Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2)

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2).

As the House will be aware, statutes amendment bills are legislative vehicles that make minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. It allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed individually. This is achieved with the support of all parties in Parliament.

The bill as introduced amends 29 Acts administered by 12 different Government agencies. Many of the amendments are designed to correct drafting errors, omissions, and incorrect references, such as an amendment to the District Court Act of 2016. This amendment allows community magistrates and justices of the peace to deal with contempt of court when hearing proceedings. This power was previously conferred under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 but was inadvertently removed by the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act of 2016. This amendment would reinstate this power for community magistrates and justices of the peace.

Another example is the amendment to the Coroners Act 2006 and the Remuneration Authority Act 1977. These amendments allow the Remuneration Authority to determine the salary and principal allowances of the Deputy Chief Coroner. This position was established by the Coroners Amendment Act 2016. However, due to an oversight, that Act did not provide the authority with the explicit power to set the Deputy Chief Coroner’s salary and principal allowances.

Some amendments make non-controversial and supported improvements to how some Acts work in practice. The amendments to the Crown Proceedings Act 1950 seek to modernise and improve the operation of the Act. One amendment allows departments to state in their financial statements the cumulative amounts incurred in satisfying court judgments. Previously, the Minister of Finance was required to prepare a statement each financial year with itemised amounts that departments have paid. This amendment ensures departments can follow modern fiscal management practices.

Other changes make technical amendments to facilitate functions of governance. An amendment to the Public Finance Act 1989 ensures that only those reserve boards that earn a substantial amount are captured by auditing requirements. The amendment proposes that reserve boards with total operating expenses or revenues of less than $100,000 per financial year are exempt from auditing requirements. To ensure the threshold continues to be set at an appropriate level, a further amendment allows the Governor-General to change this threshold, following a joint recommendation of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Conservation.

A final example is an amendment to the Policing Act 2008 that allows police to efficiently deal with unclaimed property. The amendment removes the requirement that lost property be sold at auction and shortens the length of time that police must look after the property from three months to six weeks. Property that is of little or no monetary value may instead be destroyed or given away, as an alternative.

While all political parties in the Parliament support the amendments proposed in this bill, I look forward to hearing from the committee’s membership in terms of the examination of their views on these matters, as well as any views of the public. The examples of amendments I’ve mentioned demonstrate the value of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) as a vehicle for advancing technical yet important amendments. I look forward to the passage of this bill through its stages and I will work constructively with all parties as such bills are put together in the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy to take a call on this first reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), and I thank the Associate Minister of Justice for walking us through some of the examples of the matters in the bill. As the Minister has said in his speech, these are, by tradition, uncontroversial and well-supported bills. One thing I thought that the Minister may have wanted to mention was that, of course, this is a bill that our side of the House was in charge of when all the policy work was done, but, of course, they are, as I say, creatures of this House, and, by convention, any member, really, can have any particular change in the bill altered if they think it is controversial and needs more debate.

So it won’t come as any surprise to this House that National will be supporting this legislation. The Minister set out in his contribution some of the changes. In total, I think there are 29 different pieces of legislation that are amended. It probably is worth just mentioning not so much examples but the types of things that these useful bills do allow this House to do in a reasonably efficient way. For example, you’ve got a change to the Animal Welfare Act, which really just enables us to update that process so that modern technology can be brought into play and, without changing the nature of what’s being done, enable a much more efficient process. Through a number of pieces of legislation, the Care of Children Act, Child Support Act, Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, Domestic Violence Act, Family Proceedings Act, and the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act, we have some very simple amendments that really just go to the way invoicing is handled and processed—again, just to add more efficiency into the system.

Through the Justices of the Peace Act, the Minister mentioned one change, but one of them, really, is just enabling a recognition of appropriate service—where JPs have had to retire, often through ill health or no fault of their own, where it is appropriate, it will allow them to still use the “JP (retired)” tag that would normally be available only after 10 years’ service. In other situations, it’s correcting errors or just making it simpler for legislation to be understood and applied.

So they are the sort of thing that this House has to treat seriously, and it’s quite right that the bill will go to select committee and be tested to make sure there aren’t unforeseen consequences, but, at the same time, it would be a nonsense if we were to waste the time of the House on each of these being processed as separate amendment bills. So where we can find, as I say, common and uncontroversial changes like this, putting them through the House in this way is something that is actually a very important part of the process and the procedure of Parliament.

As I said, it is a bill that was put together during my time as the Minister of Justice. It’s now in the name of the existing Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, obviously being taken through by his Associate. National supports it and commends it to the House.

Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m happy to join in the contributions in this House in supporting the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), not to just prolong it but, again, offer my view on the support of this House, acknowledging that this is a legislative vehicle in which we can get technical amendments through the House that wouldn’t necessarily get any time in the House given the legislative programme before us. As the Hon Aupito William Sio mentioned, the Statutes Amendment Bill is a legislative vehicle that makes minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts, and it allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed individually.

