Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13813] 
Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill 
First Reading 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. It gives me pleasure as a first-term member of Parliament to introduce my first member’s bill which was selected from the ballot at the first attempt. I hope to retain my personal record of keeping my speeches short and sweet and hope that other contributors to this debate will follow in my footsteps by keeping their speeches short and sweet as well. 
The Military Manoeuvres Act of 1915 was enacted in the second year of the First World War and provides that the Governor-General may by proclamation declare that any land for a period specified be made available for military manoeuvres. After the manoeuvres are completed the officer commanding the forces engaged in them must as far as possible restore the land to its former condition. To the best of the knowledge of the New Zealand Defence Force the Act has not been used for the last 30 years largely as it was enacted specifically to deal with the extraordinary circumstances of mobilisation for the First World War. It is believed that no current proclamations remain in force and that there are no outstanding claims relating to past proclamations and military manoeuvres. So the Act sits on the statute book for no purpose and the bill we are debating today will repeal the Act. 
Some people might ask why we should bother to repeal this Act—it may be obsolete but surely there are hundreds of obsolete Acts just like it. This is precisely the point. The Military Manoeuvres Act is representative of a very vital problem—that redundant legislation on the statute book must go. The New Zealand Institute of Journalists Act 1895 and the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885 are totally obsolete. Other Acts such as the Tourist and Health Resorts Control Act 1908 the Rent Restriction Act 1924 and the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Act 1947 require revisiting and re-examination as to whether they should be retained. 
A member’s bill is one way to start the job but Parliament needs to look at a more comprehensive approach. In case anyone thinks this is nonsense the Law Commission has said that our statute law lacks coherence and is untidy and can be difficult to understand and use. My colleague the Hon Chris Finlayson has said that for the rule of law to be strong in New Zealand our statute law must be clear and accessible. I am sure the whole House will agree with this and support the efforts of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Law Commission to tidy up the statute book and make it easier to understand. 
The Legislation Bill is being considered by the Regulations Review Committee at the moment. It will modernise and improve the law relating to the publication availability reprinting revision and official version of legislation. My member’s bill the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill highlights an important problem and I hope it will help to make the House aware of it. I look forward to the support of the House in passing this bill. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow the member Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi who has just given one of his notoriously short and inconsequential speeches in the House. He barely made it to 4 minutes in speaking on his own bill. I say from the outset that Labour will support the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill because it repeals obsolete and outdated legislation. But to be absolutely honest we wonder why we are here tonight debating this bill when there are so many other issues that we could be dealing with. 
John Hayes 
: You had 9 years and you didn’t do it. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Does the member know why we did not do it? It was because there was absolutely no point. There is no reason whatsoever to be here debating this bill. 
Hon Annette King 
: Even the Minister’s smiling. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Even the Minister in the gallery—and I do not know whether he is looking down on the future Minister of Defence—is smiling about this bill tonight. 
The bill repeals the Military Manoeuvres Act under which land could be made available for military manoeuvres. The Act provided that after the manoeuvres the land would have to be returned to the owner of the land in as close to the original condition as possible. However to the best of our knowledge the Act has not been used for at least 30 years. In fact it may not have been used since World War I. So the Act is obsolete and it is great that we are getting rid of it but seriously is this why Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi came into Parliament? Is this what his supporters sent him to Wellington to do? Did the first Sikh member of Parliament came to Wellington to repeal the Military Manoeuvres Act? I do not think so. I do not think that this is what his supporters sent him to Wellington to do. 
It is possible that his supporters thought that maybe he would come to Wellington and deal with some crime issues. I know that his community is deeply concerned about crime and they probably thought that was an issue that Mr Bakshi could focus on. Or maybe he could turn his attention to assisting the members of the Indian community who will be so deeply affected by the 90-day no rights at work legislation. That could have been something that Mr Bakshi could turn his attention to. But no; instead he has decided that this bill is his piece of action. This is the bill that he will be remembered for. It is his signature piece of legislation. He will be remembered for two things: short speeches and the repeal of the Military Manoeuvres Act. 
