Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I do not want to make any contribution in regard to the Auckland Harbour Bridge and its suitability or not for putting houses under.Chris Hipkins: Why not?Hon RUTH DYSON: Well that is probably the point of another debate but I am very interested in the question that my colleague Chris Hipkins has raised in relation to the appropriateness of putting a whole schedule in a statutes repeal bill that does not deal with any repeal of statutes but deals with amendments to other Acts. They are non-controversial I assume and I know this from the lack of submissions to the Government Administration Committee but I still do not know whether this is the appropriate vehicle. This is something that our Committee of the whole House has been challenged on in a number of instances previously when we have had in a statutes amendment bill proposals that do not meet the criteria for that. I know that the statutes repeal criteria are different from statutes amendments but I would be interested whether the Minister in the chair Nicky Wagner who usually does respond to questions would find out what the criteria is for a statutes repeal bill and whether it is broad enough to allow amendments to other Acts.In schedule 2 which is part of clause 4 we are amending the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act of 1981 with quite a substantial insertion. We are inserting a section in relation to the Unauthorised use of King George the Fifth Memorial Children's Health Camps Federation emblem"—not something that I think is done too frequently. As my colleague Chris Hipkins mentioned earlier we have the Government Roading Powers Act amendment which is substantially to do with the Auckland Harbour Bridge but we also have an amendment to the Public Works Act and we have an amendment to the State Sector Act.So how are these amendments whether they are non-controversial or whether they are needed to make sure that the bill is fit for purpose in this day and age—how is this properly done in a statutes repeal bill? I would also be interested to know whether the Business Committee has considered looking at any of these issues to see whether there is a less onerous way of us progressing the dismissal of books from the statute register—the dismissal of Acts—if those Acts are no longer used. They have done their time. They had no sunset provision in them. They are no longer used for anything at all. Is there a better way than having a bill introduced into Parliament referred to the select committee back to the Committee of the whole House and then on to the third reading? Is there a smarter way of us doing it?It seems to me that this is a real opportunity for us to look at the criteria and say: "Is this better as a statutes amendment type of provision or could there be some separate new type of debate in Parliament where we could say that we will allow time for parties to consider all the legislation—with time for public submissions if it is considered appropriate—but certainly a smarter way of doing this?".In the Australian Parliament they have different types of debates that are held simultaneously. Some of them are a complete opportunity for promoting oneself I think and that is all. I am not proposing that. I just do not think that we need to spend the usual process of the Parliament to dismiss Acts that are no longer fit for purpose. So that is my first point.The second one—just referring to the original reason for this bill being introduced—I want to repeat that I can see no benefit at all or potential gain to the productivity level of New Zealand by us amending the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act of 1981 and that was alleged to have been the purpose of this legislation; nor of the complete repeal of between 132 and 137 Acts. I counted and I got 132. So I think the member who interjected on this earlier on might have to count again. I think he was including the ones that are amended rather than repealed.The final point I want to make is just to say that in this clause there does not appear to be anything controversial unlike the other ones. I think that is appropriate. I urge the Minister to just answer that one question: what is the criterion that is required before parts can be included in a statutes repeal bill? If we could have that information we could conclude the debate I am sure."