a rock and a hard place. Because of confusion over the legislative authorities that the councils would use going back a number of years now to create the by-laws for the setting of speed limits we have got ourselves into a real mess. It was only because the Kāpiti Coast District Council realised that its by-laws were invalid because it had failed to follow the prescription—it had passed these by-laws under the Local Government Act 2002—and it had failed to observe the requirements in that Act that it should review by-laws after 5 years and subsequently after every 10 years. The Kāpiti Coast District Council realised that its by-laws were technically invalid—or just invalid I should say—calling into question the validity of I am sure thousands of speeding infringements and the officials—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. This debate is interrupted and I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.PHIL TWYFORD: Mr Assistant Speaker—Carmel Sepuloni: Where are all the National women?PHIL TWYFORD: There does seem to be a bit of a groundswell of members asking: “Where are the National women?”. Jacqui Dean has saved the day by joining us.I just wanted to reiterate one of the things that is most interesting in the departmental disclosure statement that I began to touch on before the dinner break and that is really the reason why in the House today we are supporting the passage of this bill in spite of the distaste that I think everybody shares for retrospective legislation and in spite of the rushed truncated process that we fear may lead to further errors being made that will require consequent future validating bills to come back to the House.The nub of it is that there is a potential public safety risk from motorists deliberately disregarding speed limits on the basis that they may be invalid in the event that this issue was to become publicly known about. That is why this bill has to be dealt with under urgency. If it was not it could take months under the existing legislative powers for local authorities to pass new by-laws because of the need under the Local Government Act 2002 to consult and to advertise.The final point I wanted to make in this debate is really to ask the Government members present for this debate whether or not they have given consideration—and I would welcome the Minister making a contribution to answer this in this third reading debate—and whether or not the Minister has considered the communications to councils because it is quite possible that somewhere around New Zealand some council may have a meeting tomorrow or in the next day or two at which their officers could recommend after a 12-month process that the council formally adopt new by-laws providing for new speed limits in their area. But if it is following the process that many councils have been for the last few years it could simply repeat the error that the Minister thinks that possibly up to 25 territorial local authorities have committed that has got them into this mess.My understanding is that this bill will get its Royal assent if not tonight then tomorrow.Hon Simon Bridges: Tonight.PHIL TWYFORD: Tonight? The bill will get Royal assent today. The fastest lawmaking in the West pretty much all in one afternoon and it will have the force of law before the clock strikes midnight before the cock crows.Unless the Minister has communicated with councils around the country in the last few hours there is the possibility that some of them may compound the error. I would like to know whether or not the Minister has thought of that and whether or not this bill and its intent and its consequences have been communicated to councils around the country.Just to wrap up mistakes happen and in this case mistakes compound upon mistakes because of a lack of clarity in the legislation over a considerable number of years. As many as 25 territorial local authorities have got themselves into a real mess. That may well have resulted in tens of thousands of traffic infringements being rendered invalid because those councils did not follow the prescribed processes in the Local Government Act that would have required them to review their by-laws. It is a very significant problem for public safety and for the safety of people on the streets in terms of the importance of speed limits on the roads. It really has potential reputational damage for our police who are charged with the responsibility of implementing road safety and enforcing those speed limits. With some reluctance Labour will be supporting this validating legislation.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak and thank you for the very magnanimous support from members on the other side of the House for the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill. Indeed it is something that we need to take through the House in a timely and a speedy way can I say even though it is to do with speed limits because as the previous speaker Phil Twyford said this is an aspect around safety around certainty and around the setting of by-laws by the regional councils or the road-controlling authorities.We understand—in a few closing remarks—that in May 2015 the Kāpiti Coast District Council advised the New Zealand Police that its speed limit by-law appeared to have been inadvertently revoked in 2012 under the Local Government Act 2002. I am very sure that as we have seen on the news tonight and will see in newspapers tomorrow every district council in the country will have heard about this piece of legislation. I am sure that we are going to see some very strong attempts to not have this situation occur again. For the sake of timeliness I am very happy now to stand and support this piece of legislation. Thank you.SUE MORONEY (Labour):I rise to speak on already the third reading of the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill. I wish to again repeat Labour’s support for this legislation even though it has been done in urgency. It is not often that we agree with the Government’s rushing legislation through but in this instance we do believe that it is warranted. That is because if we boil this down to its core root without all the technicalities involved this is about the health and safety of our community. Of course we would want to make sure that the rules and regulations that local authorities quite rightly put in around speed limits be adhered to because the reason those speed limits are put in place at the beginning is to keep people safe in our community. I particularly want to ensure that the speed limits that local authorities put in place around schools early childhood education facilities and the places where our young children are prevalent are speed limits that people do adhere to.We are here to fix up some potential technicalities. I guess my one criticism of this process and this bill would be that although we are doing it retrospectively and we are doing it with great haste and as I have said there is a legitimate reason for that it is a little odd that we have a bill that is drafted that says that actually there might not even be a problem but just in case there is we are going to pass this legislation. I would rather be satisfied that there was a problem that needed fixing up. The way this bill is drafted—in fact the purpose clause says that it is there just to “remove any doubt about the validity of speed limits” rather than being quite assertive in saying that there is a problem there is a loophole that needs to be fixed and here is Parliament’s solution to it. None the less Labour is pleased to support this bill.It would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity while debating legislation that keeps people safe on our roads going through in urgency to point out the many other situations that we would really want this Government to urgently deal with that would improve road safety and the safety of our communities as well. The one that is very dear to my heart—gosh people might be surprised that they may not have heard me speak on it for oh probably the best part of a month I think—is establishing a commuter train service between Hamilton and Auckland.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is not part of this debate.SUE MORONEY: Well Mr Assistant Speaker—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. It is not part of this debate.SUE MORONEY: The Government does not want to hear about it. But regarding keeping people safe on our road there are other urgent matters that I believe our Government ought to attend to and that commuter train service is just one of those.There are potentially loopholes. We on this side of the House do not want people to get the impression that there is a technicality and that that makes it OK for them to speed in their communities. That clearly is not right. We want the rule of law to be observed. There may have been some situations where local bodies local authorities have found themselves in the situation where their by-laws may have inadvertently become—well I would not say they are unlawful but they might not stand up in a court of law if they were contested. When it comes to the safety of our community we cannot be having that and so Labour is here to support the transition of this bill.We hope though that the Government has listened carefully to what we have said in the Committee stage. There was no select committee process for this bill and so there was no ability to really influence the wording in the bill. My colleagues Phil Twyford and David Parker amongst others were at pains to point out some wording changes that they thought could have improved the bill and it is disappointing that the Minister of Transport did not use his ministerial discretion to attend to those matters. I sincerely hope that we are not back here again any time soon to fix this legislation up again as a result of that inattention to detail.So it is a bill that we would rather not be here spending time debating. It is none the less important that we get this right and that we do it swiftly. This is probably one of the better uses of urgency that I have seen in this term of this Government.Bill read a third time.