Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)

I will start again.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: This time make it relevant.

I will make it relevant. We know that a statutes amendment bill is meant to consider issues that are non-controversial. We have heard from the Government time and again in the last 2 weeks that it justifies the Northland election bribe in respect of bridge funding. The reason that was done outside the normal process for the National Land Transport Plan, outside of normal Cabinet processes, and outside of normal parliamentary processes was that it was uncontentious. Well, if it was uncontentious, would it meet the requirements of a statutes amendment bill? I would ask the Minister in the chair to elucidate the principle that underlies why the amendments in Parts 12 and 13 to land transport policy are suitable for the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) but the decisions that have been made in respect of $70 million of funding for bridges in the area of the Northland by-election are so non-controversial that they do not need to come to Parliament in any way. We have seen considerable opprobrium cast upon that decision by the newspapers, the fourth estate, trying to hold the Government to account, as is its role, and by Opposition parties and yet we have Ministers standing up in this House and saying that nothing untoward happened.

Well, I want to know the point of principle that says that the minor amendments in Part 13 and Part 12—and I will show you how minor they are—come before Parliament. The amendment in Part 13 to the Land Transport Management Act changes a date as a consequence of the establishment of the New Zealand Transport Agency. The New Zealand Transport Agency is the funding body that is responsible for spending the hundreds of millions of dollars that are collected from New Zealanders through excise duties, petrol excise duties, road-user charges, and tolls where they are collected. The Government has thought that it is uncontentious and therefore appropriate to include in this bill the change to section 47 of the Land Transport Management Act 2008, which replaces the date 1 July 2008 with 1 August 2008 as a consequence of the establishment of the New Zealand Transport Agency.

I can understand that that is not too contentious, and that is why the Labour Party has agreed to that inclusion in the Land Transport Management Act. But I would like the Minister to stand and justify why, if that sort of amendment requires the time of this Committee, spending $70 million of taxpayers’ money in an election bribe, using the power of the State to levy taxes for the advantage of a political party, overriding the provisions of plans made by the New Zealand Transport Agency in conjunction with the regional council in the Northland area, and that sort of overruling to spend $70 million of taxpayers’ money does not need some legislative authority. I await the Minister’s response.

I regret that the Minister the Hon Maggie Barry was not able to beat me to take the call, but I am sure that she is keen to do that and answer the questions that my colleague the Hon David Parker has posed in his contribution.

Just to briefly recap, before I start talking about the technical issues involved in some of the parts of this—and can I express my disappointment at the motion that the senior whip from Labour moved, in that we are now debating these parts all in one debate. I would have much preferred to have had 34 separate debates on the specific provisions! I am also gobsmacked to see that the senior Labour whip is so committed to the principles of Parliament operating at a smooth and appropriate pace that he is doing the work of the Government whips, who forgot to move that motion—but good on you, Mr Hipkins.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I’m from the Opposition; I’m here to help.

You are from the Opposition and here to help.

I will just briefly recap on the point of a statutes amendment bill, because there is some debate around it. Again, it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s contribution to this in regard to the mandate of Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). You will notice that, in the Committee stage of this debate, there are fewer provisions than were originally included in the bill when it was referred to the Government Administration Committee. That is because the select committee determined that the number of changes to a specific Act proposed in this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) actually ruled some of those proposals out of order and unable to be included in the statutes amendments. It was not any specific one of the measures proposed but rather the number of measures proposed that ruled some out. So that is the first point.

The second one is that, of course, the statutes amendment proposals should be non-controversial. They should not be altering specific policy unheralded previously, but they can correct an error in drafting. If there is a drafting provision that has been made in previous legislation that has gone through being debated by the House, and an error has been put into legislation, then it is within the mandate of a statutes amendment bill to have a correction—basically, to rectify the error. So it may look like a policy contribution.

