Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill

I move, That the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time. I would like to start my contribution on the second reading of the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill by giving tribute to those New Zealanders who have laid down their lives in lands far away from their homeland. Our forces are working hard to build peace and are reaffirming our commitment to create a world free from the fear of war and terrorism.

My bill repeals the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915, an Act that has not been used in many years and has clogged the statute book for too long. As I told the House in my first reading speech, the 1915 Act was enacted in the second year of the First World War and provides that the Governor-General may, by proclamation, declare that any land, for a period specified, is to be made available for military manoeuvres. After the manoeuvres are completed, the officer commanding the forces engaged in them must as far as possible restore the land to its former condition. To the best of the knowledge of the New Zealand Defence Force, the Act has not been used for the last 30 years. Largely, it was enacted specifically to deal with the extraordinary circumstances of mobilisation of the First World War.

I want to mention at this time that we are coming to the 100th anniversary of the beginning of World War I. The year 2015 will mark the anniversary of the Act, but, more important, of battles such as Passchendaele, and it will be great to have a reminder of the war off the statute book by that time.

I thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, chaired by my colleague John Hayes, for its careful consideration of my bill and the minor changes it has recommended.

I think my bill is a model for good legislation. It is short, to the point, and has a clear purpose. No member of the public reading my bill could fail to understand what it does. It is all very well for Labour members to stand and criticise my bill, as they did in its first reading. They are incapable of engaging constructively. When Labour was in Government, it did not remove one piece of useless legislation from the statute book. It only added to the piles of useless legislation with its social engineering and incomprehensible regulatory regime. I look forward to the passage of this bill and commend it to the House.

I rise to respond to the speech of the member who just sat down, who is the sponsor of the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill, Mr Kanwaljit Bakshi. Mr Bakshi was doing all right until he decided to lay into us. I was going to be quite gentle with him about this bill, but I am sorry, the gloves are off now, Mr Bakshi.

Really and truly, this is it. Not only is a waste of Parliament’s time being taken in this form but the bill is even a waste of paper, because if one has a look at the commentary on this bill from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, on which I served at that time—it reported back in 2010—it says “We recommend deleting clause 3,” which states the purpose, and “We recommend deleting clause 4, which provides that the Act binds the Crown. Clause 5, which would repeal the Military Manoeuvres Act, would be spent immediately after the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Act came into force. As there are no other operative provisions in the bill, there would then be nothing in the Act for clause 4 to act upon. Clause 4 is therefore redundant.” So even this little gesture here is far too much.

This is a ridiculous way of occupying members’ bills time, quite frankly. The only reason that this appeared in the ballot was in order for National to have something in the ballot to try to prevent Labour and Green members’ bills, in particular, from being drawn. That is not the appropriate process, Mr Bakshi, for this piece of legislation. This is not the appropriate mechanism. It could be done perfectly easily through a Statutes Amendment Bill.

We are not going to vote against this, but I will not let that member be used by his colleagues as cannon-fodder or lobby-fodder in this House. They need to treat that member with more respect, and stop giving him ridiculous jobs to do, which are no credit to him and no credit to his caucus. I think National needs to think again about just how it treats that member.

This bill, for the sake of the record, simply repeals an old provision that was enacted in 1915, at the time of World War I. It allowed the authorities to seize land for the purpose of performing military manoeuvres, so that the army could practise somewhere. That provision, as Mr Bakshi said that he understood—well, he understands it because that is what the Ministry of Defence understands, or it is to the best of the Defence Force’s knowledge, in fact—the Act has not been used for at least 50 years. I think times have changed. The bill clearly has no purpose any further. It should not ever be enacted. In this time and this day and age, it should never be acted upon. It is not the kind of thing that remains relevant to the circumstances of New Zealand these days.

But neither is this an appropriate way to bring this matter to the attention of the House. A Statutes Amendment Bill, any kind of omnibus bill that wanted to repeal laws that have long since passed their use-by date—it could have been done at the end of the last term. In fact, I remember we did do a Statutes Amendment Bill that had omnibus provisions in it, and that is the way to do it. Mop up all the little bits and pieces of legislation that are no longer necessary, no longer serve any useful purpose, and ought to be repealed, and get rid of them in one fell swoop. But no, National has obviously decided to trawl through any omnibus legislation it has sitting around and think: “Gosh, how can we clog the ballot process by multiplying the chances of defeating Labour and Green members’ bills.”

