Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)

I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a first time. I rise to speak in the first reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. The bill allows amendments to be made that would not normally receive sufficient priority to be progressed individually. It amends 33 Acts administered by 12 different Government agencies. Many of the amendments are designed to correct drafting errors and incorrect references, such as the amendment in clause 61 to the definition of drug-dealing offences in section 10 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978, which removes an incorrect reference to the now repealed section 46 of the Act, and the amendment in clause 100 to section 88AE of the Summary Proceedings Act to add the words “88(2)(b) or 88AD(2)(c)” in the heading, and in section 88AE(1) to correct the drafting error.

Some make unobjectionable refinements to machinery provisions, including an amendment in clause 19 to the Copyright Act 1994 to allow the Copyright Tribunal to consist of a chair and between two and five members under the current wording. The provision has been interpreted to mean that the tribunal must consist of only six members. It is desirable for the tribunal to consist of different numbers from time to time where appropriate. Other clauses make technical amendments to facilitate functions of governance, such as the amendment in clause 47 to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to give Auckland Transport the functions and powers of an enforcement authority in relation to fare evasion offences on public transport in Auckland. Although Auckland Transport is responsible for managing and controlling the Auckland transport system, unlike local authorities it is currently unable to progress infringement notices for fare evasion.

Also, the amendment in clause 15 of section 21A of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995 proposes altering the requirements for making name changes. The amendment is meant to address the concern that a fraudulent name change can occur currently. A person registering a change of name by statutory declaration is not required to provide evidence that he or she is the person to whom the name change application is related. I look forward to hearing the committee’s views on these matters, and I commend the bill to the House.

In the nature of Statutes Amendment bills, we will, of course, support this bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). It does a number of tidy-up jobs on various pieces of legislation—that much the Associate Minister of Justice has just said—but it is an opportunity to reflect upon those pieces of legislation that appear in the bill and see whether we can find a common thread, weave a common thread, or make some sense out of it. I have been through them in some detail and I am struck by some of the—admittedly minor—changes to some very important pieces of legislation. Some are to do with the judiciary, some to do with our judicial process, and some to do with other administrative process. I am just wondering whether, actually, through this Statutes Amendment Bill, this Government is setting up an escape path for a recalcitrant Minister. If you have a look at some of these provisions, there is a very unusual thread of commonality that goes through it.

Let me start with the judicial conduct commissioner and commission bill—let me just clarify the exact name, because I would not want to mislead and put wrong the tens of thousands of people who have tuned in specially this afternoon to watch the passage of this legislation. It is the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. This is a piece of legislation that allows those who are aggrieved by what has happened to them in court before a judge to take action. Indeed, the Judicial Conduct Panel has dealt with some justified complaints against judges. It is very difficult, of course, because most of the people who are aggrieved at the conduct of judges are usually those who have lost their case before a judge. But there are some who are treated peremptorily, unfortunately, and in an inappropriate way. They make complaints and they can have those complaints heard—a sort of second tier of justice delivered. Well, the changes in this Statutes Amendment Bill for the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act do two things. They allow the deputy commissioner to do what the commissioner can do once the commissioner has delegated it to the deputy. They also allow the commissioner to dismiss a complaint already dealt with.

I just make this point—and, of course, it would not be a matter for a Statutes Amendment Bill—but in reflecting on this piece of legislation and the processes that it enacts, is it not a pity that the judges themselves do not have a body to go to to complain about injustices done against them? They might well lay a complaint against none other than the Minister of Justice—not because of dinners she has had in Shanghai or her travel itinerary in all parts of the world on behalf of her husband’s company but because of her comments and her attitude towards our judiciary.

Her attitude is absolutely epitomised by the comments she made in the weekend in an interview on the prospective Victims’ Commissioner when she said of our judicial system that she agreed with the statement that “This is not a court of justice; this is a court of law.” She said of our judiciary: “This is not a court of justice; this is a court of law.” That came from our Minister of Justice. It was not Billy Bragg and his famous song about the appalling nature of the bail system in the United Kingdom; this was the New Zealand Minister of Justice talking about our system of justice on the 6 o’clock news on Sunday night on Television One. If I was a judge in this country of whatever court, I would be horrified and I would be looking for a process by which to complain about that Minister. Perhaps they will not have to look much longer if the present Minister of Justice meets her just deserts and is gone by the end of the week, because she certainly should do so.

Now I want to go to the Official Information Act. This is a very interesting piece of legislation because it allows for oral requests to be made and then for those oral requests, if they are not clearly understood, to be put into writing by whoever receives the request, including Ministers—including Ministers. It also allows a refusal of a document that cannot be found, providing a reasonable effort has been made to locate the document. Following our requests for information about, for example, Michelle Boag and her complaint about the Minister for ACC and her breach of privacy, well, we were told that it could not be found, and so this provision may well provide a mechanism by which to get information from that Minister.

