Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3)

I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. It is intended that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee. The bill amends 39 Acts administered by 11 different departments, and is a yearly vehicle for making technical, non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. It is important tidying-up legislation that allows for amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed. That is achieved with the support of all parties in Parliament. This year’s bill includes amendments to legislation governing a wide range of areas, such as coroner’s coinage, and even courts-martial.

Two of the more interesting amendments include those to the Ngāti Tūrangitukua Claims Settlement Act and the Tokelau Act. Very briefly, the amendments to the Ngāti Tūrangitukua Claims Settlement Act seek to remove the marginal strip from a piece of land gifted back to Ngāti Tūrangitukua as a part of the deed of settlement, and replace it with a statutory public pedestrian right of way. The amendment to the Tokelau Act arises as a result of similarly unusual circumstances—the making and issuing of commemorative coins as a significant economic opportunity for Tokelau. But in moving to recognise and implement that, as a result of an oversight, two coins have been made and issued prior to authorisation being granted. The amendment will have retrospective effect to validate the making and issuing of those coins.

I conclude by reiterating that although the amendments proposed in this bill may be technical and non-controversial, they are also important responses to international and domestic developments. This year’s bill, like others before it, illustrates the value of the Statutes Amendment Bill as a vehicle to advance those types of amendments. I commend this bill to the House.

National supports, unsurprisingly, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3), and, as the previous speaker has said, it is in 39 parts. What he described as the interesting parts of the bill, however, are perhaps not the most interesting parts. There are good reasons, in my view, for taking the position that there should be strict constraints on omnibus-type bills such as this. The Standing Orders give expression to that view by starkly limiting the circumstances in which omnibus bills may be introduced. Basically, there are five classes of case: finance bills or confirmation bills; local legislation bills; Māori purpose bills; reserves and other lands disposal bills, and Statute Amendment bills. This is Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3). I suppose one of the most striking things about this bill is that it just shows the incredible range of Government activity, from the Armed Forces Discipline Act to the Legal Services Act.

In the short time I have available, I just wanted to pick out some aspects of interest touching changes that are being made by this bill. But, as I say, it shows the incredible range of Government activity, and—I suppose as a counterpoint—it raises the question as to whether the Government should be involved in that range of activity. It also shows the need for care in parliamentary drafting, and the significant number of occasions when oversights in the drafting process occur. Finally, it shows the undesirability, in some cases, of placing in primary legislation issues that should more appropriately be found in secondary or tertiary legislation.

The first illustration I would like to refer to is evidence of that last proposition. In the Administration Act we have provisions that prescribe the rate of interest payable in certain cases on a legacy, or on arrears of an annuity, and in the primary legislation a rate of 11 percent is fixed. That follows practice that was in legislation like the Judicature Act, which fixed interest rates on money judgments at specific levels, and shows the undesirability, in fluctuating economic conditions, of fixing interest rates in that way. The rate of interest in the Administration Act has now been reduced to 7.5 percent per annum, but there is also an important provision for a different rate to be fixed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.

The second bill I want to refer to amends the Legal Services Act. It is an illustration of the proposition that in drafting legislation care must be taken, and care is sometimes not taken. A raft of changes are being made to the Legal Services Act, but suffice it for me to comment on just two of them. The first deals with section 10 of the principal Act and the uncertainty as to whether legal aid can be granted in respect of all the immigration processes that confront aggrieved migrants. That process starts with the involvement of the refugee status branch, leads on from there to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, leads on from there to issues of deportation review, leads on from there to the possibility of action in the High Court, and then, finally, leads to the discretions vested in the Minister. In reading the current legislation, it is quite clear the rights of migrants seeking legal aid have not been well-thought-out, and this particular bill seeks to deal with that. Significant criticisms can be levelled at the Legal Services Act; but it is beyond the scope of the comments I seek to make to do that. But I would say that where this Government has had an opportunity for innovation in the delivery of legal aid services, it has lamentably failed to take advantage of that opportunity.

I would like then, if I may, to turn to an illustration of old legislation that should have been taken off the statute book years and years ago.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: What is that?

