Mark RonRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Well having done a quick scramble through this piece of legislation weighty as it is and the schedules attached to it—Mr Deputy Speaker I think you pointed out it was at least four or five pages—and on behalf of New Zealand First and standing in for our colleague Denis O'Rourke who would normally be speaking on this bill I say that New Zealand First will support this legislation through to select committee where we will enjoy having a quick study of exactly what the implications of the legislation are.I have listened carefully to some of the speeches this evening and I was very interested listening to the last speaker from the Greens David Clendon talking about the Sentencing Council Act. I know that was a piece of legislation that generated much debate in the House back in 2007 from all sides. There were those of us who were somewhat sceptical but at the same time we could see some of the clear anomalies that were arising.I think possibly it would be a good time to caution the Government because on the back of what we have seen up in Auckland just recently—where a young man who was found to have punched a female police officer in the head knocking her unconscious and who then set about kicking her subsequently received a community sentence—one could say that maybe this piece of legislation is worthy of reconsidering and maybe should be extracted from this bill. There are some clear anomalies right now in sentencing and there has been more than one commentator out in the community who has said things like: What's happened to the old National Party? They've gone soft on law and order."People are asking where the equity and the consistency in this National Government's law and order policy is because there was a time when people like Judith Collins and the Prime Minister John Key would have leapt all over such an incident and been outraged at the sentence that was given. But of course that was when they were in Opposition and now that they are in Government they seek to repeal the Sentencing Council Act which I admit at the time when it was brought to the House by Labour was somewhat controversial and did not have the unanimous support of the House. But it certainly did gain some credit in the eyes of people like Simon Power and a few other people who did study it and take the time out.It is interesting also that on the one hand you can have this Government lauding and applauding the Law Commission's reports and reviews on aspects of the justice system—indeed when it comes to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act—and on the other hand dismissing its recommendations quite casually it would seem as with this piece of legislation right now. I think it is timely because one of the things that has been said in the House this evening by a couple of the speakers from the Opposition benches is that they have noted the pieces of legislation that are not in this bill that could quite rightfully be in this bill and one of those pieces of legislation might be the little piece of legislation the Government is currently running through the House to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 16 to 17.Why do we say that? Because looking back at another piece of legislation that was entitled the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) from March 2008—we finish a piece of legislation proposed by the Labour Government and vehemently opposed by a chap by the name of John Key. "The overriding factor is we won't vote for legislation which means 17-year-olds won't be tried by adult courts. They're doing adult crimes and should face adult sentences." said Mr John Key. Another person—and this was National's children young persons and families spokesperson by the name of Anne Tolley—said that the bill was "a missed opportunity" because it did not tackle child abuse rates. "Moving 17-year-olds into the Youth Court would add too much stress to the system." said Anne Tolley and yet here we have legislation going through proposed by Labour resisted by National and now being proposed by National and supported by Labour—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come back to the bill.RON MARK: I am saying that maybe there are some bills that should be included in this Statutes Repeal Bill that are not. Maybe we need to pursue that at the select committee stage to ensure that they are put in there because clearly this Government does not support some of its own legislation that it clearly said before was superfluous and should be going. That fits within the scope of this bill. It is removing legislation that is superfluous. There is another piece of legislation in here and it is in schedule 1 on page—oh my gosh there are so many finance Acts being repealed in here that it is lost in here in schedule 1. It is the Children's Health Camps Board Dissolution Act 1999 and I have just been frantically searching through trying to see exactly what that says. I would be interested to see whether one of the Government speakers could take more than a 2-minute call and explain why that piece of legislation is now redundant. Has it got something to do with the fact that in 1999 the then National Government decided it did not like children's health camps? That is interesting because I would like to hear whether that is what happened—that it actually dissolved the health camps or did away with them which would now make the Children's Health Camps Board Dissolution Act 1999 redundant—because I was actually one of those wards of the State who was a beneficiary of the children's health camps. In fact we had a children's health camp at Riversdale in the Wairarapa where hundreds of us kids who were in State care were sent for our holidays because our foster parents could not afford to send us on holidays. So the State provided these children's health camps where we would all go and we would learn a whole bunch of skills—outdoor skills. We would learn to mix and mingle with other kids of our age whom we had never met and to develop social skills and be taught by some excellent New Zealanders—yes a whole bunch of things that we would never have learnt at home. It was a holiday that our foster parents could not afford to give us so we were always grateful as we grew up and became adults that the State had these health camps and the State did provide the funding and the State did give us kids who were wards of the State—today we would be called "CYFs" kids I guess—that opportunity to have a holiday. More importantly I think it was sometimes to give our foster parents a bit of respite knowing that for 2 weeks of the school holidays little Ronnie Mark was going to be away at a health camp somewhere. So it would be interesting to know why the Children's Health Camps Board Dissolution Act is included in here and it would be interesting to know why the National Government of the day did away with the health camps. Maybe it earned a dollar or two selling them off or something—I do not really know. The Farm and Fishing Vessel Ownership Savings Schemes (Closure) Act 1998—well we all know that this Government really does not give a toss about helping New Zealanders to buy farms or buy their own fishing vessels and to become owners of their own businesses. So if that was a savings scheme that was designed to help New Zealanders get on to a farm I guess we can understand this Government's desire to repeal Acts like that and the fact that it has made these Acts redundant and valueless because it would rather sell off the farms to foreigners and particularly to Chinese buyers wherever it can. The Farm Ownership Savings Act 1974—there we go again. Let us undermine every Kiwi's ability to buy and own their own farm—something that that Government is very good at. It is more interested in foreign investors taking up ownership like with the six farms up in the Ōpōtiki area right now that we know are being sold off to a German. There is another one that has gone under the hammer for—I think they outbid New Zealand Manuka by some ridiculous amount. I think it was another couple of million dollars over the top just to make sure that they bought it but of course this Government is not interested in New Zealanders owning their own farms or owning their own land. The Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act—I guess that is redundant now. We are moving on to another Rugby Cup series further down the line. The Seamen's Union Funds Act the Sentencing Council Act—those things have been touched on. I think it is going to be interesting having a conversation as to why these Acts are now redundant. It will be good revisiting the reasons why the National Government does not like New Zealanders—or it cannot be bothered helping New Zealanders—save for farms or save for fishing vessels and why it helped do away with children's health camps. I guess that is the sign of a caring sharing Government! I thank you."