Statutes Repeal Bill

I am somewhat perplexed with regard to this next clause, clause 4, which deals with schedule 2 “Amendments to other Acts”. My question to the Minister in the chair, Nicky Wagner, is a relatively simple one. None of these amendments in schedule 2, by my reading of them, repeal any Acts, so why have they been included in a statutes repeal bill? It seems rather odd. If this is a case of updating in the form that we might expect in a statutes amendment bill, then it could have been included in that. But the very narrow purpose of this bill is to repeal unused Acts and unused provisions in Acts.

It seems to me that if we look at—it is page 9 that we are talking about here; the first one is an amendment to insert additional provisions in the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981. The next amendment inserts additional provisions in the Government Roading Powers Act 1989, in particular around the Auckland Harbour Bridge, which was rather fascinating, the definition of what constitutes the Auckland Harbour Bridge. There are further amendments to the Public Works Act 1981—

💬 Kris Faafoi: Nick wants to build under it.

Nick wants to build under it. Well, funnily enough, I will come to that. Hold that thought for just a moment, I am going to come to that.

The Public Works Act 1981 is amended by inserting additional provisions. The State Sector Act 1988 is amended by inserting additional provisions. It seems to me that we have somewhat missed the purpose of the Act, which was to repeal Acts not insert additional provisions. Mr Faafoi did raise a legitimate point, which is around the Auckland Harbour Bridge. The definition of the Auckland Harbour Bridge that is being inserted in this Act says that the Auckland Harbour Bridge does not include—(a) any land or water over which the bridge passes on a structure where there is air space between the land or water and the structure:”.

💬 Kris Faafoi: That’s prime for housing.

That is a prime site for housing. I think that this is Nick Smith’s new solution to the housing crisis. I am very much looking forward to the Government’s explanation of exactly how that is to be. But, really, the main purpose of this contribution was really to get an explanation around why these provisions are in here, because they are not repealing anything, they are actually adding to the Act, and that seems to be completely inconsistent with what the purpose of this bill is.

I do not want to make any contribution in regard to the Auckland Harbour Bridge and its suitability, or not, for putting houses under.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Why not?

Well, that is probably the point of another debate, but I am very interested in the question that my colleague Chris Hipkins has raised in relation to the appropriateness of putting a whole schedule in a statutes repeal bill that does not deal with any repeal of statutes but deals with amendments to other Acts. They are non-controversial, I assume, and I know this from the lack of submissions to the Government Administration Committee, but I still do not know whether this is the appropriate vehicle. This is something that our Committee of the whole House has been challenged on in a number of instances previously when we have had, in a statutes amendment bill, proposals that do not meet the criteria for that. I know that the statutes repeal criteria are different from statutes amendments, but I would be interested whether the Minister in the chair, Nicky Wagner, who usually does respond to questions, would find out what the criteria is for a statutes repeal bill, and whether it is broad enough to allow amendments to other Acts.

In schedule 2, which is part of clause 4, we are amending the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act of 1981 with quite a substantial insertion. We are inserting a section in relation to the “Unauthorised use of King George the Fifth Memorial Children’s Health Camps Federation emblem”—not something that I think is done too frequently. As my colleague Chris Hipkins, mentioned earlier, we have the Government Roading Powers Act amendment, which is substantially to do with the Auckland Harbour Bridge, but we also have an amendment to the Public Works Act, and we have an amendment to the State Sector Act.

So how are these amendments, whether they are non-controversial or whether they are needed to make sure that the bill is fit for purpose in this day and age—how is this properly done in a statutes repeal bill? I would also be interested to know whether the Business Committee has considered looking at any of these issues to see whether there is a less onerous way of us progressing the dismissal of books from the statute register—the dismissal of Acts—if those Acts are no longer used. They have done their time. They had no sunset provision in them. They are no longer used for anything at all. Is there a better way than having a bill introduced into Parliament, referred to the select committee, back to the Committee of the whole House, and then on to the third reading? Is there a smarter way of us doing it?

It seems to me that this is a real opportunity for us to look at the criteria and say: “Is this better as a statutes amendment type of provision, or could there be some separate new type of debate in Parliament where we could say that we will allow time for parties to consider all the legislation—with time for public submissions if it is considered appropriate—but certainly a smarter way of doing this?”.

In the Australian Parliament they have different types of debates that are held simultaneously. Some of them are a complete opportunity for promoting oneself, I think, and that is all. I am not proposing that. I just do not think that we need to spend the usual process of the Parliament to dismiss Acts that are no longer fit for purpose. So that is my first point.