The member who took the call immediately prior to me, the Hon David Parker, talked about how ironic it was to have this debate taking up the time of Parliament when these are technical issues, when they are non-controversial issues. He referred specifically to Part 12 of the bill, which has amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998. It talks about procedures for dealing with blood specimens, search warrants in relation to specific offences, the Search and Surveillance Act, traffic offences, and infringement notices—mostly changing words without changing the meaning of the primary legislation, or updating existing legislation. The Land Transport Act, which the member was referring to in relation to Part 12 of the bill, is a piece of legislation that was originally passed by the House in 1998, so a lot of other Acts have been introduced and passed since then that may have consequential amendments for the Land Transport Act. But the point that the Hon David Parker was making was how ironic it is that we are debating this matter, which literally makes not a blind bit of difference to any member of the public and really does not require a lot of attention from Parliament. I am just beating you to the button?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No, it is the silent button. I’ve got a conversation on.

Oh, it is so we cannot hear the conversation. That is very considerate of you. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

How ironic it is that we are debating this legislation, using the time of Parliament, when we have a significant announcement under the exact same legislation that is covered in Part 12: the Land Transport Act. It is a significant announcement in Northland, to coincide with the by-election, which is now spelt “buy-election” rather than using any normal spelling of the word because the National Party, by using the provisions of the Land Transport Act 1998, spent $70 million—$70 million—on 10 bridges in Northland. It is an absolute coincidence that those bridges are being funded and announced—not through any normal process but with the candidate and, very fortuitously, a big, round, black pig standing under a hoarding board for the National Party. That is my contribution on Part 12 of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), which covers alterations to the Land Transport Act.

There is another specific part that I want to refer to, and I think it is Part 23. It is—Part 23. This is a much more substantial series of amendments than the one that I referred to under the Land Transport Act. These provisions change the Official Information Act 1982. Members will see from the alterations to the original bill that substantial debate was had on this at the select committee, and I want to ensure, as we go through the Committee of the whole House, that the Committee has the same sort of opportunity to consider amendments. I have heard a few speeches from the National Party, particularly from backbenchers, over the last 24 hours. I am feeling bold enough, having heard the contributions on members’ bills last night, to suggest with 100 percent confidence that not a single one of them has read any of the legislation that is being debated. They just stand up and read the research notes.

💬 Todd Barclay: We just don’t agree with it—we’ve read it.

Actually, the opportunity for rigour in considering legislation is during this very stage. Mr Barclay, you should take the advice of the Hon Maurice Williamson, who has paid more attention to detail in the Committee stages of debates than just about anyone I know. I think it was maritime reform of some description, and the rigour that was applied to specific provisions of that legislation, with the Hon Maurice Williamson in the chair, is the sort of rigour we should be applying to this.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: That was rigor mortis.

It was rigor mortis quite often, actually.

This proposal in Part 23 is to replace section 28(4) of the Official Information Act, and that deals with a very interesting topic: Ministers of the Crown answering requests made under the Official Information Act on time. It is actually a very important point of principle. It sounds like it could almost be veering into the policy area, but it is not. But the reason it is important—to draw it to the attention of the Committee—is that we have had considerable abuse of this very provision that we are now changing. In fact, the Prime Minister recently commented, in public, that Official Information Act requests were either escalated and responded to very rapidly or were deliberately delayed because of political considerations. This alteration, under Part 23, should strengthen Parliament’s understanding that that sort of political abuse of the Official Information Act, either giving certain people the information early—for example, Cameron Slater made a request and got the answer within 24 hours. But people in Canterbury who have made requests about their earthquake claims have been told, not quietly but publicly, online, that they have to wait 6 months for their requests to be granted by the Earthquake Commission, despite the specific provisions of the Official Information Act, which are altered in Part 23 of this bill, giving a rigorous time line. So that sort of manipulation of the Official Information Act is not acceptable to this House. It is certainly not acceptable to the public.

I hope that the alterations we are making in this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), despite not altering any of the fundamental policy of the Official Information Act, give a bit more rigour, a bit more clarity, and, I suppose, in the end stop Ministers—including the Prime Minister—manipulating what has been a very important part of our transparency as a Parliament. Ministers are held to account in this House, at select committee, and through requests like Official Information Act requests. We must make sure that the principles of that Act are maintained, and I hope that these alterations do that.

