Curran ClareCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I am pleased to take a brief call on the Statutes Repeal Bill. I have listened quite carefully to the debate particularly around clause 4—schedule 2. I think Chris Hipkins has made a very good point around the issue—that this is supposed to be a repeal bill so why are we having insertions.I have gone back and had a look at the first reading Hansard notes on this bill to see what the Minister the Hon Steven Joyce—is he still the Minister for Regulatory Reform? I am not sure. Anyway he talked for most his speech about the fact that this bill repeals 132 Acts and what percentage that is of legislation etc. etc. There is a one-liner he gave around clause 4—what we are debating at the moment—where he said that schedule 2 saves important provisions from a small number of the Acts being repealed to avoid adverse effects on some parties.I have just been having a look at what is in schedule 2 and I have got a few questions for the Minister in the chair Nicky Wagner as to what the adverse effects are in this part of the bill from the Unauthorised use of King George the Fifth Memorial Children's Health Camps Federation emblem" in new section 20AAA(4). I note that new section 20AAA(4)—this is an amendment to the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981—actually inserts a fine of not exceeding $2000 for the unlawful use of the emblem of the foundation. I just wonder whether we are able to hear a little bit about what the unauthorised use is and what the impacts of that would be because I presume that there must have been some unauthorised use of the emblem of the King George the Fifth Memorial Children's Health Camps Federation for this quite considerable insertion to be in this Statutes Repeal Bill.Then we have got the Auckland Harbour Bridge and the definitions around that which my colleagues have talked about. In particular in schedule 2 new section 87B of the Government Roading Powers Act talks about the Auckland Harbour Bridge being "properly lighted". I would have actually thought that it should be "lit" just as a grammar suggestion. I wonder whether there has been an issue and an adverse effect from the Auckland Harbour Bridge not being properly lit which has required there be an insertion into this part of a repeals bill as to the fact that it should be properly lit.There seem to be some sensible provisions following that around installing maintaining or repairing water mains or power or telecommunication lines wires or cables without the consent of the agency. Again it seems to be an odd place to put a provision like this—would that not already be in legislation? Clearly it is not. Then we go to the Public Works Act and despite the repeal of the Southland Electricity Act we have to have an insertion of a provision in here about the Southland Electricity Act. It sort of seems to go around in circles that clause. So I am just wondering what the adverse effect is that has resulted in that clause being inserted into this Statutes Repeal Bill.It would be useful if Minister Wagner was able to explain to us why we are having insertions into a repeal bill. It is almost half the bill actually—these insertions. I note that Minister Steven Joyce did refer to it and he referred to adverse effects. It would be useful if there could be some explanation from Minister Wagner given that we are discussing this in the Chamber in the Committee Stage as to what those adverse effects are."