I might say this about the Minister of Justice, who is the Minister responsible for the Official Information Act. She must have the most appalling record of responses to Official Information Act requests. I have not received a response to an Official Information Act request that has not been heavily redacted—that has not been concealment of information. But this seems to be the flavour of this Minister. Rather than be open, upfront, and transparent, she conceals everything, and it now turns out she has got a lot to conceal. There is a lot of conduct that she wants to hide, and so questions are now being asked, and we wonder whether this change to the Official Information Act in this Statutes Amendment Bill might enable us just a smidgen further in her door to find out what is actually going on and what it is that she is hiding.

I turn to the Ombudsmen Act, because there is a change to the Ombudsmen Act in this Statutes Amendment Bill as well. This allows an Ombudsman to refuse to commence an investigation if he or she judges it necessary to do so. That is quite a sensible provision—uncontroversial in any other way—except who is the Minister responsible for the Ombudsmen and the Ombudsmen Act? It is the Minister of Justice—the Minister of Justice. Here is the thing. When you cannot get an answer—a proper answer or a heavily redacted answer to your Official Information Act request—where do you go? You go to the Office of the Ombudsmen, and the same Minister is in charge of that office too. And what do we find? The poor old Ombudsmen’s office snowed under, predominantly because of Ministers who fail to answer their Official Information Act requests, and the Minister of Justice is the worst. So I hope that the Associate Minister of Justice, who has shepherded this bill into the House today, takes note, because he may have to step up very soon, and we want responsible people ready to step up and take up these senior roles. Perhaps the Associate Minister, when he gets the opportunity in a few days’ time to pick up the cudgels of the real job, the big job, will make a difference in this regard.

Then, of course, we have the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. There is no question, I think, that the current Minister of Justice will want to resort to her rights and obligations under this Act very soon—if she has not already. This provision under the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) allows objections to licences that are limited to the suitability of the applicants. So the only ground upon which you can object to an application for a licence is the suitability of the applicant. Whether the present Minister of Justice, through this bill, is actually preparing her way for a career change, I am not sure, but if she is, she is in trouble. She is in trouble under this provision because it allows you to oppose an application for a licence on the grounds of character. That is to say, if you are not a person of good character, you cannot hold a liquor licence. So I just say to the present Minister of Justice to be careful, because that career option may be closed off, because we cannot have Ministers of Justice leaving that post who want to go off and sell alcohol when they have left that post under a cloud of suspicion of wrongdoing. We cannot have that.

Then, finally, there is the Sentencing Act. That is an interesting provision because it deals with what happens when an offence is committed in a car that is not your own. So if a Minister who transgresses commits an offence in a ministerial limousine, for example, the car can still be seized. The car can be seized and disposed of—

💬 Dr David Clark: It could be crushed.

Well, it may well be crushed. So I can foresee a Minister of Justice who has been recently pushed out of her role going off to apply for a liquor licence that she cannot get, sells liquor anyway, and has the car that she is in seized by the Crown. None of this is any good. But I just want to say this, finally. She has a resort. There are two parts of this bill that she can resort to. The first is the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act amendment, and if there is any place that the current Minister of Justice needs to go, it is surely a friendly society, because she is running out of them here. She is running out of her friends around here and she could go along to a friendly society and find that there are people who just want to be friends regardless of the character of the people they are dealing with.

But, finally, if all of that fails—if all of that fails—there are the changes to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act in this bill. The provisions in this bill make it easier to change your name. So if the Minister of Justice leaves the post under a cloud because of very serious allegations of impropriety and misconduct, and she cannot get another job either as a retailer of liquor or anything else, then she can go along to the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages and she can change her name. There will be a new form provided under the amendment in this bill and it will be easier for her to change her name. So she has prospects and she has a future. But after all of that, notwithstanding the apparent setting up of alternatives for the present Minister of Justice, we will support this legislation because these are good changes for the people of New Zealand.

What a wonderful dissertation that was from our Opposition colleague Andrew Little! I am surprised that he could speak at such length without actually referring to very much in the bill at all. It was masterful, it was an achievement, but I am not sure that it was one he should be proud of.

I am, in fact, very proud to be speaking to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) in the House this afternoon. This is a good housekeeping bill that points to the National Government’s continuous aim for increased efficiency in procedure and a completist’s eye for detail in making sure that the laws already passed move from adequate to excellent.

Just to take one example out of so many amendments—there are 33 sets of amendments, in fact, in this omnibus bill—we have the amendments to the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012. One of the reasons that New Zealand went into mainframe computers was to process animal records through our efficient herd improvement system, which is organised through the New Zealand Dairy Board. A large part of that was for animal identification procedures. The bill’s explanatory note states that Part 20 amends section 10 of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012. This purpose of this modification, the explanatory note states, is to enable “the NAIT organisation to contract out its compliance and enforcement functions”.