One has to wonder what this bill was even doing in the ballot in the first place. We had such short speeches from National members on a far more important bill that came out of the ballot the Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Healthy Food) Amendment Bill in the name of Rahui Katene. They could not even manage to put a decent speech together for that bill so why was this bill in the ballot? It was padding. There is no other reason whatsoever than padding to try to avoid any decent bills coming out of the ballot that would require the Government to debate some serious subjects. That was the reason for this bill. I have no doubt that that is the reason why Mr Bakshi was told to put the bill in the ballot. I have no idea what his motivation is whatsoever. 
We have to reflect on that in a week when an earthquake in Canterbury has caused damage that was totally unpredicted and on a scale that we never thought we would see in this country. Who has responded to that? The military are there doing a fine job. Just possibly the military could have done with this bill. They could have done with the need to occupy some private land in order to carry out their manoeuvres. It is unlikely but it is just possible that maybe Mr Bakshi has been a little quick out of the gate and this bill could have been useful to the military this week. 
I do not intend to waste Parliament’s time by taking a long call on this bill. This bill is an absolute waste of time. It is a silly bill that Mr Bakshi should not be proud of. I hope that it speeds through the House and that we see the back of it as quickly as possible. This is not a sensible use of Parliament’s time. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I was really interested in that bitter twisted perverse and almost racist speech made by the member Iain Lees-Galloway on the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is unacceptable. The member cannot accuse anybody of racism. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The point of order is upheld. 
JOHN HAYES 
: I will withdraw “racist” and substitute “patronising”. I point the member to— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at the member’s comments and ask that you request him to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The point of order is not upheld. 
JOHN HAYES 
: I point the Labour member for Palmerston North Iain Lees-Galloway in the direction of the Law Commission report published in October 2008. I have reason to believe that the boss of the Law Commission is a former Labour Prime Minister. Is that right? 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: What’s your point? 
JOHN HAYES 
: My point is this and I quote from Sir Geoffrey Palmer: “A further problem with the current state of the New Zealand statute book is that a number of redundant Acts remain in force and needlessly clutter the law. Some old Acts still appear in the annual tables but are totally obsolete.” Mr Palmer points out: “For example the New Zealand Institute of Journalists Act 1895 and the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885 both remain in force and are both completely disused and unusable today.” We have been having earthquakes in Christchurch so let me tell members about another piece of useless law—the Hawke’s Bay Earthquake Act 1931. Let me quote Sir Geoffrey again: “This Act still exists but has not been reprinted since 1931—it was not even included in the supposedly comprehensive 1957 reprint.” Kamal Bakshi my very sensible colleague has read this and he understands that nothing is to be gained from cluttering the statute book with the presence of these obsolete Acts and provisions. As Sir Geoffrey an erstwhile Labour leader said: “They add clutter but no value to the statute book. Repealing them would be of great value. An accessible navigable and clear statute book should have as little “dead wood” as possible.” 
I suggest to the Labour Party that it could get rid of its Palmerston North dead wood because that man does not have a chance of being re-elected in the next election; Palmerston North will return to National. I commend my colleague Mr Kamal Bakshi for a very very sensible— 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is an important part of my culture that Indian names be pronounced properly. The member has made no effort and I ask him to do so. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure. There was so much noise that I am not able to determine or make judgment about the accuracy of the nomenclature that was used. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: It is certainly not Mr “Kamal”—or something like that—Bakshi. He has a wonderful name given to him by his parents. The member should at least try to pronounce it properly. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Yes and it is a Sikh name not an Indian name Mr Assistant Speaker. I simply suggest that people should stop being misled by obsolete law that masquerades as live law. With those words I support 100 percent my colleague and his bill. I look forward to it coming to our select committee. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am reminded of the saying: “Cometh the hour cometh the man.” Seriously I was going to take a very brief call but I might take my full time because the last speaker has introduced a serious element to this particular debate. I wonder where was the conviction of his party to really say that National wants to do something serious about obsolete legislation. National has set up Mr Bakshi to take his time on a member’s bill that does something absolutely inconsequential. If this issue was so important for National why did it not introduce an omnibus bill to take in all of those pieces of law that are now obsolete and take the Law Commission’s recommendations seriously? I tell Mr Hayes that his party has not done that and this bill is an abuse of Parliament. 
