Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I move That the Contract and Commercial Law Bill be now read a second time. Mr Robertson and I do not agree on very much but I think he and I would agree that this is a really exciting day for Parliament because this is the first time—Grant Robertson: I can confirm that.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —excellent—that we are going to be dealing with the second and third readings of a revision bill which is what makes it so truly exciting. What does this bill do? It enacts in an up-to-date and accessible form some of our most important contract and commercial legislation—and Mr O'Rourke I see has a sense of excitement as well. It represents the near-completion of a major statute revision exercise. The bill is as I said the first on the Government's triennial statute revision programme that was presented to Parliament in December 2014. The Law Commission has noted that the statute book of New Zealand is the most important part of our legal infrastructure and our statutes need to be user-friendly. The commission recommended revision as a tool to tidy and modernise the statute book and the Legislation Act 2012 accepted that recommendation. So what does this first revision bill do? It combines and revises six Acts containing general contract rules and five commercial Acts containing contract rules that apply to transactions in special contexts such as to the sale or carriage of goods in commercial settings. The oldest Acts—as Mr Faafoi knows—go back to 1908 and the most recent was enacted in 2002. Part 5 of the Mercantile Law Act 1908 is about unpaid vendors of warehoused goods and is hopelessly out of date. It was excluded because revising it could imply it is still relevant. The Government has subsequently reviewed this part and the Customs and Excise Bill introduced late last year is going to repeal it. I see a huge sigh of relief on the part of my good friend Mr Robertson. Contracts play a central role in our society. They are fundamental to property rights and obligations and to how those rights and obligations are lawfully structured and changed. The statutes being revised apply to commercial parties but also to dealings between people who are not necessarily in trade. Combining the contracts statutes with related commercial ones is going to make them more accessible more consistent and easier to update and reform in the future. It is very very important that these rules are clearly expressed. The bill addresses a number of minor inconsistencies anomalies and discrepancies which are not unusual in Acts that have been enacted over the course of almost a century. Hon Clayton Cosgrove: This just brings back stage one Law for me. Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The future is before you. The bill reduces inconsistency and overlap across the statutes arranges provisions in a logical order and changes language format and punctuation to achieve a clear consistent gender-neutral—very important—and modern style of expression. It uses current drafting style and format to better express the spirit and the meaning of the law and it removes spent provisions. So—Grant Robertson: What about Oxford commas? Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Oxford commas and split infinitives are out. By combining these rules and making them easier to understand the bill will allow people and businesses to easily find and follow the rules that affect them and this is going to help reduce regulatory costs. The bill does not change the substance of the law. The only changes to the effect of the law that are permitted in a revision bill under section 31 of the Legislation Act are minor changes to clarify Parliament's intent or reconcile inconsistencies and these are set out in the second schedule. The explanatory note of the bill identifies general terms as required under the Legislation Act 2012—the minor inconsistencies the anomalies the discrepancies and the omissions that were identified during the revision work—and schedule 3 contains a comparative table of the old and new provisions and this is going to help people to update documents. Before introduction four lawyers appointed under the Legislation Act certified that the statutory revision powers had been appropriately applied and that the bill does not change the substantive law. The certifiers were a retired High Court judge the then president of the Law Commission the Solicitor-General and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. I presented their revision certificate to the House on the bill's introduction and an exposure draft of the bill was made available. Exposure drafts are actually very good things and should be used more so that people have more of an opportunity to come to grips with legislation before it is introduced because I see that the former president of the Law Commission was saying something to a select committee today about the time for submissions. The problem is that you introduce a bill it is sent off to a select committee and having 4 or 5 weeks to come to grips with complex legislation may not be enough. Some submitters expressed caution about changing statutory language that supports well-established judicial interpretation. Frankly I think it is a theoretical risk which needs to be balanced against the significant benefits already mentioned and the risks of leaving the legislation in an inconsistent and outdated form. There are some people who never want change to anything because they fear that precedents may be lost. Well I just say to them man up and get over it. Hon David Parker: School ties and the like.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Ha ha! Select committee scrutiny has provided another check on any inadvertent change to the law being carried forward. Parliament's Standing Orders Committee noted in 2011 and 2014 that revision bills are limited to restating the existing law and clarifying its intent so any substantive policy amendments at the select committee would be out of scope. So as I say this is the first revision bill. I think the Justice and Electoral Committee did a really good job on it. It received only two submissions but that was probably not unexpected and in view of the public consultation on the exposure draft the submitters expressed a concern about the content of the bill. One considered the bill should be split into a contract bill and a commercial bill. The other supported having a contract bill but thought that the sale of goods provisions and the carriage of goods provision should be in separate bills. But the committee rejected that and I am pleased it did. So I actually think it lays a good foundation for future reform. Some of this legislation is going to need to be updated in the reasonably near future but it is all in one place and it can be looked at in a sensible and coherent manner and we are really doing a good job as a Parliament on tidying up the statute book. The committee sensibly recommended moving the only remaining substantive provision of the Wages Protection and Contractors' Liens Act Repeal Act of 1987—Chris Bishop: Oh that's a cracker. Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —into the bill. That is going to make it easier to find and understand—I say to Mr Bishop—and the 1987 Act can be repealed. Also as part of the judicature modernisation work section 90 of the Judicature Act 1908 is being transferred to the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 as new section 4A and this will take effect on 1 March. The section provides that the equitable law rule on contractual stipulations such as time prevails over the common law rule. This affects remedies that are available when such stipulations are breached—for example cancellation may be available at common law but not under the law of equity. The committee could see a potential problem with the provision being inserted in the part of the bill that revises only the Contractual Remedies Act and it noted this may confine the application of a rule in a way that would change the law. As this is certainly not the intention the committee recommended that section 90 of the Judicature Act 1908 as revised be added to the contract legislation in the bill as a separate new subpart. What the Government is going to do now is consider the committee's helpful comments that the revision bill process could be improved to allow for greater practical revision. The committee was unable to recommend that a reference in the bill to newspaper advertisements be changed to include online advertisements as it was advised that this would have been outside the bill's scope.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The Nuk Korako clause". Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The "Nuk Korako clause". But I am very grateful to the committee—I do not particularly understand that interjection but I will take it as a benign interjection. I want to thank the committee for its careful and thorough work. This is the first revision bill as I said. I frankly would like to see a revision of all the legislation—and I am sure Mr Assistant Speaker would as well—dealing with Parliament. There are 15 statutes that could be collapsed into one but when you are looking at a practical revision there is some work that would need to be done on that. I think we need a Parliament Act. The ACC Act is a dog's breakfast. The Companies Act of 1993 is a mess. There is a lot of work that could be done to make—Chris Bishop: Copyright.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Copyright Act the Education Act 1989 and all the other ones—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): 1965. Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: 1965. So there is a lot that can be done. Look we disagree on a lot of things in this House but tidying up the statute book making it more user-friendly so that people do not have to go off to lawyers and pay exorbitant rates per hour to get an interpretation of something—I know I am speaking against the profession but frankly I think it is a very good thing. So I think my time is up and I will sit down. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I forgot the bells completely. Yes the member's time is up. Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I just kept on talking when I looked up and saw the clock was on zero so I knew I was probably out of time but there were never any bells. I do not blame you Mr Assistant Speaker but there are others I cast an evil eye at. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Oh no it was so interesting."