There is just one other provision that I want to allude to, and that is the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act of 1994. Again, it is really interesting that we have got measures within this legislation to better protect Antarctica, but, as we saw in the recent episode in west Auckland, Ministers who were able to use provisions of protection would not even do that with two threatened kauri trees. So we have, again, quite ironic situations where Ministers who have a legal opportunity to act in the best interests of our citizens—or, in this case, for the protection of kauri trees—step back, but at the same time are prepared to offer better environmental protection in Antarctica. I cannot think of a better cause, actually. It is one that probably most members of this House—

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). I know, Mr Chair, that you have a personal interest in omnibus bills, and I agree with you. I think that they are an important vehicle—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Don’t bring me into this.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: You’re not allowed to bring him into the debate.

My apologies. I believe that these omnibus bills play an important part in our legislative programme. They are a vehicle for expediency. As the member opposite has alluded to, they make non-controversial changes to a raft of Acts—in this case 34 Acts. They update them. They make the reading clearer and bring the Acts into the form of being able to be read more easily in plain, simple English. I am very supportive of these bills as a vehicle to expedite the process.

I just want to pick up on a point raised by the member opposite, saying that we as backbenchers have not read the legislation. In the first reading I certainly used examples of the Official Information Act and when I had used those provisions at the Department of Conservation. So, certainly, I have read the legislation. I have used the legislation. I believe that these changes, although they are not policy changes, are still making a difference to the workability of the Act.

In particular, I would like to refer to section 52 of the bill—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s in parts and there’s no 52. And you tell me you’ve read it?

—which enables a change to that Act. It allows—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: It finishes at Part 31.

💬 Hon Member: Ignore her.

OK, then. Basically clause 52 allows a change to be made to the Act, whereby oral applications can be made for information. I think that is a pragmatic change and one that certainly should be applauded.

There are a number of other changes that are made. I just want to touch on some of those in respect of the Marine Mammals Protection Act and also the Trade in Endangered Species Act 1989. They make the same change, but it is in respect of clarifying that a warrant may be issued to more than one officer. The difference is that the amendments make it more transparent. So you are basically naming those officers without having to go back to the courts to again list one by one those officers who will go in and enforce the provisions of those Acts. Again, that is about expediency and, from our perspective, it is about delivering better public services: being more transparent, more accountable, and delivering on those Acts in a better way.

I think these vehicles are a fantastic way to move forward in our legislative programme. I know that the previous Government Administration Committee had considered the bill well. We always have robust debates in that committee. I am supportive of this programme to shepherd it through the Committee and bring it through to fruition. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. Kia ora. I saw all the other members in the Chamber were having such fun debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) that I could not help but rise and make a contribution. It is like Christmas time for geeks in this debating chamber today.

What I want to do is touch on Part 6 of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), which deals with the Copyright Act 1994. As other members have stated, this legislation is for technical amendments. I have a series of questions for the Minister. I have got to admit that I had not actually seen this in earlier discussions around the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), so I would very much like some straight answers. Part 6 simply deals with a minor amendment to reduce the membership of the Copyright Tribunal. Previously section 206 of the Copyright Act, as amended by the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Regulations, established this Copyright Tribunal to deal with the copyright-infringing file-sharing provisions, and it had a membership of five. The amendment in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) replaces the five with at least two but no more than five other persons. So we could plausibly see a Copyright Tribunal with two members.

