Goldsmith PaulSTATUTES REPEAL BILLThird ReadingHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Regulatory Reform): I move That the Statutes Repeal Bill be now read a third time. This bill repeals or partially repeals 137 Acts that are no longer needed. This because they no longer have any actual effect have very limited effect or are designed to achieve regulatory outcomes that are no longer relevant. By removing some unnecessary legislation from the statute book this bill is a small part of this Government's work to improve the regulatory environment in New Zealand. The Government signalled this work in its response to the Productivity Commission report on regulatory institutions and practices.After the bill receives Royal assent the legislation listed in schedules 1 and 3 of the bill will be gone. This bill contains a self-repeal clause unlike the last repeal Act the Statutes Repeal Act 1907 which this Act also repeals. There will be no need for future Acts to repeal this Act once it has done its work. During the Committee stage debate members asked about the effect of repealing other repeal Acts. I would remind the members of the rule in our Interpretation Act 1999 which provides that the repeal of an enactment does not revive an earlier repealed enactment.The Acts repealed by this bill vary substantially in their original purpose and are an interesting reminder of the types of activities regulated throughout New Zealand history. For example this bill repeals the Post Office Act Repeal Act. Not that long ago the Post Office Act regulated the postal market in New Zealand and the New Zealand Post had a monopoly on the delivery of the standard letter. This changed in 1998 with the deregulation of the postal market under the Postal Services Act. Another example of note is the Wheat Board Amendment Act 1986 which dissolved the New Zealand Wheat Board. Prior to this the New Zealand Wheat Board had complete control of the purchase and sale of wheat and flour in New Zealand including quantitative control of all imports of wheat.The bill also repeals some latent legislation. The term latent" is used to describe Acts that were once passed but which have not yet been brought into force—in other words laws that are in legal limbo. This is needed where New Zealand is waiting to ratify certain international instruments or certain prerequisites steps have to be completed first or other related reforms or technological changes need to happen first. Sometimes policy changes mean this legislation is no longer needed. The latent legislation being repealed in this bill includes the Forests Amendment Act 1996 and latent sections of the Fisheries Act 1996 that are no longer required. Repealing this latent legislation will increase certainty for those who are potentially impacted. My colleague the Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson regularly reviews latent legislation to see whether it can be brought into force or repealed. He presents a list of this legislation to Parliament each year.This bill has been through substantial consultation which is the appropriate process for any repeal bill. This has been useful both in finding additional Acts to repeal and in ensuring that no repeals in the bill have had unintended consequences. The exposure draft of the bill was publicly released in late 2015 and responses helped the Government thoroughly consider the bill before its introduction.One submitter expressed concern about the repeal of the Sentencing Council Act 2007 through a statutes repeal bill suggesting that the decision not to establish the sentencing council appears to be a serious constitutional matter. The Sentencing Council Act does not require the sentencing council to be established by a particular date. The Government Administration Committee noted in its commentary that it received advice that the regulatory outcome of the Sentencing Council Act is not relevant because the sentencing council has not been established. The Government announced publicly some years ago its intention to repeal the legislation. Parliament has been free since the Act's commencement to scrutinise the Government's actions and intentions with regard to the Act including through questions to Ministers and scrutiny of appropriations and expenditure. While a separate repeal bill for the Sentencing Council Act would allow more parliamentary time to be devoted to looking at this particular aspect of the bill it would result in substantially more use of Parliament's resources and further delay. It would create uncertainty for the legal community and others.Another question raised in the debate at the Committee stage was whether the repeal in this bill covers every piece of redundant legislation in New Zealand. Well of course it does not. It has not been possible to research every piece of legislation. There are over 1900 Acts in force in New Zealand many of which will be redundant as more Acts outlive their original purpose. Statutory repeal bills are periodically advanced in the UK to repeal obsolete and redundant laws there; this will not be the last in New Zealand. Repealing redundant laws is just one part of the wider work we are doing to improve the quality of law in this country.Departments have the legislative stewardship responsibility that requires them to search and review their legislation to keep it current. Working with departments and agencies on this the Parliamentary Counsel Office is committed to promoting high-quality legislation that is easy to find understand and use. The Government's revision bill programme is part of that work and through this programme old scattered laws are put into accessible and up-to-date form and redundant provisions are found and repealed.In conclusion I do want to thank everyone who has been involved in the process including members of Parliament and particularly the members of the Government Administration Committee; the previous Minister for Regulatory Reform Steven Joyce; the Attorney-General; and those members of the public who have made submissions on this bill. It has been a valuable exercise in trimming down New Zealand's body of legislation—I have thanked the committee and I do thank the committee—making it more up to date and fit for purpose. I do commend this bill to the House."