The second one—just referring to the original reason for this bill being introduced—I want to repeat that I can see no benefit at all or potential gain to the productivity level of New Zealand by us amending the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act of 1981, and that was alleged to have been the purpose of this legislation; nor of the complete repeal of between 132 and 137 Acts. I counted, and I got 132. So I think the member who interjected on this earlier on might have to count again. I think he was including the ones that are amended, rather than repealed.

The final point I want to make is just to say that in this clause there does not appear to be anything controversial, unlike the other ones. I think that is appropriate. I urge the Minister to just answer that one question: what is the criterion that is required before parts can be included in a statutes repeal bill? If we could have that information, we could conclude the debate I am sure.

I understand we are on clause 4 of the bill. My colleagues Chris Hipkins and Ruth Dyson have commented on the fact that within this repeal bill we have clauses and pieces of legislation that are being enacted and updated, and there are questions around that.

My contribution goes to Part 1 of schedule 3, which I understand is in clause 4. It goes to something that is being repealed, and that is the Home Ownership Savings Act 1974. It was probably a really creative piece of legislation of the Labour Government at the time, to encourage homeownership. I feel that maybe this is one of those pieces of legislation that we should look at, that possibly could have been looked at a little bit closer as to whether we could have kept it and looked at some other creative ways of homeownership, because of New Zealand’s declining rate of homeownership at the moment.

Schedule 3, under the Home Ownership Savings Act 1974, does repeal the definitions of things like ordinary farm ownership accounts, ordinary fishing vessel ownership accounts, special farm ownership accounts, and special fishing vessel ownership accounts. As you can see, from the kinds of things that we are repealing, that Labour Government of the time was probably taking some really fresh approaches to encourage ownership of homes—a lot different from what the current Government is doing. I think it is very interesting that we have got a Government that is repealing something called the Home Ownership Savings Act 1974.

It does not surprise me at all, because the current Government does not seem to care about the declining rate of homeownership in New Zealand. It does not seem to care that the likes of Auckland has got massive issues with growing populations and not enough affordable housing to cater for them. It is no surprise to me whatsoever that this National Government is opposed to something called the Home Ownership Savings Act. The Government has little or no commitment to homeownership itself, so it does not surprise me whatsoever that Part 1 of schedule 3 includes the repeal of the Home Ownership Savings Act.

I do not have any questions for the Minister, because I know what she will say. She will have no answer to the fact that this Government is quite happy to see something like the Home Ownership Savings Act repealed, because it has had no plan for increasing homeownership in New Zealand whatsoever.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! I want to just draw the member’s attention to the rules around the Committee stage, which is about talking about submissions before the select committee, Supplementary Order Papers, and asking the Minister questions. It is not a chance for a rant. That is for one of the speeches the member may well give in one of the reading stages of the bill.

I was just about to get into the rant, so I will take a different tack. I do not think there probably were any submissions on this fact whatsoever, but—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): You cannot talk about what there was not, either. You can only talk about what there was.

But if there were some submissions on this, I would suggest there would be a lot of people concerned about this Government and its lack of commitment to homeownership, as shown by its repealing of the Home Ownership Savings Act 1974. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

I want to make a brief further contribution to this debate. I was again somewhat surprised when I looked at Part 2 of schedule 3, which includes the consequential revocation of regulations. It revokes a number of regulations made by Order in Council. The thing that surprised me about that is why we needed primary legislation in order to revoke pieces of legislation that have been made without legislation. These are regulations that have been made by Order in Council, by Ministers, and therefore why are we revoking them by way of legislation? Surely they could be revoked without the need to resort to legislation.

It seems to me that the genesis of this bill is repealing unused statutes, and the justification was the Productivity Commission’s report that the law needs to be tidied up and that we need to reduce the amount of unnecessary legislation that we have, so what is the point of passing legislation as part of this bill that we do not actually need? Revoking regulations by way of an Act of Parliament, when those regulations could simply be revoked by Ministers signing a piece of paper to revoke them, seems to me to be the very mischief that this bill is designed to remediate, which is that we do not want a whole lot of unnecessary laws either on the books of the House or passing through the House.

So Part 2—I would be very interested in an explanation from the Minister as to why these regulations are being revoked by an Act of Parliament, rather than simply by Ministers using the prerogative that they have to be able to revoke. Well, it is not actually a prerogative that they have; it is the prerogative that the Governor-General has, on Ministers’ advice, to simply revoke these by way of Order in Council. It seems to me that that would be a much more sensible way of progressing that matter, unless there is a good reason why they are being dealt with through primary legislation. But I certainly cannot see, from my reading of the bill, why that might be.

I am pleased to take a brief call on the Statutes Repeal Bill. I have listened quite carefully to the debate, particularly around clause 4—schedule 2. I think Chris Hipkins has made a very good point around the issue—that this is supposed to be a repeal bill so why are we having insertions.

