Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5)

I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) be now read a first time. At the end of my presentation I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee. As the House will be aware, Statutes Amendment bills are useful for making minor, technical, and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. They allow amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed. That is achieved because those minor amendments have the support of all parties.

This bill introduces amendments to 24 Acts administered by nine different departments. Included in the proposals are amendments to the Continental Shelf Act that make technical changes to the definition of a continental shelf and add a related definition of a shelf’s seaward-side boundaries. The bill also amends the Defence Act by abolishing the Nelson Rifle Prize Fund and providing for the transfer of the fund monies to the cadet forces for specified use in the Nelson region. It amends the Forests Act by repealing sections 4 and 4A of that Act, to align the delegations of Ministers and chief executives with those under other Acts administered by the ministry. My final example is an amendment to the Personal Property Securities Act that inserts a definition of “court” as meaning the High Court of New Zealand for the purposes of the Act.

I note that the department administering the Radiocommunications Act has asked for the amendments to that Act to be withdrawn. Accordingly, Part 18 will be struck out in due course.

It is intended that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee, as I said before. I commend the bill to the House.

National will be supporting the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5). It is an omnibus bill that, as the Minister said, has 24 parts. We have been through the parts and are satisfied that we are comfortable with them. I want to draw the House’s attention to a very important part of this bill, Part 7, which amends the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act of 2001. I bring that to the House’s attention because that Act has proved to be very successful legislation. We have seen the ability of private companies to start up. In my own area we have the Open Country Cheese factory, which is doing extremely well. I have talked about that in previous debates. The amendment under Part 7 of the bill safeguards a company like Fonterra from having a run on its cash if farmers exit the industry.

At the moment, if a dairy farmer wants to exit the industry, perhaps because of a change of farming practice or in order to supply another company—that is what the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act has allowed for, and I mentioned Open Country Cheese as an example of that—then the company that is being supplied, and Fonterra is the big one, would need to pay out in cash for the milk supply shares of that farmer. That is how the situation stands currently. But if more than 5 percent of the milk supply from the whole of New Zealand were to disappear from Fonterra, then there could be a huge run on the capital of that company. The amendment envisages that Fonterra would be able to issue redeemable preference shares in place of paying out cash. That would give the company some flexibility. It may well be that Fonterra could pay out in full the cash value of the milk supply shares, but if more than 5 percent of the milk supply was affected and the company was unable to do that, then instead it could issue redeemable preference shares. At some stage in the future Fonterra would need to pay out those shares to the farmers concerned, but in the meantime it would pay a dividend on them. So this amendment—and the industry is fully supportive of it—gives companies like Fonterra an opportunity to have flexibility in the way they run their business. That is a sensible move, and we support the amendment.

I want to look at one other area in particular: Part 6, which concerns the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act of 1995. We note that clause 19 of the bill amends the definition of “suitably qualified person” in that Act by removing the word “registered” from the term “registered nurse”. Some of the questions we will want to have answered during the select committee process concern the implications of that. Who will actually be able to take samples when the word “registered” is removed from the term “registered nurse”? Who is a person suitably qualified to take bodily samples? We will want answers to those questions during the select committee process. I am on the Government Administration Committee, and I am flagging now that we will be interested in that area.

I think clause 21 is an important clause, as well. It states the position that persons who are of or above the rank of sergeant can apply for an arrest warrant to detain a person for the taking of a bodily sample. At the moment the legislation states that only those who are above the rank of sergeant can apply for a warrant. So there is a distinction here. The legislation will now allow sergeants to apply for a warrant, whereas as the position currently stands, only those who are above the rank of sergeant can do so. A lot of stations do not have people of above the rank of sergeant, which is a very high position in the police force. Certainly in rural areas, like the area I come from, the rank of sergeant is the controlling rank in a particular station. So that amendment is a sensible move, and it is another one that we support.

I just make the point, however, that the Government is using Statutes Amendment bills more than I have ever before seen as a means to correct legislation that it did not get right the first time. When we move on to the debate on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), I will make some strong points as to the process the Government follows. Although we are comfortable with the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5), if at any stage the Government tries to bring in late amendments and Supplementary Order Papers without consultation, then we will come down hard on it. It is an abuse of the process, and it is something we do not agree with. When we move on to debate the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) I will make those points.

We will support the referral of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) through to the select committee. The amendments it makes are sensible ones. Our spokespeople have looked at them and confirmed that they are in order, so we will support the bill.

I rise to speak in support of this bill. I want to speak on two of the proposed amendments. The first is the amendment to the Animal Welfare Act that extends the time for laying information from 12 months to 2 years. The second—which, strangely enough, I consider has tenuous links to the first—is an amendment to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act.

