Worth Richard: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4645] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 National supports unsurprisingly the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) and as the previous speaker has said it is in 39 parts. What he described as the interesting parts of the bill however are perhaps not the most interesting parts. There are good reasons in my view for taking the position that there should be strict constraints on omnibus-type bills such as this. The Standing Orders give expression to that view by starkly limiting the circumstances in which omnibus bills may be introduced. Basically there are five classes of case: finance bills or confirmation bills; local legislation bills; Maori purpose bills; reserves and other lands disposal bills and Statute Amendment bills. This is Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3). I suppose one of the most striking things about this bill is that it just shows the incredible range of Government activity from the Armed Forces Discipline Act to the Legal Services Act. 
In the short time I have available I just wanted to pick out some aspects of interest touching changes that are being made by this bill. But as I say it shows the incredible range of Government activity and—I suppose as a counterpoint—it raises the question as to whether the Government should be involved in that range of activity. It also shows the need for care in parliamentary drafting and the significant number of occasions when oversights in the drafting process occur. Finally it shows the undesirability in some cases of placing in primary legislation issues that should more appropriately be found in secondary or tertiary legislation. 
The first illustration I would like to refer to is evidence of that last proposition. In the Administration Act we have provisions that prescribe the rate of interest payable in certain cases on a legacy or on arrears of an annuity and in the primary legislation a rate of 11 percent is fixed. That follows practice that was in legislation like the Judicature Act which fixed interest rates on money judgments at specific levels and shows the undesirability in fluctuating economic conditions of fixing interest rates in that way. The rate of interest in the Administration Act has now been reduced to 7.5 percent per annum but there is also an important provision for a different rate to be fixed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. 
The second bill I want to refer to amends the Legal Services Act. It is an illustration of the proposition that in drafting legislation care must be taken and care is sometimes not taken. A raft of changes are being made to the Legal Services Act but suffice it for me to comment on just two of them. The first deals with section 10 of the principal Act and the uncertainty as to whether legal aid can be granted in respect of all the immigration processes that confront aggrieved migrants. That process starts with the involvement of the refugee status branch leads on from there to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority leads on from there to issues of deportation review leads on from there to the possibility of action in the High Court and then finally leads to the discretions vested in the Minister. In reading the current legislation it is quite clear the rights of migrants seeking legal aid have not been well-thought-out and this particular bill seeks to deal with that. Significant criticisms can be levelled at the Legal Services Act; but it is beyond the scope of the comments I seek to make to do that. But I would say that where this Government has had an opportunity for innovation in the delivery of legal aid services it has lamentably failed to take advantage of that opportunity. 
I would like then if I may to turn to an illustration of old legislation that should have been taken off the statute book years and years ago. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: What is that? 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I am grateful for the close attention Mr Carter is paying to my comments. The legislation I have in mind is the War Funds Act of 1915. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: It has come in handy in recent times. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: The Minister says it has come in handy in recent times. It is quite true that there was some tampering with that legislation in the 1980s. If that is “recent times” in the Minister’s mind so be it. But in 1980 there were some minor changes made with the updating of references to the High Court and the District Court. What is more significant about that legislation is that it was passed for a very specific purpose. The War Funds Act made provision for the administration and control of moneys raised wholly or in part by private subscription for the purposes of what was described in the title as the “present war”. That of course was the Great War of 1914-18 reflected in this debating chamber by the wooden wreaths of honour commemorating such events as Egypt Gallipoli and Messines. 
What I would like to focus on just for a moment are the purposes of the Act and the definition of “war funds”. The Government of the day was concerned to raise substantial amounts of money for the relief of distress occasioned by the war; for the equipment of the military forces; for what was called the supply of comforts or conveniences; for the acquisition of sports grounds and the like. There is a provision in the War Funds Act for an annual audit of accounts and since that legislation was enacted in 1915 one wonders whether the auditor has been diligent in carrying out—as he was required to do year by year—the necessary audit function. 
Finally I would like to refer to the Tokelau Act. Part 36 deals with that specific statute. The purpose of the bill is to amend the principal Act by inserting a new section that validates the making and issuing of two coins. What are the lessons that we can learn from legislation such as that? I would say that they are these: first the wide scope of governmental activity which raises the issue whether the Government should be involved in the full raft of activity that it is; second the errors made in the drafting process by parliamentary counsel which for a number of years are not noted; finally the fact that we have on the stocks—and the War Funds Act is a really good illustration of that—much legislation that should not be there and should be promptly repealed.