I have gone back and had a look at the first reading Hansard notes on this bill to see what the Minister, the Hon Steven Joyce—is he still the Minister for Regulatory Reform? I am not sure. Anyway, he talked for most his speech about the fact that this bill repeals 132 Acts, and what percentage that is of legislation, etc., etc. There is a one-liner he gave around clause 4—what we are debating at the moment—where he said that schedule 2 saves important provisions from a small number of the Acts being repealed, to avoid adverse effects on some parties.

I have just been having a look at what is in schedule 2, and I have got a few questions for the Minister in the chair, Nicky Wagner, as to what the adverse effects are in this part of the bill, from the “Unauthorised use of King George the Fifth Memorial Children’s Health Camps Federation emblem” in new section 20AAA(4). I note that new section 20AAA(4)—this is an amendment to the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981—actually inserts a fine of not exceeding $2,000 for the unlawful use of the emblem of the foundation. I just wonder whether we are able to hear a little bit about what the unauthorised use is and what the impacts of that would be, because I presume that there must have been some unauthorised use of the emblem of the King George the Fifth Memorial Children’s Health Camps Federation for this quite considerable insertion to be in this Statutes Repeal Bill.

Then we have got the Auckland Harbour Bridge and the definitions around that, which my colleagues have talked about. In particular, in schedule 2, new section 87B of the Government Roading Powers Act talks about the Auckland Harbour Bridge being “properly lighted”. I would have actually thought that it should be “lit”, just as a grammar suggestion. I wonder whether there has been an issue and an adverse effect from the Auckland Harbour Bridge not being properly lit, which has required there be an insertion into this part of a repeals bill, as to the fact that it should be properly lit.

There seem to be some sensible provisions following that around installing, maintaining, or repairing water mains or power or telecommunication lines, wires, or cables without the consent of the agency. Again, it seems to be an odd place to put a provision like this—would that not already be in legislation? Clearly, it is not. Then we go to the Public Works Act, and, despite the repeal of the Southland Electricity Act, we have to have an insertion of a provision in here about the Southland Electricity Act. It sort of seems to go around in circles, that clause. So I am just wondering what the adverse effect is that has resulted in that clause being inserted into this Statutes Repeal Bill.

It would be useful if Minister Wagner was able to explain to us why we are having insertions into a repeal bill. It is almost half the bill, actually—these insertions. I note that Minister Steven Joyce did refer to it and he referred to adverse effects. It would be useful if there could be some explanation from Minister Wagner, given that we are discussing this in the Chamber in the Committee Stage, as to what those adverse effects are.

I want to pick up where my colleague Kris Faafoi left off, in relation to the Home Ownership Savings Act. We have got consequential amendments to that Act in schedule 3, but that Act cross-references some key definitions that are contained in the Fishing Vessel Ownership Savings Act and the Farm Ownership Savings Act, which are actually repealed under schedule 1.

I am just cross-referencing them over, but what I would like to know is—there are core definitions within the Home Ownership Savings Act that have been repealed, and also the Act that they were established under has been repealed under this bill as well. I would like to know how certain the Minister is that there are not still valid accounts that exist. I believe that it was up until 1986 that no further accounts could be opened, however we are talking about, potentially, quite a large number of accounts. The institutions that those accounts were opened with are still around, albeit, sure, the banks might have changed ownership over the years.

Clearly, not all of that Act has been repealed; it is only certain definitions relating to farm ownership and fishing vessels. So what I would like to know is, based on that, how certain is the Minister that the fishing vessel accounts and the farm accounts aren’t still valid, and what happens in that situation? You are repealing the legislation that creates these accounts, and you could create a sort of void. You are voiding these accounts, and the potential accountholders or their successors. I would like some, I guess, confirmation from the Minister that this will not affect existing accountholders. This goes to the point that we have been making around the complexity when there are repeals happening upon repeals.

I just want to bring another point—I beg your indulgence, Mr Chairperson. If we look to Part 2 of schedule 1, it covers the repeal of parts of the Fisheries Act. I have looked at that section, section 314(1), and the repeal of those paragraphs relates to the repeal of other provisions in the Fisheries Act. So what we are dealing with is a repeal upon a repeal. I am cross-referencing it because it links to the subject matter in schedule 3. All I am saying is that there are inconsistencies. The potential inconsistencies here—I would like to get clarification from the Minister that these are consistent with these repeals, because it does not make sense. Why would—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I will just draw to the member’s attention that the schedule he is talking about was debated under clause 3. We are now debating clause 4.

I was begging your indulgence because I was switching among the various schedules.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): My indulgence has expired.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 Repeal of this Act