Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice: I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a second time. As the House will be aware, Statutes Amendment bills are useful vehicles for making minor technical and non-controversial amendments to Acts. They allow amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed, although, on an annual cycle, the current bill is a combination of the bills developed in 2008 and 2009, and is therefore larger than normal.

The bill amends 47 statutes administered by 15 different Government agencies, and it contains 196 clauses. Each of the amendments in the bill has received unanimous cross-party support. I thank Parekura Horomia and his team for that. The bill was reported back by the Government Administration Committee on 1 April 2010.

I thank the Government Administration Committee for its careful consideration of the bill. I endorse the committee’s one recommended amendment, an amendment to clause 156(2), which I know Jacqui Dean worked on. The amendment will add the words “in each place where it appears” to the end of the clause, as the term to be replaced by the bill appears more than once in the affected section. This change will be addressed by way of a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee of the whole House, as the committee considered that the six additional words did not justify the expense of reprinting the bill at this point.

Somewhat unusually for a Statutes Amendment Bill, the bill received five submissions from members of the public. Four of these submissions related to the amendment in clause 119. Clause 119, members will be interested to know, amends section 94A of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1998, and it is important. Currently, two people, such as a husband and wife, who wish to create enduring powers of attorney in favour of each other are required to seek advice and have their signatures witnessed by a person who is independent and who is a lawyer, qualified legal executive, or authorised trustee corporation officer.

In effect, this has meant that two people wishing to create enduring powers of attorney in favour of each other had to seek advice from two different law firms or trustee corporations. This unintended consequence of section 94A has increased the expense involved and has deterred some couples from creating mutual enduring powers of attorney. The amendment will enable witnesses from the same law firm or trustee corporation to separately advise and witness the signatures of two people who have granted each other respective power of attorney, although each witness must otherwise be independent under section 94A(4).

Although the four submitters either supported the intention of the amendment or did not oppose it, they each considered that it did not go far enough to address their concerns about the independence requirements of section 94A. However, any change to widen the amendment in clause 119 to address the concerns raised would represent a significant policy change. As Parliament has deliberately enacted the requirements for independent witnesses, this is not something that is suitable to be progressed in a Statutes Amendment Bill. The committee has recommended that concerns about section 94A be addressed in the review of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988, which is set for 2013.

During consideration of the bill by the select committee, Nathan Guy signalled he had received additional amendments for inclusion in the bill, subject to the agreement of all parliamentary parties. All parties have indicated support for an amendment to the Sentencing Act 2002 to correct an error in the definition of “Instrument of crime”. It is intended that this definition be amended so that it is consistent with the equivalent definition in the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.

The inconsistent definitions were inserted by the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, which was passed last April and came into effect on 1 December 2009. The definition was intended to be the same as the definition in the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act so that the instruments of crime restrained under the Act could eventually be confiscated under the Sentencing Act. However, a paragraph was omitted in error. The effect is that where an instrument is sold or converted into another property before a forfeiture order is made, the proceeds of property into which the instrument was not converted can be restrained but not confiscated. As with the amendment recommended by the select committee, this amendment will be moved by way of a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee of the whole House.

This bill proposes a number of positive changes to the statute book that are minor, technical, or non-controversial. Again, I thank the committee for its diligent and expeditious work, and I commend the bill to the House

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) : I am pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill. I heard the Minister who spoke previously, Phil Heatley, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, say these amendments are all small and non-controversial, but these are the very changes to law that can make a fundamental difference, and we are very wary about what gets into a Statutes Amendment Bill without due scrutiny of the House and committees. The Minister may say the amendments are non-controversial and minor, but we have already expressed our concern to Nathan Guy, the Minister who is in charge of the bill, that some of the provisions in this bill are quite close to the edge of acceptability in any Statutes Amendment Bill.

I refer, in particular, to the amendment in clause 103 of the bill to the definition of “foreshore” in the National Parks Act. This requires some debate; it is hardly small and merely technical. We have told the Government that we will support this bill—it will be very relieved to hear that—but that we retain the right to reconsider any individual amendment during the Committee of the whole House.

I will raise some issues here. We have some reservations, as I said, about some aspects that have almost slipped into the Statutes Amendment Bill. One of the amendments in Part 4 of the bill, the one to section 9 of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act, changes quite substantively the meaning of the circumstances when a parent is unavailable to sign a birth registration form. This one rang bells for me. I think it is really important to realise that even though this amendment is sensible, it is almost like a policy change, and we have to be very careful when we slip things like that into a Statutes Amendment Bill and make statutory changes. That one is a bit close to the wind.

