O'Rourke Denis: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4955. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is also happy to support the Legislation Bill particularly because it improves accessibility and understandability of legislation for the New Zealand public. Before going any further I first want to acknowledge the work of the Regulations Review Committee which I think has done a really good job with this piece of legislation. It is high time of course that there is a modernisation of legislation governing the drafting of legislation and concerning the functions of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. 
As we know the bill principally would replace the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989 and the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989. Most important I think it provides for a 3-year programme of systematic revision of legislation. That is a very welcome move and something that probably should have been done a long time ago. The bill would also alter the functions of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. In particular the Chief Parliamentary Counsel will be required to publish legislation in electronic as well as printed form and to issue official versions of legislation in electronic and printed form. That will be very welcome to people who these days—and I think it is the majority—find their way through legislation through electronic means. This just brings that situation up to date and is most appropriate. 
I particularly wanted however to make some comments about the part of the bill relating to revision bills. The purpose as we know is stated in clause 29(2) which says: “The purpose of revision is to re-enact in an up-to-date and accessible form the law previously contained in all or part of 1 or more Acts but (except as authorised by this subpart) revision is not intended to change the effect of a law.” That is a very important issue which I think has been well addressed by the committee. 
However the revision programme in clause 31(2) is as I have already said for me the crux of the whole thing. It includes such important things as revision of the whole or part of one or more Acts with the ability to combine or divide them as may be appropriate. Clause 31(2)(c) refers to the omission of redundant and spent provisions which will also be useful. Clause 31(2)(f) refers to the ability to include new or additional purpose provisions which will be helpful for the public as well. Most important I think clause 31(2)(i) refers to the ability to make minor amendments to clarify Parliament’s intent. Of course that word “minor” is open to interpretation but I do believe that it is appropriate to have it there. Clause 31(2)(j) allows the updating of monetary amounts and that kind of thing which is just common-sense stuff. 
It is important however that although clause 31(3) states that “A revision Bill must not change the effect” of any statute that does not mean that there will not be any substantive changes which would still be possible. Therefore great care is going to be needed I believe to preserve the integrity of the Acts that are dealt with under this legislation—something that I think the House will need to be careful of when it looks at revision bills as they come through in the future. In other words we are still going to have to be vigilant. 
Clause 34(2) repeats the requirements not to change the effect of any statute but that is qualified by clause 31(3) which states: “A revision Bill must not change the effect of the law except as authorised by subsection (2)(i) or (j).” which I have already referred to. So there is a degree of conflict and some confusion between clauses 31(3) and 34(2) which state that there should be no change to the effect of any statute and clause 34(3) which says that there may be change to the effect of a statute if expressly stated. 
I note that the committee has said that for this purpose it has inserted new clause 33A in relation to minor policy changes to revision bills. The committee considered that the bill as introduced might cause confusion about the relationship between the changes properly made using the revision powers and the changes made by members of Parliament during the passage of a revision bill through the House. That is the dilemma of course. 
The committee goes on to say that it considers that the bill should make the distinction clearer and for that reason it has put in new clause 33A. New clause 33A(1) says: “A revision Bill as introduced must not contain any proposed change to the effect of the law unless the amendment is authorised by section 31.” It goes on to say in subclause (2): “nothing in this Act affects the powers of the House of Representatives to amend a revision Bill for any purpose and to pass it with amendment.” To me that new provision clause 33A(1) does not improve the problem; it simply restates the dilemma without actually improving anything. So although I appreciate that the committee did want to clarify the situation I do not think it did it with that particular provision. 
I believe that it would actually have been better if clause 34(3) and new clause 33A(1) were deleted altogether and we were left only with new clause 33A(2) which I repeat simply says: “nothing in this Act affects the powers of the House of Representatives to amend a revision Bill for any purpose and to pass it with amendment.” It would be quite sufficient for that to be there and those other clauses I referred to need not be there at all. However that is a relatively minor matter. I would have preferred it that way but it is not something that I think would cause New Zealand First to vote against the bill or at this late stage attempt to change it further. I just think that it would have been a better way of going about it. 
I want to go on and just briefly mention now the functions of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and to note with approval that clause 58 of the bill is now being divided into the three new clauses: 58 58A and 58B. That is very wise. It does make things much clearer to do that. We also welcome new subclause (1)(h) of clause 58 which refers expressly to the rights of the public. It does say in that clause that one of the functions of the Parliamentary Counsel Office is “to examine all local Bills and private Bills and to examine the Members’ Bills that the Attorney-General directs be examined and to report to the Attorney-General on the effect of Bills examined in particular on whether they affect the rights of the Crown or the public and on their relationship to other legislation:”. I think that is a very good provision indeed. Advice on that has often been absent in the past and I think that is a very good provision which New Zealand First supports wholeheartedly. With regard to the appointment of the functions of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel we completely agree with the need for that person to be legally qualified in New Zealand or in a similar jurisdiction and the same provision for other parliamentary counsel as well. 
New Zealand First has no issues with any of the other provisions of the bill or with the select committee amendments that are being proposed and will therefore be very happy indeed—with the reservations that I have made—to vote in favour of the bill as amended.