My question to the Minister is: are they reducing the membership because the Copyright Tribunal has been an absolute dismal failure? Is this the reason why we are doing it? Because what we have seen is a failure in real terms. It is an expensive failure, both for internet service providers and the Government, and it is not even achieving its stated aims, which is to try to reduce infringing file-sharing—what other members may call copyright infringement. So my question is: is this because of the failure? Is the Government trying to save some money on this expensive Copyright Tribunal by reducing the members? If you look at its workload—this legislation passed in 2011; it took 2 years to finally get the system up and running. There were 18 decisions from the tribunal in 2013. Last year there were four decisions by this tribunal with five members, and according to its website there has been a single decision this year. I remember that side of the House when the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Regulations, now more commonly known as the Skynet legislation, passed. They were literally banging the tables with their fists on the scourge of piracy and how we were destroying the movie industry and how musicians were begging on the streets. Yet what we have seen is a single case this year and four cases last year from this tribunal. When we talk about the membership of the Copyright Tribunal—

💬 Brett Hudson: That’s not the important part.

I would like to remind Brett Hudson about the costs for industry, the cost of this legislation, and the cost of this five-person tribunal, because “ISPs” in 2011—internet service providers, Mr Hudson—some of the hard-working Kiwi businesses, said that your law had cost $919,000 in the first year alone in compliance costs. So when you hear the Government rail on about the costs of red tape, the bureaucratic cost of the Government, remember who the ones who are applying it are. What we have seen is legislation that is not working, and my question to the Minister is whether that is the reason why we are reducing this in Part 6 of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). What we have seen, of course, is that the tribunal does not have a great deal of work to do.

The Motion Picture Distributors Association of New Zealand has not put a single complaint through our three-strikes copyright legislation, the supposed first-line response to support artists and intellectual property. Not a single notice came from the Motion Picture Distributors Association. Yet what we have seen is the industry, particularly the music industry, put in incomplete notices. The tribunal had to throw other notices out. I think the Government members have got to ask themselves why they rushed through under urgency such ill-conceived legislation, when it is clearly not working.

When you look at the official reports on the legislation, there was a review by Rebecca Giblin from Monash University. What she said is that National’s legislation is not working. What we have seen is peer-to-peer file-sharing, which is what the original legislation that we are now amending again tried to deal with—it was peer-to-peer file-sharing alone. What we have seen, of course—and this is an entirely rational response from people who do want to download or share infringing material—is that people are shifting platforms. So my question is: when the Government is reducing the membership of the Copyright Tribunal, is it because it is a failure? Is it because, perhaps I dare to say it, I was right all along? Is it that the experts, the Green Party, were right all along when we urged to this House that the most effective way to support intellectual property and Kiwi artists is to provide legal online alternatives?

We have seen that in the last 2 years with the likes of Quickflix, Netflix, Spotify—that is the service I love the most. I listen to Spotify on my way to work every day. The fact is that for all the millions of dollars wasted, the members on the Copyright Tribunal could have put that effort into encouraging the likes of Netflix down to New Zealand. I remember asking Simon Power in this Chamber what he was doing in the wake of international evidence that the most effective way to reduce piracy was to provide legal alternatives. I asked him what he was doing to bring Netflix to New Zealand, and he simply said: “What is that?”. It is a huge missed opportunity. The opportunity cost is that maybe we could have actually had these five people dedicated and working for legal alternatives, and, ultimately, that is the best way to support artists, intellectual property, and to save the taxpayers and businesses money. Kia ora.

I have been looking forward to my opportunity to speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). Given that we are in the Committee stage, I hope that the Chair will indulge me while I delve in a little more detail into some of the specific amendments that we are making in the Committee today. You will forgive me that, of the 32 parts that we are debating, I have decided—

💬 Hon David Parker: 33.

Thirty-three; excuse me. I have decided to skip over the first, the Animal Welfare Act amendment around search warrants. But I would like, because it took my attention, to delve a little more into Part 2, “Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994”, mostly because of what some might call my obsessive—others would just be fair and call it keen—interest in Antarctica and Antarctic exploration. So this caught my eye. I wanted to talk a little bit about the changes that we are making to the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act. Of course, the premise of a statutes amendment bill is that everything you do tends to be non-controversial. That does not mean that it is not interesting. So I want to go to section 28 of the Act, because that is where the amendment is that we are making.

💬 Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Really?

