Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2)

Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). Members, when we were last considering the bill, we were debating the question that Parts 1 to 28 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part. Dr Jian Yang was speaking, and has 3 minutes 51 seconds remaining should he so wish.

OK, sorry, I didn’t realise that. I thought—well, it’s good, it’s great. Thank you, Mr Chair. As I said in my earlier speech actually, this bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), deals with a number of issues. Some amendments would make Acts more rational, some would update some Acts, and some would simply clarify the statements in some Acts.

So let’s look at Part 22, “Policing Act 2008”. Part 22 would amend the Policing Act 2008. That would give police the power to basically destroy or give away some properties that police are holding. So at the moment, police have to sell the properties by auction, which is, of course, sometimes harder to do, because there are properties there which may not be valuable at all. So the police may decide that these properties are not particularly valuable and could be destroyed, or sometimes could be given away by the police. So that would give the police more freedom in dealing with lost or found property. That is basically making the Act more rational, I would say. So this is Part 22.

Also, then, if you look at some other parts in this bill, you will find that these amendments would clarify a few things. For example, Part 12. Part 12 would deal with the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. Now, basically, this would give this Act more clarity by clarifying some particular statements. If you look at Part 12, you will find that it says that clause 42 amends a transitional provision in section 164A relating to permits issued under the Maritime Transport Act 1994. The amendment provides that “[A] reference in [the] permit to Maritime New Zealand, the Director of Maritime New Zealand, or the Director must be treated as if it were a reference to the Environmental Protection Authority.” So this would clarify, basically, the reference.

Now, the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is particularly important to us because we have about 4.1 million square kilometres of it, which is, of course, a huge area. It is actually about 15 times the land that we have. So the EEZ actually makes New Zealand a wealthy country in terms of resources. It is, therefore, very important for us to make sure we have a good understanding of the laws, and also to make sure that we are able to protect our EEZ. If you look at Part 2 of this bill, that is an attempt to amend the Biosecurity Act 1993.

I want to thank the member Jian Yang for that contribution. I just want to take a brief call, and that is to say that in the previous sitting of the committee I had tabled before the committee of the whole House two Supplementary Order Papers for inclusion in this bill: Supplementary Order Paper 55, which amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018, and Supplementary Order Paper 53, which amends the Food Act 2014. Due to timing constraints on reaching cross-party support, I have withdrawn Supplementary Order Paper 53, and this will be addressed at some stage later in the legislative programme.

So I just want to clarify for the committee of the whole House that we will be progressing one Supplementary Order Paper, and that is Supplementary Order Paper 55, which amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018. The purpose of this amendment is to insert a new Part 9A into the bill to repeal clauses 30(1) and 31(1) in Part 5 of Schedule 3 of the Customs and Excise Act 2018. These clauses exempt champagne from excise equivalent duty under the 2018 Act, which is due to come into force on 1 October this year. This was not intended and would cost the Crown $2.7 million per year if the clauses are not removed. So I thought it was important to clarify that for the committee before we continue the debate.

I call the Hon Jacqui Dean.

💬 Hon Member: Oh, good choice.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m happy to take a call on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). We are debating all stages of the bill, and just to restate, probably, this is a tidy-up of legislation exercise. There might be some drafting errors, some oversights, some provisions that are non-controversial, and, indeed, the House does support this. There are a number of clauses in this bill, a number of changes to be made, much to the relief of the relevant Minister and department, no doubt. So I’ll just go through a couple of them.

The Parole Act—this is quite interesting, actually. So this bill will amend the Parole Act, and that will align the treatment of interim supervision orders and extended supervision orders. While National was in Government, we made some excellent changes and amendments to the Parole Act, and I’m interested to see that this clause is in this bill. Currently the Act allows for an arrest without warrant to be made if there’s been a breach of an extended supervision order. Extended supervision orders are an important tool that the justice system has. So this bill recommends in clause 60A amending section 73(2) of the Parole Act, and this would allow an arrest without warrant to be made for a breach of an interim supervision order. So this is absolutely logical, making good progress around justice laws in New Zealand.

Here’s another one: the Public Records Act. So, yeah, this was around a name change, or not, clause. The Governance and Administration Committee recommended removing Part 25 of the bill. The amendments in that “would change Archives New Zealand’s name to the National Archives of New Zealand. We do not consider that this name change is necessary at this time.” My colleagues are riveted. I’m just having a look around the room—yes, they are; across the Chamber—again, riveted. I know you are—or they are, because I wouldn’t bring you in, Mr Chair.

There’s another one which I thought was worth a mention.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Just stay on that one.

Oh, you want me to go over that?

💬 Andrew Bayly: Yes, I do.