On the issue of the Animal Welfare Act, it is quite appropriate that we increase the time for laying information, for two reasons. Firstly, it is not always readily apparent that the way an animal has been treated has resulted in an overt sign of injury. Secondly, an increasing body of literature now suggests that those who mistreat animals, for other than reasoned purposes, indicate a deeper problem that reflects itself in the way those people relate to other human beings. So there is a synergy between this issue and the safety of people in our community, and I therefore urge greater freedom for the laying of information once the potential offences under the Act have been discovered.

As we are talking about potential offences and offenders thereof, I turn now to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act. It does not really matter whether a sample is taken by a nurse or a registered nurse, or whether a warrant is authorised by a sergeant or a senior sergeant, because by the time these processes are in place, the checks and balances have already commenced. These amendments are merely procedural. The threshold to require the taking of a bodily sample is the essential issue, and that threshold is gradually being lowered as we gain more confidence in the DNA process.

The DNA process is as important to our criminal prosecutions as the discovery of fingerprints was over 100 years ago. The point we often forget, however, is that DNA does not prove a connection; DNA merely establishes on the balance of probabilities whether the blood of the suspect who provides a DNA sample matches the blood left at a crime scene, or that any bodily samples from the suspect match those on the victim. So it is not a question of definitive proof but a question of reducing probabilities of difference, and that is the key issue in prosecutions relying on DNA. It is not the method by which the bodily sample is extracted, or even the level of the threshold requiring that.

The focus of concentration in ensuring that DNA remains an effective and major investigative tool is the way we compare the samples and the use of the formula to make that comparison to remove other possibilities or probabilities relating to the match of the two samples. So once the threshold is established the fact that the sample is taken in an ordered environment is about all that is needed. We are not, for example, talking about a great invasion of a person’s body. The sample is either from the mouth—a buccal sample—or a prick of blood from the thumb, any of which is an injury that one would suffer in the normal event of living, and would cause minimal interference or discomfort. What is important for an accurate sample is that the chain of evidence can be relied upon, rather than the degree of invasion of the person from whom the sample is taken. So if we put in too many hurdles in relation to who can take the samples, we diminish the effectiveness of this major investigative tool.

If we minimise those hurdles, we concentrate on the process by which the sample is recorded, forwarded for processing, and processed, so that ultimately we can all be satisfied that the results obtained by the comparing of a sample from a suspect with a sample from a crime scene is most likely to be accurate, and so that any jury acting upon it can do so with safety. So for those reasons I support this bill.

There are many other aspects in the bill. I do not want to get into the continental shelf debate. Clearly, it is important that we define the continental shelf correctly. I do not want to get into the cadastral survey aspect, because, again, that is an area where we need some accuracy, and these amendments merely tidy it up. But, strangely enough, there is a link between the Animal Welfare Act and the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act. It is not a direct link, but it is a link to improve our investigation of those of a criminal mindset who cause ultimate disruption to the way we live as a community.

Statutes Amendment bills are interesting in their nature because they are omnibus bills, and they amend a large number of Acts—in this case 24 Acts. Under our Standing Orders, an omnibus bill is actually out of order. One cannot introduce a bill to amend a number of bills, but there is just one exception, which is the Statutes Amendment Bill. A Statutes Amendment bill does allow technical-type amendments to be made, providing all MPs agree on them. The public ought to know that this happens by the Government circulating the amendments. The amendments normally come up from departments, which give members background material and suggest that they ought to make an amendment. If we look at the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5), one classic example is the amendment to the Commerce Act 1986, which must have been passed when I was a Minister. So this must have been a muck-up made—

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Is it your fault?

Well, I was not actually the Minister in charge of the bill, but I cannot have been reading the drafting carefully enough, because apparently the word “not” was left out. When one reads the legislation, whether one puts in the word “not” does seem to make a difference.

From the ACT party’s point of view we have been reading the background material provided by the Ministers to make it, in this case, a single word amendment, and we had been proposing to say yes. But I want to give the House notice that ACT party members are reviewing whether they ought to say yes. The reason is that we have been reading a rather interesting article that sets out how this Government deals with its coalition partners. If Labour deals with the parties that are in coalition with it in that way, we were wondering how would it deal with a party such as ACT, which is totally opposed to most of what the Government is saying.

What I am referring to are the statements made in the article by Mr Tamihere. He stated: “It’s too clever. You’ve got Cullen—we wouldn’t survive without Cullen—he can cut a deal on a piece of legislation, he can change a single word in a piece of legislation without those other”—and then he uses a swear word that is unparliamentary—“[coalition partners] knowing about it, and it melts down everything they wanted but they still think they got their clause in.” Members can see the problem that I have, which I would put to the Government now that it is asking the whole of Parliament to agree with it. It is that if this is what Labour does to its coalition partners, is it dealing with members in a straightforward fashion, or is it having a “single word” here or there taken out of a bill? If we are to understand what the Government is really doing, does it actually melt everything down so that it would not be what we would have agreed to?

I could say, I guess, that I am much smarter than Peter Dunne, and that I am much smarter than Rod Donald and those Greens.

💬 Paul Adams: That’s a debating point.

