Ardern Jacinda: Statutes Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Statutes Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8333] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure as a member of the Regulations Review Committee to speak to the Statutes Amendment Bill. My first experience of working with such omnibus bills—which are a means of correcting anomalies or errors in the law—was when I was a staffer in this place under the last Labour Government. I went through the process and I know that it is key when working with such omnibus bills to ensuring that the amendments are non-controversial. That is required almost by their very nature and the way that the Standing Orders allow them to be dealt with. They also must be widely consulted on and there must be consensus across the House for the amendments contained in the bill. It was certainly my experience as a staffer having to consult a wide range of parties and those interested on both sides of the House that it is in the interests of this House to make sure the amendments are non-controversial and fall within the correct criteria the scope of the Standing Orders as to how such bills are to be treated and the kinds of amendments contained in them. 
I think we need to assess the Statutes Amendment Bill with that in mind and I thought it might be useful to review the kinds of criteria that the Standing Orders expect this House to keep in mind when deciding whether we are looking at non-controversial and non-contentious policy changes. As I think my colleague Lianne Dalziel might have already pointed out the criteria are set out in the Standing Orders. Standing Order 258(1)(f) states that Statutes Amendment bills must consist entirely of amendments to Acts so they therefore must be omnibus bills. Then we see in Standing Order 295 the true reason probably why they need to be non-controversial. Standing Order 295(2) states: “If any member objects to a clause standing part of a Statutes Amendment Bill (or of a bill that was formerly part of a Statutes Amendment Bill) the clause is struck out of the bill.” I think that is a very pragmatic reason why the amendments need to be non-controversial and not substantive when it comes to a policy change. 
Keeping that in mind I think that the Opposition is right to point out those areas where we will be looking for further explanation and exploration of various elements of this bill. I do think that some of them as Charles Chauvel has pointed out border on the substantive side. I think it is right that Labour has decided to support the amendments contained in the bill but to reserve the right to reconsider any of those individual amendments once they reach the select committee and of course again in the Committee of the whole House. We reserve the right to withdraw our support for those amendments. 
I noted that the last speaker from the Maori Party touched on the change in the definition of “foreshore” in the National Parks Act 1980. Given the current debate that is going on around the future of the foreshore and seabed legislation I think it is pertinent that we point out again that this could well have ramifications for that and it is very important that the select committee consider that when it looks at that particular amendment. 
Currently the National Parks Act refers to the definition contained in the Harbours Act 1950 which has been repealed. The new definition is “any land covered and uncovered by the flow and ebb of the tide at mean spring tides”. Our previous speakers have expressed concern that that will have unintended consequences in light of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. I note that we have been given some reassurance by the Associate Minister of Justice and by the Attorney-General that it will not have a direct effect but given that this is a period of fluid policy discussion I think it is important that we flag that we will be reserving our right to reconsider that. 
There has already been some discussion around the amendment to section 9 of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act which I want to touch on briefly. It is questionable as to whether this amendment is bordering on a substantive policy change given that it allows a parent to be unavailable at the signing of a birth registration form. Although it may well be a sensible amendment it is questionable as to whether it is substantive and in fact a policy change of sorts. We have also touched on some of the amendments to the Conservation Act which we would like to look at a little more closely at the select committee. 
There are several other concerns and they are in relation to the Juries Amendment Act 2008 the Marriage Act the Property Law Act the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act and the Building Act and I am pleased my colleague Charles Chauvel has raised those issues. Quite rightly and in the spirit of the way Statutes Amendment bills work in this House he has raised them directly with the Minister with responsibility for this bill. It is in good faith that we operate on these bills and it is very important that we maintain the conventions of this House in the way we deal with Statutes Amendment bills. A further 38 Acts are to be amended by this bill and we have no objection to those amendments. Some of my colleagues may have already touched on that but I think it is important to point out that although we are highlighting a few there are in fact 38 Acts that we see no issue with. 
I am pleased to continue to be involved as a member of the Regulations Review Committee and the Justice and Electoral Committee in the further consideration of this Statutes Amendment Bill and I am pleased so far at the open discussion that has occurred on some of the areas where we have concerns. I hope that both sides of this House continue to act in good faith as we consider how best to progress matters in this bill that are non-contentious and those that may on further examination prove to be. 
Bill read a first time.