No, no. I’m going to move on. Just finally, the State-Owned Enterprises Act I think is worth a bit of a mention. This—Part 27 of the bill, I’m talking about—seeks to amend the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986. The amendments that are being put in through this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) would require State-owned enterprises to publish accountability documents online after, of course, they have been provided to the Minister. So the Minister receives the accountability document; it then becomes publicly available. And, of course, in 1986, when this State-Owned Enterprises Act was brought about, there were no online facilities for distributing documents. Actually, you do see this increasingly through New Zealand legislation. When a bill comes to select committee often there will be a clause in there which provides for the release of documents to be online, and I’m thinking, maybe, of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act—that sort of public accountability and accessibility. Perhaps electoral law might be another example where we are now recognising that the New Zealand community is increasingly moving to an online platform, and the more we can put legislation online, the more accessible it becomes.

I’m just checking my team to see whether they’re riveted by—

💬 Hon Members: Yes!

Yes, they are. And just checking over the other side—yes, they are, because this is an important clause in this bill. I won’t go on. I might take another call, because there are a number of other clauses in here that are probably worth a good going over, but in the meantime I know there will be other members of the committee just champing at the bit to make a contribution.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I would like to acknowledge the previous speaker, the Hon Jacqui Dean, for taking three clauses which I was going to take. She has already addressed them, so I’ll take some other clause. I would also like to acknowledge Minister Sio for letting us know that Supplementary Order Paper 53 has been withdrawn, otherwise I would have spoken on that.

I would like to touch upon Part 19, “Justices of the Peace Act 1957”. Clause 57 states: “This Part amends the Justices of the Peace Act 1957 (the principal Act).” It has been a coincidence that I had a constituent who came to my office regarding this issue. He retired, and wanted the word “retired” with the title “JP”, because he was no more able to provide this service. By chance, this bill was in the House, and I discussed with him that there would be an amendment very soon, in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), which would give him that opportunity to have “(retired)” written with “JP”.

The reason was that he had had an accident, and due to that he is suffering from dementia, and he could not remember the things that were happening in the present. That’s why he wanted to retire, but there was no provision. I am very pleased that this bill is addressing that issue, and somebody who has served less than 10 years can write as a “JP (retired)” because of this provision being ratified.

The second part that I would like to touch upon is Part 21, “Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006”. I was part of the Government Administration Committee in my first two terms. It was very well chaired by the Hon Ruth Dyson, and she remembers that every term we had this Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act addressed in some manner. Again, this term I have become part of the select committee, the Governance and Administration Committee, very well chaired by our colleague—what’s his name?

💬 Hon Jacqui Dean: Brett Hudson.

Brett Hudson—exactly. I am touching on this part, where the board of drainlayers, gasfitters, and plumbers has got the right to impose some fees for the people who are doing this work. The ability to set the fees depends upon whether the notification is required under the prescribed terms and conditions of the licensee that operates the supervision. This is being done so that some money can be generated for the board for the running, and that is going to help through this provision.

The last part I would like to touch on is Part 22, “Policing Act 2008”. Part 22 amends the Policing Act 2008. Clause 67 amends section 41, which relates to unclaimed property. I remember that this issue was raised some time ago—that there is property under the supervision of the police which nobody claims, which does not have any value, and which the police can dispose of in due course. So this part will be amending the Policing Act. Subsection 5 of section 41 is replaced. The new subsection provides that property that is of little or low monetary value may be given away as an alternative to being destroyed, and that property that is not appropriate or practicable to sell may be destroyed or given away. That will reduce the burden on the police to take care of property that is not sellable or does not have much value.

These are some of the things which are being addressed in this bill. We know that all the parties in the House are supportive because these are non-contentious issues. There is no opposition to this Statutes Amendment Bill. I commend it to the committee.

Thank you, Mr Chair. What a pleasure to be talking tonight. We’ve been away on recess, and, you know, we all miss this place. Of course, I wanted to talk about something quite dear to my heart, it’s called the Public Finance Act 1989. Of course, as we all know, finances drive this economy and drive the ability to be able to spend on good social programmes. If we’re slack and lazy, that means we have less money to look after the good people of New Zealand, and that’s why I think this Government needs to be held to account, and that’s why this bill is very relevant: because it actually has a lot about the Public Finance Act.

What I would like to talk about—apart from just congratulating all the good members from this side who have done such wonderful speeches tonight; the only thing that’s missing is some wonderful contributions from the Government side. I’m feeling sad that our listeners can’t hear Government spokespeople actually stand up and deliver something that’s worthwhile in the Parliament tonight, because this is an important piece of legislation, as everyone has remarked, because these are the little changes that mean that we can achieve the great things for New Zealand.

Of course, this piece of legislation is always put through the House from time to time to try and tidy up things that do need addressing.

💬 Hon David Parker: Say something relevant?

I heard something from Mr Eagle over there.

💬 Hon David Parker: No; it was me.

Oh, Mr Parker. I’m glad you’re here, Associate Minister of Finance, with a razor mind, thinking about these things.