Section 10 of the principal Act as it currently stands is about the functions, duties, and powers of National Animal Identification and Tracing organisations. By amending this section, the bill will support the work to be completed efficiently and effectively by the best people for the job, both in-house and contractors. So the National Government will again be supporting the continued growth, efficiency, and modernisation of this primary industry organisation by removing unnecessary red tape that may slow down the growth of this vital industry in New Zealand’s economy—and vital it is.

This is just one of the 33 sets of amendments—33 Acts are amended by this bill—that our verging-on-brilliant colleague and Associate Minister of Justice, Chester Borrows, has brought in with this bill. This example of the determination of this Government to promote excellence in our workplaces by cutting through red tape and supporting the most efficient road to get the job done shows what a contrast National’s priorities are with the Opposition’s, and thank goodness—thank goodness.

This bill is a really good example, albeit in lacking in drama, of one of National’s four priorities: to deliver better public services for New Zealand and New Zealanders. Part of that is in running an effective and efficient Government. It is another example of cutting through the labyrinthian and miasmic maze of legislative jargon to bring this into a more understandable lexicon, and it is a clearer and more transparent expression of the laws and regulations that we live by. I commend this bill to the House.

Can I commend the member who has just resumed his seat, Chris Auchinvole, and say that the only point of disappointment I have with his contribution to the House is that he did not acknowledge, as deputy chair of the Government Administration Committee, our absolute delight that the Associate Minister of Justice—out of all the select committees that he could have chosen to receive this bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), for consideration—chose our committee. As the chair, I am particularly delighted that he has done that. I have to say that my delight is enhanced by the fact that we have not got any other legislation before our select committee at the moment. We have got the obvious Budget-related reviews to go through, we have got an inquiry, and we have got a petition, but it seems like the Government has pretty well run out of work, which is amazing given that it is an election year. We end up with the highlight of this week’s debate seeming to be a Statutes Amendment Bill.

The member also noted that there is not much drama in this bill. Well, there should not be, because it is a Statutes Amendment Bill. Every party in the House has to sign off as agreeing that the material in it is appropriate for a Statutes Amendment Bill and therefore non-contentious in nature. But compared with the drama that we have had this week with the Minister of Justice when she was in China giving her anti-corruption speech at a conference, I do not think we need any more drama. I think she is providing us with more than enough drama to keep us entertained. This bill amends 33 statutes, a number of which come under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. I hope that she has been able to give them the sort of attention that they need, although I am not sure that she has, given how busy she must have been preparing her answers and her apologies in relation to that trip.

On a serious note, although we are debating something non-contentious in this legislation, which is being referred to the Government Administration Committee, the actions that Judith Collins has undertaken that have been the subject of many questions in this House are not just contentious but very unusual. It is unusual for any Minister in Parliament to be so much on the edge of a clear conflict of interest, to be denying members of the public access to information and answers to questions, as well as members of Parliament, yet to remain so aloof and arrogant about it. I suppose that is the bit that has surprised me. I know that the Minister concerned has a level of arrogance that is surprising in comparison with most other members of Parliament, but to be caught out so blatantly and then to say in her apology that what was surprising was that she was apologising—that is what the Minister actually said. She said that it was surprising that she was apologising. So I think that disconnect with how people feel about accountability and the need to be able to trust their Ministers is really surprising. We know that Judith Collins went on a taxpayer-funded trip to China—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: We know that this member has got a conviction for drink-driving.

That is right. We know that the Minister went on a taxpayer-funded trip to China. We know that her husband went with her. What we did not know before she left, and what we did not know until it was prised out of her because of public exposure, was the fact that she actually had a visit to Oravida, the company that her husband is a director of, and also had a private dinner not just with the directors of Oravida but also with—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Points of order will be heard in silence and there is no need to engage in unparliamentary language. I call the Hon Nick Smith for a point of order.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: My point of order is that we are debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). That is not a licence to give a general debate speech or a diatribe on any particular member of the House, but to speak about the bill and what it will do for New Zealand. The member is not doing that and I ask that you call her to order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, I thank the member for his elicitation and say that I am actually looking through the bill and trying to find something along the lines—I will just ask the member to try to speak directly to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4).

I certainly will. I want to speak about the provisions in this legislation that come under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. One of the amendments that is being made in this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) is to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. It is entirely appropriate that that Act is amended. I hope that the Minister is still in charge of that particular Act by the time this bill progresses to the select committee, but I think that it is not entirely likely.

One of the other amendments that is made in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)—and my colleague Andrew Little referred to it in his all too brief contribution on this first reading—is the amendment to the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982. I think that that is an area that the current Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, will be very pleased to hear about. It was so obvious at question time today that a friendly society was something that she is desperately in need of, as she blundered her way through questions about her engagement with Oravida and her inability to answer questions. She then further blundered her way through the ACC questions, exposing her misrepresentations in the House yesterday in relation to the document that she tabled.