The part that I do want to make most of my contribution on is Part 1, the Animal Welfare Act 1999, clauses 3 and 4. But before I do, can I just give a bit of context as to why this particular part of this bill is important to me as Associate Minister of Agriculture. I just remind us that animal welfare in New Zealand is about caring for animals and it is about caring for our reputation. Some members in the House will be pleased to know that New Zealand is a nation of animal lovers. We rely on animals for companionship and economic prosperity. Sixty-six percent of households own a pet, and $20 billion in animal-related export revenue is important to our State. Our animal welfare system has been ranked first-equal alongside the United Kingdom, Austria, and Switzerland by the global charity World Animal Protection.

Our global reputation as an ethical food producer is enhanced by our commitment to animal welfare. Even isolated cases of poor animal welfare may negatively affect our reputation as ethical producers of animals and animal products. I do want to acknowledge the extra $10 million that we had in Budget 2015 to develop new regulations around improving our compliance and enforcement activities in animal welfare.

To the actual clauses in this bill that I mentioned: clauses 3 and 4. As the previous speaker spoke to, it is around modernising it. The actual clauses talk about trapping and ensuring that we are practising trapping, ensuring that if we are trapping at sunrise we need to be checking the traps 12 hours from sunrise. If the traps have caught any animals, then we’ve got to make sure that 24 hours—that we are checking those traps. Of course, modernisation through technology should be able to tell people that are trapping that they should be able to check their traps. In terms of Part 1 of the Animal Welfare Act, it’s part of a wider commitment to improving animal welfare practices in our country because of the impact it has on our economy.

Just quickly, there are other parts of this bill that I just want to make comment about. The previous speaker talked about—particularly—Parts 3, 4, 5, and 11. All of these parts talk about improving the payment of invoices, and it’s important that we do that, that our systems around legal representation in the courts are as efficient and as effective as possible. But I just thought, because these particular parts all relate to the payment of invoices, whether there’s something more deeper that we need to examine in the system of invoicing for legal representation. I will leave that up to the capable hands of the select committee.

But in closing, there are parts of this particular bill that, when I read them, and I want to mention Part 12—I will mention what they are. Part 12, which is the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act; Part 17, which talks about the Housing Corporation Act; and Part 26, which refers to the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 and consequential amendments. When I read this particular part, I did want to ask questions as to why those particular amendments were necessary. Of course, I’m sure there’s a valid reason why they’ve been caught as part of this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). But I look forward to this bill going to the select committee. I do hope those that are impacted by the various parts—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Who’s chairing that committee?

It must be a hard-working chairperson of the select committee. For the public and those that are impacted by these particular parts, I do hope people take the opportunity. Those particular parts, Parts 12, 17, and 26, for me—there’s really a question around why we are making these changes. When I read the parts of the Act, it’s not quite clear. But, of course, this is the first reading, and I look forward to the full report from the select committee to particularly answer those questions on Parts 12, 17, and 26, as to the need for it. I commend this bill to the House.

It pleases me greatly to rise and stand in support of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). It’s also my first opportunity to stand, after my maiden speech, and speak freely, so I’m glad it could be on something as un-meaty and non-controversial as the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2).

As a new MP, this bill seems like common sense. You see, when I tried to explain to my whānau what it was all about, I basically said these bills are a way that we can make lots of small amendments to a whole lot of bills, a whole lot of Acts, all at the same time, without having to go through the rigmarole of creating brand new bills for very minor changes. So that was easy to understand.

I quickly also realised that this is a standard practice and that, actually, you’ve been doing this since the 1950s, and it relieved me that such amendments wouldn’t be so vehemently opposed by the Opposition and that we might actually be making decisions on behalf of New Zealanders all together, which is what the Government should be about.

In this debating chamber, where time is precious, it makes sense to put these bills through all in one go, and while there are a lot of amendments, I’d like to drill down into just a few of them, some of them having already been mentioned. The first one is the Animal Welfare Act, which is both a positive for conservation but also a positive for technology as well, updating the language to allow remote monitoring of live-capture animal traps as an alternative to manual inspection. We are always looking for ways to update our world as we move into this increasingly digital era, and I think that this is the perfect way to do it.

The other one that I wanted to talk about was the Policing Act 2008, which is to, basically, get rid of the little piece that talked about how any item of lost property that the police accumulated would have to go to auction if it was of any kind of value, and also reduce the time that the police have to take in looking after all this lost property, from, essentially, three months down to six weeks. These are amendments that I think are positive—positive because I think it’s a win for the police but also a win for the people of New Zealand and for our communities, so that instead of looking after our lost property, they’re actually out there looking after people and our communities, keeping us nice and safe.

The Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act 2015—that there has been for the purpose of Te Rarawa fisheries advisory committee, basically, advising the Minister. It’s been very blatant in this particular amendment on the utilisation of fish, aquatic life, and seaweed managed under the Fisheries Act. It’s also a triumph for Ngāti Kuri, for Te Aupōuri, and for NgāiTakoto as well, which, according to this particular amendment, will also be catered for. So it is a win for the iwi to have this clarification as well, and I wish them all the best.