I am grateful for the close attention Mr Carter is paying to my comments. The legislation I have in mind is the War Funds Act of 1915.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: It has come in handy in recent times.

The Minister says it has come in handy in recent times. It is quite true that there was some tampering with that legislation in the 1980s. If that is “recent times” in the Minister’s mind, so be it. But in 1980 there were some minor changes made with the updating of references to the High Court and the District Court. What is more significant about that legislation is that it was passed for a very specific purpose. The War Funds Act made provision for the administration and control of moneys raised wholly or in part by private subscription for the purposes of what was described in the title as the “present war”. That, of course, was the Great War of 1914-18, reflected in this debating chamber by the wooden wreaths of honour commemorating such events as Egypt, Gallipoli, and Messines.

What I would like to focus on just for a moment are the purposes of the Act, and the definition of “war funds”. The Government of the day was concerned to raise substantial amounts of money for the relief of distress occasioned by the war; for the equipment of the military forces; for what was called the supply of comforts or conveniences; for the acquisition of sports grounds, and the like. There is a provision in the War Funds Act for an annual audit of accounts, and since that legislation was enacted in 1915, one wonders whether the auditor has been diligent in carrying out—as he was required to do year by year—the necessary audit function.

Finally, I would like to refer to the Tokelau Act. Part 36 deals with that specific statute. The purpose of the bill is to amend the principal Act by inserting a new section that validates the making and issuing of two coins. What are the lessons that we can learn from legislation such as that? I would say that they are these: first, the wide scope of governmental activity, which raises the issue whether the Government should be involved in the full raft of activity that it is; second, the errors made in the drafting process by parliamentary counsel, which for a number of years are not noted; finally, the fact that we have on the stocks—and the War Funds Act is a really good illustration of that—much legislation that should not be there and should be promptly repealed.

I stand to recommend this bill to the select committee. This omnibus bill covers many requirements for updates and changes, and for just making things tidy. I recommend that this bill go forward with approval from United Future.

On behalf of the ACT party, I also commend this bill to the select committee. The use of an omnibus bill like this to collect up minor and non-controversial amendments is a handy way of getting rid of anomalies and fixing drafting defects—as Mr Worth, from the National Party, has just said. It is way also of encouraging people to take an active interest in the quality of the law, and to feel that things can be improved without having to wait for a specific bill on a particular matter.

I think that the concerns some have about omnibus bills have been proved over time not to be justified. There are attempts from time to time to put into them things that should not be put in. In this particular bill, I am very pleased to see that there are several things that it does not have. In Part 14, which deals with the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act, there is an amendment that does not have the provisions that the Government tried to push through in December, relating to the silver fern and the All Black emblem. I had, of course, looked very quickly to see whether there was anything there, and it is an assurance of the integrity of the statutes amendment process that because ACT raised an objection the Government is not now trying to deal with the matter by way of a statutes amendment bill. In other words, the statutes amendment process relies on acquiescence or agreement by all members for it to proceed, which is why it is a handy process.

I am a bit surprised that the bill does not include some of the business law amendments that business has been waiting for for so long. I am not sure whether there is a reason for that—perhaps the Minister in charge of the bill will be able to explain when it gets to the select committee. I know that there is a business law omnibus bill that has stalled. I think it is a shame that the same rules that have proved so useful with this Statutes Amendment Bill should not apply there, but I wonder why the things that have stalled were not then brought into the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3). Maybe there is a different criterion, and I should catch up with that.

The amendment to the Bail Act draws attention to the fact that a bill passed just 2 years ago to deal with something as fundamental to the administration of justice as bail has now had to be amended. It draws attention also to the relatively narrow set of amendments here. The Hon Phil Goff had started the bail reform process as a member in Opposition. He put a reasonable amount of energy into making sure that it proceeded, and the Bail Act was passed in 2000. That contrasts very unflatteringly with the lack of progress in other equal—or more important—areas of the administration of justice. There was a lot of data on breaches of bail, and on the offences that were being committed on bail. The Bail Act was calibrated to deliver about the number of remand prisoners that the Minister felt he could get the resources to cope with. What this amendment is now proposing probably does not change that, but it enables a variation of bail conditions to be made without necessarily getting the consent of sureties. I hope that the select committee look very closely at that, because I have a concern that the obligations of sureties are not actually taken as seriously as they should be. I am concerned that we are not using sureties in the way that they are used, for example, in some states of the United States, where bail bondsmen do most of the work that has to be done by the police here to make sure that people turn up for their trials.

