Volume 686 Week 30 - Wednesday 5 December 2012(continued on Thursday 6 December 2012) 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 686 Week 30 - Wednesday 5 December 2012(continued on Thursday 6 December 2012) 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7223. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 5 December 2012 
( 
continued on Thursday 6 December 2012 
) 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Second Reading 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time 
. The Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) is an omnibus bill designed to provide a legislative vehicle for minor technical and non-controversial amendments existing—well you all know this stuff. The current bill contains amendments to 16 Acts of Parliament administered by five different Government agencies. It consists of 87 clauses in total. The bill is a good example of parliamentary parties working together and I thank members from across the House who have engaged in the process and will be supporting it forthwith. 
I would like to touch on a couple of key things the bill does. Part 8 of the bill amends the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 to establish two Deputy Legal Complaints Review Officers in schedule 3 of the Act instead of one deputy. The increase in the number of deputies from one to two will assist the current officers in managing the caseload. 
An amendment to the Heavy Engineering Research Levy Act 1978 will keep members on the edge of their seats. It will increase the maximum prescribed rates of research levy set out in schedules 2 and 3 of the Act. These increases will ensure that the levy rates are sufficient to cover the cost of the research and technology transfer services the levies are intended to fund. This amendment is particularly important as the levies contribute towards essential research into the effect of the Christchurch earthquake on steel-framed buildings. 
An amendment to section 100(2)(b) of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 will increase the number of members additional to the chairperson who may be appointed to the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal from four to five. An increase in the number of members who may be appointed to the tribunal will allow more hearings to be held and improve timeliness. 
The bill was reported back by the Government Administration Committee on 19 June and I thank the committee for its careful deliberations. The committee has recommended improvements to Parts 2 13 and 15 of the bill and I endorse those changes. An example of those changes are changes to the amendments to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. These changes make clarifications around the timing of custody orders to resolve conflicts between changes made to section 108 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. 
Since the bill was referred to the committee for its consideration in February this year I have received requests for and approved the inclusion of four additional amendments in the bill. It has also come to my attention that two of the amendments originally proposed for inclusion in the bill are now no longer needed—the first because it relates to a point in time that has passed and the second because the amendment has progressed through another bill. I intend to move to include these amendments and remove the latter two amendments by way of Supplementary Order Paper 165 at the Committee of the whole House stage. These amendments include minor corrections to the NgatiPorou Claims Settlement Act and the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Act 2008. 
The Supplementary Order Paper also proposes amendments to the New Zealand Geographic Board (NgaPouTaunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008 which I am sure we will hear more about from the Hon Maurice Williamson shortly. It clarifies that the New Zealand Geographic Board can assign two or more names for the same geographic feature or Crown-protected area which can be used either separately or together in official documents. 
I would like to speak on that for a moment as it affects the naming of the city of Whanganui the principal location of a population in my electorate. Some people would prefer to say “Fanganui” and to those people who prefer to say “Fanganui” rather than “Wanganui” we say: “Get the ‘f’ out of Whanganui.” The dialect locally in Whanganui and in Taranaki of course puts the “h” before the “w” in the way that they pronounce it. The argument then which was pretty hot around the city of Whanganui and greater regions funnily enough seems to be one of the most frequently asked questions of the member for Whanganui which is: “So is it ‘Fanganui’ or is it ‘Wanganui’?”. And if you really want to annoy people from Whanganui Mr Deputy Speaker as you found the other night at Bellamy’s just start pronouncing it with an “f” instead of putting the “h” before the “w”. 
The argument seems to suggest though that we should have different spellings around the country depending on accent and dialect. Taking that to its logical or illogical conclusion we would end up by having a different spelling in the South Island where NgaiTahu pronounce their “ng” as a “k”. Tuhoe sometimes pronounce the “r” as an “n” and Tai Tokerau drop the “w” so Whanganui would be “Hanganui”. Then Te Arawa Tainui and Tai Rawhiti prefer a hard “f” sound for the “wh” as noted above. We should not find— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How does Hansard write all this down? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: They are good—they are good. I will tell you what they are better than you or I ever said they were. We should find this a major affront. If we do not insist that the “ ’ammer ’and from ’Ampsted ’Eath” spell it accordingly then we should take cognisance of the fact that dialects do not necessarily have to be reflected to pay due diligence to their users. 
I speak as somebody whose name is Borrows which in the common English meaning of the word means to scrounge or more politely to take on loan. It is pronounced as it is spelt. But it does not seem to stop the vast majority of constituents politicians and correspondents spelling it and pronouncing it “Burrows” like the rabbit. So most of my mail is addressed to “Burrows” as are newspaper attributions and references of the radio and television announcers. Telecom has me in the book under both spellings because it cannot get it right. Leaders of various political parties and even the Prime Minister have a bit of trouble sometimes pronouncing the name correctly. They are all intelligent and articulate people and we do not hold it against them that they happen to pronounce one name a particular way let alone how they would pronounce Whanganui. 
The bill proposes a number of useful changes to the statute book that are minor technical and non-controversial. I thank the committee for its hard work. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition intends to support the second reading of this bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3). We will have a discussion about the level of detail with which we will examine it at the Committee stage. With the late changes and the errors of work on the part of the Attorney-General in his previous work there will be a discussion about whether we allow those clauses to go forward. My colleagues will no doubt do some consultation over the next 2 or 3 hours before we get to those particular votes in the Committee stage. 
I think it is worth putting on record though that this piece of legislation looks like it will go through its entire process as part of an extended sitting. It is an indication to me that where there is legislation that is non-controversial there is an opportunity for a bit of extra time to be taken while select committees are sitting and to progress that legislation in a way that is useful to the House and does not take away time that would otherwise be used for debating matters that would be controversial and which the Opposition would want to oppose. 
I know the Attorney-General is a bit sensitive about it. He did not like the idea of two Chambers sitting at once—or the Committee sitting while the House is sitting—from some sort of puritanical perspective. But in the end the National Government overruled him and accepted this process and I am pleased it is working well. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a quick call on this Statutes Amendment Bill. I want to focus only on the one issue for which a lot of my time was consumed and that was the issue that arose 3 years ago now I would say out of the city of Wanganui where a lot of my ancestry the Williamson family all came from. As you leave Marton heading into Wanganui there is a road called Williamsons Line. I had almost a sort of a conflict of interest because I have a lot of aunties and uncles who lived in the area. They were pretty angry on one side of the debate. When I met with local iwi and talked it through they were pretty strongly minded on the other side of the debate that Wanganui actually had an “h” in it for a long time. The electorate that Chester Borrows represents has an “h” in it the river has an “h” in it already but the town does not. 
The iwi showed me a lot of historic documents and I even found a book written by an ancestor of mine from the Williamsons three or four generations back called  
For Better or Worse 
 talking about when they arrived in the area. They spelt the whole place with an “h” back then. Even the local newspaper had an “h” in the Whanganui. So what seemed to me was like this was a huge issue. There were locals who were almost going to secede from the union if we put an “h” in and there were the local iwi and others who believed that the “h” was actually that vital to go in—even though the local iwi with its pronunciation does not pronounce it as an “f” when it is pronounced “wh”. To those of you who have heard Tariana Turia speak in the House she would call it “w’anau” whereas most Maori I hear would call it “whanau”. It is just the way that the pronunciation goes in Whanganui. 
So if you are not even going to pronounce it with an “f” there are a lot of people asking why you need to put it in. But I have never seen such emotional commitment from the local iwi. A lot of the elderly ladies who were there had tears in their eyes saying they felt it was that important to them. I came away from my consultation round saying look this has got to be a bit of a no-brainer. Why do we not just let people do whatever they want? The Government can do its bit—that over time as stationery runs out or new signage needs to go up or the district health board needs new signing on its vans we can stick the “h” in no problem. And when the road signs need to be replaced we can stick the “h” in. So the Government could do its bit. But if you are a private sector company and you want to call yourself the Wanganui Hardware Distributing Company you do not have to. So I came back here full of the joys of spring and thought I had got this nailed and that we would just go with the alternative. You can have it in or you do not have to have it in and gradually I think over time the “h” will become prevalent. I think it will just happen but it will be by osmosis over time. 
I got with my officials and they said: “But Minister there’s no statute on the book that allows you to have alternative place names.” And I said: “But there is. There’s Egmont/Taranaki and there’s Aoraki/Mt Cook.” They said: “No no sorry Minister you’re wrong. They’re dual place names.” So you could go with dual—there is a provision in the New Zealand Geographic Board legislation for dual naming. You could call it Whanganui/Wanganui and that really made a lot of sense. We would call it a double Whanganui but one would have an “h” and one would not. So I said: “Well look why don’t we get something into the New Zealand Geographic Board legislation or the New Zealand Geographic Board (NgaPouTaunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008 which says that we can have alternatives—one or the other.” I thought that was pretty easy and we asked how we would do this. We could do it through its own bill but that will hardly get through the House. It will not be seen as that important and will sit at the bottom of the Order Paper and languish. Or let us stick it through a Statutes Amendment Bill. It will be non-controversial. Well was I wrong! I was unable to persuade the Greens for nearly 2 years. I sat down with the Greens. I got Tariana Turia to work with the Greens— 
Todd McClay 
: For 2 years? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I did not sit with them for 2 years no but I did sit over a period of time and I tried to persuade the Greens. I could not quite understand what their objection was. I did not know why they would not go with alternative names. The good news is that the Greens have now come onside as they have to for a Statutes Amendment Bill. For those thousands or hundreds of thousands of people listening to the radio this morning on this show you need to know that for a Statutes Amendment Bill to go through this place it has to have universal agreement—unanimous agreement. If anyone disagrees it does not get through. 
So it is a really special moment in time for me. It will not be my finest hour in politics but it is still a special hour to have been part of the culmination of a huge amount of work to be able to come here and sit through the second reading the Committee stage and finally a third reading hopefully today of this bill. The people of Whanganui can now rest easy in their beds at night. Those who do not want to use an “h” do not have to; no one is going to make them. Those who do can whenever they like formally. And Government agencies will now be able to begin. I have given them a very clear directive not to just go out and replace everything tomorrow—no need—but over time to replace their letterhead replace their stationery replace their signage as it gets broken or is requiring replacement and put the “h” in. And now the river the electorate and finally actually the place name will have the coherence that I think local iwi wanted. I thank the House for its time. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As the previous member on his feet Maurice Williamson indicated these Statutes Amendment bills have a special place in the Standing Orders of the House. They are an annual exercise. They are reserved for non-controversial and technical amendments for which there must be unanimity in the House before they can proceed. Standing Order 301(2) provides that if any member of the House objects to any clause in any one of these types of bills then the clause cannot proceed. That is why the Associate Minister of Justice Mr Borrows consults over each of these provisions in advance with all the political parties represented in the House to try to ascertain which proposals from Ministers for these types of technical and non-controversial amendments can go through on that basis. Typically what happens is that the relevant spokespeople will get a folder of those proposals from Mr Borrows’ office and be asked to consult with their spokespeople inside their parties as to whether the amendments truly are technical and non-controversial. 
 I think it is fair to say that the majority of proposals are approved but obviously if any member takes objection on the basis that there are policy considerations that ought to be more fully debated by the House then the proposal comes out. There are other ways that other Parliaments deal with these types of amendments. The Commonwealth Parliament of Australia has a Main Committee that has the powers of the House but which effectively sits separately from the House in order to deal with non-controversial legislation. I think that is an innovation that has been considered here but not yet adopted. It seems at least to date that we have been able to deal with these sorts of things through this procedure. 
I do just want to do something that I thought the Associate Minister of Justice might have done and that is briefly mention each of the pieces of legislation that are to be amended by this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3). I think it is as well for there to be some record in  
Hansard 
 of what the House actually proposes to do today. There are 16 statutes that this bill would amend—first of all the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. Section 38 of that legislation which is the Act that implements our international obligations to ensure that in our banking and financial system there are safeguards around money laundering and the use of bank deposits and other financial instruments for the purposes of terrorism would be amended to make it clear that both the customer and his or her representative if any must have their identity verified to set up an unnamed account or other facility. The regulation-making power in the Act would be amended so that the ability to declare an entity or class of entities to be a designated business group for the purpose of the Act does not require specifying the composition of the business group. It is a good example of why this sort of thing can be dealt with in this type of legislation. It is entirely non-controversial and sensible and giving better effect to the legislation itself given some 3 years of experience with the legislation working in practice. 
The next Act that the bill would amend is the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. There is a protective provision proposed to be inserted where custody orders that are currently made under that Act expire automatically when a child reaches the age of 17. This provision would extend that out to the age of 18 by way of an automatic expiry. So there is a protection effectively conferred for those who are aged 17 and subject to such an order. Again that was clearly seen as something non-controversial and sensible by way of better making that legislation work. It is interesting to note that the Government Administration Committee clarified when it dealt with the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) that such orders would expire at the age of 18 unless they are specified to expire earlier. So there was that clarification by the committee and I believe that is going to be approved by the House. 
The next piece of legislation to be amended is the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act 1988. There is a provision for the refund of excess anti-dumping duty paid. That is obviously a sensible provision. If somebody is subject to a penalty under the anti-dumping legislation which again is legislation that implements our international obligations in the trade context then there obviously ought to be a power to refund an improperly levied duty. 
Then the Electricity Industry Act 2010 will be clarified to make it clear that it is on the recommendation of the Minister of Consumer Affairs that the Governor-General makes regulations under section 111 of the Act. That relates to who can be exempted by way of class from the dispute resolution system that is set up by that Act. It was not clear in the original legislation which particular Minister whether it was the Minister of Energy and Resources or somebody else ought to be advising the Governor-General about regulations creating exemptions. 
 Then the Gas Act 1992 would be amended so that the definitions of “distribution system” and “gas distributor” would be changed so as to take account of bypass distribution networks so that a person that is not only a distributor but also a retailer that provides line function services to itself effectively by that dual role that they play in the industry and then sells those services as part of a bundled service supplied to a consumer is actually brought within the definition of a “gas distributor”. Again a sensible and technical amendment. 
The bill also provides for the enforcement of the dispute resolution scheme to continue. Even if a person formerly subject to the scheme leaves it they none the less can be subject to the dispute resolution scheme. 
The Heavy Engineering Research Levy Act 1978 will be amended to increase the maximum prescribed rates of research levy from $5 to $20 per tonne of goods and from 5c per kilogram to 10c per kilogram of goods. That is a very sensible amendment and it will have the effect of increasing funding for research and development which is something that certainly members on this side of the House would like to see. 
The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006—at the moment there is only one Deputy Legal Complaints Review Officer in the complaints mechanism scheme that is set up by that Act. This amendment would allow for a second Deputy Legal Complaints Review Officer to be appointed. Obviously that will assist to speed up the resolution of complaints under the scheme by allowing the burden and workload to be shared. Again an amendment to be supported. 
Then there are some local government amendments—one two three four in total. They in turn amend list tax areas for groups of territorial authorities to clarify that the Auckland Council is the distribution authority for its area. In relation to Christchurch they are removing the antiquated reference to the Banks Peninsula district local authority which no longer exists. There are some consequential amendments overlooked in other legislation and then there is some legislation relating to the Auckland Council specifically. It provides that the Auckland Council cannot dispose of certain property before the close of 30 July 2012 with a current rating valuation of a quarter of a million dollars or more. The current rating valuation is replaced with the term “current market value”. 
The Real Estate Agents Act will be amended so that those licensees who have had their licences cancelled voluntarily in the 5 years preceding the time of the application are not prohibited from being re-licensed. The Residential Tenancies Act would be amended to basically provide that every registrar and deputy registrar of the District Court is also a registrar of the tribunal and there are some consequential amendments relating to that provision. The Social Security Act 1964 will have the definition of “work-test married rate” amended. Finally the amendment to the Veterinarians Act 2005 will extend the expiry date of existing practising certificates for applicants for new practising certificates until the application for the new certificate is determined. They are sensible amendments and we have the Government’s Supplementary Order Papers one dividing the bill and the other amending the Geographic Board legislation which we have heard much about the NgatiPorou Claims Settlement Act which is outdated now because of other legislation that has passed and ditto the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Act 2008. For the reasons I have outlined which are that these are technical sensible amendments they will have the support of the Labour Opposition. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I was not expecting to be taking this call at this particular minute. I thought that the Government might take a call after my colleague Charles Chauvel’s extensive traversing through the detail of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3). I am certainly very pleased that he has managed to get through such a significant number of different provisions that are addressed in the legislation. 
While he was speaking though I did actually have cause to reflect on the particular change that is proposed to the spelling of a word in the Dog Control Act 1996. I actually found it quite extraordinary because I could not quite understand why we were omitting the word “thar”—and I presume it is pronounced as “thar”—and substituting the word “tahr”. When I looked it up on the internet I discovered that in fact “thar” is an alternative spelling for “tahr” so it may in fact be— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Yep. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well according to Wikipedia it is so that may not be a very good source but in both instances the reference to the word is indeed to a Himalayan mountain goat. I think the Deputy Speaker who is in the chair would certainly agree with that. And given that that conclusion was drawn from the same reference that accepted the alternative spelling then that may in fact be correct. I am obviously going to have to do some further research on the matter—not that it is going to be of much import when this legislation is passed because we will be instating the correct spelling the accepted spelling. In fact this is the spelling that is accepted on the Department of Conservation website. 
What I also discovered in my analysis while my colleague was going through such a detailed analysis of the other parts—I really wanted to pick a part that he had not dealt with—was that in fact there is an entire tahr control plan dating back to 1993. I suspect that the Deputy Speaker himself has some knowledge of this given where this is in relation to. Then I discovered in fact that the tahr creates significant threats to sensitive alpine and sub-alpine plant communities and that there is a tahr eradication programme that actually involves inviting people to come and shoot tahr in our country so it is also part of our visitor programme as well. 
Charles Chauvel 
: In Whanganui it’s pronounced “taarr”. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Thank you Mr Chauvel. But what I have not got to the bottom of yet is why it is in the Dog Control Act 1996. So that is a little mystery. 
I hope that my sharing of the controversy surrounding the correct spelling of the word “tahr” has in fact added some levity to an otherwise potentially dull piece of legislation. But the reason seriously that I wanted to take a call is really to back up what my colleague said in relation to the importance of Statutes Amendment bills. The reason I mention this is that legislation can take up an awfully long time in the House particularly when we are coming back to amend things that are relatively minor technical amendments that people agree to. The Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) as a process is an omnibus bill that is accepted as an omnibus bill because it has the unanimous support of Parliament. I think that is its strength and it enables us to actually deal with technical amendments that are relatively minor and things that are not controversial but may be significant. But if they are not controversial and there is essentially that unanimity about the need to deal with things then the Statutes Amendment Bill process is a great opportunity for that. 
Statutes Amendment bills are not the only exception to the omnibus bill rule which does not allow for omnibus bills unless there is that common theme. We have a couple of others as well. I have championed what was then known as the Regulatory Improvement Bill. That became the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. Again that is picking up a commonality of theme. They might be somewhat more controversial and they may not be the technical amendments that can be dealt with in Statutes Amendment bills but in fact they are all elements of improving the regulatory framework where there is substantial agreement around the House in order to deal with these matters. Having been a Minister of Commerce I can tell the House how frustrating it is to get ministerial colleagues to agree to prioritise something in their work programme when it is a minor amendment but one that might have such a major impact for improving the regulatory framework. 
 I will just use one example of something that could not fit within the scope of a Statutes Amendment Bill but could fit within the scope of a Regulatory Improvement Bill if it had been around at the time. That was an amendment to the sale of liquor legislation that would have allowed for people operating in an environment where they were not dealing with the public. I am thinking of one of our very large wineries up in the Hawke’s Bay and the owner of that winery. Because of I think an oversight of Parliament in 1989 when the Wine Makers Act was disestablished by the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 a relatively open regulatory framework a relatively simple regulatory framework for winemakers was suddenly overtaken by the very detailed provisions of the Sale of Liquor Act which then had only four licences. I think that that was problematic in terms of imposing a set of regulatory requirements on top of a regime that was never intended for that purpose. A very well-established winemaker who was not serving wine to the public and who was not selling it at the cellar door ended up in a regime where he had to have a liquor licence and a manager’s certificate. Even the district licensing authority said “Why are we seeing you in front of us for authorisation for this purpose?”. That is when we realised that there was a significant problem in the legislation. 
Getting that on to the agenda of the justice ministry was hugely challenging because we were just about to enter into some regulatory reform around the sale of liquor. This is going back to 2007. At the end of 2007 or really at the beginning of 2008 I was given the role of Associate Minister of Justice with responsibility for sale of liquor legislation and the priorities of the ministry were changed. The point I am making is that it is hugely challenging to meet the requirements of Parliament to bring matters to the House as a Minister when you are competing against all of the other urgent attentions that can exist. 
So I just really want to endorse the process of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) that we are debating this morning but also say that there does need to be room for flexibility around omnibus bills. I think that it is possibly time for Parliament to revisit this issue again. The reason I say that is that the original prohibition on omnibus bills covering multiple Acts dates back to the 1980s when it was a process that was abused. A former Prime Minister of this country Sir Geoffrey Palmer wrote a book called  
Unbridled Power 
 and part of the unbridled power was actually in relation to the fact that the omnibus bill technique was used to cover for massive changes that were never communicated to the public such as the Social Security Amendment Bill that contained massive benefit cuts and all sorts of other things or a finance bill a finance measure that would in fact cover many many pieces of legislation. So I am a great supporter of omnibus bills. I do think they need to be constrained so they are not abused but I think that the Statutes Amendment Bill process is one that has really stood the test of time. I am very pleased that this bill is going to be completing all of its stages today. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise to take a short call on the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3). Statutes Amendment bills have been a feature of the New Zealand system for many many years. As previous speakers have said the bills are legislative vehicles for minor technical and non-controversial amendments to existing statutes. 
This bill amends 16 Acts administered by eight different departments. The Government Administration Committee received and considered four submissions from interested groups and individuals. The interesting thing among all of the 16 Acts was the issue of the Residential Tenancies Act of 1986. The current law is that each office of the Tenancy Tribunal has a registrar who is the registrar of the nearest District Court or an employee of the Ministry of Justice designated by the chief executive. This bill now provides that every registrar and deputy registrar of the District Court is also a registrar of the tribunal. Apart from that looking at the issue of the public the current law is that application must be made to the “appropriate” office of the tribunal but this bill makes the change so that application can be made at any office of the tribunal making it easier for the public to make their applications. 
Another change is the increase in the number of members on the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal from four to five in addition to the chair to allow more hearings and improve the process. 
We need to keep laws up to date and we need to keep the law user-friendly and this bill does that. I commend it to the House. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all with reference to the comments of Chester Borrows concerning getting the “f” out of Wanganui or not as the case may be there is certainly a need for flexibility with regard to the adoption of place names and their spelling. I remember that a long time ago—well actually not all that long ago—when I was a student we had a lecturer from the UK who during a number of lectures was required to refer to the names of a number of towns in New Zealand with Maori names. When he got to Wanganui he pronounced it as “Wanger-newie” which resulted in howls of laughter and derision from the students present. But he persisted with his very individual pronunciations of New Zealand place names and in the end we all just accepted that and got on with it. 
That shows that we do need flexibility in this country as to how we name places officially and how they are pronounced. In fact there is often more than one name or more than one version of a name for a place in this country and I am aware that on the West Coast there are places with indeed several names commonly used. I believe that that arises from the fact that some places were actually named after local pubs of which there were often more than one in the location. Of course they were also often the founding establishment of the place the name applied to so that shows again that we do need flexibility. As far as I am concerned I do not mind whether there are several official names for one place or several official versions of them. 
New Zealand First supports the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) and I do not wish to debate any of the matters of substance in it or indeed to go through the bill part by part. Most of these provisions are pretty common-sense stuff. I note for example that in the amendment to the Electoral Act 1993 clause 58 amends section 127A to allow a party secretary submitting a list of candidates for election to list seats to pay the required deposit by direct credit and clause 59 makes a similar amendment to section 146F to allow a party secretary lodging a bulk nomination schedule of constituency candidates to pay the required deposit by direct credit. This is pretty common-sense stuff; the sort of thing that you would have expected would already be possible. Indeed I am aware that the Justice and Electoral Committee is looking at a number of minor issues just like that at the present time. 
So that is the sort of thing that we are looking at here and they are mostly of a technical nature or of a minor nature and are appropriate for an omnibus bill of this kind. So for all those reasons New Zealand First will vote for the bill and also for the two Supplementary Order Papers that have been proposed by Mr Borrows. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 Statutes Amendment bills are annual bills that oil the process of legislation and provide oil for a legislative vehicle for minor technical and non-controversial amendments to existing statutes. They can be debated only with support across the House and it is pertinent at this stage to recognise the huge amount of cooperation that goes on behind the scenes in Parliament—a fact that is often overlooked if the public concentrates on the theatre of question time in the House. There is a lot of cooperation that goes on in the House and this bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) is one of those shining examples. Bills such as this allow Parliament to keep the law up to date accurate and user-friendly. We have already heard in great detail from Mr Charles Chauvel on the individual matters canvassed by this particular amendment bill. I do not propose to peruse the matter further. I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: What I intend doing here is to put the question on each part but if there is objection then the question on that part will not be put. 
Part 1 agreed to.  
Part 2 agreed to.  
Part 3 agreed to.  
Part 4 agreed to.  
Part 5 agreed to.  
Part 6 agreed to.  
Part 7 agreed to.  
Part 8 agreed to.  
Part 9 agreed to.  
Part 10 Local Government Act 2002 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Chester Borrows to clause 56 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 10 as amended agreed to. 
Part 11 agreed to.  
Part 12 Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Chester Borrows to clause 61 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 12 as amended agreed to. 
New Part 12A New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha  o Aotearoa) Act 2008 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Chester Borrows to insert new Part 12A be agreed to. 
New Part 12A agreed to. 
New Part 12B Ngati Porou  Claims Settlement Act 2012 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Chester Borrows to insert new Part 12B be agreed to. 
New Part 12B agreed to. 
Part 13 agreed to.  
Part 14 agreed to.  
Part 15 agreed to.  
New Part 15A Te Roroa  Claims Settlement Act 2008 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Chester Borrows to insert new Part 15A be agreed to. 
New Part 15A agreed to. 
Part 16 agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill the Dog Control Amendment Bill the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Amendment Bill the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill the Gas Amendment Bill the Heavy Engineering Research Levy Amendment Bill the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) the Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill the New Zealand Geographical Board (NgaPouTaunaha o Aotearoa) Amendment Bill (No 2) the NgatiPorou Claims Settlement Amendment Bill the Real Estate Agents Amendment Bill the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 2) the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Amendment Bill and the Veterinarians Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 166. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 164 in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 12; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 8 
New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of Richard Prosser to clause 4 is out of order as it is inconsistent with an earlier decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of Richard Prosser to clause 11 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Noes 111 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 12; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 12; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Consequential amendments 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of Richard Prosser to clause 14A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Noes 111 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 12; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 3  
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 agreed to.  
Part 2 agreed to.  
Part 3 Cultural property removed from occupied territory 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Chris Finlayson to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 in his name to clause 14 be agreed to: 
in paragraph (b) of the definition of issuing officer after “Registrar” insert “who is for the time being authorised to act as an issuing officer under section 108 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012”. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 agreed to.  
Part 5 Miscellaneous 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 44AA be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.  
Schedule 2 agreed to.  
Schedule 3 agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
Legislation Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 15 November. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee to revisit the schedule of the Legislation Bill for the purpose of adopting amendments to the item relating to the Local Government Act 2002 and the item relating to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Schedule ( 
reconsidered 
)  
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to the schedule be agreed to: 
replace section 259I in the item relating to new section 27A in the item relating to the Local Government Act 2002 with: 
259IApplication of Legislation Act 2012 to standards incorporated by reference 
(1)Part 2 of the Legislation Act 2012 does not apply to— 
(a)financial reporting standards incorporated by reference in regulations made under section 259(1)(dc); or 
(b)an amendment to or replacement of those standards. 
(2)Subpart 1 of Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2012 applies to regulations made under section 259(1)(dc) that incorporate financial reporting standards by reference. 
(3)However nothing in section 40 of the Legislation Act 2012 requires material that is incorporated by reference in regulations made under section 259(1)(dc) to be presented to the House of Representatives.; 
replace the item relating to clause 6(4) of schedule 7 in the item relating to the Local Government Act 2002 with: 
(7)A determination by the Remuneration Authority under this clause is a legislative instrument and a disallowable instrument for the purposes of the Legislation Act 2012 and must be presented to the House of Representatives under section 40 of that Act.; and 
delete the item relating to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule as further amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 ( 
continued 
)  
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 127 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into 19 bills the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill with amendment the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill with amendment and the Legislation Bill with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Readings 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill the Dog Control Amendment Bill the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Amendment Bill the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill the Gas Amendment Bill the Heavy Engineering Research Levy Amendment Bill the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) the Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill the New Zealand Geographical Board (NgaPouTaunaha o Aotearoa) Amendment Bill (No 2) the NgatiPorou Claims Settlement Amendment Bill the Real Estate Agents Amendment Bill the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 2) the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Amendment Bill and the Veterinarians Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bills read a third time. 
Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill amends the Arms Act 1983 to clarify the definition of military-style semi-automatic firearms known as MSSAs and to place controls on the importation of airguns that look like real pistols military-style semi-automatic firearms or restricted weapons. 
The bill does not radically change the status quo in respect of what constitutes a military-style semi-automatic firearm. A change in the definition was needed as a result of a 2010 High Court decision in  
Lincoln v New Zealand Police 
. This created a degree of uncertainty around the definition of military-style semi-automatic firearms and hence the police’s ability to determine which firearms would come under that definition. The bill returns the situation to a classification regime very similar to that administered between 1992 and 2009 but with added clarity. That regime was generally understood and accepted by the firearms community. 
A military-style semi-automatic firearm will now be defined in a positive straightforward manner as a semi-automatic firearm that has one or more specified features rather than as with the present definition in the Arms Act in the negative as a semi-automatic firearm that is not in sporting configuration. 
The bill introduces a right of appeal to the District Court for a person who is affected by a determination that a particular airgun is a military-style semi-automatic firearm. Controls on the importation of airguns that look like real pistols military-style semi-automatic firearms or restricted weapons are needed because these airguns are being used for criminal purposes. These airguns are now classified as restricted airguns. Police estimate that there is at least one incident a week where an airgun that looks like a real pistol a restricted weapon or a military-style semi-automatic firearm has been presented requiring an armed police response. Sometimes these involve a call-out of the armed offenders squad. This is a drain on police resources and creates risks for staff and the public. 
The import controls in the bill for restricted airguns are the same import permit controls that apply to real pistols military-style semi-automatic firearms or restricted weapons. A permit will be granted only if the Commissioner of Police is satisfied that there are special reasons why the airgun should be imported. Permits would be issued to allow for the legitimate importation of airguns for sporting and collection purposes and the like. 
The bill includes an amendment to eliminate the unnecessary regulation of fully automatic airguns used for airsoft and paintball sports. Fully automatic airguns used for these sports are currently declared as restricted weapons by the Arms (Restricted Weapons and Specially Dangerous Airguns) Order 1984. This does not accurately reflect their reduced ability to cause harm and so the bill removes them from being classified as restricted weapons. They will still however be subject to the import controls applying to restricted airguns where they look like pistols military-style semi-automatic firearms or firearms capable of full automatic fire. 
The bill was amended following its consideration by the Law and Order Committee. I once again would like to thank the Law and Order Committee for its careful consideration of the bill and for the refinements it made to the bill. The amended bill addresses the main concerns that the committee heard from submitters. In particular the bill now includes an additional layer of parliamentary scrutiny of regulations that declare particular makes and models of firearms or firearms of a stated description to be military-style semi-automatic firearms or declare particular features of firearms to be features of a military-style semi-automatic firearm. Any regulations made by Order in Council under new section 74A(b) to (d) of the principal Act are to be confirmed by statute within a specified period. Such confirmation which will usually be through a Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill will provide Parliament with an opportunity to consider the policy behind the regulations. If Parliament does not confirm these regulations they will be revoked. 
In conclusion the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill improves the Arms Act 1983 by addressing two issues that need to be resolved with some urgency. Clarifying the definition of military-style semi-automatic firearms is in the interest of gun owners as it removes uncertainties around which of their firearms will have additional requirements for their possession. At the same time it improves the ability of the Arms Act to apply controls on the possession of military-style semi-automatic firearms. Placing controls on the importation of airguns that can be mistaken for real pistols military-style semi-automatic firearms or restricted weapons will limit their availability for criminal use and improve public safety. I commend this bill to the House. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Speaker for the opportunity to speak to the third reading of the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. Yesterday in the general debate the Minister of Police took an opportunity to disagree with me on a number of things that were police portfolio related and I respect her right to do that in this House. I look forward to continuing to disagree with her on a number of issues around police-related matters over the next couple of years. But I think one thing that we will agree on is the safety of our front-line police officers. 
One issue in this piece of legislation that we are debating today will I think take some serious steps towards ensuring the safety of our front-line police officers and that is the provision that will restrict the importation of airguns that have the appearance of the real thing. As the Minister of Police said in her contribution to the debate earlier on there is at least one incident a week where an imitation of a military-style semi-automatic or a pistol is presented and police officers are forced to escalate that incident. Usually it means the calling out of our armed offenders squad—serious resources—and of course they have to take those call-outs very seriously because they do not know whether the firearm that has been presented is the real thing and could cause harm to members of the public the people who are brandishing the weapon or of course the police officers involved. 
Our police officers hold an occupation—and it is not just a job—that very few in our country have. They go to work every day fully knowing that they could put themselves in serious danger and that—as was the case for I think at least 81 police officers here in New Zealand—they could pay the ultimate price. In terms of restricting the importation of these lookalike weapons these weapons that look like military-style weapons and pistols I think that this legislation is very good in terms of protecting our front-line officers. In that respect we will have one point in this piece of legislation that the Minister and I can agree on. As I say 81 officers in New Zealand have paid the ultimate price serving their communities and on 1 October this year we did commemorate those fallen officers.  
This bill defines what a military-style semi-automatic firearm is. I am not a firearm enthusiast just by nature of not being around them when I was growing up. Essentially the definition of a military-style semi-automatic is a firearm that has a magazine ejects a cartridge and then loads another cartridge into the chamber has 10 or 15 cartridges in that magazine and has a pistol grip—that is now a military-style semi-automatic rifle.  
I am sure that Richard Prosser being a gun enthusiast will have something more to say in much greater detail and he will elucidate to the rest of the House exactly what this means. For those at home that is the new definition of what a military-style semi-automatic is under the legislation. As the Minister said it does clarify for the many gun enthusiasts out there in the community what a military-style semi-automatic is now.  
We also did want to point to the regulation-making power in the legislation that we are debating today because there was some concern at the Law and Order Committee—and this went through the Law and Order Committee that I sat on in a previous Parliament—from those who submitted on the bill that the regulation-making power gave police too much power in defining what these military-style semi-automatics are. I think it is good that the bill has been amended to make sure that there is a time frame in which subordinate legislation has to be passed through this House for making any new regulations that come under actual legislation within this House.  
This legislation was of great interest at the select committee. I understand there were over 250 submissions and 71 people were heard in person. I guess when you think there are nearly a quarter of a million people holding firearms licences out there it does not really surprise us as to the level of interest that this bill has created.  
Another aspect of this bill that we think is a positive thing is that if there is a dispute around the classification of a firearm—if someone has brought something in and they think it passes the test and the police force or those who are looking at the firearm disagree—that firearm owner can go to the District Court and launch an appeal to question whether or not that classification of that firearm is valid. I think that is a positive move given the serious concerns that the firearm owners had during the select committee process. I actually did sit on one select committee meeting on this bill in the last Parliament and it was full of gun enthusiasts who were very very concerned about that point indeed. 
 I am not a firearm owner but as I said before there are nearly a quarter of a million licensed firearm owners in New Zealand so we know that the responsible ownership of firearms is very very important to many Kiwis. I think that through the select committee process some changes have been made to I hope allay the fears of a lot of the gun enthusiasts out there who thought that they may get caught up in this and thought that their sporting use of firearms or their hunting with firearms may be affected by this. But I do hope that through the select committee process we have had the ability to allay the fears of those people who were worried about what this Parliament was doing. 
There was one bone of contention from the Labour Party perspective at the select committee and that was around the establishment of an independent reference group. It was something that we offered up as a bit of a safeguard against some of the concerns the firearms owners had at the time. But we understand that the view of the committee was that it was out of the scope of the bill and that the police are actually doing some of their own work to establish an arms advisory group. One thing that we mentioned in the second reading debate I believe was that we are hoping to keep a close eye on whether the police follow through on that work because we do think there needs to be some expert advice given to the Minister and also to the police around some of the changes to the technology. It is rapidly changing especially when you are looking at introducing regulations swiftly around the changes in technology around the police 
I just wanted to finish by saying that the aspect of the bill around the restriction on the importation of lookalike weapons is I think very very important to our front-line police officers and also to resourcing. As the Minister said having one incident a week where a lookalike weapon has been presented and the police are escalating that into a serious issue is one too many and we definitely support the part of the bill that restricts the importation of those lookalike weapons. So we do support this bill. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I get the feeling that Labour’s police spokesman might have stolen my debate notes on this bill the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill because I am in the rare but not unheard of situation of agreeing almost word for word with the contribution that Mr Faafoi has made. 
Sue Moroney 
: Including what he said about Anne Tolley? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well I will come on to that actually. I am about to do that as well because one thing that the Minister of Police and Mr Faafoi both said and referred to was the fact that this is a significant drain on police resources. We all want to know that these bills when they are passed into law are going to make a meaningful difference. I think it would be appropriate for some members to have thought whether or not spending House time on replica pistols was actually best use but when one looks at the amount of police resources for the average of one incident a week where these weapons are involved that is a not inconsiderable drain on police resources and I am sure the police and the armed offenders squad would rather be doing other things. 
But I think we need to add to that the impact of these incidents on innocent members of the public whether they are store owners bank officers or other bystanders when these replica ordnance are presented. They are most terrifying in their appearance. They are becoming increasingly similar and familiar to the real thing and certainly those on the other end of the barrel would have no idea whether the ordnance was loaded or not and I think we do need to acknowledge that that would be a terrifying experience for anyone who was on the end of it. 
I also think there is real merit in the nimble nature of the regulation-making power that is being brought in by this bill and I acknowledge that. Generally the House is a little sceptical of giving the executive by Order in Council these sorts of regulation-making powers but we do have the safety net as both the Minister and Mr Faafoi have articulated of then requiring those regulations to be built into primary legislation lest they lapse over time. That will certainly give the House and the select committee the opportunity to scrutinise—and confirm I hope—that that was a sensible regulation to have made. 
So with those few comments—there is no point in replicating the excellent contributions by both Minister Tolley and Mr Faafoi—I commend the bill. 
Su’a 
 WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on this particular bill the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill and I just note that this bill makes clear the definition of what a military-style semi-automatic firearm is. I also note that it will allow regulations to be made that will declare what is a military-style semi-automatic firearm and what its distinctive features are. I also note that it provides for appeal rights for those firearms owners to the District Court particularly firearms owners who may disagree with the definition given to their firearm—whether it is classified as a military-style semi-automatic firearm or not—and it places restrictions on the importation of airguns that may look like real pistols or military-style semi-automatic firearms. 
I think it would be disturbing for most New Zealanders when they hear of the background to this. As a result of a court case in the High Court in Palmerston North in 2010 the police had difficulty in trying to determine with certainty which firearms would be classified as military-style semi-automatic firearms. Although these definitions in the legislation are important from a legal perspective especially to ensure that those using illegal firearms or those holding a firearm without a permit are appropriately prosecuted I think most New Zealanders may not appreciate that. I say that because I think most New Zealanders would be surprised by the numbers that the Minister of Police has articulated about the high levels of illegal firearms or the high levels of military-style semi-automatic firearms. After all most New Zealanders would say that a gun is a gun and the sole purpose of a gun for most of us who are not enthusiasts is that it releases a projectile at high speed and it will cause harm. It will kill it will maim and those bullets from that gun do not discriminate. It will kill maim or snuff out a life whether it is an animal or a human being. 
I have not had the privilege of sitting on the select committee so I did not get the opportunity to hear the submissions from the public and I wish I had because it appears that the committee had some very difficult issues to try to cope with. There were 257 submissions and 71 people made personal submissions and I think those submissions are quite valuable as those of us who do not have the experience of firearms look to those who do have the expertise in this particular field. 
I have got some personal experiences that I would like to share with the House. I do not know how many people have been shot at. I do not know whether you have sat next to a person who has accidentally shot themselves in the arm. Certainly closer to home in 2009 we had a young man aged 17 years old who was accidentally shot by mistake. So those points really show how I personally feel about the issue of firearms. 
Some years ago I visited some relatives in the United States. During that visit I happened to be in a car that was driving one way and there was another car coming towards us. As we stopped the other car would not move so the driver of our car went to confront the car and they backed up and pulled out what appeared to be an automatic pistol and starting shooting at the car I was in. That was scary. It did not hurt anybody but certainly my aunt sitting in the back was scared stiff. I was oblivious. I did not know what had just happened but there were certainly three bullet holes in the car we were sitting in. In that same trip I had a relative who was so gung-ho about showing off that he had purchased a pistol. I was not paying attention but sitting next to me as he pushed the clip in he accidentally released the safety latch and shot himself clean in the arm. It did not hit any bones but again that was quite scary. 
I suppose the matter that weighs heavily on our community is when a young man of 17 years was shot and killed leaving a partner and a young child behind. Although that was admittedly a mistake by the police it does bring home the fact that these firearms semi-automatic or not cause harm to our society. They kill. No one should be in a situation where they are either harmed or die from a gun whether they are police or a member of the public. I think it is right that the Labour Party supports this bill because I think it is right that the police have the powers to be able to prosecute anyone who brings firearms to this country illegally or who has a gun without a permit. 
Although it is outside the scope of this bill my colleague Kris Faafoi said that Labour did seek to have an independent arms advisory group. I think the police ought to look into that. Given the increased powers we give to the police and given the need for the police themselves to arm I think there would be some serious concerns throughout this country about where we are heading as a country particularly in terms of the amount of power that police have with regard to firearms but also in terms of what we do about illegal firearms. 
I think it is disturbing for people that we allow for the sake of sport semi-automatic firearms. This is not my area but I am not sure how safe it is and whether those who receive permits to hold such firearms do get the training and are in a situation where they know how to handle a firearm. So I think there is room for the Minister and for the police to consider that independent arms advisory group and perhaps look at extending the scope of it by extending it beyond just classifying what the features of a certain firearm are. 
I note that the Minister said in her second reading speech that the bill does not seek to “radically alter the status quo” and that may be so for military-style semi-automatic firearms but I think there has been radical alteration to the foundation of our country as a result of some of the other legislation that this Government has put up. We have moved from an economy that once upon a time valued progressive taxation where everyone was paying their fair share based on their ability to pay. Now we are in an economy where those on the highest incomes pay less and those on low incomes pay more. As a result of this Government’s austerity measures throughout the public sector has been under constant attack. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Su’a 
 WILLIAM SIO 
: The point I am making is that it is about symbolism. We have talked about this bill not radically altering the status quo but I am making a comparison to what is happening to our economy. I think there has been radical change in that. 
The Minister also said that the bill provides for the meaning of the term “pistol grip” to be spelt out clearly in the regulation with the assistance of illustration. I would say that there have been numerous illustrations of incompetency by this Government in its 4-year term. There has been debate as to whether a pistol grip is a feature of a military-style semi-automatic firearm or not and this is similar to the debate we currently have as to whether this Government has a firm grip on this economy or not. I would say that this Government has preferred not to have a grip on this economy and that is why we are in the mess we are in. Only today we hear that this year we will mark the 50000th New Zealander leaving our shores for Australia. That is another example of this Government not having a firm grip on where this country is heading. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to this bill the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill and to confirm the Greens’ support for this legislation as we have supported a raft of gun control legislation over quite a number of years. It is worth recalling in this context that this bill is evolutionary. Placing controls on military-style weapons actually dates from relatively recently. Of course there was the tragedy in Aramoana in 1990 when 13 people lost their lives and several others were wounded through the actions of a deranged individual who was in possession of a number of military-style weapons. At that time in 1990 the police had no knowledge of the existence or the ownership of those weapons. There was no legislative framework or requirement that the police ought to know and clearly that was an entirely unsatisfactory situation. We have moved on considerably from that point and that is a good thing. 
More recent case law has been referred to of course. In 2009 I believe it was discovered that a member of the public appealed against the classification of a weapon he owned as being a military-style weapon and he won that case in the High Court. Clearly it highlighted the fact that there was a lack of clarity in the law. The police position relying on the legislation was weakened by that. So this amendment is intended to plug that gap just to create some clarity around the legislation. That is a useful and positive thing for a Parliament to be doing. 
I must say I was very pleased—I was genuinely pleased—yesterday in the Law and Order Committee when the Commissioner of Police Peter Marshall unprovoked just on his own initiative expressed his very very strong belief that our police ought not to be routinely armed. He expressed a strong preference. He does not want to see our police routinely carrying weapons on their hip and we are 100 percent in support of the commissioner. Given that support I think our responsibility in the House is to provide the strongest possible legislative framework to put good controls around weapons around guns so that the commissioner’s aspiration and our aspirations to not see our police routinely armed can be perpetuated can be fulfilled. 
Guns of course have a legitimate use. They are routinely used by farmers to destroy injured animals they are used for pest control and of course there is a very large recreational lobby. I think the figure is now something close to 250000 New Zealanders who hold gun licences and that is as it should be. Given that and the prevalence of these as I say it is important we get the legislative framework right not only to enable legitimate use but also to put the strongest possible constraints on the illegitimate or malicious use of these weapons. 
We think it appropriate that airguns are captured in this legislation. They do bear a resemblance to the military-style weapons. They could be used for malicious purposes clearly but even to protect. Anyone who is foolish enough to own such a thing and wave it about publicly would very quickly find themselves on the wrong end of an armed offenders squad call-out. Those call-outs always carry an element of risk and obviously we want to avoid that wherever possible. Airguns also are quite powerful weapons in their own right in this day and age and just getting sufficient control on those is an important thing to do. 
It is inevitable that there will be ongoing objections to the legislation. People will seek to find loopholes or will legitimately believe that a situation arises where they are—as has happened in the case of the gentleman Richard Lincoln. He filed a legitimate claim against the legislation. That will continue no doubt so again it is appropriate that this legislation does allow for recourse to a District Court to an appeal if any challenge to the legislation does arise. 
Further to that I would like to support Mr Faafoi and William Sio in their appeal to the Minister of Police to advance this idea of having a reference group an advisory group. I was not on the Law and Order Committee at the time this bill went through the select committee process but reading back it is clear that there was a conversation that perhaps there ought to be a statutory body. The outcome of that decision making was that that was not appropriate but there is a strong call for some sort of an advisory group and I think that is actually a very good idea. 
The police clearly have a lot of knowledge and in-house if you like expertise about weaponry. But I think people in the community who are legitimate gun owners and gun users also would be reassured if there was an open standing committee some sort of a conduit between the public and what I will call the gun lobby—and I do not mean that in a derogatory sense—interested parties around gun use. I think it would be helpful if there was a conduit in the form of something like an advisory group or a standing reference committee so that those people could have a forum to have dialogue with the police and other interested parties. I think that could help to avoid situations where there is recourse to the courts to legislation. 
We know that taking an appeal or indeed going to the High Court is an expensive business both for the claimant and for the police in the instance that they defend it so I would encourage the Minister to look very hard at establishing some sort of a reference group an advisory group that would enable interested parties to have that ongoing dialogue. Hopefully that would resolve any issues and give parties an opportunity to talk these things through without recourse to the courts necessarily. 
I do not need to say any more than that. Again I simply say that we believe this is good legislation. We are happy to support it. Kia ora. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise in support of the third reading of the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. I feel a bit like my senior whip Michael Woodhouse who said that Mr Faafoi stole his thunder. I feel like Mr Clendon has actually stolen my thunder by talking about the Aramoana incident. At the time I was a journalist and I did actually report on that case. I felt strongly about what had happened there and how the people concerned with the classification of military-style semi-automatic weapons were very very concerned about how certain people could get hold of these kinds of automatic weapons without them having any knowledge of where they got them or when they got them and about having a licence regime. 
The purpose of the bill obviously is to amend the Arms Act to amend the definition of military-style semi-automatic firearms and place restrictions on the importation of airguns that look like restricted weapons. I know that Mr Clendon and other speakers have talked about the case of  
Lincoln v 
New Zealand Police 
 where the classification was disputed and the police actually lost the case hence we are trying to define what a military-style semi-automatic weapon is. 
But I wanted to talk about the replica firearms issue. In the past on different bills I have spoken about being a victim of a home invasion. I had a pistol placed to my forehead. I had no idea whether it was real or it was a replica. Standing there you have to think that it was real. When you are a victim you want to know that you are safe. At the time when that pistol was placed to my head I did not feel safe. We need to make sure that these replica firearms are not imported into this country and that there are certain restrictions placed on them to make sure that people actually feel safe. 
 Police estimate that there is one incident a week when a member of the public presents an airgun that looks like a real pistol military-style semi-automatic firearm or restricted weapon requiring an armed police response. That is too many—too many responses by the police and often it is a waste of time. I have heard of a situation where an armed robber held up a replica firearm in order to hold up a TAB. He ended up getting shot and killed. They eventually found out that it was actually a replica and was not a real gun but the people were actually threatened and everybody believed that it was real including the police. 
We need clarification on this to make sure that people—the public the police and even the offenders themselves—are safe so that they are not shot and killed. This is a good bill making sure that there are clear restrictions on military-style semi-automatic firearms and it will keep police and everyone safe. It is a good bill. I commend it to the House. 
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on this third reading of the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill but I find as is too often the case with many bills brought by this Government that I am also a little disappointed. 
This bill has come about because of the case of  
Lincoln v New Zealand Police 
. The essence of this case is that the police sought to reclassify a particular semi-automatic rifle the Heckler and Koch SL8 held lawfully by an A category firearms licence owner as a rifle of sporting configuration as being a military-style semi-automatic firearm which requires an E category licence. The owner took the police to court wherein the learned judge decreed that the police had no authority to make such a reclassification. The classification issue centred on the stock of the rifle which incorporates a thumbhole. 
The present Act the Arms Act specifies that military-style semi-automatics must incorporate a free-standing military-pattern pistol grip which a thumbhole is not. The difference between a pistol grip and a thumbhole is as plain as daylight and frankly anybody who cannot tell the difference between them should not be making decisions or laws about such matters. 
Mr Lincoln won his case and the police were sorely aggrieved about that. They went to the then Minister of Police seeking redress and this bill is the result. The bill addresses the issue of changing rifle configurations due to the evolution of design and manufacturing techniques which the police contend they must be able to respond to and it makes some other changes to the importation of firearms airguns and their various parts and also some changes to the records that licensed dealers must keep. These we generally agree with. We are pleased to see that airsoft and paintball guns have been removed from the restricted list but disappointed that realistic replicas will still be available to unlicensed 18-year-olds. My Supplementary Order Paper 36 would have addressed this. Various members have made mention of the fact that we have one incident a week of people presenting replica firearms to the police. This bill without the Supplementary Order Paper in place does not address the fact that 18 and 19-year-olds can go out and buy a realistic replica airgun. 
The single most significant element of the bill concerns regulation-making powers that allow the Governor-General by Order in Council to declare makes models descriptions and parts of semi-automatic firearms to be military-style for the purposes of the Act with the potential that some firearms that were previously classified as being sporting configuration may subsequently be reclassified as military-style. The Minister of Police and other speakers have claimed that the bill makes the definition of a military-style semi-automatic more clear. It does not. It makes it less so. 
The E category licence that is required for ownership of military-style semi-automatics is more difficult to obtain than an A category licence. It is more expensive and it demands a higher level of security. E category gun safes are more expensive than A category safes and security inspections are more frequent. 
When the changes are brought in some firearms owners will be put in the position of owning firearms for which they no longer hold the appropriate licence. Their options then will be limited to two choices. They will either upgrade their licence or dispose of the firearms in question. Some will upgrade. I will do so myself because I can afford to and because I make the presumption that I will pass the character test. Those who are forced by circumstances to dispose of their reclassified firearms will be faced with the reality that only E category licence holders will be able to buy them so they will be selling into a restricted market with limited demand. Their only other option will be to sell them for cash to any buyer who is not asking questions. The consequence of this is that an indeterminate number of very powerful semi-automatic weapons will find their way into the hands of criminals who do not currently possess them. These firearms will be used in the commission of crime and innocent people will be killed and maimed by them. 
The reality is that 79 percent of firearms deaths in New Zealand are suicides and about half of the rest are hunting accidents. Of all death and injury incidents with firearms fully half involve .22 rifles 20 percent involve shotguns and another 15 percent involve pistols despite this latter class already being the most heavily restricted type of firearm in this country. The remaining 15 percent includes every other type of firearm. Military-style semi-automatic rifles owned legally by E category licence holders do not feature in the crime statistics in this country. 
This bill has come about because the police are seeking to gain control over an aspect of firearms law that they do not currently control and to address a problem that does not exist. The direct consequence of that will be that New Zealand will become a less safe place than it currently is criminals will gain access to firearms that they do not currently possess and innocent people will die as a result. 
I have to question the motivation of a certain few individuals within the New Zealand Police who are seeking to have this change to our law brought about. New Zealand’s firearms law is widely regarded internationally as being the best in the world and this change will diminish it. It will detract from it and it will make less good law with which more people will feel disinclined to comply. 
When the Australian Government instigated its buy-back scheme for certain types of firearms a few years back following the Port Arthur massacre more long guns disappeared underground than ever went into the Government’s incinerators—and I mean “underground” in a literal sense as much as a criminal one. Thousands upon thousands of rifles and shotguns went into the ground inside lengths of PVC pipe there to await a change of Government and a return to sensible law. 
Bad laws are ignored by good people. It is human nature and an inherent part of the Anglo-Saxon character to ignore bad laws. Firearms licence holders in this country are a careful responsible tribe. Today in New Zealand 1.1 million firearms owned legally by firearms licence holders killed no one at all. So those owners do not take kindly to the Government treating them unfairly or breaking its word in the social contract with them. 
When a previous Government reneged on its contract to make firearms licences last a lifetime and replaced those licences with 10-year licences a very large number of previously law-abiding firearms owners and users felt disenfranchised and disgruntled to the point that they opted for civil disobedience in the form of not bothering to renew their licences when the new agreement-breaking 10-year period expired. They became lawbreakers. 
This is bad law and people will ignore it. They will not meekly sell their prized and valuable firearms at a loss to reluctant dealers or carpetbagging collectors. They will bury them in the ground instead or sell them to gang members for cash. Buried in the ground these firearms will be less secure than locked in a safe. In the hands of criminals they pose a danger to innocent citizens that they do not currently pose. My Supplementary Order Paper would have addressed this very real probability in a very tangible manner but this Government has chosen to ignore it. That is a great shame. 
I look across the Chamber and I see that there are a number of honourable members who have served in the blue uniform who have given service to the nation as police officers and I wonder whether they are happy to have blood on their hands as a result of giving blind party-whip support to this fatally flawed bill. Mr Mitchell Mr Sabin and Mr Borrows are all former police officers who do know about firearms who do know about criminal behaviour and who do know I would suggest that some of the consequences I foretell here will indeed come to pass. Any one of them could stop this bill or the Minister could withdraw it. I implore the Government to do just that. Withdraw this bill take it away ruminate on it over the summer adjournment consider what I have said and listen to the experts it does have within its own caucus—the former police officers and the Deputy Speaker whose knowledge of firearms probably exceeds the combined total of most of the rest of the House. This bill could easily be pushed on to the back-burner for another few months because there is not any pressing issue that demands a solution by way of its passing into law that cannot already be addressed by regulation. 
This bill as I said earlier seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. This bill does not address the functionality of firearms as I alluded to earlier in this debate; rather it concerns appearance. Functionality has long since been addressed through the regulations on magazine capacity in 1992. The matters of appearance that this bill addresses relate to a certain appearance giving the appearance of menace. I ask the question: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound? By the same token if a firearm is out in the bush and there is no one there to see it can it still appear menacing? Because that is the reality. 
These firearms are not used by criminals and they are not used in the commission of crime. There is no purpose identified or served in reclassifying them and thereby removing them from legitimate owners and users on the basis of some misplaced perception of a menacing appearance. The police do not have the power to make that distinction under current law which is working well as it has done these past 20 years. It is widely regarded as being the best in the world. That power rests here in this House and I would contend that altering the law in this way will make the country a less safe place and will result in innocent citizens being killed by criminals. That will happen. Call it the law of unintended consequences if you wish but that is what will happen. 
Lastly the bill as proposed with the Minister’s amendments which were passed during the Committee stage against my advice contains yet another technical fault which I identified but very deliberately did not mention during the Committee stage. In their fruitless attempts to find an alternative wording to my own Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 36 in terms of describing a .22 calibre the Minister’s advisers have succeeded in eliminating yet another calibre this being the .17 calibre from the bill’s ambit. I now invite the Government members to pass this bill into law with this technical fault in place knowing that an entire class of firearm has been left out of it. They have missed the target. They have shot themselves in the foot. 
I ask the Government members opposite to withdraw this bill and to bring a successor to it back to the select committee next year where it can be examined by people who do know what they are talking about. New Zealand First does not support this bill. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 The problem is not with those who legitimately and lawfully use these types of firearms; the problem we have is with those who do not. I want to say to the last speaker Richard Prosser whom I do have a lot of respect for—and incidentally I enjoyed your speech on my gang bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill so very much more so than this speech but it is good to know that in many areas of law and order we have much in common. What I did want to say to Mr Prosser was that we accept that we must have rules around firearms. I think nobody would say we should go back and get rid of licences and let there be a free-for-all. For legitimate users of firearms I think there is wide acceptance that there is a need to balance public safety and restrictions on controls around these weapons—so that where others would misuse them we can give guarantees and certainty through our police to the public—against unreasonable impositions on legitimate users and the rules around that. 
I know that to the Law and Order Committee so very many people—hunters firearms users and enthusiasts—came who had concerns with this legislation the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. But as a hunter and a firearm licence holder myself I do say to the Minister of Police that I think she has the balance about right. It is never easy when you need to change the settings from a policy point of view. But I do believe that in this instance we have been able to balance the need for public safety with the concern that is raised—legitimate concern—by our police around the misuse of firearms and therefore the need for additional regulation upon legitimate firearms licence holders and people who own these guns and do so lawfully within the bound of the law so that we can have some common sense out there. 
Mr Prosser said that there are lots of bad laws that good people do not adhere to. Actually I would challenge that. There are a lot of bad laws in this country. There was 9 years of lawmaking before we came to Government and a hell of a lot of that was quite bad but the vast majority of good people adhere to those laws. Indeed whether you agree with a law or not if this Parliament has passed it even if others would say it is a bad law if you are a responsible citizen you must adhere to that law and you must be law abiding. If you disagree with it you have the ability to come to this Parliament and keep making the case. The challenge we have today is that there are so many good laws that are ignored by bad people and that is where we have the problem. 
To my knowledge I am not sure that there are many cases where these weapons that we are talking about have been used to commit a crime by the lawfully licensed owner. There will be some I am sure but very very few. So our challenge is not around those who are adhering to the law at the moment and who are doing everything that this Parliament says they must; it is about those who have complete disregard for the law and put the lives of our police officers our ambulance officers and the general public at risk. As a hunter I say that although I might if I was to own one of these weapons have to go and upgrade some of my security and so on actually I take my responsibility seriously. I do not believe that I have an absolute right to hold a firearms licence. I accept the rules that this Parliament has put in place. And if therefore that means there is an additional cost to me because of the type of recreation I choose if that means that the public is safer then I will spend that little bit of extra money. I will go and get that licence upgraded as I need to so that I can be assured and more secure in the knowledge that when I do not have that weapon in my control nobody else can easily take it and misuse it and that as a result of my inaction there could be a horrible loss of life. 
I will finish just by saying that I am a great advocate for all those who legitimately and lawfully own firearms in this country and I will continue to come to this Parliament to fight for their rights. But they must realise that if they want to have the ability to continue with their recreational pursuits they have a greater obligation to other New Zealanders than most other people have to make sure that they continue to act lawfully and that their firearms are secure. Therefore I say again to the Minister that I think she has found a very good balance in the legislation. 
Actually there was one thing I wanted to recognise—a change that was asked for by representatives of the New Zealand firearms community so that they could have an ongoing say in relation to the use of firearms and restrictions and the way they are being controlled. The select committee actually recognised this and said it was a good idea and I know that the police have already started to actively explore the establishment of an arms advisory forum. That is the place to continue that debate not to take the legislation away and think about it a bit more deeply over Christmas. We should bring in the legitimate users sit them down with the police and find a way that we can continue this debate to make sure that we do not put unfair restraint upon what they are trying to do but continue to allow the police to target the scumbags who are out there causing grief for everybody harming so many New Zealanders and therefore getting in the way of those who have legitimate reasons to use these guns. Thank you. 
Dr JIAN YANG (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. By amending the definition of “military style semi-automatic firearm” and by placing a restriction on the importation of airguns that look like restricted weapons this bill will make New Zealanders feel safer. The new definition adds clarity to the classification process. With regard to the proposed controls they are necessary because at the moment there are virtually no import controls on replica firearms. This is a concern because replica firearms are frequently being used for criminal offending. 
So National is delivering on its promise to take action on violent crime. We have the lowest crime rate in 30 years. National has a comprehensive plan to build a safer New Zealand and this bill is yet another example. I recommend the bill to the House. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 12; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 8 
New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill relates to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict which is commonly called the 1954 Hague convention. New Zealand ratified the convention on 24 July 2008 but of course legislation is required before New Zealand can accede to the convention and its two protocols. 
The Hague convention was a specific response to the massive destruction of cultural property during the Second World War. It recognises that mutual commitment between nations is necessary if we are to spare the world’s cultural heritage from the consequences of war. The bill is being advanced now to demonstrate this country’s ongoing commitment to the system of international law particularly as it relates to armed conflict. Acceding to the protocols will reinforce the current operational practice and excellent reputation of our armed service personnel overseas. It will also enhance this country’s participation in the system of international instruments designed to protect and enhance cultural activity. I will say just one or two things about each of the parts of the bill. 
First Part 1. For the purposes of the bill “cultural property” refers both to movable and immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people as well as to the buildings used to house the properties. So in a New Zealand context it would likely include our major metropolitan museums art galleries and libraries; nationally important archives and scientific collections; and registers of births deaths and marriages land information citizenship and protected objects. Category I historic places and registered wahi tapu are also likely to be included along with the list of national historic landmarks currently being considered by the Government. 
Clause 5 sets out how to determine whether a territory is occupied following on from the 1907 Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. Clause 5(c) provides that “The fact that occupation of a territory meets with no armed resistance does not prevent the territory from being considered occupied.” Clarifying whether a territory is occupied is going to be very important in the context of offences created in Parts 2 and 3 of the bill. Many of the offences have to take place in the context of either armed conflict or an occupation or in the case of the dealing offences the property must have been removed during armed conflict. 
Part 2 criminalises serious violations of the second protocol and sets out appropriate penalties for the offences. Part 3 addresses obligations required under the first protocol to prohibit unlawful trade in cultural property from warring States. Part 4 prevents unauthorised use of the convention emblem used to identify cultural property and outlines the penalties for so doing. This provision was not required by the convention or its protocols but is none the less considered to be a sensible provision to include in the bill. Part 5 provides various necessary supporting provisions and addresses the role of the Attorney-General in the prosecution of offences the liability of directors and officers of bodies corporate and the certification of facts by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the making of regulations to prescribe the necessary forms required to implement the bill. 
So I am very pleased to see this legislation conclude its passage through the House. I thank all colleagues for their support. In supporting the bill they are reinforcing this country’s commitment to other international agreements to prevent the illegal export or import of important cultural artefacts such as the Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The history of the Geneva Convention demonstrates how these agreements can over time result in greater awareness and commitment to improved standards of conduct. In implementing the provisions of the bill this country will be meeting its obligations and playing its part in the mutual recognition and protection of important cultural heritage both here and abroad. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 In the Forum in Rome there is an archway that pulled me up short when I saw it because in bas-relief on that archway is depicted the triumphant return of Titus from the siege of Jerusalem. The soldiers are carrying under the flag of the Roman Republic the SPQR emblem both the Ark of the Covenant and the menorah the seven-branched lamp stand that was used in the ancient tabernacle of the desert and in the Temple in Jerusalem. I was really shocked. I knew that Titus had been and laid waste to Jerusalem once upon a time. I had learnt that somewhere. But to bring back artefacts of such cultural and religious significance—the offence that I felt at seeing that repeated and preserved for posterity in that marble archway in the Forum was deeply shocking. 
That is an example of why this convention is important. In the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill this Parliament will be giving New Zealand the imprimatur to fulfil its obligations that are required for accession to the first and second protocols to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. 
Of course the Romans were not the only ones to have perpetrated such cultural offences over history but it was a remarkable offence to take two of the most important religious artefacts remove them from the Temple of Jerusalem and install them in Rome in the Forum. That was in AD 70. There are other examples across the world and across time as well. The Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage has rightly referred in his introductory speech to artefacts that were taken removed stolen expropriated during the course of World War II which caused great offence. This is something that conquerors do to the conquered and have done for a long time. 
Another example that New Zealanders may be familiar with if they have ever travelled abroad are of course the bronze horses in the Basilica di San Marco which came from Constantinople. They have gone backwards and forwards between Istanbul and Venice ever since but remain now in Venice not without controversy. 
More recently however—and some of the things that make this poignant for New Zealand—has been the removal of Maori artefacts from New Zealand to parts of Europe under the rubric of ethnography of souvenir taking of some memorabilia from what were essentially conquests in the 19th century in our own history. Some of these artefacts have turned up in museums—for example very significant ethnography museums in Germany. Most recently of course we have seen the repatriation of some items that were taken. They have been returned by the French because they are of huge significance to Maori and to New Zealand’s history. 
This convention then and the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill will allow the prosecution of people who engage in this kind of theft in situations of war. This is a bill that arose out of the Labour Government. It has taken some time to get to the House. Again as with other bills that began in the Labour administration one wonders why it has taken quite so long to get here. But it is here now and Labour will be supporting it. 
The bill of course criminalises actions such as stealing or destroying important cultural property in times of war and it will also prohibit the trade in cultural property removed from occupied territory. It provides a way of prosecuting people who undertake these crimes. In fact the bill comes complete with a couple of dear little flow charts that demonstrate just how the procedures might be pursued in the course of prosecuting anybody. 
The interesting thing about the bill is that it looks to enable New Zealand to prosecute people whether a crime is being committed inside or outside New Zealand. That is quite complicated in terms of international law. This bill I hope will address that issue and allow that to be effected in a way that protects cultural property from theft. 
In the passage of this bill our Parliament will reinforce New Zealand’s commitment to the international measures that protect cultural activity and cultural property. This is important as far as our UN obligations go and our international obligations more generally but it will also reinforce our participation in the Unesco family as a champion of the protection of cultural property. 
Not only has great offence been caused to numerous countries over the millennia of human existence but also most particularly the offence created within our own country because of the expropriation and theft of cultural icons and taonga is something that this bill will address. The Labour Party is fully in support of it given that it originated with us and it is something that we feel New Zealand should commit to. Thank you. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill. There is no doubt that the problems around this have occurred through generation after generation over the march of history and so-called civilisation. The taking of precious cultural property from one country to another during times of war has caused huge hurt. This bill ratifying our wish to bind ourselves to the Hague convention is again another very important step. The bill does ensure that New Zealand honours its international obligations to protect cultural property in situations of armed conflict. Undoubtedly the National Government values the need to protect culturally significant artefacts throughout the world particularly in areas of armed conflict and I think it is highly relevant when we consider what is going on in the Middle East right now. Just a couple of hours ago some of us had a briefing from the representative of Israel who pointed out just how delicate the situation is not just in the West Bank but more so in Egypt Iran Lebanon the Gaza Syria and Jordan and that it could easily expand out into Turkey—all areas that have hugely important cultural treasures making this bill very important. 
This bill shows the work we are doing to preserve and support culture internationally as well as domestically and it is important to point out that the bill comes with a variety of offences. For instance it is an offence to do the following to a protected piece of cultural property or to encourage another person to do one of these acts: make cultural property the subject of attack use cultural property in military action cause extensive destruction of cultural property or steal or vandalise cultural property. This is a very important piece of legislation which I would imagine all parties welcome into our Parliament and welcome its progress. Thanks. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to speak in favour of the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill. This bill requires of New Zealand obligations to adhere to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and it also offers us protection as well in the event as unlikely as it probably seems to most of us at the moment that New Zealand should be the stage for armed conflict in the future. So this legislation enables us to ensure that our representatives overseas—and I must say that the New Zealand Defence Force has a superb reputation around the world for the way it conducts itself on overseas deployments—in terms of Defence Force personnel or any other New Zealand representatives or New Zealanders whether they are representing the country formally or not are held accountable for their actions regarding cultural property. It also allows us to prosecute anybody who does any damage to our own cultural assets here in New Zealand. 
The convention allows for the use of an emblem that is essentially made up of blue and white triangles which can be affixed to cultural property and used to signify buildings in particular that are of cultural significance. Of course the bill makes very clear what types of buildings and assets can have that emblem affixed to them and how that emblem can be used. The emblem can be used to identify only those types of assets and of course it would be an offence to try to pass off military assets as a cultural asset in some sort of effort to perhaps persuade an invading force that those assets were not for military use. The use of the distinctive emblem in cases other than the cases mentioned in the bill for cultural uses and uses of the emblem that are outside of the scope of the bill shall be forbidden and the emblem is not to be placed on any immovable cultural property unless at the same time there is displayed an authorisation duly dated and signed by the competent authority of the high contracting party. It is all very technical stuff that essentially says we can keep our cultural assets safe or at least have a mechanism by which to hold people accountable should that not happen. 
It is important that New Zealand plays its part in these types of international agreements. We have a good reputation around the world for leading the charge on this type of activity and this bill ensures that our international reputation as a peaceful stable and internationally engaged nation is retained. For those reasons the Labour Party is very happy to support it. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
Tena koutou e te Whare. The Green Party is really happy to be supporting this Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill. I have just read Keith Locke’s second reading speech from 2008 which shows you how long ago it was that this bill was first brought into this House. 
I do not see it as a minor piece of legislation. I think it is actually quite significant and plays an important part in the international body of jurisprudence around dealing with an issue that is by no means going away. It is a big international issue it is an important issue and this is a very very good bill. Obviously the ability to stop the theft and trade of the spoils of war is complicated but at least we are starting with something coherent for our own country and that is a very good thing. We are laying out clearly what it is that we can do to be part of the positive commitment to the Hague convention which is also a very positive thing. 
Interestingly enough in Keith Locke’s speech he talks about the way in which what happens to the spoils of war is not something that happens at random but is actually often part of a deliberate destruction of significant cultural property of people in order to have a huge effect on the national psyche. I think that is a really important point when we are considering the importance of this bill. If you look at the national psyche of Iraq or other countries in the Middle East and what has happened to much of their taonga how significant that has been and how those many artefacts have been hocked off around the world by people it is important to criminalise this because of that effect—not only the loss of those taonga to those nations but also the psychological effect of nations who have been subjected to war losing their taonga. 
I guess we are also keen to bring this point back home. I agree with the Hon Maryan Street’s comments about moko mokai but also if you look at the history of this country the spoils of war have been very much part of the history of this country and in a way that we would no longer countenance. But it is good to remember that the spoils of war have included women and the spoils of war have included taonga. All of those things have been used to destroy the psyche of nations and should be criminalised as well as the taking of life. It is not good enough to say that bad things happen in war which is why I support this bill because it is saying no that we can be accountable that we can track what goes on and that we can prosecute people who are perpetuating these illegal and immoral acts. 
Take for example the experience of Bell Block in Taranaki. The archaeologists there when they carried out the extensive works in Taranaki found that the original ancient marae in Bell Block had been destroyed by the British occupying forces as part of the spoils of war if you like by literally building their camp on top of the ancient pa site at Bell Block. That did huge damage to what could have been a fantastic taonga for the local people and also for the history of this country. Those things cannot happen so easily today as we have Heritage New Zealand but it is still interesting to consider the spoils of war in our own context when considering this bill which has a strong international focus. 
If we consider the wharenui that is in Te Papa Te Hau ki Turanga the Rongowhakaata wharenui was a spoil of war and the settlement bill that came before this House not long ago was part of acknowledging that. It is very important for us in taking the moral high ground as we should in this bill to acknowledge that the spoils of war have had a huge psychic effect on tangata whenua of this country in our own history of colonisation. 
So it is excellent that we move forward on all these fronts in terms of the idea that these iconic buildings in some cases taonga and others are acknowledged as being central to the peace and well-being of nations to their identity and psyche and to the rule of law. 
The Green Party is very pleased to be supporting this bill. We are very aware that there is a lot to be done internationally to make it happen and that it is very very complex. We are aware that the problem affects many nations other than our own but at least we are making a start in saying what we can do in this country. 
We are not limiting it just to soldiers. The flow chart that was referred to also covers perhaps mercenaries and perhaps people involved in war and they can also be found to be criminals if they participate in this destruction. This destruction has affected many many peoples all around the world including the Sri Lankan people—the Tamils when they lost the Jaffna library which was burnt in the 1980s. A library is more than just a building; it is a repository of culture. So this bill is very much acknowledging that culture is broad culture is deep and culture is people’s identity and if we steal it and destroy it as conquerors then we need to be held to account. 
So it is going to be interesting to see how various military actions of the 21st century are viewed in terms of the spoils of war and in terms of how we are going to hold them to account. This bill is very timely. We need to follow up on our obligations. We have signed meaningful protocols and we need to make sure that we make this real. 
I think a lot of work was done at the Government Administration Committee which I was not part of in 2008. Now at last we are coming to the point where we are saying we can sign it off. I do not think that anyone in this House would be in disagreement. It is not always clear whether we would be able to cover every theft that takes place in war but I think it is clear that we will do our best. 
The Green Party is very interested in history and in our own history and our own accountability and also the issue of moko mokai which was raised which is ongoing. I can think of a mountain Kikitangiao in Tai Tokerau where an Austrian so-called explorer—his name was Andreas Reischek—stole from urupa some taonga that are still in Europe. So there is still a lot of work to be done around this. I am not sure whether this bill applies directly to moko mokai—those initiatives are ongoing—but there is a lot of unfinished business on the planet around this issue. 
We are pleased to support this bill because we believe it helps to finish that business and it helps to provide legal instruments hopefully as a deterrent to some of the appalling destruction that has taken place in the name of the rights of the conqueror to take the spoils of war. Thank you. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on this bill the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill because I think it does an extremely important thing for New Zealand. It helps us meet our international obligations. You see the bill ensures that New Zealand honours these international obligations to protect cultural property in situations of armed conflict. 
Earlier in this debate the Labour list MP Maryan Street made reference to the legislation first having been introduced to the Parliament under Labour’s watch of the country under its Government which was for a 9-year period. She seemed quite concerned that not enough progress was made at that time. She also asked why progress had been made now because she said that this is an important bill. Well I can say to Miss Street that there is only one reason: it is because the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage the Hon Chris Finlayson is probably the best Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage we have seen in this country for at least as long as I can remember and probably as long as Maryan Street can remember which is much longer than I could remember. I want to thank the Minister for his commitment. Miss Street ran out of time but she too I sensed wanted to praise Minister Finlayson for his hard work and being able to do something in this House that Miss Street was so concerned that Labour had not quite got to when it ran out of time. I want to thank Miss Street for those sentiments on behalf of the Minister. I know he has a lot of warmth for her. 
Can I say that National values the need to protect culturally significant artefacts throughout the world particularly in areas of armed conflict. I want to also recognise the last speaker in this debate for the Greens Catherine Delahunty who did say that there were other areas that the Greens were concerned about. Well this deals only with armed conflict but some years ago before I returned to New Zealand with my young family I worked for a Greek member of the European Parliament who had been a Minister of Culture in Greece for many years from the island of Lésvos. There was not a day that went by that he did not raise the issue of the Elgin Marbles with me—not formally of course; I did not have the ability to do anything about this. In Greece in the 19th century the Elgin Marbles were removed and taken off to the United Kingdom where so very many people have a chance to see them but I do recognise that there are other issues around culture. I want to recognise that Catherine Delahunty said that the Greens were concerned about history—some would say rewriting it but I will not because this is a very reasonable debate at the moment. Well I did say it but there you are. 
But what I would say is that it is good to see the House joining together on an issue like this. This shows that the work we are doing to preserve and support culture internationally as well as domestically is very well supported. I thank all parties of the House for joining with the National Government in doing something that Miss Street was so concerned that Labour was not able to do over 9 years. Thank you. 
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to take a quite excruciatingly short call in support of this Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill. New Zealand First is completely in favour of this bill. There is a tradition obviously in warfare that to the victor belong the spoils but we obviously as a people and as a civilisation have moved on from that. We are more civilised in our conduct of warfare now and we no longer attempt to carry out cultural genocide. 
Mr Lees-Galloway made the point that the New Zealand Defence Force has an excellent record in terms of not stealing stuff from overseas. Indeed it does. Though it has to be said that if the Defence Force had better transport assets in terms of ships and aircraft the boys would probably nick more things from overseas and bring them home. 
I just wish to say that I echo the sentiments of Dr Hutchison in saying that this is a fine bill which all parties across the House support. I think the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage has done a superb job in preparing it for its final passage through the House. The amendments are wonderful amendments. 
In closing I would like to say that this bill comes to us from the 48th Parliament. It has waited 4 years already. It does not need to be delayed any longer by convoluted oratory on the part of myself. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Call it plunder. Call it “To the victor go the spoils.” Call it theft. Call it stealing. Call it what you want but it is theft. It is stealing. It is part of what makes up the word “genocide”. It is not only about killing people and wiping people from the face of the earth it is actually wiping everything about that person off the face of the earth. That is what plunder is. “To the victor go the spoils.” may have been the mantra of some people but that is a poor excuse for theft. In the 15th century or in the 12th century it is all the same. Can I say with hand on heart that that is part of the reason why our soldiers are up in Bamian. It is about re-educating people about trying to protect others’ cultural artefacts. That is why our soldiers are up there—not only to protect the living but also to protect the cultural artefacts. 
The Labour spokesperson the Hon Maryan Street talked about the reasons that were given for the theft of cultural artefacts. There were ethnological reasons there was even some curiosity and they were taken for scientific and medical research. I visited a university in Scotland and was told by a professor there that some of the artefacts were actually taken on request from the school of dentistry to see the difference between the Pacific teeth—Maori teeth—and European teeth. No medical research was ever done on these moko mokai that we were there to retrieve. I must take my hat off to those institutions that these days have realised the folly of the past and actually have given these taonga back to New Zealand. 
But this piece of legislation the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill also begs the question about—and we find it really easy all of us in the House to get up and talk about what happens overseas—what has happened and continues to happen here in our own country. My colleague from the Greens Catherine Delahunty has talked about Te Hau ki Turanga. Not only was it stolen but also it was chopped up so that it could fit into the Dominion Museum. Let us think about that. There is the Fraser Collection in the Auckland Museum. The harbour board man Mr Fraser back in the day just happened to find some artefacts—in fact he found a hell of a lot of artefacts—and called them the Fraser Collection without so much as a by-your-leave of the local people. It is a good bill it is New Zealand coming into line with other countries of the world but let us not forget those taonga those artefacts that belong to this country. We should make every effort to support one the return of those artefacts—those cultural artefacts—and two the protection of the artefacts that tell a story about New Zealand as well. 
I hear what my colleague Mr McClay said about the Elgin Marbles. There were the bronze statues from Africa. You can walk this earth and tell stories of the plunder that has happened to the people who lose the war and we must do everything in our power to support them in their time of need to get back the artefacts that tell the story about them. Kia ora. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 It is an honour and a privilege to be able to speak to this bill the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill. I agree with the former speaker on his feet Tau Henare— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: The future Speaker! 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: —future Speaker sorry—that this is a good bill and it certainly makes sure that New Zealand follows through with the international obligations that it has through signing up to the Hague convention of 1954. 
Can I just touch on what Richard Prosser said earlier on. I think there is a time and a place for humour in this House but for him to try to bring up humour around this issue and the reputation of our armed forces probably was not the right moment. I just do want to join with the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage the Hon Chris Finlayson and my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway in talking about the reputation of our armed forces around the globe in this area. They are absolutely outstanding and upstanding when they are out there doing duties on behalf of New Zealanders. 
I am going to take only a very brief call. This bill sets out to achieve three simple things: to create a number of criminal offences in relation to cultural property to prohibit trade in cultural property removed from occupied territory and to prevent unauthorised use of the convention emblem. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway did talk about the third point the prevention of unauthorised use of the emblem. We think that is very important because there could be moves by some people overseas to use this emblem in I guess a scurrilous way to protect things that should not be protected. So we think that bringing that provision within this bill is certainly something that we support. 
In his opening remarks the Minister Chris Finlayson talked about this convention coming into force because of what happened in World War II and there have been many stories from previous speakers about what has happened in the past and about some of the injustices that have happened in the past but I just wanted to also support what Tau Henare said about our own history with our own taonga around this. New Zealand has had its conflicts. There are things of great cultural significance to our indigenous people that have been taken and have been traded overseas and thankfully some of them have come back to New Zealand. I think that it is absolutely fitting that we recognise the importance of those cultural items by making sure that we pass this legislation through today. 
Of course there are also conflicts happening at the moment and Paul Hutchison spoke about the conflict in the Middle East. Unfortunately we are still seeing sites of religious importance being targeted by some people and we hope that through the fact that New Zealand is meeting its international obligations with other nations we can stamp out that kind of behaviour because you would hope that in the 60-ish years since the Second World War we would recognise that carrying out this kind of behaviour—that as many people have said to the victors go the spoils. You would hope we have learnt from those instances where it is absolutely inappropriate to take some of those spoils in a cultural sense. 
It is a privilege to be able to speak to this bill. As Mr Henare said it is a good bill and it absolutely makes sure that we follow through with our obligations under our ratifying of the Hague convention. 
Bill read a third time. 
Legislation Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That the Legislation Bill be now read a third time 
. This is a very important piece of legislation. It is based on the Law Commission’s recommendations in its 2008 report  
Presentation of New Zealand Statute Law 
 and its 2009 report  
Review of the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 
. The Law Commission noted in its foreword to the 2008 report that the New Zealand statute book is perhaps the most important part of our legal infrastructure so it goes without saying that legislation must be accessible to all New Zealanders. It needs to be readily available easy to navigate clearly written and kept up to date. 
The Legislation Bill aims to improve the presentation and accessibility of our statute law so that people will find more easily the law that applies to them. The bill updates and brings together the law on drafting printing publication and disallowance all into one statute. Currently to find the relevant rules folk need to work their way through several statutes—for example the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989 and the Regulations (Disallowance) Act of 1989. The bill carries forward the existing regulations disallowance regime to allow Parliament to continue to oversee the use by the executive of delegated lawmaking powers. Very important is that it defines more clearly the nature of the subordinate legislation that will be the subject of the disallowance regime—and I can see you are riveted Mr Deputy Speaker. This has not always been clear because some delegated legislation has been excluded from the disallowance regime on the basis of its form rather than its effect. The bill defines a disallowable instrument to include an instrument that has significant legislative effect—that is it affects the rights and obligations of the public. This has the effect of broadening the scope of the Regulations Review Committee’s jurisdiction and strengthens parliamentary scrutiny of regulations and regulation-making powers. 
The bill also does a number of other things. Some of our law that deals with the technical or operation aspects of a policy is set out in documents that are incorporated by reference into our delegated legislation. The material may have been developed by a specialist Government agency or by a private or an overseas organisation and it may be impractical to include this technical lengthy material in delegated legislation. So the practice has been to include provisions in individual statutes to enable material to be incorporated by reference in instruments made under these statutes. Since 2003 standard provisions set out in the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines containing important public consultation and access requirements have been used. The bill includes these as generally applicable provisions so that they will not need to be duplicated in every new bill. This will ensure greater clarity and consistency in how this material is to be incorporated into our law. 
The Parliamentary Counsel Office’s governance arrangements and operations are also being modernised under the bill to reflect how the office operates today and—very important—to ensure its continuing independence. That office ensures that bills and regulations are properly drafted and I believe I speak for all members when I say it does a fine job on behalf of all of us. Its printing and publication functions enable legislation to be publicly available easily located and expressed in clear language. Some important new functions are being added by the bill and these include providing official electronic as well as paper versions of Acts and legislative instruments carrying out a 3-yearly statute revision programme to improve the presentation of our statutes and advising departments and agencies on the drafting of instruments that are not drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office such as rules codes and standards. 
In 2009 the Law Commission identified that there are over 1100 statutes in force. Some of these statutes are old and are expressed in language that can be described only as archaic. Many have been amended over the years in a piecemeal way and this has resulted in sometimes unwieldy and incoherent legislation. The statute revision programme reforms in the bill will enable amendments to be incorporated with principal Acts outdated language to be converted into the Parliamentary Counsel Office plain-language drafting style and obsolete and expired provisions to be removed. Re-enacting legislation in a more accessible form will help individuals and businesses more easily to understand the rules that apply and this will reduce regulatory cost. These changes and the enhanced reprinting powers in the bill will also assist in reducing the need for and the cost of technical remedial legislation. 
Can I conclude by thanking the Law Commission for its work and the Regulations Review Committee for recommending some valuable amendments which I think have the effect of further clarifying and improving this bill. I commend the bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker in order to continue to rivet you I would like to make just a few additional comments to those that have been made by the speaker who has just resumed his seat the Attorney-General. I would like to begin by acknowledging his acknowledgment of the work done by the Regulations Review Committee in the previous term of Parliament. The recommendations I think on the basis of advice from the officials who appeared before the committee did indeed add value to the bill. 
I think in particular about the recommendations concerning Part 4 which deals with the constitution of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. The need to modernise the statute under which parliamentary counsel operate had I think become pressing. At the moment the legislation dates back to the 1920s. It was very much a case of it being timely to update that legislation in order to ensure not only that there were appropriate governance and management structures applicable to the office but also fairly rudimentary issues like legal protection for members of the office when they are performing their official duties within powers and in good faith. Just as every other person in the Public Service has that protection now it will be going forward that the members of the Parliamentary Counsel Office team have that protection as well and that is as it should be. In fact it is remarkable that it has taken Parliament nearly 100 years to confer that protection. It is also appropriate to have clarified the client status of those being advised or assisted by members of the office so as to be very clear that legal professional privilege and all the other requirements of professional conduct should apply to members of the office. They no doubt exhibit those attributes now but the law will make it clear that the duties exist. 
I want to pay tribute to the Acting Chief Parliamentary Counsel Mr Moore. He has had to step into the breach in the absence of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel on an extended basis on a secondment in the United Kingdom. I think Mr Moore has done a terrific job of stepping into the gap. Certainly he has been of great assistance to the Regulations Review Committee in the discharge of our duties to this House. Although I appreciate that sometimes select committee chairs and members will receive slightly different advice from his office on the one hand and the Regulations Review Committee on the other we are certainly striving to resolve those differences where we can and where we cannot well the reality is that that means that the committees have contestable advice on what drafting best practice is. I think that is a good thing for the committees. They are in a position to make the sorts of judgments that they should make when they do receive advice that is contestable. 
The Minister spoke about the changes that will be made by the bill in respect of the Regulations Review Committee’s jurisdiction. They are sensible changes. In terms of the definition of the types of instruments that the committee will be able to scrutinise on behalf of the House the changes are sensible changes. They broaden the ability of the committee to perform the House’s scrutiny function on its behalf and I certainly welcome them. 
 The legislation also updates the law relating to the publishing reprinting and revising of legislation. I think the most significant innovation that I would want to mention is the conferral of official status on electronic versions of Acts and other statutory instruments. That is an overdue move. It is also one to be welcomed. The status of searchable legislation on the internet on the legislation website is now clarified and it will be appropriate to use that legislation in that version and any prints that are made of it as an official version of the legislation. That makes a lot of sense given the way that we deal with legislation these days. 