Yes, really—follow along, Minister. You might learn something. You, of course, will already know this, as the Minister has taken an intense interest. Under section 28 of the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act there is a provision in there—and I will read it quickly—that sets out what you are not allowed to take into the protected areas, and for good reason. So it states: “No person shall—(a) enter or carry out any activity in an Antarctic Specially Protected Area; or (b) take or attempt to take any native bird or native mammal in Antarctica;”. You see that it is actually quite a reasonably narrow range. You cannot take or attempt to take any native bird or native mammal. What about the native invertebrates—what about the native invertebrates? So, rightly so, the Statutes Amendment—

💬 Hon David Parker: What about the albatross?

The albatross? Well, you cannot attempt to take out an albatross at the moment. So, thankfully, there has been the good foresight by—I am assuming Antarctica New Zealand probably put this proposal forward. Perhaps the Minister can tell me who proposed it. Thankfully, anything that has no backbone or spinal column—because, of course, that is the definition of a native invertebrate—will no longer be able to be removed from Antarctica. There are so many things I could say about that. I will act in a restrained manner and not make jokes about not removing National Party members from Antarctica any more. But that is one of the things that, for instance, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) is doing. We are making sure that there are certain native species now that cannot be removed from Antarctica.

That does raise a question, though. Going down to clause 6(2), the bill is also adding a little bit of a disclaimer clause. Any politician will know that when you are not sure that you have covered everything, you add in something like “including, but not limited to,”. That is what we are doing in clause 6(2), where it says you cannot “(e) introduce onto land or ice shelves or sea ice or into water in Antarctica any living organism (including, but not limited to, any species of animal, plant, or micro-organism) not native to that area;”.

💬 Hon David Parker: What about Shackleton’s ponies?

Shackleton’s ponies—you cannot take them back in. So we have added a disclaimer there, I imagine just to make sure we have got a cover-all. My question is, and I hope that the Minister will respond to this: why we have not done that for the amendment that we have then made underneath that? In clause 6(3), it says: “After section 28(1)(e), insert—(ea)”. I will read what we have currently got now. Again, it is just simply limiting what we are unable to take in. They have listed, again, living birds, for instance, as one of the listed things. But why should we not put, again, that disclaimer statement in there of “but not limited to”, to make sure that we do not have to come back again and add another thing to the list? Basically, what we are saying is do not take anything in and do not take anything out. So why would we not consistently draft through that provision to make sure we have got that cover-all, I guess, in there?

Finally, we have got an amendment to section 28(3) of the Act. At the moment it says: “No person shall import into Antarctica any dressed poultry knowing that an inspection in accordance with the Protocol revealed evidence of any disease …”. We are replacing that “dressed poultry” with “poultry or avian products”. I actually do not know what the difference is with “dressed poultry”. I do not know whether anyone in the Chamber would care to enlighten me—perhaps the Minister. [Bell rung] Oh, there is more, Mr Chairperson. I would be interested to see what the difference is there. But we are now removing an entire appendix that sets out the diseases that you cannot knowingly bring in a bird with. We are removing that; we are just covering ourselves with “poultry or avian products”. Just a nice—

💬 Tim Macindoe: I can’t believe you’re talking about this, Jacinda.

This is interesting stuff, Tim. So we are just doing a cover-all provision. I am just demonstrating that I have done my homework and read what we are actually doing in this Committee today.

💬 Hon David Parker: What impact would this have had on historical exploration?

If we had this at the time of historical exploration, we certainly probably would have had a lot more of them perishing much sooner—a good point you raise, Mr Parker.

I know everyone is waiting with bated breath until I get to Part 3, “Biosecurity Act 1993”. I have got a few questions there as well. We are amending the zones that these provisions relate to. At the moment the meaning of “craft risk management standard” applies only to territory. We are now inserting the exclusive economic zone. That is the right thing to do—a simple amendment.