I do not think for a moment that Mr Bakshi thought about this area of work when preparing himself to come into Parliament. The member has been put up by National. I wanted to congratulate him on being successful in his first member’s bill but the junior Government whip knows that this bill is an abuse and is not serious. If it were serious National should use the right elements of Parliament introduce an omnibus bill and put all of those obsolete Acts into it and then let us fix it up. Labour would support that. This bill is an abuse. 
Mr Bakshi in everything he has said in this House has properly talked about the things that are passionate to him and passionate to his people. What have they been? They have been violence issues. His first member’s bill might have been in an area that he was passionate about and I would respect him as a fellow traveller. But this bill is not it. This bill is an abuse of the system and it is not the way to use a member’s bill. 
The Minister of Defence should be very worried if this really is the height of a member’s concerns about military matters. Mr Mapp and I know he is listening knows that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member was quite concerned about using appropriate titles. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The honourable Wayne Mapp; my apologies. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Dr Mapp. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The Hon Dr Wayne Mapp; my apologies to a fellow traveller. I know how it is important it is to call doctors by their title. 
This bill is an abuse. Labour will support the bill because it has a serious element to it but this is not the way to do it. Members opposite are defending the indefensible. The member’s time could have been used far more seriously. But I do still congratulate Mr Bakshi on bringing a bill forward and having it pulled out of the ballot. Thank you. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 It is my great pleasure to announce that the Green Party will support the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. I think the points made by the previous speaker Rajen Prasad were very apt— 
Hon Annette King 
: Doctor! 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Dr Prasad sorry. I think an omnibus bill would be the best way out. We have the statues amendment legislation where a whole lot of little non-controversial changes can be put into one bill. Certainly the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915 and other redundant Acts could be dealt with together. Perhaps Mr Bakshi’s bill will stimulate the Government into action and perhaps in a month or two we will see such an omnibus bill. 
I think this bill meets with support from a wide range of groups within the community. The ACT Party will be speaking next and no doubt as absolutist defenders of private property rights it will defend private property holders against the intrusions of people whether they be in suits or in kaki. I look forward to that speech. This bill will meet with the approval of pacifists who do not like any military manoeuvres at all. Also many older people in our society do not like loud noises so they will be supporting this bill. For young children it can be frightening to see people running around with big guns in camouflage paint. Gardeners do not want their cabbages trampled by the boots of troops going through their fields nor do they want their land affected by the toxic after-effects of explosions although it has to be said that sometimes bombs going off aerate the soil. But most farmers want to do that themselves. 
This bill has not been used for 30 years although I did get an email 8 years ago from a woman who lived on Kawau Island right by the beach. She was on her morning walk and was very surprised to see camouflaged troops emerging from the shrubbery and then hear loud explosions. She and her neighbours were very upset that they had not been informed that the military was performing there. Perhaps the military thought this Act was still operational. I think one of the most important parts of the passage of this bill is that it puts an end to all of that. It is interesting that the Act was enacted in 1915 at a time when the military was more powerful backed up by conservative politicians where not only were the military grabbing people’s land for manoeuvres but it was conscripting many young people forcefully and sending them off to be slaughtered in their tens of thousands in Europe. 
If we look at the bill in that context and look at it in the way the ACT Party will—defending private property rights—then whatever angle one comes from we must support Mr Bakshi in passing this bill tonight. Thank you. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 That speech will be very hard to follow I have to say. I should start by saying just to put Mr Locke out of his misery that the ACT Party will support the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. I think that he spoke with such passion about blowing things up that he secretly has a desire to have the ability to do so. I can help him out with that—it is not too late to join the army. 
The Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill is absolutely the right legislation to pass. It is being done not for the reasons that the Labour members suggested—that Mr Bakshi has nothing to talk about—but because it is very important that we have our statutes and law books in a very good tidy position. When laws have not been used and have not been reviewed it is a long time before reform happens. In fact if the previous Labour Government had been any sort of Government it would have tackled regulatory reform in the same way that this Government is now doing. An omnibus bill would be a very good thing but there is always a starting place and Mr Bakshi has started us off with this bill. This House and the people of New Zealand should be thanking him for that. 
This bill repeals the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915 which provides for the Governor-General by proclamation to declare that any land for the period specified is available for military manoeuvres. But given that this Act has not been used for well over 30 years now it is time that it is not only reviewed but repealed. I am pleased to see that Steve Chadwick is agreeing with this in great mirth even though I think she is still stuck on Mr Locke’s speech. 