The issues I want to talk about are clauses 76 and 77, on the Reserves Boards. What this Governance and Administration Committee amendment in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) does is it actually strikes out clauses 76 and 77. What that means—and I know you will be someone who has a great deal of expertise in this, Mr Chair—is that these relate to schedule 4 organisations. Some of you may wonder what those might mean, but probably the best example, I think, might be where you’ve got small private cemeteries that are looked after by volunteers in remote parts of the country, even in parts of my electorate in South Auckland, where they are under an obligation to provide an audit.

Of course, you’ll probably be aware that Audit New Zealand, I think from memory, does about 3,500 audits a year. Many of them relate to very, very small entities. What this does is provide some flexibility. Those wonderful volunteers that go out every week and mow the lawns, get the weed-eater out—it’s good exercise—and look after those little cemetery plots in many of these places where many people do not even know that they exist: they’re the hard-working Kiwis, and what this does is reduce the burden that’s placed upon them. Often they’ve been set up as a historical trust—or a company or a partnership; but often a trust—that may have been in existence for 100 years, and this removes the requirement for an audit. It removes the requirement for the audit, which means that the Audit Office can actually concentrate on those entities that really do need to be focused on to make sure everyone is paying their proper share of taxes.

And, of course, what this does is it sets—at the moment there’s a threshold of $100,000, and that’s quite a high threshold.

💬 Hon Member: Don’t go!

I’m very sad to see more Government members taking a walk—I don’t know where to, but they’re taking a walk.

What this does is it has a $100,000 threshold, and on the face of it, for an audit, that’s actually quite a lot of money. What this does, under new section 450AAB, is gives the Governor-General the power to amend the $100,000 amount by Order in Council made on the joint recommendation of the Minister—currently the Minister of Finance—and the Minister of Conservation. Now, by being judicious about that, that means that we can capture a whole range of these small trusts and entities and actually look at that $100,000, because that is actually quite—[Time expired]

Malo e lelei. Kia ora anō—kia ora anō. In standing to address the committee on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), perusing through this, it is about tidying up legislation, as my colleague the Hon Jacqui Dean indicated, and clarifying minor technical corrections that need to be made.

As I have perused through this bill, it’s interesting that now, as a member of Parliament, I note that there are a number of parts to this bill, as proposed amendments, that I have acted upon as counsel. I refer specifically to Part 3, “Care of Children Act 2004”, and Part 4, “Child Support Act 1991”. The parts that I’ll be reading out in the relevant corresponding legislation are about aligning them in terms of an amendment, where a lawyer appointed to represent a child or young person or to assist the court may submit his or her invoice for fees and expenses to any registrar of the court. Previously, it was the case that counsel, having been appointed by the particular court, was required to file their invoice to that court that they were appointed by, which may have been out of town at times. So that’s Part 5.

There is also Part 11, which is to do with the Domestic Violence Act. Again, similarly, it is about streamlining and increasing efficiencies to facilitate the development of a central unit for the processing and payment of service provider invoices. So where counsel have been appointed by the court to assist in that capacity, either representing a child or any other person or a party, with this amendment under the Statutes Amendment Bill, they are now enabled to file the expenses to any registrar of the court. So that’s for Part 13 as well, “Family Proceedings Act 1980”, and Part 23, “Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988”. This is all legislation under this bill that is standardising and making consistent and aligning.

It’s also interesting that I note there are other provisions under this bill where the amendments proposed are for pieces of legislation on which I’ve appeared before the court in acting and addressing the court. I refer to Part 10, “District Court Act 2016”, where it is conferred on community magistrates and justices of the peace the same powers as judges to deal with contempt in the course of proceedings before them. There has been occasion when, as counsel, I have appeared in court, judges have been abused, magistrates have been abused, and justices of the peace have been abused. However, there has not been recourse for our magistrates and justices of the peace, as there now is with this proposed amendment.

I also speak further to my participation and involvement with justices of the peace at Part 19 of this bill, “Justices of the Peace Act 1957”, which seeks to enable or to empower the Secretary for Justice to authorise a justice of the peace with fewer than 10 years of service to use the designation “JP (retired)”—that is, if the secretary thinks it appropriate in the circumstances, which may be ill health, injury, or disability, to have them designated as a JP (retired), rather than having to, in effect, serve 10 years of service before that recognition and acknowledgment is duly accorded.

I also refer to another piece of legislation that I have acted upon as counsel. Part 20, “Parole Act 2002”, makes it an offence to breach an extended supervision order. There is an amendment proposed, adding a new offence where a breach of an interim supervision order would require imposition of a penalty—previously, it hasn’t. Importantly, under the Parole Act there is a further proposed amendment, significantly, placing on the chief executive similar requirements to notify victims in respect of these interim supervision orders that have been breached. The same entitlement or standard that is there for the extended supervision order is now proposed with the amendment.

There are other pieces under this legislation that, opportunity permitted, I would speak to. Time permitting, it is a case of other members within my party to address the Chairman, unless the Hon Aupito William Sio wishes to respond to any part that has been addressed to the committee.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 55 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Parts 1 to 28 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading