Dyson Ruth: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee[Sitting date: 19 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2461. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I regret that the Minister the Hon Maggie Barry was not able to beat me to take the call but I am sure that she is keen to do that and answer the questions that my colleague the Hon David Parker has posed in his contribution.Just to briefly recap before I start talking about the technical issues involved in some of the parts of this—and can I express my disappointment at the motion that the senior whip from Labour moved in that we are now debating these parts all in one debate. I would have much preferred to have had 34 separate debates on the specific provisions! I am also gobsmacked to see that the senior Labour whip is so committed to the principles of Parliament operating at a smooth and appropriate pace that he is doing the work of the Government whips who forgot to move that motion—but good on you Mr Hipkins.Chris Hipkins: I’m from the Opposition; I’m here to help.Hon RUTH DYSON: You are from the Opposition and here to help.I will just briefly recap on the point of a statutes amendment bill because there is some debate around it. Again it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s contribution to this in regard to the mandate of Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). You will notice that in the Committee stage of this debate there are fewer provisions than were originally included in the bill when it was referred to the Government Administration Committee. That is because the select committee determined that the number of changes to a specific Act proposed in this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) actually ruled some of those proposals out of order and unable to be included in the statutes amendments. It was not any specific one of the measures proposed but rather the number of measures proposed that ruled some out. So that is the first point.The second one is that of course the statutes amendment proposals should be non-controversial. They should not be altering specific policy unheralded previously but they can correct an error in drafting. If there is a drafting provision that has been made in previous legislation that has gone through being debated by the House and an error has been put into legislation then it is within the mandate of a statutes amendmentbill to have a correction—basically to rectify the error. So it may look like a policy contribution.The member who took the call immediately prior to me the Hon David Parker talked about how ironic it was to have this debate taking up the time of Parliament when these are technical issues when they are non-controversial issues. He referred specifically to Part 12 of the bill which has amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998. It talks about procedures for dealing with blood specimens search warrants in relation to specific offences the Search and Surveillance Act traffic offences and infringement notices—mostly changing words without changing the meaning of the primary legislation or updating existing legislation. The Land Transport Act which the member was referring to in relation to Part 12 of the bill is a piece of legislation that was originally passed by the House in 1998 so a lot of other Acts have been introduced and passed since then that may have consequential amendments for the Land Transport Act. But the point that the Hon David Parker was making was how ironic it is that we are debating this matter which literally makes not a blind bit of difference to any member of the public and really does not require a lot of attention from Parliament. I am just beating you to the button?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No it is the silent button. I’ve got a conversation on.Hon RUTH DYSON: Oh it is so we cannot hear the conversation. That is very considerate of you. Thank you Mr Chairman.How ironic it is that we are debating this legislation using the time of Parliament when we have a significant announcement under the exact same legislation that is covered in Part 12: the Land Transport Act. It is a significant announcement in Northland to coincide with the by-election which is now spelt “buy-election” rather than using any normal spelling of the word because the National Party by using the provisions of the Land Transport Act 1998 spent $70 million—$70 million—on 10 bridges in Northland. It is an absolute coincidence that those bridges are being funded and announced—not through any normal process but with the candidate and very fortuitously a big round black pig standing under a hoarding board for the National Party. That is my contribution on Part 12of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) which covers alterations to the Land Transport Act.There is another specific part that I want to refer to and I think it is Part 23. It is—Part 23. This is a much more substantial series of amendments than the one that I referred to under the Land Transport Act. These provisions change the Official Information Act 1982. Members will see from the alterations to the original bill that substantial debate was had on this at the select committee and I want to ensure as we go through the Committee of the whole House that the Committee has the same sort of opportunity to consider amendments. I have heard a few speeches from the National Party particularly from backbenchers over the last 24 hours. I am feeling bold enough having heard the contributions on members’ bills last night to suggest with 100 percent confidence that not a single one of them has read any of the legislation that is being debated. They just stand up and read the research notes.Todd Barclay: We just don’t agree with it—we’ve read it.Hon RUTH DYSON: Actually the opportunity for rigour in considering legislation is during this very stage. Mr Barclay you should take the advice of the Hon Maurice Williamson who has paid more attention to detail in the Committee stages of debates than just about anyone I know. I think it was maritime reform of some description and the rigour that was applied to specific provisions of that legislation with the Hon Maurice Williamson in the chair is the sort of rigour we should be applying to this.Hon Maurice Williamson: That was rigor mortis.Hon RUTH DYSON: It was rigor mortis quite often actually.This proposal in Part 23 is to replace section 28(4) of the Official Information Act and that deals with a very interesting topic: Ministers of the Crown answering requests made under the Official Information Act on time. It is actually a very important point of principle. It sounds like it could almost be veering into the policy area but it is not. But the reason it is important—to draw it to the attention of the Committee—is that we have had considerable abuse of this very provision that we are now changing. In fact the Prime Minister recently commented in public that Official Information Act requests were either escalated and responded to very rapidly or were deliberately delayed because of political considerations. This alteration under Part 23 should strengthen Parliament’s understanding that that sort of political abuse of the Official Information Act either giving certain people the information early—for example Cameron Slater made a request and got the answer within 24 hours. But people in Canterbury who have made requests about their earthquake claims have been told not quietly but publicly online that they have to wait 6 months for their requests to be granted by the Earthquake Commission despite the specific provisions of the Official Information Act which are altered in Part 23 of this bill giving a rigorous time line. So that sort of manipulation of the Official Information Act is not acceptable to this House. It is certainly not acceptable to the public.I hope that the alterations we are making in this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) despite not altering any of the fundamental policy of the Official Information Act give a bit more rigour a bit more clarity and I suppose in the end stop Ministers—including the Prime Minister—manipulating what has been a very important part of our transparency as a Parliament. Ministers are held to account in this House at select committee and through requests like Official Information Act requests. We must make sure that the principles of that Act are maintained and I hope that these alterations do that.There is just one other provision that I want to allude to and that is the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act of 1994. Again it is really interesting that we have got measures within this legislation to better protect Antarctica but as we saw in the recent episode in west Auckland Ministers who were able to use provisions of protection would not even do that with two threatened kauri trees. So we have again quite ironic situations where Ministers who have a legal opportunity to act in the best interests of our citizens—or in this case for the protection of kauri trees—step back but at the same time are prepared to offer better environmental protection in Antarctica. I cannot think of a better cause actually. It is one that probably most members of this House—