Bridges Simon: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBridges Simon: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5147. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):I think that there have been some well-made points—at short notice we accept—about having this bill go through the House under urgency. I think that we would all agree it is much better if these bills can optimally go through the select committee process and have serious consideration made over weeks if not months. But we do know here as well I think that this does need to be urgent. We cannot have a situation where people having thought that the speed limits in certain areas were always such now think that they can lodge appeals and the like on the basis that it is OK to be driving that fast on those roads—to be going dangerously fast in many cases. And of course prospectively we need to ensure safety with the utmost urgency as well. I think that in this case the confidence and the safety points trump those other points.Can I say that I also go some way with Denis O’Rourke on his point that the precedent here is that we should not be validating mistakes—leave them to it. Of course we could in a sense in theory do that were it in some area where I think safety was not the case. But I think that in this situation given the seriousness of what we are dealing with—speed limits on our roads where 9½ or 10 out of 10 people travel—we do need to act in this way.Can I just say briefly that I hope I have effectively got all of the points made by Messrs Parker and O’Rourke. The analysis of clauses 8 and 9—Mr Parker’s and I think to some extent Denis O’Rourke’s—is absolutely correct so I accept what they are saying there. I think that on the point about the removal of any doubt and about the amendment that has been put forward by David Parker I understand the point that they are making. I have been in discussion with officials. We maintain that we will be sticking with the words we have because we do think that they are a more accurate summation of what the position is which is that we are not 100 percent certain that the by-law is invalid. That is what this is in relation to. That is correct—the purpose clause.In our legal arguments we believe that we are probably right but we are in a sense being belt and braces and the argument is that we want to be as accurate as we can for the courts of New Zealand which effectively interpret these laws on these points. In a sense part of me says: “Well maybe we could do what the Hon David Parker is saying here.” but I think that this is the position that I have come to in the time that we have got.If we go through clauses 11 and 12 there were comments made about those. In broad terms clause 11 is as I understand from my reading of it about putting this into land transport law where it belongs and about having it as a land transport issue and not some wider local government one. Clause 12 broadly preserves consultation provisions on by-laws which I think we all agree is the right thing to do.I accept some of what Denis O’Rourke and to some extent David Parker are saying on clause 6. I turn just quickly to that provision. I am trying to do justice to the points that they have made because as I say I am conscious that this is a bill that will not have select committee consideration.Hon Member: You’ve got to have faith in this one.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well I am about to go through it. I do not accept the unduly broad point of Denis O’Rourke in the sense that I think there are the provisos the qualifying provisions of clause 6(1)(a) (b) and (c). I think there are other clauses as well. We have talked already actually about the saving of certain legal proceedings and what that is about. I think David Parker makes some very interesting points about the wording in clause 6(1)—“have been lawfully made and to be and always have been valid despite”—and it is possible that he is right. But I am not going to go with him and I want to explain why. I think that in this bill we do need—Hon David Parker: Trust your legal instincts. Exercise your power as Minister.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Then we might be back here Mr Parker and that is not what I want. We can accept to some extent that some of this bill could be with another month more felicitously worded. Jane Austen could have been proud of it. But we have gone through it very carefully. We think that it does the job and provides the certainty and the safety that is required. We do not think that it has unintended consequences. I think that in terms of those phrases—and actually clause 6(2) which I think the member has raised—we are necessarily I think taking a belt and braces approach to this because I think we can all agree that we do not want to be back here. We do want to fix a position that has been created where by-laws have been created they have not been reviewed and on that basis have been revoked. We do want to make sure that the public of New Zealand has absolute certainty today and is absolutely safe and that the speed limits in the towns and cities that they live in are what they say on the signs.I accept the good contributions made and the spirit in which they have been made which is in good faith and I think with some learning but I think that we want to take a belt and braces approach that passes this law and keeps New Zealand safe.