As our Opposition colleague has already mentioned, there are quite a few amendments in here to do with Child, Youth and Family Service: the Care of Children Act 2004, the Child Support Act 1991, and the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. Many of these amendments and Acts are designed to correct drafting errors, omissions, and oversights, as has already been mentioned, and for this reason I consider this bill to be time-efficient, time-saving, and deserving of support. So, for that reason, I support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a call in support of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). As has probably been raised by prior speakers to the bill, a Statutes Amendment Bill can include only items that are approved, by all of the parties to this Parliament, as being non-controversial amendments. Because of that, we’re allowed to have an omnibus bill that is not limited in scope as to any one of these subject areas that are covered but that can make individual amendments to a wide range of Acts of Parliament in the same piece of legislation. That, of course, saves time in this Parliament—not quite as much time as we were expecting tonight, because the Opposition don’t seem to be taking any calls. But I see that the former Attorney-General, the Hon Chris Finlayson, has come to the rescue. I’m sure he’s willing to take a call so as to explain some of the finer points of Part 9, which relates to the Crown Proceedings Act 1950 and related amendments.

These amendments are, I think, seen as non-controversial by the House because they arise from a report of the Law Commission, which is titled The Crown in Court: A Review of the Crown Proceedings Act and National Security Information in Proceedings. These amendments, which were recommended by the Law Commission, make amendments to the Crown Proceedings Act and the Bail Act in accordance with the recommendations of the commission.

I understand that these amendments to clauses 29 to 31 and 34 to 36 repeal section 21 of the Crown Proceedings Act, which is an old piece of legislation dating back to 1950, and make related amendments to the Bail Act 2000 and the Electoral Act 1993. That’s because section 21 of the Crown Proceedings Act is now used, generally, in respect of bail money and otherwise applies only to election petitions under the Electoral Act 1993. So, instead of doing it through the Crown Proceedings Act, this amendment changes the Bail Act to replace what used to be in section 21 of the Crown Proceedings Act. I think that seems pretty sensible, and therefore I can see why that is recommended as a course.

The other very important matter I would bring to the attention of the House—

💬 Andrew Bayly: How many more minutes? Oh, 6½ minutes.

Well, one of the many other important matters—it’s a challenge now. It’s a challenge now. I was going to do five, but I’ve got six minutes 42 seconds to go according to the challenge from Opposition members. The next one that I would refer to is Part 13, lucky for some or unlucky for some.

Part 13 deals with changes to the Family Proceedings Act 1980. Now, this is a very minor change to the Family Proceedings Act, but it is an area of law that needs considerable attention because, to be frank, the Family Courts are not working very well in New Zealand as a consequence of some of the amendments that were made by Hon Judith Collins, which stripped out the participation of lawyers, have caused a proliferation of ex parte orders where they are made without reference to the other side. The courts have been so clogged up with ex parte orders that people who are adversely affected by an ex parte order made without notice and without their knowledge have to wait many months in order to get it sorted out, which is a terrible thing when children are, effectively, being held away from one parent by ex parte orders. There’s something there that needs to be sorted out. That will be an issue of more controversy that cannot be dealt with under the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), because I would’ve thought that the National Party, having been responsible for that poor process in the Family Court, would probably not agree to it being fixed here. But they have agreed to this minor change, and so I celebrate them for that.

This change is to clause 44, which amends section 162B and, quite sensibly, it says that where there has been a lawyer appointed, in a family proceeding, to represent the interests of the child or just to assist the court—because that sometimes happens when the parties aren’t legally represented or there’s an unusual issue that arises and the judge thinks that there’s a need to have some assistance for the court to tease out the issues—at the moment those invoices where there’s a lawyer appointed to represent the interests of a child or to assist the court, you can’t get those things paid except by clogging up the process and going back to the original court. That is no longer going to be the case now, because it seems that everyone in this Parliament agrees that it would be sensible for that minor matter—the approval of the bill that has been caused to be necessary to be paid because the courts have already ordered that a lawyer be appointed to represent a child or to assist the court. Now the registrar of the court, if this amendment proceeds, is going to be able to authorise that expenditure.