But I have a few more questions, though, around the amendments to section 110 of the Biosecurity Act, which I will pull up now. In section 110(1) of the principal Act, which is what we are amending, at the moment it states that when getting a warrant to inspect a dwelling house or marae “An issuing officer (within the meaning of section 3 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012)”—again, we are fixing up some quite recent legislation—“may, on an application made in the manner provided by subpart 3 … of that Act by an inspector or authorised person, issue a warrant authorising the inspector or authorised person to enter and inspect the dwellinghouse, marae, or building associated with a marae specified in the application.” So, basically, it is handing down the delegation for issuing a warrant. At the moment we are referring to authorising “the inspector or authorised person”. Obviously there has been a problem with the way that has been drafted, because now in our statutes amendment legislation we are replacing “authorising the inspector or authorised person” with “authorising every inspector and authorised person”.

My question to the Minister is this: have there been occurrences where the warrants undertaken by these inspectors or authorised persons have been deemed null and void because of the way this has been drafted? Because we are now doing a cover-all provision that says every inspector will be covered, when before it used the word “the”. Have we actually had a situation that has been brought to the attention of the Minister by biosecurity enforcers where they have either had their warrant questioned or, subsequent to engaging that warrant, whatever they have found has been, for instance, ruled null and void because of the way this has been drafted? I think it is a reasonable question, because the changes that were made as part of the Search and Surveillance Act were reasonable. There was an extension of powers there, and this raises the question as to whether or not those officers acted in an authorised way according to the legislation when they exercised those powers, based on what we are doing here today.

Then I move on to section 142A. This section of the Act basically sets out how the Director-General can establish a biosecurity database, and where they are able to get their information from when they establish a database. Currently information in the public domain can be used to form that database. The Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) is changing the phrase “public domain” to information that is “publicly available”—interesting. I would be interested to hear the legal difference in definition between “public domain” and “publicly available”. You never know; it may affect our Standing Orders and the ability to table documents. If the Minister could speak to that question, I would be very interested indeed. I will leave to my next colleague the privilege of speaking to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act, because I have no doubt they will find just as many interesting matters to comment on as we progress through the Committee stage of this debate.

It is a shame, and I did not want to interrupt the member, because I was having a really entertaining time listening to the fascinating segments of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) that she was choosing to canvass. It was great. I particularly enjoyed the aspects around Antarctica. I did not realise that you could not reintroduce Shetland ponies into Antarctica once you had removed them. I did not realise they even existed there in the first place, actually, but you never know. I have never been there. I am close to Antarctica.

💬 Tim Macindoe: You must be the member for Antarctica.

No—well, I am pretty close. Actually, Sarah Dowie might be. Who is the MP? Do we have an MP for Antarctica?

I just wanted to talk a little bit about something not quite as exciting as ponies in Antarctica, but about the Official Information Act, and about some of the clauses that have been included in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) with regard to not only the Official Information Act 1982 but also the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. Having had a little bit of experience in Ministers’ offices working on Official Information Act requests, it is interesting to see it from the other side around how sometimes the requests can change a number of times, and a slight change in an Official Information Act request can change the scope completely and can also create a whole lot more work than may be initially foreseeable. With some of the more conjoint work streams that the Government is implementing across the social sector as well, if you put in an Official Information Act request regarding vulnerable children to the office of the Minister for Social Development, you might be getting information collected across a wide range of various Ministers, which includes a lot of time and also includes a lot of resource. All that information does not necessarily have to come from head office, either. There are a number of regional offices around the country that have information sought from them as well.

So that is specifically regarding clause 74 of the bill. This Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) clarifies that if a request for official information is amended after consultation with the requester, the revised request is to be treated as a new request for the purposes of the 20-day limit. It also states that the revised request also replaces the original request for that purpose, provided that an agency will not receive the benefit from this provision unless it has made a demonstrable effort to clarify the request within 7 working days. I think that is a reasonable request, given particularly the administrative tasks that take place upon the receipt of an Official Information Act request. They are usually done within the first couple of days, purely from a logging and allocating perspective, anyway.