As I understand it, the bail bondsmen system in most states that use it is far more efficient and effective in ensuring that people turn up than using the police. The police, naturally, can see that as a low-priority function, especially if they think that the court is just going to slap the offender with a non-custodial sentence, or in some other way frustrate them, so that they end up seeing the offender simply rotating again through the justice system because the penalty is not effective. I am sorry that this bill deals with sureties in a way that goes in the wrong direction. I am satisfied that it is suitable for this amendment to be in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3), and that it goes to the select committee for consideration, but I believe that this bill would have done a better service if, as far as section 57 of the Bail Act—which deals with the conditions of bail, and requires the consent of a surety to a change in the conditions—is concerned, the Government had instead put that amount of attention, or more, into giving bail bondsmen a better role.

It could also have looked at clause 9, which amends section 59, and allows the police to treat drug defendants who are picked up while on bail and deal with them without a warrant, in the same way that most others can be dealt with without a warrant. It raises the question as to why parole offenders are not treated similarly, and why there is much more rigmarole for recommitting people who breach parole. I am sure that the select committee will not be able to get into that, but it is a great shame that this whole area is dealt with under the Bail Act, which is reasonably firm. The initiative for it came from by Mr Goff before he became the Minister of Justice, and now that he has been the Minister of Justice for nearly 4 years, the Parole Act and the Bail Act are out of step. The bail system is simpler and more rigorous than the parole system.

There is a matter of some curiosity, to which there is probably a simple answer, but Part 9, which amends the Coroners Act, seems to give the Privacy Act more weight than it has had in the past. If a request about a coroner’s data is made by the individual to whom the information relates, then it must be dealt with in terms of the Privacy Act. That, obviously, cannot be intended to apply very often, because, plainly, for the coroner to have reported, much or all of the information will presumably relate to the person who is dead, and that person will not be asking for the information in terms of the Privacy Act. Presumably, there is a ready answer, and the select committee will get to explain why that provision is significant.

In Part 12, which amends the Domestic Violence Act, there is a proposed amendment to allow regulations that would facilitate the screening of programme providers. Again, I am sorry that that amendment is so limited. I have had correspondence with a number of people around the country over the last several years that suggests, to put it at its most polite, that the providers of restorative justice programmes around the country are variable, to say the least. I have had uncontradicted information from one court that a programme provided in its area had given incorrect statements to the court, and on being challenged on those statements, the judge was given a false reassurance. On writing to the Minister about it, there seemed to be nothing—and no one was accepting responsibility—for vetting programme providers for restorative justice purposes. The particular case I mention involved a trust that said it would offer a work programme under the supervision of a particular person. The court was prepared to make a sentencing decision that reflected the availability of that trust.

What actually happened was that the person they had nominated was dead, and had been dead for a year. It seems that the programme provider might simply have been running the photocopier or the word processor and not really paying attention to the obligations he or she was accepting from the Court. So it seems to me that Part 12 should apply not just to programme providers for domestic violence programmes, but also to programme providers for any of the justice processes where there is a need to vet, deregister, or disqualify some of the providers.

I see the Speaker moving as if to tell me my time is up, so I will not start on the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act.

I was slightly provoked into taking this call. I have enjoyed the process of this legislation for New Zealand First. The member who preceded me, though, started to talk about the business law reform bill, and that provoked me. There are five short sections in that bill that I have suggested to the Minister of Commerce should have been inserted in this legislation. Perhaps they will come in as a Supplementary Order Paper. The other eight items were very lengthy, some of them going to two and three pages, and would clearly not be suitable for this legislation. From a New Zealand First point of view, they should be matters of separate legislation, because even the New Zealand Law Society, in the information that has been made available to me—for which I am grateful—indicated there were errors of drafting and errors of understanding of the legislation. I just make that point in a brief reply, and trying not to be too controversial about it.

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Government Administration Committee.