This does not deserve any more time in discussion. The Act should go. We will vote for it to go. We just object profoundly to this process and to the way that that member is treated by his own colleagues.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill and to support my very competent colleague Kanwaljit Bakshi from the Auckland area. I particularly want to commend him, in the wake of that onslaught representing the New Zealand unions. Maryan Street said that this bill, the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill, was absolutely nothing to do with Parliament, it is a waste of time, but that Labour is voting for it. Why are we voting for it? Because it is a very sensible thing to do. Certainly the legislation has not been used for 50 years, and what is it doing? It is clogging our statute book. This Government came to the community in New Zealand and said: “We want you to trust us to do the right thing.” This Government said: “We are going to get rid of legislation that is irrelevant.”, and that is what this process is about. I commend my colleague for his wonderful initiative in bringing this bill to Parliament.

I have some difficulty putting up with that member, Maryan Street, who did not in the course of the select committee raise the slightest reservation. She only uttered words of support; that is my recollection. She comes into the House tonight and spends 10 minutes of our time unnecessarily explaining why this is all irrelevant but why she will vote for it—well, can I just say that is nonsense.

I absolutely agree with this bill. It will reduce the legislation that applies in this country. It is a redundant piece of legislation. We need to do much more of it, and I absolutely support you and commend you for your actions. Thank you.

It is a privilege to follow John Hayes in this debate. I too wish to pay tribute to Mr Bakshi for his remarkable insight in producing a member’s bill, the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill, to repeal this statute. It is presumably automatically updated when it is repealed. This bill should have been an omnibus bill, and we have had 18 months to reflect on that recommendation from Opposition members at the time, but we have not devoted sufficient attention to the matter to act upon that. Should the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915 be repealed? Perhaps, but perhaps if it were I would need to give thought to whether I would introduce a member’s bill to bring it back in, although, on reflection, I probably would not.

As was pointed out, the Act has sat on the statute book for nearly a century for no real purpose. So the Act should be repealed but ironically, for reasons that are essentially lost on the Government. At the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee we were told: “As far as the New Zealand Defence Force has been able to ascertain, the Act has not been used for the last 30 years. We understand that no proclamations are in force, and there are no outstanding claims relating to past proclamations or military manoeuvres. Given these facts we believe that the repeal of the bill would not disadvantage the New Zealand Defence Force.”

In fact, the main reason the Green Party sees for requiring the repeal of the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915 is the fact that the Defence Force cannot ascertain whether the Act has or has not been used for the last 30 years. No disrespect is intended to the member or to the personnel of the armed forces, particularly those serving overseas, by saying that the repeal of the Act would simply be saving the Defence Force from itself.

You know, there is something else that has not been used for the last 30 years, Mr Graham. I suppose that member should be on the stage—preferably the next one out of town. The serious side of this issue is a place like Raglan, and like taking private property for military purposes, which is exactly what Raglan was used for. If you have it on the statutes, it could happen again. If you have it on the statutes, there is every likelihood it could be—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Oh, come on!

The member says: “Come on!”. Well, let us go back to when that piece of legislation was promulgated—1915. At the end of 1918 people said to each other: “We’ll never do this again—never do this again.”, but in a few short years there was another world war.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Oh!

You see, that is the sort of objection I would expect from an appeaser, from a person who is an appeaser—that is all he is—“It won’t happen to us!”. And that is what Kennedy Graham is saying—that this Act will never be used again. The fact of the matter is that it is still on the statute book. So why would we not get rid of it? As the Hon Maryan Street said, we could have done it in umpteen dozen ways, but democracy says that we are allowed to do it this way. So who says that we are wrong in doing it this way? Those members are going to vote for our bill. They are going to vote for Bakshi’s bill.

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

Yes?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows—he has been here long enough—that you refer to a person by their full name or their title.

OK—Mr Singh. The fact of the matter is that it is still on our statute book, and for every law that is still on our statute book, it means that you can use those provisions, in any of those laws. It is quite simple. So Mr Singh, in his wisdom, thought: “Why not use the member’s bill process to get rid of legislation?”—pretty Draconian legislation, I might add. So if we cannot use the process that the Standing Orders give us, then there is something wrong with this place. All he is doing is using the process of Parliament to get rid of a Draconian piece of legislation. I salute my friend for doing that—getting rid of a Draconian piece of legislation. [Interruption] Oh, they are queuing up now. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not correct that when you want the call you are supposed to call?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, it is, Mr Henare. It is New Zealand First’s opportunity, and the member should actually call, otherwise he does not get called—he loses it

💬 Richard Prosser: Mr Assistant Speaker, I apologise. I was looking at the speaking order and—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No—the member must call first.

