Statutes Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to the Statutes Amendment Bill. Members, we should note that there are special requirements for statutes amendment bills. Standing Order 313(2) provides that if any member objects to a clause standing part of a statutes amendment bill, the clause is struck out of the bill. Members, we start with Part 1.

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. It is agreed to.

I acknowledge that we’re nearing lunch, and we have a saying in Māngere that when you smell the pork, keep it short. I’m also aware that the Statutes Amendment Bill is one of the most sexiest bills around and everybody wants to be part of it, but I also want to say that the bill—I could not bring in any of this without cross-party support.

So let me just outline for those who are not aware just what’s happening here. This bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill, enables Parliament to make technical, short, and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. The current bill amends 41 Acts administered by 11 different Government agencies. Each of the amendments in the bill has received unanimous cross-party support, and it is a good demonstration of all parties working together.

As previously mentioned, the Governance and Administration Committee made two changes to the bill: firstly, to remove the amendment to the Unit Titles Act as another bill has made that amendment earlier this year, and, secondly, to add an amendment to the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Act to remove this statutory encumbrance from the discrete part of the South Mangawhai Forest to enable Ngāti Manuhiri to progress with a development opportunity.

I seek the leave of the committee for all provisions to be taken as one, as our whip has put it there. I welcome the deliberations from the committee on this bill. I also commend the Governance and Administration Committee for their hard work and dedication, which ensured that changes made through this bill are technical, short, and non-controversial.

Really, that’s all I wanted to say. I’ll leave it to you, members, and you decide when we finish with this bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members, before I take the next call, I’d like to remind members that if any member wishes for there to be a separate vote on any provision, please indicate this to the Chairperson during the debate so that we can put those questions first.

The question is that Parts 1 to 41, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In the spirit in which the Associate Minister for Justice made his contribution, I’ll recall that in my school days, when the fine young gentlemen of Kelston Boys’ High School were not, perhaps, as focused on algebra as they should have been, the teacher would say “It’s your own time you’re wasting.” In a kind of existential sense, of course, that was right, but until the bell goes, it’s very much the teacher’s time that’s being wasted—or, at least, I don’t know, you feel like you’re somehow getting away with something. I sometimes regret that now—not particularly in relation to algebra, let’s be honest—

Nicola Grigg: Back to the bill.

CHRIS PENK: —but, anyway, here we are. “Back to the bill.”, I’m encouraged by my own colleague! Actually, seeing as we’re on the subject, Ms Grigg thought we’d already done this bill, so riveted was she by proceedings in the previous one. But, actually, I’m off duty now, so I am wasting my own time.

Anyway—the Statutes Amendment Bill. The Minister’s made the very reasonable point that it is a matter of bipartisan consensus—or partisan consensus, I suppose you could say; we do have more than two parties these days, you know, for some reason. Anyway, we’ve got a number of amendments that are pretty uncontroversial. That’s how they’ve made it in here in the first place, and as the Chair of the committee’s noted, it will be possible to vote on those individually and we could record that we agree or disagree with any given one of them. We’re not going to put the committee to that trouble. We have had the chance to check that we agree with the changes being made, and also, in the first instance, that they are changes that don’t need agreement in the policy sense.

They’re just—well, they’re minor, they’re technical, and they’re non-controversial, but, actually, that doesn’t mean they’re not important. They are important to those who rely on these systems operating well—the legislation that governs the way that people can live their lives and do their work, and so forth. I think it’s fair to say—and it would be a Government of any stripe that would do this—these are matters that are small enough that they wouldn’t occupy the House time that the Government’s got allotted to it in and of themselves. You wouldn’t make these 42 Acts’ worth of amendments in 42 different bits of legislation—much more sensible to do it all in one hit. So on behalf of National, I can say that we continue to support the process by which these have been brought forward. We support the changes themselves. We note that there are a large number of them.

In relation to my own area, I will actually just give a shout out to Ngāti Manuhiri in the north of Auckland—the South Mangawhai Forest is referenced specifically; that’s just above the boundary of Kaipara ki Mahurangi. We are very pleased to have in our area a number of different iwi groups, but, certainly, in that part of the world, a constructive player, a significant local player, a force for good locally, and so in the small way that this legislation supports their endeavours and allows them to get on without undue legal impediment—that’s a good thing, which I say from my perspective as a local MP.

Other than that, we see issues as diverse as the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997, and if my colleagues—who shall remain nameless, other than Ms Grigg—think that the previous bill was pretty turgid stuff, then she should see that bit of legislation. Anyway, obviously there’s some pretty significant stuff: the Evidence Act, dear to the heart of every lawyer who sets foot in a courtroom and, actually, some non-court settings as well; the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act—so there’s some provision there for the board to authorise a class of persons, which is firefighters as a whole, as opposed to individual ones, to perform or exercise a function, power, or duty under the Act. So, actually, without knowing a lot about that personally, that sounds like it could be really significant, and including a Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) contractor as an appointee to a role or rank or position in FENZ, again, seems pretty sensible—again, actually, probably quite significant if you’re in that position or needing to rely on a person taking up such a role.