Finally the issue of systematic revision is to be welcomed. I know that any member who has gone out into the lobbies and tried to look up what the law is on a particular issue knows that sometimes they have got to go to a number of different Acts of Parliament a number of different regulations. Over time the revision process will mean that we have a much more logical and coherent statute book and it is very much a reform to be welcomed. 
I want to conclude by thanking my colleagues on the Regulations Review Committee in the last term for the work they did on this bill. I also want to acknowledge not only as I said earlier the Chief Parliamentary Counsel but the other members of his team and the former Chief Parliamentary Counsel who appeared before the committee to give their views on this legislation. It is good and timely legislation. Perhaps the one regret that we might express is that it has taken so long first to be introduced and secondly to wend its way through the House. But none the less it is finally happening it is to be welcomed and I certainly commend it to the House. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I like this piece of legislation because it brings simplicity to and reduces unnecessary complexity of cumbersome processes that often come out of this House. I think it was the at the time president of the European Commission in Europe Jacque Delors from France who said that Governments should do less but what they do they should do better. And as far as this Legislation Bill is concerned I think very much this goes a long way to helping bring the legislation that this Parliament creates closer to the people of New Zealand. 
The Legislation Bill intends to “modernise and improve the law regarding the publication availability reprinting revision and official versions of legislation”. But all MPs in this House at one time or another would have constituents come to them and say: “Well I hear in the media what you’ve done. I was able to have a look and see what the legislation says.” but it does not make any sense to them. So I think it is important that we replace the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act of 1920. I am not sure whether it has had revision in that period of time but 1920 is quite some time ago and the world has certainly moved on. In particular I recognise that the changes made in this legislation will have a big impact. “The establishment of a three-yearly programme of systematic revision of Acts”—well that is quite important. Indeed if this had been in place earlier then perhaps one of the Acts it is replacing like the Act drafted in 1920 would have been updated previously and we would not need to do what we are doing today. 
I want to say that a couple of things are very important to all New Zealanders. The clear accessibility of law I think is a fundamental part of the rule of law and it is because people need to understand the legislation that we pass here in this House. For this to happen Parliament needs to focus and do its job properly. Waffly and imprecise wording is of absolutely no use to anybody. The Law Commission has rightly said that our statute law as a whole currently lacks cohesion is untidy and can be difficult to understand. I want to recognise that the Parliamentary Counsel Office has gone to great lengths to try to work within this but it is important that we use clear English in our bills so that they can be more easily understood. 
From research I want to give an example of how you can get it so very wrong. One real shocker from the United Kingdom is contained in the Banking Act 1979 Appeals Procedure (England and Wales) Regulations 1979. The Act of Parliament says: “Any reference in these regulations to a regulation is a reference to a regulation contained in these regulations.” Well actually that is quite precise in so far as how the court would interpret it but there will be people at home watching on their TV or listening on their radio to this who will be concerned greatly at what that means. So is it not wonderful that we do not have to grapple with that in New Zealand legislation? This bill will ensure that in so far as Parliament doing its job properly and appropriately is concerned never will we have something that says: “Any reference in these regulations to a regulation is a reference to a regulation contained in these regulations.” I might just leave it there. I commend this bill to the House. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is happy to support the Legislation Bill. It is about two issues: housekeeping and power. It is about housekeeping because the job of this Parliament is to make sure that the output is comprehensible modernised and regularly reviewed and it will do that. I would just like to acknowledge Charles Chauvel and the Regulations Review Committee for their work because I think it is very important. That housekeeping needs to be done well like any housekeeping. It may seem to outsiders to be obscure but when you live in the house you know that it needs to be done well for the benefit of others. 
But it is also about power. We would argue that accessible language for the law is really another language altogether. We need to make sure that legalese which could be called a language of its own is comprehensible to people. Legalese is something that lawyers will understand and that many politicians with more experience than me can use but many citizens find it utterly incomprehensible and totally alienating. A really good example of that is that wonderful Australian movie  
The Castle 
 where they go to court over the airport versus the family. In that movie the man in court fighting for his family home does not know after he has heard the judgment whether they have won or lost. He thinks that they have won when they have lost and then later on he thinks that they have lost when they have won. That is a really good example of how many people feel when they are before the courts. It is really a matter of some shame that the citizens of a country cannot understand the law. That of course was Australia but I do not think that we can deny that this country also has obscure laws. Having spent some time in the Environment Court as a lay advocate I have seen the confusion on many faces including my own if I am going to be honest because the law is not designed for clarity. It is designed to achieve certain purposes and clarity has not always been at the front. 
Plain English is one thing. Imagine if the first language is not English imagine if the person before the court is from the Pacific which happens a lot in Aotearoa New Zealand and imagine if the first language is from another part of the world. Not only do you have a language barrier but also you have two language barriers: you have legalese that special language that disempowers many people and then you have the barrier of English. So it is not only about plain English reporting. We would like to see legislation translated and made available to all cultures and languages in our country which is going to be a big task given the diversity of our culture. 
It is really really important that the law belongs to the people. The law does not just belong to the lawyers and it does not belong to MPs. It belongs to the people and if people are going to use this thing we create in this House they have to be able to understand it. 
So we support this bill. We think that the clarifications are important. We also think that the progress in terms of electronic access is really important because many people now rely on electronics for all of their communication. Therefore to have actual copies of the law available electronically as well as some of the commentary would be really really helpful. The consolidation of access is another part of the importance of the democracy. So this bill is really about as I said housekeeping and access to democracy. It takes us forward and we are very happy to support it. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Legislation Bill and to acknowledge the last speaker Catherine Delahunty. I just say that there is a tension between the simplest language possible being used in legislation and of course the other matter which is precision. There has been a trade-off made over some years now between the length of legislation to ensure that as simple a language as possible is used but also sometimes at the risk of imprecision. One has only to look at the number of amending bills that come back to fix up what were well-intended drafting initiatives that have to be clarified subsequently and indeed at the comments of the judges in the profession themselves who have to make sense of our attempts at trying to make the legislation more accessible. 
But there is no question that the objective of trying to make legislation more accessible and streamlining the process for it in terms of publication and correction is welcome and some might say overdue. To the extent that this bill means that the periodic review of legislation means that those clerical errors that are identified and can be fixed up without changing the substance meaning or intention of the bill can be done that is good. But there is also the publication of legislation. Catherine Delahunty is absolutely correct in that there is no point in claiming as a principle of law in the court that ignorance of the law is no excuse on the one hand but actually making law inaccessible at the very least through the means of publication on the other hand. There is a conflict between those two objectives. The fact that this bill promotes and encourages greater accessibility through online and electronic means is a most welcome development. 
I relayed in an earlier speech on this bill the experience I had recently of a senior member of the Bar—a QC in fact—who had come along to a court hearing armed with large voluminous texts carrying a great weight on this rather frail frame of a person. How easy it would have been had he understood and managed electronic access to the legislation. That would have made his day I am sure a lot easier. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: There’s no need to talk about Trevor like that. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: We are generous on this side of the House and no matter who a QC represents whether it is defendants or— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: $14000-a-day QCs? 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: —$14000-a-day QCs even they—some of them—struggle with electronic access to legislation and this will make it a lot easier. 
But even when we are dealing with legislation that is somewhat brief and runs to only a few pages—and let me randomly select an example. The Defamation Act for example is a reasonably brief piece of legislation but it is amazing how many lawyers struggle to court with it— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: This is about saving face is it? 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Our faces are well saved Mr Henare. My recent experiences of engagements with QCs have left me feeling lighter for the experience happier and most contented with my contributions politically over the last 12 months. I am appreciative of the support I have had from all sections of the House not only from my colleagues on this side but also from one or two on the other side as well. It all goes to illustrate that legislation if it is to be made sense of in a modern democratic State as indeed we are needs to be accessible through all means. This bill is well intentioned and well drafted and for that reason we support it without exception. 
Dr JIAN YANG (National) 
: 
 The Legislation Bill contributes towards regulatory reform by modernising and improving the law relating to the publication availability reprinting revision and official versions of legislation in a single piece of legislation. The bill is the Government’s response to two Law Commission reports that said New Zealand’s statute law is generally incoherent untidy and difficult to understand. The bill will modernise and improve our statute book by among other things preserving the independence of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and enabling it to use clear English in bills. 
New Zealand’s legislation needs to remain effective clear and accessible to the public. Better and less regulation is essential to boosting New Zealand’s productivity growth competitiveness and living standards. So I commend the bill to the House. Thank you. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is happy to support the Legislation Bill. We think it improves the accessibility and understanding of legislation for the New Zealand public and it is high time that there is modernisation of legislation governing the drafting of legislation and concerning the functions of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel in the ways recommended by the Law Commission. The most important part I think provides for a 3-year programme of systematic revision of legislation. That is a very welcome move and something that probably should have been done a long time ago. The bill would also alter the functions of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. In particular the Chief Parliamentary Counsel will be required to publish legislation in an electronic as well as a printed form which of course they now do anyway and to issue official versions of legislation in an electronic and a printed form. As a previous speaker said so many people these days rely entirely on that way of accessing our legislation and other things of course as well so this will be very welcome to allow people—and I think it is the majority—to find their way through updated legislation through electronic means. This just brings the situation up to date and is most appropriate. 
But revision does not include substantive changes to the law. Clause 29(2) says: “The purpose of revision is to re-enact in an up-to-date and accessible form the law previously contained in all or part of 1 or more Acts but (except as authorised by this subpart) revision is not intended to change the effect of a law.” I think that is a very important issue and I think it has been well addressed in the bill. The revision programme in clause 31(2) is the crux of the bill and it includes such things as the revision of the whole or one part of one or more Acts with the ability to combine or divide them as may be appropriate; the omission of redundant and spent provisions; provision for new or additional purpose provisions; minor amendments to clarify Parliament’s intent; and the updating of monetary amounts and that kind of thing. Clause 31(3) however states that “A revision Bill must not change the effect of the law”. Therefore great care will still be needed in practice to preserve the integrity of the Acts that are being dealt with under this legislation. That is something I think the House will need to be careful of when it looks at revision bills as they come through in future. In other words we are still going to have to be vigilant. 
Clause 34(2) repeats the requirements not to change the effect of any statute but that is qualified by clause 31(3) which says: “A revision Bill must not change the effect of the law except as authorised by subsection (2)(i)”—which is the one I referred to relating to minor amendments only—“or (j).” which is the one I also referred to relating to simply updating monetary amounts and that kind of thing. Clause 33A in relation to minor policy changes to revision bills also admits some capacity to make substantive changes in revision bills but clause 33A(1) says: “A revision Bill as introduced must not contain any proposed change to the effect of the law unless the amendment is authorised by section 31.” And it goes on to say in subclause (2): “nothing in this Act affects the powers of the House of Representatives to amend a revision Bill for any purpose and to pass it with amendment.” That refers back to the vigilance that I said we still have to maintain because of that provision. However having said that it is still—and it must always be—open to the House to amend bills however it thinks fit at any time. 
Concerning the functions of the Parliamentary Counsel Office I welcome the new subclause (1)(h) of clause 58 which expressly refers to the rights of the public. It says in that subclause that one of the functions of the Parliamentary Counsel Office is “to examine all local Bills and private Bills and to examine the Members’ Bills that the Attorney-General directs be examined and to report to the Attorney-General on the effect of Bills examined in particular on whether they affect the rights of the Crown or the public and on their relationship to other legislation:”. It is good to see that there will be some objective reporting on effects on the rights of the public and I think that is a good safeguard as far as this bill is concerned. I think that is a very good provision which New Zealand First supports wholeheartedly. 
With regard to the appointment of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel we completely agree with the need for that person to be legally qualified in New Zealand or in a similar jurisdiction and with the same provision for other parliamentary counsel as well. We think this is a very good bill. The amendments that have been made are supported as well. We are very happy to see it go through and we will be voting in favour of it. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I rise in support of the third reading of the Legislation Bill. I would like to make a short contribution. The Legislation Bill as the commentary on the bill states “is intended to modernise and improve the law regarding the publication availability reprinting revision and official versions of legislation and bring it together into one piece of legislation.” I support the idea and the efforts of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and Law Commission to tidy the statute book and make it easier to understand because much of the old legislation is very wordy and hard to understand. The Parliamentary Counsel Office aims to use clearer English in bills.  
As someone who is actually a speaker of English as a second language and who learnt English as a second language I welcome this bill. Often when migrants want to know about laws and legislation they find the words very very difficult to understand. To them it is gobbledegook. Even I have to look up dictionaries and documents to try to understand some of the language.  
Clear and accessible law is a fundamental part of the rule of law. People need to be able to understand legislation. The courts need to be able to interpret legislation for this to happen. We need to do our job properly. Hard-to-understand imprecise wording is of no use to anybody. I commend this bill. 
Bill read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 12.08 p.m. (Thursday)