Finlayson Christopher: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11516] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 The member for Taranaki - King Country has already addressed the concerns expressed about the Public Audit Act 2001. There was an argument in respect of this Statutes Amendment Bill that Part 36 which amends the Public Audit Act did not fit into the conventions relating to statutes amendments. I can understand why the Government Administration Committee expressed this concern. Indeed Dr Richard Worth raised the issue in his first reading speech that essentially if one looks at Appendix B of the Standing Orders which deals with the pecuniary interests of members of this House and the requirement that members fill out certain returns each year one sees that there is very much a code. There is no need for that to be supplemented by references in the Public Audit Act. I would have thought that that particular concern should be paid to the kinds of provisions that were proposed to be included in the Public Audit Act because of the possibility of judicial review. 
Of course no court will entertain judicial review of the legislative process of this House or I would have thought of the requirement that members complete declarations or returns in terms of their responsibilities under the pecuniary interests section of the Standing Orders. None the less we would not want to get to a situation where by a side wind the courts were starting to review any aspect of the process of this House. This is not to say that what is proposed to be included in the Public Audit Act 2001 is necessarily erroneous but the select committee said that it is not the kind of provision that should be amended by a Statutes Amendment Bill and I endorse what my colleague has said. 
I want to make only a couple of comments about some of the legislation that is proposed to be amended by this bill. The first category of legislation I wish to refer to deals with the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. Most of the amendments proposed in this bill repeal enactments that have been superseded by laws promulgated by the States themselves. The remaining amendments tidy up some miscellaneous matters. I must say that I was surprised when I looked at the scope of the amendments proposed to the Cook Islands Act 1915 for example and what it is proposed to repeal. I think the legislation is probably overdue for comprehensive reform. Although one can understand this tidy-up exercise for these islands in the context of a Statutes Amendment Bill perhaps all three pieces of legislation need to be comprehensively reviewed in due course. 
Dr Sharples observed in his first reading speech that the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr Peters had had considerable help from Professor Tony Angelo for the work that he had done with aspects of the law in Tokelau and Niue and from Alison Quentin-Baxter who was recently honoured in the Queen’s Birthday honours for the work she has done in the Pacific Islands over the years. I too endorse the work of both those fine New Zealanders. Professor Angelo of course is well known to members of this House. He regularly makes submissions to select committees most recently in relation to the Wills Bill. He has always been a very helpful submitter and has made a huge contribution to the law over the years particularly in the Pacific Islands where he has had a very real interest. I know that he has spent many months in Tokelau serving the people of those islands in respect of law reform. I praise him and acknowledge his contribution to the law reform process in the Pacific Islands. 
The next category of legislation I want to refer to deals with minor amendments—for example to the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Part 18 of the bill makes a minor amendment to the Family Courts Act 1980 to reflect the passage of the Civil Union Act. That is the kind of minor law reform that is required in this Statutes Amendment Bill which is designed to reflect law changes or as in the case of Part 29—which deals with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006—to remedy minor errors. I will not waste the time of the House by going into the detail of that. A similar minor amendment is in Part 30 which deals with the Legal Services Act 2000. 
I want to make one brief comment about Part 8 which proposes to amend the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. The amendment proposes changes to a section that permits facsimile copies of warrants to be utilised. I really wonder why it is necessary to provide for that kind of detail on procedural matters in legislation. It is the sort of thing that is in my opinion more properly covered in a comprehensive set of rules for a Family Court. I sometimes think we make a rod for our own backs in this House when we have legislative requirements like that because the legislative process is time consuming and expensive. We know for example that this legislation was introduced earlier this year and has been before the select committee for some time. I would have thought that this kind of minor procedural stuff is more effectively dealt with by rules. I make that comment in relation not only to that particular species of family legislation but also to the legislation that has been the subject of debate this afternoon about making miscellaneous changes to other family law statutes. 
The only other part I wish to refer to is Part 41 which amends the Resource Management Act 1991. It provides that the Attorney-General is to be responsible for appointing an environment commissioner or deputy environment commissioner and that the Minister of Justice shall henceforth not have responsibility for this particular task. This is entirely consistent with other mechanisms for appointing judges. Of course the Prime Minister is responsible under the Judicature Act for appointment of the Chief Justice but the Attorney-General is responsible for the appointment of other judicial officers—judges in the Supreme Court the Court of Appeal the High Court and the District Court—and is also responsible as we know for the appointment of coroners. We know that Dr Cullen made a complete hash of that earlier this year in relation to the appointment of the coroner in Wellington and that he dealt in a very shabby and unacceptable manner with Mr Garry Evans. Mr Evans has thankfully now been made a relief coroner by the Attorney-General who saw the error of his ways. 
It makes sense that these persons who perform an important judicial function as commissioners should also be appointed by the Attorney-General. The only point I make—and it applies not only to these appointments but also to the other judicial appointments—is that while the Attorney-General does have responsibility for these appointments it is extremely important that he or she properly consult other members of this House on such appointments. In the case for example of Supreme Court judges they are now appointed until the age of 70. They wield considerable power and it is extremely important that the Attorney-General consult not only with members of his own party but with other parties as well so that the best decisions are made. That having been said I am pleased that the Attorney-General will now have responsibility for the appointment of all judicial officers because the change here reflects what happens with appointments to the courts I have mentioned. 
As previous speakers have said this is a mishmash of legislation that deals with minor changes some of a technical nature some to correct previous errors and some to tidy up statutes. Subject to the point that the member for Taranaki - King Country made in relation to the Public Audit Act and subject also to the comments that were made by the Government Administration Committee in its commentary National supports the second reading of this bill.