So I think making that clearer for the Official Information Act will certainly help all parties involved and will also bring that in line for the local government side of things. I think it is becoming increasingly more important, given the nature of activities that local government bodies are undertaking that are being filtered down by central government, and it helps to enable them to be more aligned and have a more consistent approach to treating Official Information Act requests.

💬 Tim Macindoe: It’s an important consideration.

It was quite an important consideration—it was, indeed, I say to the senior whip. Thank you for pointing that out. It was fascinating.

I also just wanted to touch on another positive aspect of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) with regard to the Official Information Act, and that is clause 73 of the bill, where we are clarifying that a partial transfer of an Official Information Act request is permitted. I suppose that is general practice already in a lot of cases, and it probably has been treated that way for quite some time, but it always helps to tidy up the legislation to ensure that it is up to date and of relevance.

I suppose it goes back to the purpose of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) and statutes amendment bills in general, which provide an opportunity for the Government to tidy up smaller pieces of legislation, across a wide range of pieces of legislation, to bring them up to date and to make them more efficient. The previous member—or it might have been a Green member, maybe—was talking about the huge amount of legislation that has been implemented over the last few years, and I think that is a sign of a hard-working, effective Government. I have to say there was a lot of legislation that needed amending after the 9 previous years of Labour, so it has been a busy Government implementing a lot of legislation.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Name two bills—name two.

There are a number of pieces of legislation. There are a number of pieces of legislation that are happening, particularly in the space where the member actually worked as a Minister. We were talking about the Antarctica Act. We are talking about conservation. It was great during the campaign, actually. We hosted you down in Balclutha. It was a very positive influence on the farmers down there.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Name one bill that corrected a Labour mistake.

It is all right, we will just carry on. Moving on to the Official Information Act, which we were talking about before. It is quite fascinating. We need to clarify—

I would like to speak to Part 22 of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)—namely, the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Act 2012—which corrects the legislation by deleting the words “or a Crown body” with reference to right of first refusal land.

Before I speak to that, I do have a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair, Minister Lotu-Iiga, but I think it is important to have on record the importance of right of first refusal land to settle iwi. This is land that is within the agreed area of interest for that particular iwi. It is Crown land that is owned by the Crown and, under the current legislation, also by Crown bodies. This removes the words “or a Crown body” because in the deed of settlement it refers just to the Crown. The important thing to note, I think, is that for the settled iwi this is really important because it gives the opportunity to buy back land that they once owned and is now alienated. I think it is important to recognise that in this discussion on this part of the bill.

The question I have—and, to quote an interjection from Brett Hudson, “Why create law when none is needed?”—is along those lines, in support of what he is saying, actually, and is whether the Government considered asking Ngāti Manuhiri to change the deed of settlement. The second part of the question related to that is whether Ngāti Manuhiri is better off or worse off by this amendment. I think that is a fair question to ask, because the nature of these settlements is about giving redress to the iwi that has suffered the breaches and omissions by the Crown in their rohe, in their district, where they are from. So I think that is an important consideration and a fair question to ask of the Minister, because, as my colleague across the way there said, why create law when none is needed? If it was a simple matter of changing the deed of settlement, we would not have to have this within the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4).

I think also with reference to right of first refusal land within the settlement Acts, there is a variety of time frames in the respective settlement Acts. In this particular case, Ngāti Manuhiri has that right for 169 years, which is a very long time. Others that have been settled previously to this one have rights of refusal for 50 years, and that begs another question around relativity in these settlement Acts. I think it is important also to note that as part of this debate.

I think also that the right of first refusal land is a huge opportunity for iwi that have settled to grow the asset they have received as part of their redress. I mention that mainly because it is redress; it is not compensation. It is the opportunity to grow the asset within their tribal areas. These kinds of sentiments are listed within the various settlement Acts—and, indeed, in this one—and that is why I ask again whether the Minister considered changing the deed of settlement rather than changing the legislation. And if the Government did consider that and decided not to, was it because this would then set a precedent, which would have to be applied to a number of other settlements and future settlements? I do not know how many Crown—

I appreciate that this is the first time that Chairman Borrows has presided over this debate on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), but other presiding officers have heard a number of times people saying the same thing about it. So I resolved that I would not repeat that this is an omnibus bill that makes minor technical changes that have unanimous support across the House. Mr Chair, one could tire very quickly of every member saying such a thing.