The Act was put in place to deal with the mobilisation for the First World War. It is difficult in this day and age to see that that situation and the need for the Act to be there would arise again. In fact if we did come to those circumstances the Government would have the ability to quickly put in place legislation that would allow that to happen again but as I said it is unlikely for that to happen. The ACT Party will be supporting this bill. This is a very good move by Mr Bakshi to tidy up the statutes legislation and it should be encouraged. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. For starters I acknowledge Mr Bakshi for having the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill pulled out of the hat because I know what it is like trying to get a bill out of the hat especially a member’s bill. So I congratulate him. I support the general comments in respect of wiping the Military Manoeuvres Act off the statute book. It has not been used for 30 years. Obviously the Maori Party will support that move. 
I want to take the opportunity to give some other background to this bill and to acknowledge a kuia who has passed away today and to put that into some sort of perspective. There is a bit of history here but it goes back to the Military Manoeuvres Act of 1915 which says any land can be made available to the New Zealand defence forces for military manoeuvres. In talking about that law today for the information of those who do not know this I say a kuia by the name Te Manawanui Pauro of Kaiwhaiki in Whanganui is being mourned. I am told that 103 years was her age. She passed away today. I can imagine that in her lifetime she would have welcomed home—[ 
Interruption 
]—troops who went away overseas in World War I. So it adds another dimension to this debate to think that this amazing kuia of over a century in age in her lifetime would have seen and experienced the Military Manoeuvres Act in operation. 
As other speakers have said basically that law enabled the Governor-General to declare that any land could be made available for military manoeuvres such as military training or war games. It was a special circumstance I believe: a bill passed as a reaction to the advent of the First World War and the consequences of military mobilisation. The question is whether it is still necessary to conduct such military manoeuvres today. In light of the fact that the legislation has not been used for 30 years the answer is that it is probably not necessary. 
Any legislation that is used to justify the taking of Maori land will provoke extra scrutiny in particular from us. So in the course of researching this bill we approached the Ministry of Defence to understand whether the law had had any immediate impact on Maori land Maori landowners or even Maori personnel working in the forces. The Military Manoeuvres Act did not permit the taking of land for defence purposes but rather permitted the New Zealand Army to occupy land for military manoeuvres by proclamation—in other words for temporary activity. No interest in the land was ever required so that is pretty good. The land always remained owned by the legal owner and its use by the Defence Force ended with the end of the military manoeuvres authorised by the proclamation. 
That is not to say that Maori land was not acquired for defence purposes—it certainly was—but that was under the Public Works Act 1981 which was obviously a fair way on in time from the Military Manoeuvres Act. The Public Works Act was the focus of my member’s bill earlier in the year. The Waitangi Tribunal has found that the compulsory taking of land and resources without consent and sometimes without compensation by legislation unsanctioned by Maori communities has given rise to an enduring and powerful grievance. My bill proposed that land sold to the Crown should be offered back to the original owners and/or their descendants or that compensation should be offered. As we all know that fine bill was voted down so the vexed issue of the acquisition of Maori land and more important its return will remain to be dealt with on another day. Suffice it to say that the impact of the Public Works Act has been significant right across areas of current legislation and in this bill. For instance land was acquired in 1915 at Featherston for a camping ground under the provisions of the Public Works Act 1908. In fact the New Zealand Defence Force still holds lands at Trentham Military Camp under the public works and reservations legislation. 
We cannot address the issue of the public works legislation in this bill but we see no reason not to support the initiative put forward by Mr Bakshi to repeal the outdated Military Manoeuvres Act. As such as I said we will support this bill when the vote is taken on it. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 First of all I thank everyone who has contributed to the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill and supported it. I would like to clarify that Opposition members mentioned what I am passionate about. There is no doubt that law and order was the issue at the previous election and this Government has been very serious about it. In the past 21 months the Hon Simon Power and the Hon Judith Collins have introduced 18 bills that are related to law and order. I think that this Government is quite serious about this issue. Those members do not have to worry because we have great leadership that is looking after the country in the area of law and order. I thank everyone who has contributed to this bill. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.