Also, Labour is concerned about the amendments to the Building Act in Part 5 of the bill. The Minister Phil Heatley, who spoke first in this debate, spoke about this. Sections 405 and 412 of the Building Act reduce the scrutiny of the House of these amendments through the Regulations Review Committee. We think that is poor practice. Although these amendments might be technical and minor, we think they should come under scrutiny, and we as a party are not supportive of including any amendments that reduce parliamentary scrutiny as a principle. So that is one area that we have concerns about; we think that such amendments should come to the House.

The Minister will be pleased to know that we support the Chatham Islands Council Act amendment in Part 7 of the bill. This may seem small, but to those in the Chatham Islands it is really big. It gives the council there the same functions, duties, and powers as a regional authority under the Building Act. That is eminently sensible, and I am sure it is a measure proposed by the good member for the Chathams, Annette King. She has learnt on her several trips to the Chathams that the council is quite frustrated about not having those broader powers, especially for things like building construction on the Chatham Islands. We have no problem with that amendment.

We have no problem with other amendments in this bill. But it is quite cavalier to come to the House and say this bill is non-controversial and everybody agrees with it. Actually, we do not always agree—

Jacqui Dean: Yes, you do.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: No, we do not, on some of these things. We think it is because of the way that the law is drafted that provisions get slipped into a Statutes Amendment Bill. Although we support this bill, we reserve the right to review our position when the amendments come to the House in the Committee stage. The member Jacqui Dean has been calling out that we support the bill, but we reserve the right to review our position on amendments that come before the Committee of the whole House for scrutiny. At this stage we support this bill and are pleased that it is back before the House.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : Noting that the first reading of the Statues Amendment Bill enjoyed unanimous support, and noting the good work of the Government Administration Committee during its consideration of this bill, I expect that this bill will continue to have a good and useful passage through the House. The bill consists entirely of amendments to Acts so it is, arguably, an omnibus bill. It is introduced to the House by virtue of Standing Order 258, so it is one of those omnibus bills that seeks to make changes to statutes.

I will highlight in my brief contribution just a few amendments that are of interest. We are proposing an amendment to the Electoral Act 1993 that “removes the obligation for a party to an intended marriage or civil union to provide information to the Registrar-General” but “requires the Registrar-General to provide details of registered marriages and civil unions” to the Chief Registrar of Electors. That change brings the legislation in line with modern times.

There is also an amendment to the National Parks Act that provides for the Minister to “do, or authorise a person to do, any thing that the Minister considers appropriate for the proper and beneficial management, administration, and control” of a national park. Also “the Minister may impose any terms and conditions the Minister considers appropriate in the circumstances, including a condition requiring the payment of fees.” I imagine that that amendment is reasonably topical.

I finish with one more: the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 amendment. Part 27 of this bill amends the Misuse of Drugs Act. Clause 101 amends section 31 by omitting from subsections (2) and (2A) references to registered post as a means of delivery of something to be analysed, and substituting a requirement that the delivery use a traceable system. This change is made because registered post is no longer available. That amendment is relatively straightforward, and I hope it will be non-controversial. In addition to the requirement that the delivery is made by way of a traceable system, the thing to be analysed must be delivered in a sealed package.

That ends my contribution to this bill. The select committee has given it good consideration, and I anticipate some further good debate as it passes through the House. Thank you.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) : Labour has expressed concern to Minister Guy that a number of the provisions of the Statutes Amendment Bill seem close to the edge of acceptability—in particular, the amendment of the definition of “foreshore” in the National Parks Act 1980. Labour has told the Government that we will support the bill, while retaining the right, as my colleague Steve Chadwick pointed out earlier, to reconsider any individual amendment in the Committee of the whole House. The definition of “foreshore” in the National Parks Act will be amended. Currently, the National Parks Act refers to the definition contained in the Harbours Act 1950, which has been repealed. Clause 103 sets out the new definition of foreshore as “any land covered by the flow and ebb of the tide at mean spring tides”. Labour has expressed concern that this will have unintended consequences in light of the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. The Associate Minister of Justice, Nathan Guy, has assured Labour members that the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General are satisfied that the change will have no direct effect on the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.

The bill amends section 9 of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act by substantively changing the meaning of when a parent is unavailable to sign a birth registration form. This is a sensible amendment, but it seems very close to a policy change. It is an ongoing issue that has relevance to people who want to find out who their parents were, if they do not know, and it has unintended consequences.