I just want to talk about the last Statutes Amendment Bill that we had referred to the Government Administration Committee. It was smaller than this bill. This bill amends 33 statutes, and our one was, I think, smaller than that but perhaps not by much. Our select committee unanimously took the quite unusual step of removing some of the previously agreed statutes amendment provisions because it was our view that, when they were taken as a whole, they comprised far too much to be legitimately considered in the Statutes Amendment Bill. I think that that was a very good position for the select committee to take—that the threshold of acceptance for amendments in a Statutes Amendment Bill should be quite high. We should not use it as a way of sneaking things through. I do not think that was the intention of the Associate Minister—let me make that clear. I think it was a genuine attempt to get something not very big and not controversial pushed through Parliament in a comparatively speedy way.

What our committee also did—and I think this was the good part, which I want to draw to the attention of the House because I referred to it only briefly, in passing, in the deliberation on the previous Statutes Amendment Bill—was not only remove those provisions but say to the Minister, and give the assurance at the committee, that we would ensure the speedy passage of those provisions when they were moved into a separate piece of legislation. I think that is a pretty respectful thing to do. We had no doubt that the Minister was not trying to trick us. He wanted to get those particular provisions passed quickly. They were not controversial; they were constructive. So I think we acted in a moment of multiparty common sense in an effort to make genuine progress on an issue there was not any debate on. I am sure we will do the same for this current Statutes Amendment Bill.

We will apply rigour to the consideration. We will be applying the same sort of rigour to considering this bill at the committee that we will be applying to the questions we will continue to ask Minister Judith Collins during question time. I have been surprised at the new standards in question time. It is a real shame there is no statute amendment in this bill in regard to the standards for question time. If a Minister is able to get up and say: “That’s quite a long question, and I really can’t be bothered answering it.”, they might as well say: “I’ve got a headache. I’m going to have a wee lie-down in the lobby. Could you just send something to me by email.” This is the only time in the day in Parliament that we have the opportunity to hold a Minister to account for a very serious responsibility they hold as the Minister of their particular portfolio. We get only half a dozen questions a day between the Opposition parties, and that is for only 3 days a week when the House is sitting and not under urgency, unless we have been given the opportunity to ask questions. So it is a very short period of time for us to get public accountability from the Ministers, and, frankly, we have been really short-changed by the Minister of Justice.

I have heard some answers from Ministers of the current Government that have made me think: “Oh, that’s frustrating, and I don’t think that’s quite right.” But I have never seen a Minister absolutely refusing to front up to their responsibilities. I certainly hope the Minister of Justice has taken up her responsibilities in the Statutes Amendment Bill in respect of the amendments to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act, the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act, the Official Information Act, and the other legislation she is responsible for, such as the Ombudsmen Act, and all those pieces of legislation that are, quite rightly, the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. I certainly hope that she has applied more consideration to them and will give the public more confidence in her actions as the Minister responsible for those amendments than she has been able to do in relation to her Oravida visit. There is a clear conflict of interest in the Oravida engagement, where the Minister has obviously promoted one company, a company of which her husband is a director, using her ministerial position. That is something New Zealand does not often get to hear about. I hope it is dealt with speedily by the current Government, because it does this Parliament a disservice. The Minister really needs to take that into account and vacate her seat.

Sat sri akaal, Mr Assistant Speaker, and thanks for the opportunity to speak during the first reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). The purpose of Statutes Amendment bills is to propose minor amendments to existing statutes so that the laws and the statutes of the country are kept up to date.

Furthermore, with the changing times it is critical that the proposed laws and legislation of the country are helpful to its citizens, rather than creating impediments to the personal growth of the citizens of the nation. It is with some confidence that I can stand today in this House in front of my colleagues and say that ever since the forming of this Government, led by the National Party, it has proposed and implemented legislation that has made the lives of everyday New Zealanders easier, such as the renewal of passports online, which is getting easier with time with the new amendments being proposed by this Government. With these words I conclude, and I commend the bill to this House.

New Zealand First is satisfied that all the amendments in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) are minor and suitable for a Statutes Amendment Bill, but I do have some comments to make on some of the parts. First of all, Part 11 has two amendments to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act—quite a mouthful. The first one deals with the ability of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to delegate to his or her deputy. This was something we discussed in the Justice and Electoral Committee when we interviewed the commissioner. We felt that it was rather strange that such a delegation power did not already exist and that it was only a sensible use of the resource that is the deputy to assist the commissioner himself or herself in their work. We were concerned the commissioner might become overloaded, so I am very glad to see that this minor amendment is included in the bill.