The next part that I would like to refer to is Part 15. Part 15 relates to the Fisheries Act. There’s a section in the Fisheries Act, and I’m told it’s section 255(6), which already protects banks from forfeiture of quota. Now, this is what happens if someone’s found to be breaching the Fisheries Act and plundering our fishery, if they are taking one species and recording it as another, fishing in the wrong zone, or using a net that’s the wrong size—all of these things can create a risk of forfeiture of quota, and it is that penalty that the fisher that acts illegally is at risk of. It’s actually one of the most effective penalties that keeps the fishing industry honest and minimises breaches of the Fisheries Act. In respect of that, if you’re going to forfeit quota, you’ve got to be a bit careful that you’re not prejudicing people other than the offender. So it would be unfair just to rip the quota away and say that the person that had lent money, effectively, secured by a security like a mortgage over the quota—if they lost out as well, that would be unfair. The law already provides, at section 255(6) of the Fisheries Act, that banks be protected from the forfeiture of quota that might otherwise occur simply because the bank has a financial association with the offender. [Bell rung]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. If you’re someone that has got a financial association with the offending fisher and you’ve got some security interests, well, you’re at risk because you ought not to be able to avoid the consequences of this in that circumstance. But if they’re a bank who has no financial association with an offender, they’re already protected. Now, what the amendment does is extend that protection to non-bank deposit takers. So the protection that is currently afforded to banks is now being afforded, effectively, to other lenders who carry out similar functions to banks. I think that is a good amendment, partly because we know that as our banking system is very reliant on the large Australian-owned banks, and they’re a force for good in New Zealand, it does mean that if you want to have competition from other financial providers to the banking sector, you’ve got to afford them the same protections that the banks get, otherwise they will be suffering a point of competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis the banks. Their risks would be higher when lending to a fishing company, and, therefore, they would have to charge a higher interest rate, and that would make them uncompetitive. That’s poor public policy, because we want competitive pressures on the big Australian banks. And so that—that, that, that—is the purpose of Part 15 of this bill, which amends the Fisheries Act 1996.

I’m afraid I’m not going to have time to cover in detail the amendments to the Government Superannuation Fund Act 1956.

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m thrilled to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and take a call on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2).

It is always a joy to follow my colleague David Parker. Not only does his intelligence shine through at any contribution that he makes to this House but his fine eye for the detail in important legislation, such as this, never ceases to impress. I think that is why it’s so disappointing that the Opposition—an Opposition that said they were going to participate, that they were the largest of Oppositions at whatever time in history, and that they were going to make sure they were going to scrutinise legislation and scrutinise this Government—doesn’t appear to have understood the legislation or thought that parts of it were important enough to contribute on.

For my contribution, I would like to just draw people’s attention to the amendment to the Animal Welfare Act 1999. I will just read what clause 4 does and why that’s so important, because I think the public of New Zealand will be particularly interested in this particular clause. It replaces section 36(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Section 36(1)—for those who don’t know—obliges any person who sets a live-capture trap or causes a live-capture trap to be set to ensure that the trap is inspected within 12 hours after sunrise on each day—each day—the trap remains set, beginning on the day immediately after the day on which the trap is set. Now, it’s important to know that failure to comply with this inspection requirement carries an infringement offence and it will attract an infringement fee of up to $1,000. So that’s up to $1,000 if you set a live trap and you don’t go back within 12 hours after sunrise to check that trap.

Now, you might think that the purpose of this amendment in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) was for the welfare of animals, but it’s not. It’s not for the welfare of animals at all. It’s very interesting. The explanatory note of the bill goes on to say, “The purpose of the amendment is to enable the use of remote monitoring technologies instead of [the] daily manual inspections of traps. These technologies include the use of capture sensors and wireless communication networks.”, and so on.

So it’s interesting. I would have thought that the Opposition would have wanted to have some conversation about the fact that while it is the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the reason for this amendment is actually not necessarily just the welfare of animals. It’s a recognition of a technological advance, and I believe that this Government’s going to be doing some work around trapping in the next three years, so I think it’s opportune that during this Statutes Amendment Bill—

💬 Simon O’Connor: Which of the 33 pages is that on?

Please take a call, Mr O’Connor. There is no better time to take a call and have your voice heard and put on the record, so that the New Zealand public knows that you’ve read the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and have an opinion. But what I think is most interesting too, though, is the fact that there has been an increase in the fine with regard to an offence. The explanatory note of the bill goes on to say that “If a person relies on the use of [an] electronic monitoring provision, the system … must enable the person to meet the person’s obligations”—e.g., check that trap—and “provides that any live animal found in the trap”—

💬 Matt King: Six minutes to go.

—yes, Mr King, that’s right—“must be removed or cared for or must be killed without delay. A person who commits an offence against section 36(2) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 (for an individual) or $25,000 (for a body corporate).”

So while these are non-controversial amendments, they’re not insignificant. So, again, I articulate that it’s disappointing that the Opposition doesn’t see the need to rise and articulate their view around what are quite significant changes: if a body corporate should ignore the amendments that have been made—when this bill goes through its final reading—there is a $25,000 fine. The public needs to know this, because ignorance of the law is not a defence of the law.