Other proposed amendments that give rise to concern, as Charles Chauvel pointed out in his letter to the Minister of Justice, were to the Juries Amendment Act 2008, which itself amends the 1981 Act. The year of that Act seems a long time ago but it is not yet in force. That is quite interesting. It is amended to expand the distance used to define jury districts from 30 kilometres to 45 kilometres. We are not too sure of the relevance, and that is one of the things we want to just suss out a bit more.

The amendments to the Marriage Act 1955, which has been quite a hot potato over the last 5 years, change the criteria for appointment of independent marriage celebrants. That is a huge, growing field. It goes outside the Church, and it has its own ethos, and its own practice. Marriage celebrants have a whole host of different practices, and it is something else that we are concerned about.

The amendments to sections 139 and 156 of the Property Law Act 2007 refer to when a mortgagee obtains a court order for possession of mortgaged property. Possession is backdated to the date of the application, to allow the mortgagee to collect any income from the property from that day. That provision opens a raft of difficulties in the sense of determining who is in the right and who is in the wrong, and we will certainly keep track of that.

The amendment to section 94A of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 concerns the independence of witnesses to enduring powers of attorney, and seems to be policy-related. It is very interesting that it seems to read, in the course of the development of this notion, that people can have an attorney practising for them in one sense, but at the same time the attorney can be doing a double act. We certainly want to keep an eye on that.

Both of the proposed amendments to the Radiocommunications Act 1989 allow regulations to be made concerning the importation for supply and the offering for sale of radio apparatus, in the same way as regulations can be made that control the supply of such equipment. We have an ongoing concern about bandwidth and the use of this new equipment. That is really, really important. Labour is also concerned that the proposed amendments to sections 405 and 412 of the Building Act 2004 will reduce the ability of the House, through the Regulations Review Committee, to scrutinise certain instruments. It is very important to keep an eye on that because we are not too sure what the—

John Hayes: What it means.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Especially in the Wairarapa, where a lot of people will be struggling after this Budget announcement. Although this case seems to have arisen from a drafting error, in principle the Labour Opposition will not generally be supportive of including amendments that reduce parliamentary scrutiny in a Statutes Amendment Bill.

We are very interested in the Companies Act 1993. Notices given by the registrar remove the need for publication of notices in certain newspapers, and it is required that notices be available on the Internet. The difficulty we have with that is that a lot of our constituents do not have the Internet and it seems to be Big Brother tactics to remove from the public eye information that is very important. We would like to understand better what that is about. As I see you looking at me quite quizzically, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can tell you that we will be supporting this bill, but we retain the right to ensure that we come back and debate and discuss in a peaceful fashion those matters that are relevant and that we are concerned about. Thank you.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : That contribution was very typical of the New Zealander who once said that thinking bore a low ratio to talking. I think that that contribution demonstrated quite clearly that public life can attract too little of New Zealand’s best thinking ability to this place and that very often our laws are framed in a less than perfect way. And that is the purpose of this bill. This bill, contrary to the comments made by the list member for Rotorua, is a Statutes Amendment Bill. By definition, it is required that there be cross-party agreement. So to begin one’s speech by talking about the possibilities of change is just arrant nonsense. I say to the Māori member, who covers part of my electorate, and who throws off at the Wairarapa, that this bill is fundamentally important, yet he has not read it. How do I know he has not read it? It is because he did not know that there is an amendment to the Taratahi legislation. It is a hugely important amendment and it is clear demonstration that the last speaker had not read this legislation. I absolutely support this legislation and will, accordingly, sit down.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am maligned by the member’s suggestion that I cannot read.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: These are debating points. I did not take from the member’s comments that he was saying that the member could not read.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) : I will take only a brief call on the Statutes Amendment Bill. It is indeed correct that most times when these Statutes Amendment bills are put before the House they are for minor technical amendments. However, my colleagues have raised a number of issues that will be debated with some vigour at the Committee stage, for the simple reason that every bit of legislation that passes through this House should be scrutinised by members of Parliament, certainly through the select committee process, regardless of whether the amendments that it makes are controversial. That process, in itself, enables the public view to be expressed and some considered advice to be put before members of Parliament, because members do not have a monopoly of knowledge on the number of issues that are brought before us. We can also, perhaps, then consider making further amendments as a consequence of that process. With that in mind, I reinforce the comments put forward by my colleagues with regard to this Statutes Amendment Bill.