The second amendment states that the commissioner must dismiss a repetitive complaint. We were also concerned in the committee that there were a number of time-wasters who made repetitive complaints that were not useful for anybody, so I am glad to see that that particular amendment is here, as well. With regard to Part 2, that deals with the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994 and implements New Zealand’s obligations under the 2009 agreement to amend the Antarctic Treaty for the purpose of improving the regime for taking species from, or introducing species into, Antarctica—a very important provision indeed. It includes ice shelves and sea ice as well. It is a very welcome provision. It is one that is long overdue, and I am very disappointed that it has, in fact, taken 5 long years to implement this, so perhaps we could have some explanation from the Associate Minister of Justice why it took so long to do such an important thing.

I want to move on to Part 17, which deals with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. Clause 50 amends section 4 of that legislation, and “provides that the purposes of the Act include increasing progressively the availability of information to the public.” There is a high public demand for information from local authorities, and councils are notorious for, firstly, unnecessarily having meetings with the public excluded and, secondly, being highly defensive about keeping information to themselves that they do not want known. They have a culture of “It’s our information, not the public’s information.”, and that is a culture that has to change. So we actually need even stronger amendments than this. This is welcome for progressively improving the situation, but, in fact, what we need is something stronger, and I hope the Government will look at something stronger than this in the future.

Also, clause 56 clarifies that a local authority may refuse a request if the document alleged to contain the information cannot be found, despite reasonable efforts to locate it. That is actually a little bit dangerous when you think about it because it is very easy for a local authority simply to say “Well, we’re not going to give you that document, because we can’t find it.”, and nobody would be the wiser for it. So I am a little bit worried about that provision. It should really be just a defence rather than an authority to give that as a reason for refusing to give a document. I am a little bit disappointed in that provision. I do not think it is quite right, but it is not so serious that New Zealand First would vote against the whole bill because of it.

I want to move on to Part 23 because exactly the same issue arises there with the Official Information Act 1982. Clause 76 amends section 18(e) to refuse to give documents for exactly the same reason—that is, that the document has been lost. So I repeat the same concerns I have in respect of that provision as I did with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act matter.

Moving on to Part 24, I think this is quite important. It amends the Ombudsmen Act 1975, and New Zealand First approves very much of the amendment that gives the Ombudsman the ability to refuse to commence an investigation of a complaint if he or she is satisfied that it is unnecessary to do so. Again, I was present at the Justice and Electoral Committee when we talked to the Ombudsman about this very issue. It is actually quite a serious problem because a lot of time-wasting can happen when the Ombudsman has to set out to investigate a complaint when he or she is sure that it is actually unnecessary to do so. The Ombudsman’s time is very, very valuable, and I think we need to trust him or her to sift out those complaints that are unnecessary to investigate. This amendment actually makes it possible to do that. We in New Zealand First think that that is completely appropriate. We are a little bit worried about the high workload that the Ombudsman has to work under, so this is also just a common-sense way of making better use of the Ombudsman’s time.

So with those comments, some concerns, but there are also some very welcome new provisions, which although minor are nevertheless very important in their own way, and I think they are appropriate for a Statutes Amendment Bill. It is a bill that is easy to gloss over but that we all need to take particular notice of. We in New Zealand First have studied it closely, and we think it deserves to pass, even with some of the reservations that I have expressed.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak at the first reading of this bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), for a very specific purpose. The purpose is to give notice that I will be submitting Supplementary Order Paper 432, which will be available today, and writing to the chair of the Government Administration Committee to ask that in the submission process consideration be given to the amendment proposed by my Supplementary Order Paper. That amendment is the inclusion of an amendment to the Human Rights Act 1993—in particular, an amendment to section 21(1)(a), of the Human Rights Act, which currently sets out the prohibited grounds of discrimination. It states as the first ground: “sex, which includes pregnancy and childbirth:”. My Supplementary Order Paper will be seeking an amendment that means section 21(1)(a) would read “sex, which includes gender identity, pregnancy and childbirth:”.

This is a technical amendment, which has its origins in Georgina Beyer’s member’s bill in 2004 entitled the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill. At the time, the Human Rights Commission stated that it confirmed it would accept complaints from transgender people within the definition of “sex” under the Act. In response to Georgina Beyer’s member’s bill, the opinion of the Solicitor-General was sought. That opinion was clear that discrimination on the grounds of gender identity fell within the definition of “sex” in section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act. On that basis, Georgina Beyer withdrew her member’s bill.

In 2008 the Inquiry into Discrimination Experienced by Transgender People by the Human Rights Commission concluded: “there must be no doubt that trans people are protected from discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993. Such a clear signal is necessary if society is serious about reducing the pervasive levels of discrimination against trans people. The Human Rights Commission accepts discrimination complaints from trans people under the ground of sex, but notes questions raised by international case law as to whether all forms of discrimination directed against trans people would be considered sex discrimination by New Zealand courts. The Inquiry considers that, for the avoidance of any doubt, section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1993 should be amended to state clearly that sex includes gender identity.”

