Statutes Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought that I’d be delivering my first of 42 speeches on as many parts but, perhaps, it’s with some relief to all concerned, including me, that, in fact, we are taking the bill as a whole for the purpose of debate in this, the committee stage, so that allows me a little bit more licence. I don’t intend to use all the licence that’s afforded to me, and, indeed, not necessarily all the time either in the five-minute call—making some notes from a National Party perspective on the Statutes Amendment Bill.

I say “from a National Party perspective” but, in fact, I don’t imagine that there will be very much difference in the respective parties’ positions. Certainly, the Statutes Amendment Bill is designed to be technical, short, and non-controversial. It was as recently as about 24 hours ago that I noted that that seemed to be very much the case in relation to the Statutes Amendment Bill that is currently before us. The bill itself is not that short, really, but each of the amendments that are being made are, in themselves, quite short. So I think that we can say that the aims are fairly met in that regard.

Non-controversial amendments—again, as I noted yesterday, the lack of controversy associated with what is in front of us is reflected in the fact that a copy of the bill has been circulated to the parties in advance. I know from my small corner of the kingdom—the courts portfolio that I hold for the National Party, in Opposition, of course—that I have had a chance to cast my eye over anything that might affect the courts portfolio, and I am pleased to confirm that there’s nothing that I deemed controversial on behalf of the party. Similarly, it seems others in their respective parties and their respective portfolios have similarly regarded the changes as being pretty sensible and not worth any particular—well, not worth the scrutiny in a way that would be anything other than essentially noting for the record that such scrutiny has taken place, and that we’re all pretty comfortable with what is being put forward.

I suppose I could just about take the liberty of reading out the 42 names of these statutes that are being amended. Of course, I won’t, but suffice to say that there are a large number of them—of course, 42 being a large number. I’m grateful for the signal of approbation from the chair, but it’s probably worth noting that there’s actually quite a considerable range of different instruments. So we have, for example, the Burial and Cremation Act which seems—that’s Part 4 of the bill. I was going to say we seem to be starting with that which would be, in some way, on a logical basis, perhaps the thing that should conclude the remarks, burial and cremation generally being a pretty final kind of act, and no pun intended as far as the word “act” goes.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: A fitting end.

A fitting end, indeed; a grave matter, indeed. Anyway, I’ll move on.

💬 Michael Wood: How about we bring this to a fitting end?

So we have the—pardon me?

💬 Michael Wood: Let’s bring this to a fitting end.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: A fitting end.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: You’re digging a hole. I’d stop now.

I’m digging a hole, and I’m being begged to put the House out of its misery by Mr Wood and Ms Marcroft; fair enough too. So the Disputes Tribunal Act—it is within, as I say, my courts portfolio to be interested in the Disputes Tribunal Act. I’m mustering as much interest as I can this close to dinner and on this bill. Suffice to say that it is subject to the Act and a very worthy part indeed. The Food Act—that’s quite a lot of interest to a lot of members, particularly at 5:57 p.m., and I note it’s almost time for you to leave the chair for your dinner break, as you and your colleagues are wont to say, Madam Chair. So I’ll pass on briefly to the Parliamentary Service Act. That’s interesting; something that’s of interest, in both senses of the phrase, to all members and our associates in this place.

💬 Andrew Falloon: One minute—not long to go.

And with one minute to go, I will note this is probably the first time ever that the words “anti - money-laundering” have been used in this country without a prefix that is an expletive. None the less, we have a piece of legislation called the Anti-Money Laundering—“AML”—and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act. The reason I’m focusing on this is because it’s within Part 1 and I thought that I was going to be speaking for five minutes on Part 1 alone, so I gave it a pretty thorough interrogation, I can assure you, Madam Chair, in recent times.

💬 Andrew Falloon: What’s in Part 2?

But, nevertheless, we’ll see how far we get—and I don’t think, despite Mr Falloon’s encouragement, we’ll get as far as Part 2. So that may be the evening’s entertainment yet ahead of us. So it is with much regret, actually, that I’m, ironically, not going to get on to the AML business—

💬 Andrew Falloon: He’s run out of time.

Mr Falloon’s interjecting; he can’t even spell AML. But anyway, I’ll leave it there. It seems like good work, worthy of support.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 386 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 385 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to Part 35 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 387 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to Part 38A be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 42, the Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Corrections Amendment Bill with amendment, the Legislation Bill with amendment, and divided into two bills, and the Statutes Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.