Flavell Te Ururoa: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14794] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. The Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) is another one of the buffet of bills that come within the context of minor technical and non-controversial amendments to existing legislation as other members have talked about. I sometimes wonder why we bother to look at them when they are such minor adjustments. I would be interested in learning from members who have been here for ever and a day about the real value of these statute amendments coming into the Chamber rather than being done by other methods. Some suggest say an Order in Council but I leave that for others to consider. That aside the fact that some proposed amendments do not hit the table because they have been vetoed by parties tells us that this kind of bill might be an efficient way of dealing with what we might say are straightforward pieces of legislation. 
Having said all that I say there are some issues of interest here that the Maori Party is pleased to put forward for debate. In the first instance the amendments in Part 1 to the Biosecurity Act 1993 will enable deputy chief technical officers to appoint inspectors authorised persons and accredited persons. That means in effect that they are able to delegate some of their functions. It is interesting that this provision is being discussed today in light of the major risks that have become apparent to the local and national $200 million mussel industry following the defouling of the Ocean Patriot oil rig in Tasman Bay last December. As a result of that fiasco bio-fouling was carried out within the 12-nautical-mile boundary in Tasman Bay. The issue I raised in question time today was that asked by iwi of Tasman Bay—namely Ngati Rarua Ngati Koata Ngati Tama Ngati Rarua-Atiawa Iwi Trust and the Wakatu Incorporation—and it is all around accountability. They want to know regardless of whether the oil rig was being de-fouled inside or outside New Zealand territorial waters who is responsible for the clean-up to prevent the potential biosecurity risk from  
Perna perna 
—the potentially invasive South African brown mussel. 
The question that is raised in my mind by this Statutes Amendment Bill is whether the delegation of some functions under the Biosecurity Act will actually do anything to address the obvious flaws in the low level of biosecurity standards required for the aquacultural industry. Will the amendment to enable deputy chief technical officers to appoint inspectors authorised persons and accredited persons have any impact on the aquacultural sector or will they be allocated to and work within the boundaries of the horticultural and agricultural sectors only? 
Keeping with that Minister Jim Anderton another set of amendments in this bill to remove the requirement to gazette the Minister’s notification of fish stock or species ceasing to be subject to a moratorium seems to be a more logical position than the current arrangements. The amendments to the Fisheries Act 1996 require that such stock or species will cease to be subject to a moratorium from the start of the fishing year rather than the date of the Minister’s notification of the decision in the  
Gazette 
. The fishing year date would by all estimates be far more meaningful to fishermen than a randomly selected publication date of the printed  
Gazette 
. 
We are very pleased to support the amendment to the Crimes Act 1961 which has been referred to by other members. It will remove an outdated reference to the death penalty which was repealed in 1989. There seems to me to be some irony in that this amendment will pass through this House with barely a murmur whereas another amendment to repeal section 59 of the same Act which dealt with the hitting of our tamariki created enormous reaction—reaction that still is generating some heat judging by the petition being promoted by various lobby groups. In fact so hotly debated was that particular amendment that Parliament agreed that the law would be reviewed after 2 years and it appears that every Government department in town is gathering information to be ready to be assessed and evaluated. 
The other interesting amendment perhaps is that relating to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. This amendment updates the definition of “videotape” to “video record” in line with the Evidence Act 2006 definition which allows for digital video recording. Well that is all well and good but I cannot help but think that in light of some of the changes we were discussing today in relation to the Broadcasting Act the impact and influence of digital platforms and new technologies would have meant the definition was expanded to also include say DVDs and CDs. 
I was reflecting today as we celebrate the fact that as stated by my colleague Mr Hone Harawira on this day 11 March in 1987 the Maori Language Act declared Maori an official language in Aotearoa on the advancements that have been taking place in the revitalisation of te reo rangatira that absolutely demonstrate the power of information technology at its best. We can download Maori language lessons and linguistic interpretations. Some of our more innovative tertiary institutions promote language use through distributing CDs and DVDs. Last year two of our talented young leaders Potaua and Nikolasa Biasiny-Tule directed a team of volunteers from around Aotearoa in translating Google search pages into a Maori language option. Te Ara Poutama of Auckland University of Technology has trialled te reo Maori on an iPod. We can access Microsoft Office and Windows in te reo Maori. In other words almost anything literally is possible. 
Speaking about te reo I briefly congratulate Jemma an air hostess on my Air New Zealand flight this morning on welcoming and farewelling all passengers in Maori and taking real care with her pronunciation of Maori names. It was really refreshing to have someone consider the pronunciation of Maori names. It is something pretty simple yet so many cannot be bothered. Kei runga noa atu koe Jemma—too much. I promise that the Maori party is not receiving any political sponsorship for this—although we are very happy to—but if one goes to a BNZ ATM machine one can now choose te reo Maori as an option. Ka rawe ne? Awesome! 
Let me get back to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). The other point I want to raise is in relation to the amendments to the Historic Places Act 1993 that set out procedures for dealing with extraordinary vacancies on the trust board. The trust is governed by a board of trustees comprising nine members six of whom are appointed by the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. It is a board of high calibre including in the current membership Te Aue Davis Merata Kawharu Tumu te Heuheu and Judith Binney—a very impressive line up I would have to say. Although we understand the rationale behind specifying procedures for dealing with extraordinary vacancies we are interested in some of the wider context to this amendment. We support the concept of inserting those procedures into that Act but merely wonder whether provision for vacancies created by death resignation or removal from office is included in legislation for other such boards. I just ask that question. 
The Maori Party is happy to support this bill going forward.