In the presentation of New Zealand’s national report to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations General Assembly as part of the second Universal Periodic Review on 27 January this year, the Minister of Justice stated—and I quote from paragraph 65—“The New Zealand Human Rights Commission has received complaints from transgender people of discrimination on the basis of disability and sex. Its complaints process provides one way of addressing such discrimination. The Ministry of Health changed its guidelines on availability of gender reassignment surgery in 2011, but work still remains to ensure equitable access to health services and health outcomes for transgender people. The Commission considers that amendment to the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act to specifically include gender identity would help to clarify some of the issues. The Government’s view is that discrimination on the grounds of gender identity is already prohibited under the Human Rights Act as sex discrimination.”

That has been the position of successive New Zealand Governments since the Solicitor-General’s advice was received in 2006. The Cabinet Manual states: “Statutes Amendment Bills are designed as vehicles for technical, short, and non-controversial amendments to a range of Acts.” The amendment proposed by my Supplementary Order Paper is technical, as successive Governments have confirmed that gender identity falls under the definition of sex discrimination in section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act. It is a short amendment and it is non-controversial, as all parties agree that the proposed amendment will merely clarify what is understood to be the position. This has been confirmed by the Minister of Justice at the beginning of this year.

The amendment and inclusion of gender identity under section 21(1)(a) does no more than reflect what the Human Rights Commission does in practice and what Governments since 2006 have asserted is the position. What the amendment does, though, is make it clear that gender identity is included within the definition of sex discrimination. It therefore would not allow the possibility of an interpretation that is different from the Government position and the understanding of the Human Rights Commission.

The Cabinet Manual emphasises that legislation should be drafted in plain English, that it should be legally correct, and that it should give effect to Government policy. This amendment proposed by my Supplementary Order Paper makes the law clear and does what legislation should do—that is, state clearly and directly that gender identity falls within the definition of “sex” in the prohibited grounds of discrimination in section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1993. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Ahn nyung ha se yo, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for chastising me for not actually getting up when I should have.

💬 Tim Macindoe: You can blame the whip.

I should actually blame the whip. As the whip rightfully pointed out, I did not realise that I was actually speaking on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4).

💬 Tim Macindoe: Don’t go too far.

But it did, however, actually say that the duty MP was supposed to get up, so, ultimately, it is my fault.

It is a great pleasure to support this bill. It is an exercise that we go through every year, it seems, to confirm, validate, and authorise our bills that need to be amended in this House. To those members of the public who are listening in, they may not necessarily understand what is actually happening, but this is the exercise that we have to go through. I commend it to the House—with the qualification that I do not envy the Government Administration Committee members who have to actually do the committee work. Thank you very much.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to offer the Green Party’s support for this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), and would like to talk particularly to the recently tabled Supplementary Order Paper 432, in the name of Louisa Wall, to amend section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act to make sure that it includes gender identity under the definition of “sex”. I recognise that this is a very minor amendment that will confirm our common understanding of the law as it is at the moment. Currently, the Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex and clarifies that pregnancy and childbirth fall within the gambit of sex. The Human Rights Commission practises as if gender identity also falls under that definition of “sex”. As we have heard, the Minister of Justice has spoken internationally confirming her understanding that gender identity falls under the understanding of sex as a grounds for prohibited discrimination. Further, the Solicitor-General has given a legal opinion back in 2006 offering the same interpretation. So this Supplementary Order Paper would be a very minor amendment consistent with Government policy and what I believe is our shared understanding of the world.

I do want to just talk a little bit, though, about why it is important. I think the internationally groundbreaking report To Be Who I Am, which was commissioned in 2006 by the Human Rights Commission, gives us a very good steer about why this is important. This was a report that evolved out of a very long consultation with transgender communities within New Zealand, so that was with whakawahine, fa‛afafine, fakaleiti, ‛akava‛ine, and many different queens and queer people in this country about their experience of living in New Zealand. What the commission found through that consultation was that the level of discrimination these different communities experience is really extreme. In fact, I think the commission described how in some of the stories that it heard, as the report repeatedly demonstrates, trans people have had to triumph over severe—sometimes heartbreaking—adversities. Being trans is not a lifestyle choice; rather, it is a core part of a person’s identity.