💬 Richard Prosser: Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Richard Prosser.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in the second reading debate on the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill, but not without certain grave misgivings as to the gulf that the passing of the bill will leave in the nation’s legislative tool box. I note from reading the Hansard of the 49th Parliament, during this bill’s earlier stages, that some speakers were given to wonder why the House was spending valuable time on debating the passage of a bill that intended to remove from the statute book an Act that those members regarded as being of little importance to begin with. We agree with a measure of that sentiment. It is true that there is far too much dusty, outdated, old legislation cluttering the law books in this country. Whether most of it actually does any harm by being there is probably a debatable point, unless and until, of course, it comes up against modern-day situations where the realities of life have changed in the decades, generations, or even centuries that may have passed since many old laws were created.

I am reminded of some of the arcane statutes recently removed from the laws of England, from where I have just returned, having represented this fine House at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Seminar on Parliamentary Practice and Procedure at Westminster. One such provision in the English legal code made it lawful, up until—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Can I just say to members on my right that members should not make references to the reading of speeches. It is entirely a matter for the Speaker to judge.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought that members were not allowed, by way of a point of order, to bring to the attention of the Speaker a member reading a speech. We were just interjecting.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have just said to the member that it is entirely a matter for the Speaker to judge.

One such provision in the English legal code made it still lawful, up until a very few short years ago, for a person to shoot any Welshman found entering the city of Chester by night, provided, of course, that a suitable and approved bow and arrow was used for the purpose. Given my own lineage, I am grateful that my time in the United Kingdom some years ago did not include any such nocturnal visits to the aforementioned city.

The Military Manoeuvres Act 1915 was enacted in order to allow the Governor-General to declare by proclamation that certain lands would be available to the military for the purposes of manoeuvring during the First World War. Such proclamations were required to be published in the Gazette as well as in suitable local newspapers, and would allow the military to prohibit or restrict traffic; to pull down fences, or put them up; to erect or divert water courses; or to do anything else that the Governor-General considered in his wisdom to be necessary or expedient as far as the requirements of the military and its manoeuvring were concerned. An investigation in the Parliamentary Library on my behalf today has revealed that the most recent date on which such a proclamation under the Act was made was on 11 February 1943. It related to a defined area bordering the Manawatū River. The issue of the Gazette has a description of the schedule of land concerned, and ends with the splendid and appropriate salutation “God Save the King”. The library has been unable to ascertain precisely why the proclamation was made, and in all likeliness it is probable that the King was never directly aware of its intended purpose, either. With the inevitable passing of this bill and the demise of the Act to which it relates, it is an unavoidable consequence that his heirs and successors will never discover that reason, either. Perhaps the reasoning of those darker days conceals secrets that are best consigned to history, along with the Act itself.

We have some concerns, however, that the passing of this bill may leave the Government without access to a ready solution, should circumstances arise in which the nation is required to make swift provisions for the necessities of military manoeuvring. We support this bill only because we place faith in the ability of this House to enact any necessary replacement legislation without delay, should such need arise. In these uncertain times, as tensions in the Middle East are on the rise again, we can never be sure that the tentacles of war will never again reach out to threaten our peaceful existence.

I note also that one purpose to which the Act could have been put was to facilitate the use of lands for low-flying exercises for the Royal New Zealand Air Force. Nowadays, of course, thanks to the actions of a previous administration, and the inaction of the current one, New Zealand scarcely has an air force, so thus it is likely that this provision is probably now largely defunct anyway. New Zealand First hopes that any future legislation that may be required does include the provision for low-flying training, along with fencing, water-race diversion, and other curiously farming-orientated purposes as stated in the 1915 Act. It is altogether possible, in all seriousness, that in times of future conflict New Zealand may require to give itself a greater aviation warfare capacity than that required by top-dressing. We note that the 1915 Act does require that any land taken under its auspices is to be returned as nearly as possible to its former state, once the requirement for military purposes has expired. We expect that our colleagues from the Green Party will agree with us that any future legislation should similarly include a requirement for land restoration.

I am aware that many members have made note of the fact that the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915 has not been used in more than 30 years, and have claimed that this in itself is proof of its obsolescence. Notwithstanding that our fine library researchers have determined it is in fact 69 years, I believe it is worth remembering at this time that this year marks the 30th anniversary of the war in the Falklands, which was not very long ago, and also that that particular conflict came very much out of the blue for the British, who at the time were Argentina’s single most important trading partner. Sometimes things happen when we least expect them, and it is important that the nation is prepared for all eventualities, including in a legislative sense.