I want to put a frame around “minor technical amendments”. There is probably only one member currently in this House, who is not with the Labour Party now, but who will remember that it was said with some frivolity in our Labour caucus that a minor technical amendment was brought in to amend the State-Owned Enterprises Act, and arising out that amendment we had a number of actions that led to the New Zealand Māori Council injunction on the sale of State-owned enterprises, and also to the Waikato-Tainui injunction in terms of the sale of Solid Energy. All of that was brought about by a minor technical amendment.

My colleague Steve Chadwick raised specific issues in relation to the definition of “foreshore” in the National Parks Act coming into line with that in the Foreshore and Seabed Act. I present just one issue, and it is in relation to tourism ventures. One could easily apply this thinking to the Abel Tasman National Park, and that provision may or may not impact on tourism operators. If we look at the inclusion of the foreshore definition, we see it could or could not enable kayakers to land their kayaks on the foreshore of the national park, and be charged or not charged for doing so. When we say to members an amendment could have consequential effects, those are the types of issues that this House has no knowledge of. I was not on the select committee, but I would appreciate hearing informed debate from colleagues who were on the select committee to give me a sense of whether this minor technical amendment will have an impact on tourism operators. I know that tourism operators who run a business in Abel Tasman National Park and who land their kayaks on the foreshore will want to know whether their business will be affected. It is quite simple and very practical, and it should be something that members in this House give due regard to.

The ability to debate and discuss these types of issues is very important. If an amendment affects businesses—and in this case it may or may not do so—by affecting the ability of tourism operators to do the things that they are currently doing lawfully and, perhaps, causing a negative down-flow effect, then they should know about that very quickly. It should be brought out through further clarification from the select committee process when debating the issues arising from this Statutes Amendment Bill. I know that we do not have much more time left before the dinner break, but I do believe that if we were to ensure that bills such as this one were debated with the fullest of knowledge by all members, then those select committee members who participated in this debate—

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The Hon Nanaia Mahuta has the call—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Hon Nanaia Mahuta is unable to complete her call and I understand that the Hon David Parker, the chairman of the Government Administration Committee, wishes to complete the remaining part of her call. I believe she has about 4 minutes remaining on that call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): If the Speaker had not been informed in the first instance, the member would have to seek leave because a call has been taken. If the Speaker is informed first that there is to be a split call—

Hon David Parker: I will seek leave.

Hon Darren Hughes: I am not sure whether a split call was sought, because I was not here.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member is seeking leave to complete the call of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course? There is.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) : It is my privilege to speak on the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill. This is an omnibus bill to amend Acts. This bill is introduced under Standing Order 259, which allows an omnibus bill to amend more than one Act. The Statutes Amendment Bill amends and deals with an interrelated topic, which can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy.

The amendments affecting each Act are of a similar nature to each other. This bill amends 47 statutes that are administered by 15 different Government agencies. It contains 196 clauses in total. They range from amending the Juries Amendment Act 2008 and the National Parks Act 1980, to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, and so on. This bill utilises minor technical amendments, which are non-controversial to many Acts. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : Mr Assistant Speaker, I know that you will be surprised that I am taking the call given that the chair of the Government Administration Committee was referred to earlier, but now that a member of the committee has given such an erudite explanation of the details of the report back from the committee, I am sure that my colleague does not mind that he is not taking this call.

I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about some of the things that I think are really important about the process. The first, of course, is that I do like the omnibus bill approach, as I have said in this House on numerous occasions. Statutes Amendment bills are specifically focused on very minor, technical, and non-controversial amendments to existing statutes. They are issues that are not really open for debate, but they are certainly matters that need to be addressed. They do not, however, justify the attention of the House as separate items of business.

I think that there should be more opportunities for omnibus bills, and, as I have said in this House on several occasions, the area of regulatory improvement is one that I like to see. I note that the Government has taken up the bill that was in my name—that is, the Regulatory Improvement Bill—and has decided to adopt that as an annual process.

This particular bill contains a controversial matter, but it is not controversial because of what it is intending to do; it is controversial because of the decision that occurred prior to our having to amend the law to reflect a change that took place outside of this place. I will mention that in a moment.

Hon Darren Hughes: Thank you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I have got members hooked now, have I not, on a Statutes Amendment Bill.

The other thing I wanted to refer to in respect of the report back from the select committee was that the committee identified an error in terms of one of the 47 statutes, administered by 15 different agencies, that it is amending. It found a small issue in clause 156(2), and it recommended an amendment. However, the committee made the very sensible suggestion not to require the reprinting of the bill for such a minor amendment. I thought that was exceptionally well considered, and I congratulate the chair of the committee, who obviously led that decision.