The other section I’m particularly interested in is around the amendments to the Biosecurity Act 1993. It’s a very small change but an important change. The amendment, through clause 9(4), replaces the words “goods before they are given a biosecurity clearance” with the words “uncleared goods to which the authorisation relates”. Now, you might think that’s not important, but, actually, words matter, and Mr Finlayson will know that words matter particularly in the law. Because with the words “goods before they are given a biosecurity clearance”, there was the impression that those goods would automatically receive a biosecurity clearance, and that is not a given. Hence the change and the words “uncleared goods to which the authorisation relates”. This gives the Biosecurity Act 1993 the opportunity, should those goods be received—because that’s who it’s for; it’s to put responsibilities on to persons who are receiving uncleared goods. So the change makes it clear that they do not get a guarantee that those goods will be cleared.

So language is important, words matter, and amendments like this matter—because this is about the small tweaks and nuances that we have inside the legal system, and it is where people will get tripped up, possibly, if they find themselves in front of the courts. And that’s why it’s important to have a full outing of statutes amendment bills like this in this House with all members of the House participating in the conversation and highlighting and bringing, hopefully, their skills and their perspective to the legislation.

I’ve got only a couple more points that I may have the time to touch on, but, as the Minister for Children, I do want to mention the Care of Children Act 2004 amendment, the Child Support Act 1991 amendment, and the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 amendment. All of these are a small change to the way a lawyer who has been appointed to represent a child, or to assist the court, may submit his or her invoice for fees and expenses. We heard from the Hon David Parker the reason why this needed to be changed—that there is a clogging up around the system. I mean, there are certainly other areas of this legislation that will need to be addressed in the future. There are other things that need to be reviewed or focused on inside, certainly, the Family Court, but this is just a small, little administrative nuance that will create some efficiencies going forward.

There are some fascinating other parts that the bill covers—[Bell rung] Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Domestic Violence Act 1995 is mentioned. I would have thought the Hon Amy Adams would have highlighted that particularly. The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act—I would have thought that Chris Bishop would have been down here with bells on, because, of course, he has a member’s bill tomorrow that also wants to amend that particular Act. I know he has an in-depth knowledge around censorship and the rules, so I thought perhaps he might have been interested in that.

I see that my time is coming to a close, so, unfortunately, I will be required to take my seat. But, as I say, on behalf of New Zealand First, we commend the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House. We know how important these non-controversial changes are. We encourage the Opposition to stand up and participate, because we know that the people they represent would like to hear them articulate and participate in the debate and the conversations inside this House on every piece of legislation, as every piece of legislation affects their lives. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. I thought I’d get up and speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) briefly. It’s obviously a bill that the whole House is unanimous in its agreement on, on the basis that it is a Statutes Amendment Bill. But I was getting a bit concerned when I saw Minister after Minister after Minister standing up and having to filibuster a Statutes Amendment Bill. I mean, I’ve been here only 6½ to seven years and I’ve never seen Minister after Minister having to stand up and speak on statutes amendment bills like this.

I know that they’ve become very busy Ministers, but to find the time to come down for 10 minutes to speak in the House on a Statutes Amendment Bill—I just want to congratulate them. They clearly have a lot of time on their hands. These statutes amendment bills—[Interruption] Well, they don’t need to interject. I saw the junior Labour whip handing out speaking notes on a Statutes Amendment Bill, so I thought I’d be helpful and use up one of the calls for you.

It’s a Statutes Amendment Bill. It’s one that we normally let go through fairly quickly. They’re simple changes to pieces of legislation, and it’s unnecessary for the House to waste a huge amount of time on it. Therefore, this side of the House does support this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2).

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to congratulate you in my first opportunity to do so subsequent to my maiden speech. It’s quite a funny contrast to my maiden speech, being able to reply, to give my input on behalf of the Green Party on this bill, and I’d like to remedy the understanding that Jami-Lee Ross has about the Government’s approach and its confidence and supply partner’s approach to this bill. We absolutely do take it very seriously, and we believe that it could be given the robust discussion that New Zealanders expect from this House.

So, on that point—talking about this being my first speech in this House, in this first reading—it’s quite a contrast, you know, coming in quite idealistic, wanting to change the world, and wanting to tackle all the big issues, and being presented with a relatively non-controversial piece of legislation here in the form of this bill.

So the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) is obviously a pretty weighty piece of legislation. I think that the process for this bill also has to be commended. There was quite due cross-party consensus, and a lot of that working together that I think a lot of New Zealanders also want to see, both inside this House—that collegial manner that I think is so important to actually getting things done.

In referring to different clauses in this bill, in Part 1 we’ve got the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Just to echo the sentiments of Tracey Martin, this is something that we are absolutely stoked, as the Green Party, to be supporting because this here is, obviously, something that relates to the mission of Eugenie Sage as Minister of Conservation to get New Zealand predator-free by 2050. But, as the Green Party, we want to make sure that we go about doing that in as humane a manner as possible. It’s not these pests’ fault that they are in New Zealand, and we wouldn’t like to see them suffer for any longer than is necessary, so we’re glad to see that those traps will be inspected within 12 hours after sunrise on each day that the trap remains set.

If I can also draw the members’—all of the members in this House—attention to Part 22, on the Policing Act 2008. Clause 67 amends section 41 of the Policing Act 2008, which is the section on unclaimed property. We as the Green Party are also very happy to be supporting this, because it is moving away from simply disposing of property—waste; not great—to giving away property. This is property that has no monetary value or has only negligible monetary value, or property that is not appropriate or practicable to sell, and, as the Green Party, we are obviously as keen as possible on diverting things away from being waste and on recycling.

So to leave it there, on that point, this is a relatively uncontroversial bill. I would love to see the Opposition stand and make their thoughts known and participate fully, freely, frankly in the democratic process, as I believe all of us in this House were elected to do. This bill is something, I may mention, that the National Party initially instigated, so it’d be great to hear their reasons for supporting—

💬 Andrew Bayly: Let us have a go. Let us have a go. Come on. Let us have a go, Chlӧe.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —this bill and for making it happen. Please do have a go.

💬 Marama Davidson: Have a go—have a go.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Have your go. Thanks, guys.

I call the honourable Stuart Smith.

Oh, thank you for the promotion, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s richly deserved! Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make a contribution on this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). It is a very important bill, but in the spirit of the previous contribution, I don’t want to waste—we’re all against waste.

I want to focus on the Animal Welfare Act of 1999, as someone who had live capture traps—deer traps, to be precise. They were, essentially, a fenced-off area in the bush that the deer would walk through and trip a drop gate, and they’d be captured, and they would stay in there for quite some time, actually, because they’d calm down. It was a much better outcome for the deer to leave them in there—they had plenty of food and plenty of water—and we would then live capture them with, once again, either a net gun or with a dart gun.

I would like to tell a little funny story about one of them. This deer was pretty angry and we didn’t want to give it any more Rompun, which is the drug that you use through the dart gun, because you can overdose and then have a bit of a problem. But it turned out the problem was that when I’d shot it with the dart gun, I thought it had gone into its buttock, but it had in fact gone through the scrotum. So it had missed all the vital organs in the scrotum, but the drug had disappeared out into the air. That’s why it hadn’t really been dosed very well, and so we had quite a rodeo to get it captured. But the deer survived, and it went on to be a good breeding animal. So I support the sentiment of this bill, and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Madam Deputy Speaker, can I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your role as the Deputy Speaker. It’s definitely a privilege that I follow on from that 1½ minute contribution by the member Stuart Smith across the floor. Yes, I’m not a Minister either, so I’m fresh off the front line. I am fresh off the front line, so it’s definitely a privilege to be involved in this debate.

My first speech in the House is about the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), a bill that allows—I want to echo all the speakers before me—amendments to be made that would usually receive sufficient priority to progress individually. As a new member, I love the fact that this is achieved through the support of all parties involved in this great Parliament of ours.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I’d like to bring to the discussion—as I said before, I’m fresh off the front line—my involvement as a registered social worker, a care and protection statutory social worker, a youth justice social worker, and a person who led and managed within the ministry that you were last head of, the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki. I understand the principle—they talk about the paramountcy principle. It is the paramountcy principle in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 and the Care of Children Act 2004—the principle talks about the child’s best interests and welfare as the first paramount consideration.

So if we look at Part 3, what I want to bring to the House’s attention is where it says “a lawyer”—so, the Care of Child Act 2004 and the bit that talks about “a lawyer appointed to represent a child”. When we go into Part 4 in terms of the Child Support Act 1991, it also has “a lawyer appointed to represent a child”. Then, if we flip the page and go into Part 5, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, it also says “a lawyer appointed to represent a child”, and if we continue on to Part 11, which is on the Domestic Violence Act, it talks about “a lawyer appointed … to represent a child”. Then, if we continue to Part 13, it talks about “a lawyer appointed to represent a child”. Being fresh off the front line, I think this is a principled approach and I support the amendments in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), because it is about resourcing appropriately the people that represent the voices of children—of children who these Acts actually talk about representing their voice.

I am not a lawyer as such, but as a social worker, if I can offer an insight, in terms of working within the Family Court and working within the Youth Court, on what the lawyers go through. Actually, as an ex - social worker, we couldn’t progress things without hearing the children’s voice, and the people that represent the children in court are the lawyers. So I firmly commend this change, not just to fast track things but to take a principled approach that we should put in systems that support the principle of the paramountcy of the child and support those who actually chose those professions because they are about the child.

I look forward to all the discussions that will be coming through the select committee. I look forward to those discussions on this bill before the House, and that’s where I offer the insight in terms of common sense. This is what common sense looks like. A lawyer in Auckland—I could just say a lawyer for a child—could travel in the Auckland traffic from the Family Court to an Oranga Tamariki office to attend a family group conference, then they are back again at 2.15 to the Youth Court to represent a young offender. Then on top of all of that if they are attending Manukau court or Auckland court, they would have to send two separate invoices to all those courts. So it does make sense to have one door where it’s all about a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. So I commend and appreciate the changes in this bill.

