Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5)

on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice: I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) be now read a second time. As the House will be aware, Statutes Amendment bills are a useful vehicle 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.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Good idea; we should use them more often.

Indeed.

The bill was reported back by the Government Administration Committee on 1 August this year. It amends 29 Acts administered in 12 different departments. All the proposed amendments have received cross-party support. Briefly, they include amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1990, which clarify that more than one Order in Council can be made to bring into force provisions of that Act; an amendment to the Continental Shelf Act 1964, which makes technical changes to the definition of “continental shelf” and adds a related definition of the shelf’s seaward-side boundaries; amendments to the Corrections Act 2004, which set out the functions of probation officers and allow for the powers and functions of controlling officers to be prescribed by regulation; amendments to the Retirement Villages Act 2003, which correct mistaken references and clarify the role of the Retirement Commissioner; and, finally, amendments to the Wine Act 2003—an Act near and dear to many members in this House, I am sure—which correct mistaken cross-references and provide for the director-general to waive or modify the requirement under the Act for an independent evaluation report to be submitted.

Finally, I wish to take the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a proposal by the Minister of Revenue, the Hon Peter Dunne, to include further amendments in the bill by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. The proposed amendments are to the Child Support Act 1991. I understand that in the course of today all parties have agreed to that. Given that that is the case, I know that my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, the Minister with responsibility for this bill, has agreed to the inclusion of the Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee of the whole House stage. I commend the bill to the House.

National will support the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5). We have Supplementary Order Paper 383, which was tabled on 21 June 2005. However, the Minister’s comment about the possibility of a later Supplementary Order Paper being tabled surprises me. I take it that that will come in the Committee stage—I see that the member is nodding his head there.

One of the major issues we have with regard to Supplementary Order Papers, which I have mentioned on numerous occasions, is the last-minute attempt to bring in legislation without the full scrutiny of the House. The bill has had its first reading and been to a select committee, and now the Government intends to introduce, in the Committee stage, a Supplementary Order Paper that no one has had a look at. I do not even know the name of it.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Fred.

Well, I will be interested, when we come to the Committee stage, in whether the Minister will take a call to show us and articulate to us why it is so necessary to introduce legislation that has not been scrutinised in a first reading or by a select committee. Here we are now debating the bill’s second reading. This Government is getting into the habit of bringing in legislation at the eleventh hour, and I am well known for saying on record that that needs to be tidied up and that to bring in legislation without proper scrutiny is unacceptable. There will have to be a very good reason for members to accept a Supplementary Order Paper during the late stage of the Committee of the whole House, so I look forward to it being tabled.

I want to draw the House’s attention to one part of the bill. As the Minister said, the bill originally had 25 parts, but some new parts have been inserted, bringing the total number up to 29. The area that I want to look at particularly is Part 7, “Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001”. We have supported dairy restructuring, and I have with me in the House tonight people who were very much involved in dairying. Colin King is probably more from the sheep side of agriculture, but we have Nathan Guy, who has been, with his family, very much involved in dairying. We have supported the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act, which has opened up the opportunity for people to be involved from outside the traditional mainstream companies like Fonterra. Up in my areawe have the Open Country Cheese Co., which is a very progressive company that was chaired and set up by a former member of this House, the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech.

Part 7 of this legislation tidies up an area that we and the industry have had major concerns about, which is the reason that the industry supports the amendment. Should a farmer decide to exit the industry or move to another company, then the company he or she was supplying actually has to pay that person out. It has to buy the shares back from that particular farmer. This bill safeguards companies from that draw-down on their capital. If, say, Fonterra had a run on its capital because so many farmers decided to move out and set up their own businesses, or to go out of dairying and move into alternative forms of land use, then that company would have a huge drain on its capital. This bill offers the opportunity to have redeemable shares, and that is a positive move. At some stage, however, the company will have to buy those shares out. With that in mind, this legislation is important. It safeguards industries from a draw-down on their capital. The industry supports that, and National supports it, as well.