Hon Darren Hughes: He’s been silenced by the Government!

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: That is right! But anyway, it is worth mentioning that when we are dealing with non-controversial legislation such as this, sensible arrangements can be entered into. Actually, a bit of leave for the chairman of the committee to speak on the bill might have meant that members did not have to put up with this very lengthy speech—as it is turning out to be—but that is all right.

The one issue that is controversial, not because of the bill but because of the decision that preceded the bill, is Part 29, “New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants Act 1996”. The reason for the controversy around this is the institute’s appalling decision to change its name from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand to the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants! I just think that is an outrageous thing for it to have done!

Hon Darren Hughes: Start a campaign.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, I know. It was so much easier to talk about “consulting ICANZ”—everyone knew exactly who one was talking about. Now it is “NZICA”, which sounds like “NZ-EEKA”. We cannot help ourselves; we have to turn everything into an acronym of some sort that makes some sort of sense.

Hon Darren Hughes: Even if it doesn’t make sense.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, like “NZ-EEKA”, which does not really sound like the worthy body that our chartered accountants actually are. But, seriously, the particular amendment is required because the organisation changed its name quite some time ago, and it is time we updated that particular statute to bring it into line.

I understand that the Minister, at some point during the Committee stage, will provide some information on the Wills Act 2007. I think it is important to put that on the record, because an important aspect has been raised in respect of a late submission on clause 196(1) concerning the validity of wills according to the Wills Act 2007. Finally, there has obviously been a bit of debate around the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. I agree with the select committee’s recommendation in that regard, in the sense that no further change has been made to clause 119 but that the review is to address any remaining concerns about section 94A. I think that is a very sensible way to address the particular issue that was raised by way of submission.

I am very pleased to see the bill back in the House. Again I commend the chair of the Government Administration Committee for the superb work he did, with a very dedicated team, obviously, assisting him very ably in that process.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātau katoa. I a au e tū nei, i te mea i hoki mai au i te wā kāinga i tērā wiki nā runga i te āhuatanga ō-mate, ā, i tēnei pō kua rongo ngā taringa mō te āhuatanga o te matenga o Ēmere Nīkora, he kaihautū o roto i ngā mea reo irirangi. Nō reira, ko tāku ko te poroporoaki i a ia me te kī atu, haere, haere, haere, okioki mai rā.

Ehara i te mea ka tino mōhio tonu tērā kuia ki te āhuatanga o ēnei momo pire, tērā pea ka rata mai i te mea, he mea whakakao mai i ngā momo pire katoa, ngā momo paku rerekētanga o roto i ngā pire, i rārangihia i roto i te pire nei. Ehara i te mea he nui ngā kōrero, hoi anō ko tā mātou, ko te tautako ake i te tikanga o tēnei pire. Kai te tika tā Hōnore Lianne Dalziel mō te āhuatanga o ēnei huarahi, he tere te whakatikatika i ētahi momo āhuatanga o roto i ngā pire e hia kē nei. Nō reira, he mea pai tērā. I a au e titiro nei ka kite atu ōku tao mātai i te tuatahi, ko te tango mai i ngā mea kāre i tino pai ki a mātau, kua waihotia, kua panaia ērā ki te taha, anā, ko ngā mea kua waihotia mai ai, ko ngā mea me kī, kai te tautokongia e te Pāti Māori.

Ka mutu, i kite atu i ētahi mea o roto i tēnei pire, arā, ko te National Parks Act 1980. Ka pātai au i te pātai mēnā he paku take tērā e pā ana ki te Urewera mēnā, ka kitea atu he wāhanga o te Urewera kai roto i tērā pire, tērā pea ka rerekē tā mātau titiro ki tērā wāhanga.

Ka mutu, mō te āhuatanga o ngā Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981 te tūmanako ia, ka whai wāhi tērā ki te tautoko i te whakatau o te Pirimia me te Minita mō ngā Take Māori mō te āhuatanga o te haki, ka whakairia ki runga i te piriti o Tāmaki-makau-rau i te tīmatanga mai o tēnei tau.

Nō reira, kāti ēnei paku kōrero nei. He mea tautoko ake i te tikanga o tēnei pire, ā, me te tautoko o te Pāti Māori i tēnei pānuitanga tuarua. Kia hoki mai i tōna mutunga mai, ka tautokongia anō hoki. Nō reira, kia ora tātau.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us all. As I stand here, and because I went home last week to a bereavement, I hear tonight that Ēmere Nīkora, a leading figure in radio broadcasting, has passed away. So I farewell her by saying: depart, depart, journey on, and rest there.