But I did want to take a call to speak on the changes to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995, because I think the current provisions there have the potential to be quite troubling in their effects. In fact, it is clause 15 of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) that replaces within that principal Act section 21A(2), which is around the proof of identity. There is actually quite a great deal to it. I will not read out the full detail, but what it does amount to is that someone seeking to change their name must now, under the new provisions, actually provide satisfactory evidence that they themselves are the person who is seeking the name change, or the legal guardian or authority to make that change.

It is very troubling that the way the law stands today could potentially allow a person to change the name of someone else or, in fact, to change their name to someone else’s, because that proof of identity is not required to the extent that this change will require. Hypothetically, just as an illustration to help show the magnitude of this troubling provision, a person, a Ms Willow-Jean Prime, could choose to change her name to Mark Osborne, and she would not have to prove that she is actually Mark Osborne and has a right to that name. You might wonder why someone would do that. Well, if Ms Prime changed her name to Mark Osborne, at least she would have her party’s support in the by-election. So you can understand why she might try to do that very thing. Fortunately, this very sound, pragmatic action we are taking in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No. 4) will prevent such things ever occurring in the future. It is most important because, quite frankly, the only way she would get any support in this by-election is if she were to do that.

I would also like, though, to comment on another Act that is amended in this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), and that is the Local Government Act 1974. Clause 43 of this bill amends schedule 10 of that Act by replacing “Ministry of Transport” with “New Zealand Transport Agency”. Although one could imagine that local body employees could indulge in friendly intercourse with employees of the Ministry of Transport, such is likely to be more fruitful and productive if they held it with the employees of the responsible agency. In this case, in respect of consulting on temporary road closures, it is in fact the New Zealand Transport Agency they should be talking to, not the Ministry of Transport. So, yet again, it is another simple, technical change that helps to make sure that our law actually operates as intended.

Finally, I would also like to comment on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012. Clause 63 of the bill inserts into that principal Act new subsection 10(3A) after subsection 10(3). That new subsection reads: “When contracting out compliance and enforcement functions under subsection 3(b), the NAIT organisation remains responsible and accountable for the performance of those functions.” That is an extremely good measure and extremely sound. What it allows, of course, is for National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) to contract out certain functions to people who might be in a better place to discharge them. They may have more competency, more resources, or more practical skill in the matter, but, most important, NAIT remains accountable for what that subsidiary may do. It remains responsible for the obligations under that Act.

Those are just a small number of examples of the very good work that this omnibus bill does, and I look forward to it progressing to the end of this debate and, hopefully, into a successful third reading. Thank you.

Parts 1 to 33 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill (No 2), the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Amendment Bill, the Biosecurity Amendment Bill, the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill, the Commodity Levies Amendment Bill, the Copyright Amendment Bill, the Forests Amendment Bill, the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill, the Governor-General Amendment Bill, the Heavy Engineering Research Levy Amendment Bill, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Amendment Bill, the Land Transport Amendment Bill, the Land Transport Management Amendment Act 2008 Amendment Bill, the Local Electoral Amendment Bill, the Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill, the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill, the Marine Mammals Protection Amendment Bill, the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 Amendment Bill, the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill, the National Parks Amendment Bill, the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Amendment Bill, the Official Information Amendment Bill, the Ombudsmen Amendment Bill, the Pork Industry Board Amendment Bill, the Reserves Amendment Bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Amendment Bill, the Sentencing Amendment Bill, the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill, the Tariff Amendment Bill, the Tokelau (Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone) Amendment Bill, the Trade in Endangered Species Amendment Bill, and the Wildlife Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 55.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.