What the commission found out through this consultation is that people are experiencing discrimination in our schools, in our educational institutions, in our workplaces, and in accessing pretty much most services in New Zealand. The Human Rights Commission will respond to complaints that people make, but people need to know that they can make those complaints. Clarifying this law and putting it on paper that we recognise them is an important step in that process of enabling people to make complaints and to protect their human rights in this country. The different trans communities are numerically very small, and so it is very hard for them to fight those battles publicly. There are not many of them to do that. So it does fall on us, I think, as political leaders, to speak on their behalf when we can and to make sure that our laws actually provide the leadership and open up the spaces for them to be able to claim their human rights and help us on that journey as a country to becoming totally inclusive and embracing of our differences. So, on that note, I am happy to be supporting this bill and, in particular, the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Louisa Wall. Kia ora.

It is a very interesting time in the parliamentary calendar when we consider a Statutes Amendment Bill. It is quite remarkable that the House has always found reliable methods with which to ensure that legislation is appropriate and dealt with in a way that is common and consistent with democracy.

If we look at this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), what particularly stands out, from my particular point of view, are the aspects in respect of the Biosecurity Act 1993, which we can all appreciate in a country whose economy is principally driven by the primary industries. Here, we find that the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) in clauses 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 asks that that Act be amended. No doubt the Government Administration Committee will give due consideration to all the parts that make up the bill but because of the contribution that the primary industry makes to this country’s economy will look particularly at the Biosecurity Act amendments.

This Statutes Amendment Bill addresses some 30-odd amendments. On that basis, I have great pleasure in supporting this bill going to the select committee.

In response to the member who has just resumed his seat, Colin King, I am not sure that the words “very interesting” and “Statutes Amendment Bill” should actually go in the same sentence, but I am pleased that Statutes Amendment bills are what float his boat. That is good to know. In fact, these really are bills that are used to fix botch-ups, little mistakes. They are non-controversial, everyone in Parliament supports them, and so we put them all together in an omnibus bill to pass them through.

I have to say, it is not surprising that we have had so many Statutes Amendment bills in this term of Government and in the previous term of Government, given the complete disregard for due process that this Government has. A number of times when Labour members have been on our feet discussing various pieces of legislation, we have pointed out that we were rushing legislation through Parliament and rushing it through the select committee process. I think of the emissions trading scheme legislation. That legislation went through the select committee in 7 weeks, including the calling for, and hearing of, submissions. And then we are surprised that we have to pass so many Statutes Amendment bills to fix up all the mistakes! Those mistakes would have been picked up if the piece of legislation in question had been allowed to have a proper process through the select committee with a time frame that did not put the select committee under enormous pressure to return the piece of legislation before we had due consideration and before submitters had time to consider the legislation, put their thoughts on paper, and come before a select committee to discuss it.

We have had pieces of legislation where we have set a deliberation date the following week, before we have even seen a report, before we have even seen a revision-tracked version of what the bill would look like. It is just: “Oh, we’ll do that all next week.” Well, that is not good process. It is therefore no surprise that once again we are passing a Statutes Amendment Bill to fix up all those errors, which due process probably would have dealt with in the first place.

The second reason it is not surprising we have had so many Statutes Amendment bills—and I notice that in this bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), there are a number of justice amendments in the name of the Hon Judith Collins—is that Ms Collins is a particular Minister who is under pressure. This is a Minister who tends not to read things. She tabled a report in the House on ACC in question time yesterday claiming that the decision to take away the payment of ACC entitlements to people who have refused to sign a document allowing the ACC to distribute their private details was a decision made by the Hon Ruth Dyson. No, it actually was not—she tabled a document saying that that was a decision made by the Hon Ruth Dyson in 2006.

But, interestingly enough, what the document showed was, actually, exactly the opposite of that, which was that the Hon Ruth Dyson said that in no way at all should conditions be applied to the entitlements of ACC claimants, and, therefore, if they choose not to sign that document, they should continue to receive their entitlement. So I am not surprised at all that there are so many justice amendments in this particular bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). The Hon Judith Collins, as I have just described—and as we saw in response to the questions today by my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway—does not read the documents that are put in front of her. She does not read the official information. If she had read the particular document that she tabled, she would know that it actually said the opposite of what she was claiming it said, that it was, in fact, a National Government that allowed that to happen on its watch, and that it was a Labour Government, under the Hon Ruth Dyson as Minister for ACC, that said that there are not to be conditions attached to the payment of entitlements to ACC claimants. So she does not read documents.

The second reason I am not surprised that there are so many amendments in the bill under the name of the Hon Judith Collins is that she is under a lot of pressure at the moment. She is under an enormous amount of pressure due to a very real conflict of interest that was carried out in relation to her husband’s company, Oravida, and a ministerial visit that she did to China. So given the pressure that has come on her to come clean and be transparent around who exactly was invited to a meeting and what exactly was discussed, I am not surprised that she has been making a number of mistakes.