That said, New Zealand First does not consider that this particular Act is of crucial importance to New Zealand’s security, and we are not opposed to its demise. We echo the sentiments of some speakers that much old legislation is perhaps best dealt with by means of an omnibus bill, but we congratulate the member on the drawing of his bill and we are happy to support its passage through the House. Thank you.

It gives me great pleasure to support this Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill, and I too want to congratulate my excellent colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi.

But what I was a little bit concerned about was that I had always thought that Maryan Street was a woman who really appreciated aestheticism, because here is a slim bill, here is a sleek bill, and here is a bill that is a melody of brevity. In fact, as she herself pointed out—[Interruption] I think it is a page and a half long. But it was in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which worked so well together, so ably led by John Hayes, that it was deduced that it was right and proper to remove two of the clauses of this bill. So 40 percent was removed and hence it was made even a slimmer, sleeker, and more melodically magnificent bill.

But really this is indeed a great indictment, in many respects, on those long 9 years of the Labour Government when it accumulated bureaucracy, like public servants from 26,000 to 39,000. This bill represents at least someone, my good colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, starting on the difficult progress of cutting down the bureaucracy. So I indeed am very, very delighted to support this most excellent and timely bill.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is a real privilege tonight to be taking a call on the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. What I think is the most interesting aspect of this bill is not so much the military manoeuvres but the political manoeuvres that probably led to this bill. At a time when this country is full of low-flow shower heads, local government waste like public transport and community development, which this Government is so focused on, and all the letters that could be written on ACC letterhead, we get the Government focusing Mr Bakshi’s sincere political talent on the political manoeuvres to get the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill through the House.

This bill is an embarrassing waste of time. This bill epitomises the problems we are seeing in this country. At a time when we have children in poverty, when we have an economy in crisis, and when we have a whole bunch of Kiwis embarking on their own manoeuvres across the ditch to Australia, this Government is focusing on this bill. I imagine Mr Bakshi going through the tomes in the Parliamentary Library—those dusty alcoves—trying to find those 100 obscure bills he referred to in his first reading speech. But I want to ask how he got the bill through his caucus. How did he get it past his ambitious colleagues? Because we know that the National Party is a dog-eat-dog party where members try to step on top of each other. I cannot believe that Mr Mapp or Mr Coleman let this bill through. I cannot believe that they did not let this become a Government bill. I am really surprised we saw this in the members’ ballot.

We have these other 100 obscure bills that we are talking about. I want to ask what those bills are. Are we going to see subsequent members’ bills by Mr Bakshi or the enhanced caucus of the National Party? Really, what this is all about is clogging up the members’ ballot so that we cannot get good members’ bills through, like my Energy Efficiency and Conservation (Warm Healthy Rentals) Amendment Bill, that would make a significant difference to this country.

As a final parting note, I just want to point out that although we are getting rid of this obscure 1915 rule allowing the military to take over people’s farms for military manoeuvres, we are still seeing the Government take over Kiwis’ houses and their farms at the moment under the Public Works Act, and then there is the Kapiti Expressway and the other $19 billion monstrosities this Government is borrowing to build, even though they have a poor business case. We are also seeing land taken under the Crown Minerals Act for mining, for fracking, and for drilling. We are seeing our water resources tapped under similar manoeuvres, and I think at a time when we have so many crises facing us I would rather see the Government focus its political manoeuvres on more important things.

This Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill is an excellent bill, and I want to commend my colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi for having the foresight to research fully this bill, and then to bring it to the House.

This is the “Sunlight Bill”. This is the bill that casts sunlight on some of New Zealand’s old legislation and brings it into the view of the Parliament so it can be fully discussed, fully considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, before it is brought back to the House. I want to commend my colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi for that approach. You are absolutely right. Maybe this bill could have been dealt with in another way, but this is the Government that believes in full and frank discussion of our legislation. If there is a piece of legislation that is to be wiped from the statute book, then it should be done in this arena with full discussion, with full opportunity for members from around the House to have their view on this piece of legislation.

This is a small bill. This is a bill of some one page—

💬 Hon Member: Wonderfully brief.

It is a wonderfully brief bill. In that bill I think it speaks a lot for New Zealand’s proud history through several world wars, and the fact that at the time the Governor-General was empowered to take over land that might be required for military manoeuvres. That is a piece of history that we should not just wipe from the statute book. I reckon that is a piece of history that should see the sunlight of a bit of discussion in this debating chamber. So I want to support this bill. I think it is a good bill, because it tidies up—

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: An elegant bill.