Justices of the peace have served this nation, New Zealand, for 203 years, since 1814. I would think that the members opposite would spend time to acknowledge the work that justices of the peace do. As a justice of the peace in Auckland, I forgot to change my number, but I think they have my work number from my last place and they’re probably getting the calls at six o’clock or three o’clock in the morning to witness documents. As justices of the peace, we volunteer and we do this because it’s a community service—it is a service that is needed. So I’ve been a justice of the peace for a number of years and I must admit that I haven’t had the opportunity to check whether I can continue on with that role of community service while I now stand privileged to be here in this House.

I just want to acknowledge the work of Gary Nichols. He’s the ministerial duties training coordinator at the Auckland Justices of the Peace Association. He puts in 200 percent effort in getting all our justices of the peace trained, and that includes myself. I must admit, Gary, that I haven’t been to a few trainings in the last year; now you know why I haven’t come to training on a Saturday morning. Justices of the peace attend training in Auckland where there is no parking—so they have to pay for parking out of their own pocket. But, thank goodness, the refreshments are provided—the least you could do. So, as a justice of the peace, it’s something that we take as a responsibility—to serve our community, whether it’s one o’clock in the morning or three o’clock in the morning.

But when there is a time that we are sick—I quite agree with Part 19, if you are unable to carry on those community services that you’ve put your hand up for and that you quietly go about doing your business and stamps and everything. When you put your hand up and you can no longer do it, you can no longer provide that community service that you love doing—you love servicing the community—it is great to see that you can put the “JP (retired)” next to your name even though you haven’t done your 10 years. I really commend that to the House. I look forward to seeing justices of the peace come through this House to see whether the Opposition have something to say about those things, because I know, as a justice of the peace, that when it comes to lots of functions, we used to see the people across the bench in those meetings.

In my experience as a statutory social worker in care and protection and youth justice and in my community involvement as a justice of the peace, I totally support the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), and I look forward to hearing it come back to the House for further debate. On that note I just want to acknowledge, again, the efforts, in terms of the Auckland justices of the peace—I can only talk about Auckland, because I’m a member of the Auckland justices of the peace—their work in terms of tirelessly arming our community service people, who are in the community, day after day, morning after morning, night after night; that have done this community service for New Zealand for the last 203 years.

Now, come on guys, I’m sure that you can make an effort to get up and represent the views of those people that have done that. And, again, I want to acknowledge the Auckland Justices of the Peace Association for the efforts that they have made to make sure that justices of the peace in New Zealand—in particular, in Tāmaki-makau-rau—are well trained. On that note I would like to take my stand and say thank you very much. Malo ‘aupito.

With a challenge like that, how can I refuse? I would like, first of all, this being my first speech after the maiden speech, to acknowledge your appointment, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the great job you do.

While I was sitting here, I wanted to let everyone know that there are actually people out there watching this debate, because I’ve got a couple of texts from people from the North.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Oh, come on. They’ve got no coverage. How did they text you?

And the texts were along the lines of—thank you, Tracey Martin, we’ve got coverage up there. “What the hell is going on?” is what the texts were. So I texted back to them—I did text back to them—that it costs $453,000 an hour to run this Parliament and at this moment in time—and that’s an old google; so that’s a couple of years old now—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: They employed you to come to this place, articulate, and represent.

—$453,000 an hour and what’s happened is that—ha, ha! What’s happened is that we agree on these amendments, so there’s nothing to debate about. We agree with everything that is put down here, so we can vote on it right now. We can vote on it right now and we can finish it for the day. But what will happen is that the country will see that Labour have not organised themselves enough.

💬 Andrew Bayly: OK, sit down.

OK. And they haven’t organised themselves enough to actually fill the rest of this evening. And Nuk Korako—you hassled him about having a time-wasting bill, well, this is what you guys are doing now.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your appointment to this role.

You know, we agree with the members of the Opposition that this is a bill of small matters—matters that perhaps are not very large; matters that can be solved by a little bit of agreement; matters that you might think don’t require a debate and don’t require a discussion—but I tell the members of the Opposition that they are wrong in that regard. Parliament is not just a chamber for debating, for combative ideas; it is a chamber to educate people and to help citizens of New Zealand understand why we are passing the laws we are passing. So that is why we are here in this Chamber tonight, talking through these matters, taking this bill of small matters very seriously indeed. The members of the Opposition talk about the expense of running Parliament, but what price democracy—is what I say. What price democracy? Our democracy is worth spending money and time on, and I invite you on the other side of the House to take our democracy seriously.

So I turn now to some of the small matters in this bill, matters that need a little bit of discussion and little bit of enlightenment so that our fellow citizens understand why we are passing these matters. As so many of my friends and colleagues here tonight have started with, I intend to start with Part 1—that is to keep it simple for the Opposition—of this bill, which amends the Animal Welfare Act. You see, this particular part enables instead of people having to trek up and down hills, trek through the bush, to check a live trap—instead, we can embrace modern technology and use electronic monitoring. Now I know I might look like a simple, innocent tax lecturer from Massey University, but I tell you I have walked those trap lines. I have been up and down the dissected hill country in Taranaki, checking traps, making sure that the dead animals are taken out; and that animals that were alive are taken care of. I’ve done those hard yards and those hard hills in Taranaki and it takes a lot of time and effort.

One of the reasons that we are introducing this electronic monitoring of live traps is not just in respect of animal welfare; it’s also a simple cost-saving measure. Now, the Opposition would have us be concerned about cost-saving measures, so I invite them to consider this part very, very seriously indeed. By introducing electronic monitoring of these live traps, we can ensure that we spend less money and we spend less human time and effort ploughing up and down those wretched hills, checking on the traps. It’s a simple, common-sense, and kind measure, and I think we should take it. I’d invite the Opposition to consider exactly why we are passing this small matter, because I tell you those hills are not exactly small.

I want to turn now to another small matter in this bill, and it’s going to take several pages further on to Part 24 of the bill, with the Public Finance Act 1989—a topic dear to my heart. There’s a particular clause in the amendments to the Public Finance Act that is to do with reserves boards and the audit requirements for reserves boards. So diligently, because I want to help my fellow citizens to understand what this particular amendment is about, I searched out what reserve boards are, as defined in the Public Finance Act. And the Public Finance Act says that reserves boards are defined in section 2 of the Reserves Act.

So in the rather handy website, the legislation site for the New Zealand Government, I headed off to the Reserves Act to look up the definition of reserves boards. But there is no definition of reserves boards in the Reserves Act, so that might be another small matter for another similar Act in a few years. But, what there is, is a definition of reserves, and they are various parcels of land that the Government holds as reserves and that are administered by various boards.

So, I thought, well, where are these reserves? What are the particular parcels of land with which we are so concerned? From there, using the wonder of modern technology as we’re going to use for the live animal traps, I headed off to hunt out where these reserves are. They are administered by the Department of Conservation (DOC), with a whole series of other parcels of land. On the DOC website, you can find a list of the various parcels of land that DOC administers, and various reserves. There are 22 of them. It doesn’t exactly say where these reserves are. In fact, that’s all I could find out—that there are 22 of these reserves. So may I suggest to the Opposition that for their question No. 6001, they ask for a list of these reserves?

But it turns out that these reserves actually incur some expenditure each year and, because they fall under the Public Finance Act, they need to be audited. But auditing costs money. There are only a small number of these reserves. They don’t have a lot of revenue associated with them. In fact, I rather suggest they have no revenue associated with them. They have some expenditure associated with them, but it’s a really small amount. So spending large sums auditing them doesn’t seem to be worth the effort.

So there’s an amendment here that suggests that if these reserves have annual expenditure of under $125,000, then an audit is not required. Now you may be worried about this. You may think that perhaps we should audit all public entities—that anything that is using public money should be audited down to the nth degree. But I tell you, these boards are supervised by DOC so we have accountability for them in that way. And it is also utterly consistent with the changes in auditing practice in the past few years.

In the last few years, we have changed auditing practice so that large entities—that’s entities with revenue over $30 million of revenue—have full-scale audits; not-so-large entities—that’s entities with under $30 million of revenue—can have smaller audits; and then there are some very simple rules that apply to tiny entities—entities with under $2 million of assets can have a simple accrual accounting system, and a very simple audit. Once you’re under $125,000, you simply have a set of cash books and a very simple audit indeed. That applies to public entities, it applies to charities, and this amendment is utterly consistent with that approach to auditing small entities—that where the amount of money concerned is actually quite small, then no audit is required. So I think this is a very, very sensible amendment.

Then there is just one more amendment that I wish to consider this evening, and that is Part 27. Now, Part 27 amends the State-Owned Enterprises Act. The State-Owned Enterprises Act, I think, first came into being back in the 1980s—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: 1986.

Thank you—1986. Thank you, Mr Little. But the world has changed since then. And, in particular, something that’s been developed since the 1980s is the internet. So there is a very simple requirement here and, again, it’s a very common-sense one, a very small matter. It’s a matter that suggests that instead of having annual audited accounts, the financial performance, the statements of service intention—all the reporting that we associate with Government entities and with State-owned entities—as well as having them published in dead-tree form, on paper, we embrace the 21st century and they get published on websites as well.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: No!

Thank you. It’s a very common-sense change. It’s a small change, but it’s a change that brings us smack-bang into the 21st century so that accountability for these entities can be extended, not just to those of us in the House with the pieces of paper in front of us, but to our fellow citizens who, through googling, through searching, through reviewing websites, can themselves engage with our State-owned enterprises, and whether or not they are being properly conducted. So, it’s a very simple change that will allow this to happen. That is the reason that I support this amendment.

So, in closing—very sensible amendments; amendments that we ought to agree to, and I urge the members of the Opposition, for the sake of our fellow citizens, to please stand, debate, explain, and engage with this very sensible bill.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.