I always apply the Occam’s razor principle in these situations, which is that the simplest solution is usually the right one, which is that they were in a room with a Chinese border official who is able to influence products going into China. Her husband’s company had written to the Hon Tim Groser and the Hon Nathan Guy and said: “Please help us get our products into China. Anything you can do would help.” She was sitting in a room with members of the Chinese Government, and we are expected to believe that they never ever discussed her husband’s company, that they never discussed Oravida. Well, I think Occam’s razor principle would tell us that that is highly unlikely and that, in fact, the simplest solution is usually the correct one, which is that that is exactly what that meeting was for; it was not private. I have a great respect for public servants. I do not tend to invite them to my private dinners. I do not know whether that is a failing on my part, but I do not tend to invite them—and if other members have, I apologise—particularly public servants from other countries.

So I am not surprised that the Hon Judith Collins has a number of amendments in this particular Statutes Amendment Bill. We have got the Judicial Conduct Commission and Commissioner Conduct Panel Act 2004, the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978, the Official Information Act 1982, the Ombudsmen Act 1975, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, the Sentencing Act 2002, and the Summary Proceedings Act—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: 2012—that wasn’t very long ago.

No, 2012 was not very long ago at all. We have the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. That is a large number of Acts for one Minister, but, as I said, I am not surprised. In response to questions about ACC today, she clearly does not read documents. Actually, an even worse explanation would be that she does read them but she does not understand them—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Or she just misled the House.

—or she just misled the House, as my colleague said. The second reason we have got so many Acts being amended or being fixed up because of mistakes being made by the Hon Judith Collins is that she is under enormous pressure at the moment to be transparent, to come clean with the New Zealand Parliament and the New Zealand people about what exactly went on during a taxpayer-funded ministerial visit.

I want to come to some of the other legislation in the Statutes Amendment Bill. First of all, the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994 is being amended. The amendments that are being made are very good, but, again, it is disappointing that when we dealt with the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserve Bill, large tracts of that, particularly in the marine reserve, were withheld because the Government Ministers decided that in the future they might want to carry out some economic activity there that would be detrimental and opposed to the purposes of the Marine Reserves Act. So they just left them out.

So I am really disappointed that we do not see in here some protection for those parts of the Subantarctic Islands that were left out deliberately from the piece of legislation that this Parliament passed and the Labour Party supported. We support those marine reserves. We would like to see proper protection, not just partial protection, in areas where there is never going to be any economic activity—so it is easy, low-hanging fruit—and proper actual protection in terms of marine reserves in this country and in the subantarctic area.

I come to the next Act that is being amended, which I would like to comment on, and that is the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978. Would it not be great if it was considered non-controversial to have in this part of the Statutes Amendment Bill proper protection for Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins? Would it not be fantastic if that was considered a no-brainer? It should be a no-brainer, as this is the most endangered dolphin species in the world. It should be a no-brainer that we put in place every single protection we can. No Government should sit by and watch a species go extinct on its watch when there is something it could do about it.

So we have got amendments here to the Marine Mammals Protection Act, which are clarifying stuff around a warrant being issued to more than one officer. Would it not be fantastic if this amendment to the Marine Mammals Act was introducing, non-controversially, proper protections for Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins? But, of course, we are never going to see that under this Government. What we are going to see are token gestures. What we are going to see are halfway measures that make it look like the Government is doing something when, in fact, it is likely to preside over the extinction of a native species, despite the fact that there are things that it could have done about it but chose not do.

I come next to Part 21, “National Parks Act 1980”. Again, would it not be great if in this part of the bill we saw the removal of the rights of the Minister of Energy and Resources to have half the say about consents for mining, or Department of Conservation concessions on conservation land for mining, which used to be the sole ambit of the Minister of Conservation and is now shared in a decision-making power between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources? Would it not be wonderful if in Part 21 of the Statutes Amendment Bill—and Kate Wilkinson is in the House.

I remember when the announcement was made, and there was Gerry Brownlee, the then Minister of Energy and Resources, sitting next to Kate Wilkinson. Kate Wilkinson did not say anything throughout the entire press conference as Gerry Brownlee was trying to convince us that this was an equal partnership, that they had equal say, and that this was not going to change anything. The optics, as Steven Joyce would say, really said it all. Kate Wilkinson sat there in the shadow of Gerry Brownlee, saying absolutely nothing.

Would it not be great if in this Statutes Amendment Bill we saw the removal from the National Parks Act 1980 of the rights of the Minister of Energy and Resources to have half the decision-making power, or, under a National Government, 100 percent of the decision-making power, to grant concessions on Department of Conservation land for mining activity? And would it not be great if we saw the removal of the economic benefit test, which applies only to mining and does not apply to any other economic venture in the Department of Conservation estate—for example, tourism? Those are things that it would have been nice to see in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). Those are things that should not be controversial in a Statutes Amendment Bill, but, unfortunately, under a National Government they are.

Some of the speakers who have taken calls this afternoon have addressed matters relevant to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), and I thank those who have actually contributed to the public’s understanding of it. I support this measure.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.