It is an elegant bill, as my colleague says. I want to commend it to the House.

The big hand is on the nine and the little hand is on the nine, so I think that probably means it is time for Jacqui Dean to sit down. Can I congratulate Mr Bakshi on this, the defining moment of his political career, where he has managed to take a line item out of a Statutes Amendment Bill and turn it into a member’s bill, thus taking up a huge amount of time of the House. If this is the new efficiency of the Public Service the National Party is promoting, I am sure the bureaucracy will be rubbing their hands together very warmly.

What an excellent piece of legislation the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill is, brought to this House by the hard-working member of Parliament Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. Some members on the other side of the House will not realise that Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is going through some difficulty with this. You see, he is a man of some real military background, and to repeal a piece of legislation like this when, actually, he spent much time with the military shows us the strength of the man, his commitment to this House, and why he has come here to make such an important change for all New Zealanders—[Interruption] Can I say to Mr Prasad on the other side of the House that if you put in a draft bill to the members ballot, you could almost be as successful as Mr Bakshi is—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member impugns my reputation by publicising that I do not have a bill in the ballot. In fact, I do.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.

I will apologise to the member; I did not mean to impugn his reputation, although his point of order might have done that on its own.

Can I suggest to Mr Bakshi that in the last Parliament, when I sat on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, we paid great attention to this piece of legislation when it came to us. We offered the opportunity to members of the public to come forward and pronounce their opinion on it. From memory, not a single person in New Zealand spoke against this proposal he has brought to this Parliament. I congratulate him on that; he is a man of the people—well done for that. Can I say as I look through my notes in front of me that actually this is the mark of a good piece of legislation: my notes are longer than the bill. For that reason, I will take my seat. I commend this to the House. Well done, Kanwaljit—a great piece of legislation. [Interruption] Oh, is there still a speaker from the other side? I will take a few more moments.

I say well done to Kanwaljit. It is very important that he as a member of this House has brought forward a member’s bill that he believes in and that has the wholehearted support of the vast majority of members of the House—at least, the most intelligent members of this House will be supporting it. I look forward to spending much more time going into greater detail on this bill in the Committee stage at another stage. Well done; congratulations. Thank you.

💬 Sue Moroney: Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate has now concluded.

💬 Sue Moroney: Oh—no it hasn’t.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do sit down. I will put the question. The question is that the—

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is this not a 12-speech debate?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, we have had 12.

💬 Chris Hipkins: No, we have not. We have had 11. [Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me. There has been an error. Yes, I have got it now. I will call the member. I apologise; I was relying on information left for me.

In concluding this debate, can I say: what an embarrassment! What an embarrassing day for the National Government! It culminates in every single member of the member’s caucus who has brought this bill before the House getting up, firmly tongue in cheek, and actually being quite offensive about his contribution to this Parliament. I think that is the nature now of the sadness of the—

💬 Todd McClay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at being called offensive.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I think the comment was made as a more general term. It was not directed at anybody. The debate has been in good spirit and I just ask members to maintain that for the final speech. Thank you.

I think it is a very, very sad day for National when this is their piece that they have brought forward at this time of the evening, when they cannot even get up with a straight face and really wholeheartedly support a member’s bill that one of their own colleagues has brought forward. Firmly with tongue in cheek have they got up, one after the other, to actually pour scorn on a member of their own caucus, and I think that is the sorry state that the National Party caucus is in today. They all know, as we all know, on this side of the House, that the real reason that this bill has been brought forward is to stop other very good pieces of legislation of real merit from being debated—pieces like the member’s bill that I have in the ballot to extend paid parental leave. That is something that would make a real difference to New Zealand families, but instead National has dug up a piece of legislation that does not do anything anyway, and is wasting the time of this House debating this type of legislation.

Can I say to the member who has brought forward the bill that it is not his fault. It is not his fault. It is the fault of the National Party caucus who have decided that they would put him in this position. They put him in this embarrassing position of bringing forward a bill that has no effect, and of demeaning him in that way. I think it is a great shame that his colleagues have put him in that position. They have not only put him in that position by bringing forward that bill, but also they have got up one after another and denigrated that member’s contribution to this House and have made fun of him. I think that that tells us a lot about the spirit of the National Party caucus today in this House.

I am not going to take up any more time, because I want to get on to the sorts of bills that absolutely should be debated in this House. Bring them on.

Bill read a second time.