I will not go through the other points in the major parts of the bill. The Minister has articulated what they are. They range from amendments to legislation affecting animal welfare right through to that affecting Government superannuation, gambling, and the protection of flags, emblems, and names. Such amendments are commonplace in bills brought in to tidy up legislation, and that is acceptable. But we do not accept, and we will be looking very, very closely at, the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister mentioned in his address. I give notice that we will look at it very, very closely, to see whether it adds value and is worthy of support from the Opposition side of the House. I remind members that if we do not support it, then it will not happen. We want to make sure that it is worthy of our support.

I speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) as the previous chair of the Government Administration Committee. I thank all the members of that committee for the work they did on this bill because, as Mr Tisch rightly pointed out, this bill covers amendments to a number of Acts.

Select committees are rather nervous about dealing with the breadth of legislation covered here, and the scrutiny the Government Administration Committee gave these matters was considered. A number of officials came before the committee, and in many cases we went back to Ministers to explain why the changes had to be made. We also know that there was cross-party consultation on these changes, so Mr Tisch does make a very good point about the Supplementary Order Paper. No doubt when it comes before the Committee of the whole House it also will be scrutinised very carefully.

Once again, I thank the Government Administration Committee. It covers a wide range of legislation, particularly in Statutes Amendment bills. It is very careful about small, technical amendments; sometimes they end up being much larger than people may have anticipated. Once again, I thank members of the committee for the scrutiny they gave this legislation. I also thank the officials who worked on the legislation. On some occasions we demanded quite a bit of the officials, sending them back to answer many questions—so a big thanks to everybody involved.

I was taken somewhat unawares there, because week after week National Party members have been telling New Zealand First members that they want proportional representation when it comes to speaking in Parliament, and here, with their second call on this bill, they cannot take it. They wave the white flag.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: We’re actually supporting it. That’s why we’re not taking a second call.

I tell Mr Tisch that this bill has enough meat in it for him to stand up and say what he thinks about it. I might make it clear that New Zealand First is totally in support of it.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I will stand up if the member wishes.

I know that the National Party wants us to sit down, but part of this bill fixes up a glaring National Party stuff-up. If I can be critical of the current Government, it is to ask why it has taken so long. I am talking about fixing up the Maritime Transport Act of 1994. For the new members here—and I know that a number of them do not understand what the 1994 Act actually does—a coastal ship chartered from overseas, registered elsewhere, and fully manned by New Zealanders has to get the Minister’s permission to go off route or to an external port that is not on its normal route, whilst a foreign ship that is manned by goodness knows who, that works under a favourable tax regime—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Ha, ha!

—Wayne Mapp laughs—and that pays no accident compensation can come into this country and pick up coastal cargo, taking it anywhere it likes. No permission is needed. Let me tell honourable members over there—because I can see that some of them are listening and can understand the importance of shipping to this country—that in excess of 99 percent of cargo in and out of this country comes and goes by ship. And how many foreign ships do we have?

💬 Lindsay Tisch: How many?

Zilch, none. Not one.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Not one?

No, because the National Government stuffed the environment. It would not look at them. We had a shipping conference where you heard the problems firsthand, and you thumbed your nose at it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I realise that the honourable Speaker did not; he was far—

💬 Pita Paraone: More learned than that.

—more learned than that, as my colleague said. However, I say to my colleague, the Labour Government has not done very much more. It had a shipping review, but it has sat on it for 6 or 7 years and has done nothing about it. This legislation is a little move in the right direction. Nowadays this country has very few ships. It has none trading overseas—just a few trading around the coast, and they are struggling.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Is that a problem?

It is a problem.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Has New Zealand had overseas traders?

The member has asked a question and I am prepared to answer it. But where will we, an island nation tucked way down at the bottom of the South Pacific, get future maritime expertise from? Tell me that we do not need maritime expertise in this country! That member would not go as far as that—

💬 Pita Paraone: It’s not politically correct!

No, it is not politically correct. New Zealand First will support this bill. Personally, and speaking from the heart, I am delighted that this Parliament is about to pass, unanimously, sensible legislation in favour of the New Zealand ship operator—and I say: “About time, too!”.

Bill read a second time.