The member helps me out, but I might not be smarter than Peter Dunne. Maybe I have been made a fool of, as well. When I ask Peter Dunne: “Look, if that’s how the Government treats you, why do you agree to anything?”, the question I would then ask the whole House is why any member of Parliament should agree to any amendment to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5). I guess members would say: “Because we say it’s OK.” Well, Mr Tamihere says that we basically cannot trust this Government. It is too clever. That is what he told us. He told us that Government members can make a single amendment without us noticing it, and it has the exact opposite effect of what we think it has.

So I most certainly say to the people on the Government Administration Committee that I think we will have to examine every single one of these clauses very, very carefully. But I also say that I would personally find it very helpful if Mr Tamihere could take a call in this debate. He could get up and tell us, when Government members make those sorts of “smarmy”—that is the word he used—and “too clever” deals while double-crossing their own coalition colleagues, how far that double-dealing goes. Does it extend to bills such as the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5)? Now it would be a great shame if it did, because the reality is that if the sorts of mistakes such as the one in the Commerce Act, which occurred in 1986, were made—and I am one of the few MPs around who was a Minister in 1986—one would think that it ought to be fixed up. But, when we think about it, we can make those sorts of changes only if we can rely upon the word of the Government.

I tell members that, prior to reading Mr Tamihere’s article, it had not occurred to me that Ministers might be writing legislation about this sort of matter and that what they were saying was—how can I put it in a way that is parliamentary—unable to be relied upon. If one treats one’s friends in the way that Mr Tamihere says that they are being treated, how does one treat those who are not one’s friends? I understand that Mr Tamihere has not retracted a single word of what he said. He may regret having said it, he may regret that it was recorded, he may regret that it has been printed, he may regret what it has done to his career, but I understand that he does not say that anything he said was not true. Well, if that is how the Government treats the United Party and the Green Party, who support the Government, how does it treat the ACT party and the National Party, who do not support it? How can we possibly be asked this afternoon to support a bill that actually relies upon the integrity and the word of Ministers?

The more I think about it, the more worried I am about agreeing to this bill, and the more I wonder whether there are not “single words” in here. As Mr Tamihere’s article states: “… we wouldn’t survive without Cullen—he can cut a deal on a piece of legislation,”—and that is what we are dealing with here—he can change a single word in a piece of legislation—well, I gave an example of that—without those other “[b’s]” [coalition partners] knowing about it, and it melts down everything they wanted but they still think they got their clause …”. Well, if we cannot find Mr Tamihere to explain it, I would ask the next member to ask why we, as a Parliament, should accept that this is a bill we can accept Labour’s word upon.

If Labour members cannot give us a reason to do so, then it seems to be a very hard problem for them to get out of, is it not? Once somebody says that one cannot be relied upon, how does one demonstrate that one can be relied upon? Credibility is a very slippery thing. Once it is lost, it is very hard to get it back.

It may well be true that the person who was interviewed for this article was stressed, but it does not follow that what he said was not true. If it is true, then how can we as a House rely on anything this Labour Government says? How can we possibly agree to this bill? How will the public treat us? They will say: “Look, you’ve read this article. You knew you couldn’t trust them.”, then when, on the day after the article appears, the Government introduces a bill that requires every single MP to consent, the public will ask how on earth Parliament did that. That is the dilemma the ACT party has.

💬 Hon Member: It’s difficult.

It is very difficult, and we will ask that the select committee look at the bill very carefully.

I give notice to the Government that we want it to give us some way that we can rely on its word. But how are we to do that when a former Cabinet Minister—a caucus member who sits among Government members and who must know them better than any of us—has actually stated in this article: “[Dr Cullen] can cut a deal on a piece of legislation, he can change a single word in a piece of legislation without those other … [coalition partners] knowing about it, and it melts down everything they wanted but they still think they got their clause in.”? If that is how the Labour Party treats the United Party and the Green Party, I want to know how it is treating the rest of the country.

I rise to take a quick call on behalf of United Future, which will be supporting this bill. Contrary to what Mr Prebble has just said in addressing the House, United Future does take the time to study amendments and sort out whether they are altering the legislation in any respect. We will support the legislation only if we are satisfied that it is doing what it is said it will do. I have learnt in life that everything is not perfect. I am glad this is not the only dilemma the ACT party is currently facing. I imagine that it has other dilemmas it will be working through as we approach election year as well, which may well be more serious than the dilemma it has about whether it will support this particular legislation.

But United Future is happy with this. We do take the time to study our legislation and I can assure Mr Prebble that we have been happy with all the legislation we have supported. We have checked it and are 100 percent happy with it.

This sort of bill is a very practical type of legislation. Often when laws are made—and I am one who would like fewer laws rather than more laws—when it is actually out there in the market and we find things that have been missed, or we have got a little bit wrong, at least we can be big enough to amend laws in this type of legislation. United Future will be supporting this bill.

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