So that’s sort of the nature of the amendments that are being made. We don’t have anything more specific to say on them, so I finish with that general observation that National continues to support the Statutes Amendment Bill, and we welcome its continued passage which will no doubt comprise a third reading at some stage soon.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to acknowledge the point that the member made. Yes, these are minor and technical, but they are important, particularly to our wider community.

I just want to make reference to the Ngāti Manuhiri amendment. In March 2021, Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust requested the Crown remove an encumbrance from part of South Mangawhai Forest. The encumbrance provides for Māori to have a right of access to protected sites; it’s not a public right of access. Heritage New Zealand concluded there are no protected sites within the discrete area. The encumbrance therefore has no practical effect for this discrete area. Amending the Act to remove the encumbrance from the discrete area would enable Ngāti Manuhiri to fulfil their development aspirations consistent with the land’s status as commercial redress. Such redress is intended to enable iwi to build their economic base. Ngāti Manuhiri have corresponded about the proposal with iwi whose rohe overlap the discrete area and no concerns were raised. So I just wanted to use that as an example of how important it is.

Finally, even though, you know, I said it is the sexiest bill, I have to say the staff who coordinate all of this at ministerial level, at whips’ level—I take my hat off to you. This is probably one of the most painful roles of trying to corral all of us here in the House, so I want to acknowledge them, but I absolutely acknowledge the multi-partisan approach that you all take in this bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to thank everybody, with this omnibus bill. As the honourable Minister said, it’s a really sexy bill, with the crossing of i’s and dotting the t’s. As he says, it is very important to those that this affects. One of the simple things is the Railways Act and that we no longer have registered post. You know, there’s not a lot here that is controversial. Even though ACT doesn’t have a seat on the Governance and Administration Committee, I was quite happy to read through all these 51 lovely little changes of dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s—what I’d call a house-cleaning bill.

It’s much appreciated that it does make a huge difference for a lot of people to make it very clear about what’s going on into modern times. And just keeping up with the changes that we had, even with the new additions around the Unit Titles Act—because we passed a new bill within the House, even that had to be changed from what it was originally in this Statutes Amendment Bill.

Basically, all we’re just saying today is thank you again to all those hard-working people that went through all these 41 lovely changes and pointed out the mistakes because of updating issues and new legislation that has come through this House, which kept everybody on their toes. So ACT will continue to support this through. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Following on from my colleague Chris Penk—in relation to the Statutes Amendment Bill, I had the opportunity to take a call at the second reading. Minister Aupito William Sio, having addressed the House on Part 25A of the Statutes Amendment Bill about amendments to the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Act 2012, following on from that is Part 26, which is “Amendments to Oaths and Declarations Act 1957”. Minister, I am drawing your attention to this because clause 80 of the Statutes Amendment Bill is a part that seeks to amend the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957, with clause 81 to amend section 9 of the Oaths and Declarations Act, which is about, as it says in the bill, “Declarations made in New Zealand”.

It’s interesting, Minister, to note that under the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957, it specifies those who have the legislative authority to take declarations, and this Statutes Amendment Bill, importantly, has identified that “a Registrar (including the Chief Registrar) or Deputy Registrar of the Māori Land Court” has not, until this Statute’s Amendment Bill is passed into law, had the authority to take declarations of those persons who attend the Māori Land Court, and, often, in the facilities and the domain of a Māori Land Court, there is not access to, immediately, a registrar or a deputy registrar of a District Court, of a High Court, or of the Supreme Court to be able to just sign off on a declaration for any matter that may be before the Māori Land Court.

So, Minister, this is important. Other than it being deemed to be sexy, I’m going to be pragmatic about this—the importance of this. I spoke and addressed the House, just previously to this bill, on the Māori Purposes Bill and the importance of being able to make consistent, to clarify, and to standardise, but, importantly, to identify members of the New Zealand public to have access to justice.

So clause 81, as insignificant as it may seem to many, for those of our community, for those in the Māori community, who have matters before the Māori Land Court, who require declarations or oaths to be taken—they are no longer going to be inconvenienced by the fact that, up to the date that this bill passes into law, the Chief Registrar, or a registrar, or a Deputy Registrar of the Māori Land Court did not have the same recognition and did not have the same authority as their peers within the District Court domain, within the High Court domain, and the Supreme Court domain. So, Minister, this is very, very important. I highlight that because it was something that was overlooked by me at the second reading, but, to date, has previously been overlooked in the legislation. So, Minister, I invite you to make comment in relation to that, or not, before I do take leave from this House.

I mentioned the commemorative service for Sir Wira Gardiner, and he was one of those persons who frequented the Māori Land Court for many, many an occasion in support of those he gave service to—in his own community, but also in the wider community, and as a public servant.

So, Minister, I invite any comment as you may see fit. Clause 81 is really very significant and very important. It duly recognises the place and role and service of our Māori Land Court, and that our registrars, including chief, and deputy, to date have been overlooked in that dual authority—simply to be able to take oaths and declarations. Kia ora.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Parts 1 to 41, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.