Dyson Ruth: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 24 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1893. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): At this peak viewing and listening time there is always fierce competition for a member to get the call and I am just so delighted that you chose me ahead of my friend and colleague from Christchurch Denis O’Rourke. He will have a much less interesting time with far fewer listeners and viewers I am sure when he is able to take the call.Like others I am pleased to be able to talk in the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). It is a bill that the Government Administration Committee which I am privileged to chair had the opportunity to scrutinise. I want to acknowledge three members of that committee who are no longer on the committee two of whom are no longer in Parliament: Eric Roy Chris Auchinvole and of course Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. Kanwaljit Bakshi is still in Parliament but unfortunately no longer on our committee. The member who—very bravely I think—subjected the House to a 10-minute speech on a bill that everyone agrees on should also be commended. I am enjoying working with Sarah Dowie the current deputy chair of the Government Administration Committee and I hope to do so for many years to come.As has been pointed out this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) has the agreement of Parliament. It is interesting to notice then that this bill is being filibustered by the National Party members of Parliament. They are filibustering a bill that every single member of Parliament agrees with. We could not get the Government to give us a vote on sending 140 young New Zealanders to Iraq but here we are filibustering a bill that every single member of Parliament agrees with. It is all about priorities; it is all about what is important. I would have thought having a robust debate on what has to be the biggest responsibility of a Government—deciding to put someone else’s life at risk; not your own life but someone else’s—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Hon RUTH DYSON: So we did not get a vote on that but here we are filibustering on this bill at 10 o’clock at night.Some of the statutes that this bill amends are really interesting and again it is all about priorities. I notice that one of them is the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994 and again it is about priorities. Here we have a Queensland fruit fly infestation causing huge concern to the communities that my colleague Damien O’Connor spoke about in question time today. There is nothing on the Order Paper to boost up biosecurity for our own country but here we are amending legislation to give better protection to Antarctica. I am pleased that we are doing that—I am pleased that we are doing that. I just wish that the Government had not cut back millions of dollars and lots of staff from our own biosecurity teams because that protection is one of the most important things that New Zealand can do. Again it is a core Government responsibility to protect not just our citizens—the young people who serve in our defence forces—but also of course our agricultural and horticultural sectors.There are 33 Acts that are amended in this bill. I think about half of them were previously the responsibility of the Hon Judith Collins before she was moved out of Cabinet. I know that members generally talk about how these statutes amendment bills are progressed to allow for minor technical changes but actually they are mistakes that previous Ministers have made with legislation. I have had some in my own name that I have been responsible for and I have thought: “How on earth did that get through?”. Well it is because you do not take enough care to be honest. That has happened with 33 pieces of legislation in this statutes amendment bill which is far more than you would normally expect. It goes from the Animal Welfare Act in Part 1 right through to the Wildlife Act in Part 33. Every one of those amendments has got what are sometimes quite substantive changes but not substantive enough to breach the requirements that our Government Administration Committee rigorously adheres to in terms of appropriateness for inclusion in a statutes amendment bill. Also obviously the amendments do not concern any policy matters. Otherwise they would not be able to be in this bill. Policy matters cannot be in a statutes amendment bill.It is unusual to have this many changes in one piece of legislation but I certainly look forward to its further progress. Mr Assistant Speaker you have the air of someone who is about to curtail my contribution to this debate and I do not want that to happen. I was keen on making a full contribution as has every member—