I hardly expect that elderly lady to be familiar with what these kinds of bills are about, but she might be satisfied with the omnibus nature of it because of all the legislation gathered together with slight modifications that are listed in this bill. Apart from supporting its purpose, I do not have a great deal to say about the bill. The Hon Lianne Dalziel was right when she said that these procedures speed up amendments relating to all sorts of things in these omnibus-type bills. That is a good thing. As I cast my eyes over it, the first thing was to remove those things that we considered not good to us that we left out and cast aside, but those we have allowed to remain are ones the Māori Party supports.

Further to that, we found some things referred to in this bill, like the National Parks Act 1980, where the question is asked whether there is a tiny bit in it that relates to the Urewera. If a provision for the Urewera can be found in the bill, then perhaps our outlook about that bit might change.

Now, as far as the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981 is concerned, our hope here is that that part endorses the resolution by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Māori Affairs about flying of flags on the Auckland Harbour Bridge at the beginning of the year.

So I end my small contribution here. The Māori Party supports the purpose of the bill and this second reading of it. We will support it again when it comes back. So greetings to us. ]

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : I am very pleased to support the Statutes Amendment Bill. Firstly I acknowledge members opposite and my members on the Government Administration Committee. I noticed that the chairperson of the committee was not here earlier; I know how much he has been dying to speak on this bill. Unfortunately, I have the wonderful opportunity to do that. I also note that we have had 196 very interesting amendments.

Hon Paula Bennett: Go through them all!

NIKKI KAYE: I would love to go through them all, but I do not have the time to do that. I also note that one of the wonderful things about Statutes Amendment bills is that they bring people together. The reason that they do is that we actually cannot disagree, because if we do, the clause in question drops out. It is a lovely moment being on the Government Administration Committee.

I will deal with a couple of things that the previous Labour speaker mentioned. The decision on clause 156(2)—to not have to reprint the bill—was a really good one by the committee. I also acknowledge that clause 196(1) regarding the validity of wills will be dealt with, I think, during the Committee stage in the House. There are a number of amendments that it is very important that the House scrutinise, but they are not controversial. They include amendments to the Electoral Act, the Juries Amendment Act, and the Copyright Act. I commend this bill to the House.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : It is indeed a pleasure to stand and give a lengthy address on the topic of the Statutes Amendment Bill. I too pay tribute to the Government Administration Committee, a very busy committee that has to turn its mind to many different items. It is very well chaired by the Hon David Parker. I also pay tribute to National members, particularly John Hayes, who nimbly moves between applications on his eCommittee files looking for details—he does not need to use paper any more; he is right on top of it—and Nikki Kaye, who throughout the deliberations on this bill tempted the committee with talk of a clause that she would perhaps oppose during the Committee stage. We waited and we waited, but we never heard what it was. Perhaps we will during the Committee stage, but Nikki Kaye was not able to tell us then.

Lianne Dalziel has already said that Statutes Amendment bills play a very important role in the House in being able to make minor and technical changes without the need to produce a large number of individual bills. Omnibus bills like this are obviously useful for the House, and this one brings together 2 years’ worth of changes, so in that sense it is really an omnibus omnibus bill.

However, I note that in the cross-party consultation Labour felt that one or two of the amendments were moving beyond technical change more toward the policy realm. I say that as a note of caution. Most of those clauses could be dealt with fairly easily, but any expansion of the scope of how a Statutes Amendment Bill might work would concern us. An example of that was an amendment to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act, which concerned whether a parent’s signature was required if that parent was overseas. Although that might seem like a relatively minor change, it is actually quite significant in terms of the responsibilities of parents.

Perhaps more significant were the changes to the Conservation Act. We had a submission on that matter—that is worthy of note in itself—from an external party, Mr Graeme Edgeler, about the scope of that change. It was not so much about whether it was the right or wrong thing to do but whether it extended the scope of an offence. In that case, it was an offence relating to dogs causing serious injury to protected wildlife. I think it is important just to note that that is perhaps an example of where the bill begins to move beyond just a technical amendment, to something that is actually widening the scope of an offence. The committee was able to deal with that concern, given the high quality of its membership, but it is an issue when we look towards future Statutes Amendment bills. With that contribution, I am happy to support this bill.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) : The ACT Party will support the Government in the passing of the Statutes Amendment Bill.

• Bill read a second time.