Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) Link to this
I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a second time. As the House will be aware, the Statutes Amendment Bill is a useful vehicle for making 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. The bill was reported back by the Government Administration Committee on 10 August 2007.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
Indeed it was. I thank the Government Administration Committee for its careful consideration of the bill and I endorse the committee’s recommended amendments to the bill and note that they are consistent with the overall purposes of Statutes Amendment bills.
The bill amends 50 Acts. The amendments proposed by the bill include the following. The amendment to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 empowers District Court judges and other specified court officials to authorise the use, when executing certain warrants under the Act, of facsimile copies of the warrants in question.
The amendment to the Defence Act 1990 changes references from “Chiefs of Staff” to “Chiefs of Service”. This reflects changes in terminology used by the armed forces.
The amendment to the Gas Act 1992 ensures that regulations can be made to enable gas consumers to switch gas suppliers.
The amendment to the Racing Act 2003 relates to the nomination of an advisory panel that advises the Minister for Racing and the appointment of certain members to the New Zealand Racing Board. The amendment provides for a panel member who is to be absent from a panel meeting to designate a person to participate in his or her place at that meeting.
The amendment to the Biosecurity Act 1993 provides that inspectors in conducting inspections of a transitional facility or a biosecurity control area may seize unauthorised goods along with risk goods if unauthorised goods are found. Risk goods are goods that may harbour harmful organisms, while unauthorised goods include imported goods that have not been declared or goods that have been cleared using misleading or fraudulent documents. This amendment will simplify an inspector’s powers to seize non-risk unauthorised goods.
Further amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 provide that third parties wishing to carry out works on or in relation to the water supply assets of Watercare Services Ltd meet the same requirements that apply in respect of work on or in relation to local authority waterworks. These requirements include notice provisions and the need to obtain consent to carry out the work.
The bill contains an amendment to the Real Estate Agents Act 1976. It makes clear that references to a salesperson includes persons engaged as well as those employed by a real estate agent. The amendment makes it clear that licensed real estate agents must retain custody of certificates of approval for every salesperson working for them, including the majority of salespersons who are independent contractors. The Government has agreed that this provision be removed during the Committee stage and the matter dealt with as part of the wider review of the Real Estate Agents Act 1976, which is currently underway.
The bill also contains an amendment to the Public Audit Act 2001 relating to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament that was established in 2005. The House established the register through inclusion in the Standing Orders of the House rather than by legislation. The Auditor-General’s role in reviewing the returns and in inquiring and reporting on any specific issues is included in the change to the Standing Orders. However, it was not possible to include the necessary powers to carry out this role in the Standing Orders as such powers should more rightfully reside in legislation. At the time of introduction all parties and independent members supported this and saw it as appropriate for the Statutes Amendment Bill as it simply reinforced the Standing Order provisions. It now appears that this will not proceed as some parties no longer support giving the Auditor-General power to look into the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament.
The examples I have mentioned in the Statutes Amendment Bill clearly demonstrate the value of these bills in advancing legislative amendments for a wide range of practical and useful purposes. I would like to thank all members of the House for the cooperative approach adopted towards the Statutes Amendment bills and this bill in particular.
Phil HeatleyHon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
Thank you. In response to feedback from some members, in future it is the Government’s intention to employ a slightly amended process for Statutes Amendment bills with the aim of regularising the time of such bills as far as it is practicable. This will provide greater predictability around the timing of such bills to assist members to build time into their annual parliamentary diaries and schedules to consider amendments proposed for Statutes Amendment bills.
Again, I thank the members of the Government Administration Committee for their careful and helpful consideration of this bill and I commend it to the House.
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) Link to this
I rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Statutes Amendment Bill. and I thank the Minister the Hon Clayton Cosgrove for his kind remarks in regard to the excellent Government Administration Committee, which did a fine job of looking at all 50 Acts that this Statues Amendment Bill amends.
Hon David CarterThis Statues Amendment Bill amends 50 Acts. Can I say to members of the House—and to anyone who may be listening to this riveting speech—that this is one of those rare occasions when we do have multiparty, or multipartisan, if you like, support for this type of action. We are talking about an omnibus bill, which is a useful tool, in terms of the process of Parliament, for any Government to amend in a non-controversial and technical way. Not everything in Parliament is controversial and adversarial, and can I say that that makes the life of an Opposition spokesman quite difficult, when I am supposed to speak on something that has 50 amendments in it. But having said that, I say that there are a number of issues I wish to canvass with the House.
First of all, I thank the officials who gave us excellent advice on the select committee, and all the members of the select committee. At an appropriate time, National intends to move a Supplementary Order Paper in regard to the Real Estate Agents Act 1976, although I think I heard the Minister say in his speech that the Government itself intends to do that. If the Minister is intending to do that, I ask him to nod. So it appears as though that might be taken care of. A member from within the National caucus wrote to the Minister, and the Minister did not respond to that letter, but he is clearly responding now, so it looks like that matter is attended to.
The second issue I think the members of the select committee struggled with for some time was the amendments to the Real Estate Agents Act 1976—which I have mentioned—and also the amendments in relation to the Ombudsmen and the Audit Office with regard to a number of matters there. The reason the committee considered that over a period of time was that it was neither non-controversial nor minor in its outcome. It may have been intended that that was what was going to be the case, but effectively it took what was an action within the Standing Orders out of the Standing Orders, and introduced legislation around it. That should not happen under this circumstance. In fact, it should happen in separate legislation, or in a separate debate through a committee that is tasked with looking at the detail of it. On balance, the committee decided that it was not the right vehicle for that, so it was removed.
As biosecurity spokesman I was pleased to see that the amendments to the Biosecurity Act 1993—which, as the Minister said, allows inspectors to seize unauthorised goods along with risk goods—will simplify an inspector’s powers to seize non-risk, unauthorised goods, including imported goods that have not been declared, or goods that have been cleared using misleading or fraudulent documentation. That is also something that is very positive in this process.
I also say that the select committee did not receive a large number of submissions on this bill. It would not be appropriate for me as the chair to say at this stage how many submissions it received. I am sure other members might want to speak on that, if the Minister has not done so already. The submission we received was of a very high quality. Having said that, I point out that the Statutes Amendment Bill is what it was intended to be: a non-controversial, highly technical amendment. It is my pleasure to support the passage of this legislation through the House.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
It is a pleasure to take a call on the Statutes Amendment Bill. May I say this is the first Statutes Amendment Bill that I have experienced as a member, so I have had to bow to those members who have been here a bit longer than me on how this process works. It has been a learning experience. The bill is an omnibus bill that makes miscellaneous technical amendments to Acts in order to fix discrepancies. Other speakers have referred to the fact that the Statutes Amendment Bill amends 50 different Acts. Its format allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed.
I add my thanks to those of others to all of the parliamentary parties for their consideration and feedback on the bill. I acknowledge the work of the various officials who coordinated the administrative aspects of the development of the bill. I also echo the comments of the chair of the Government Administration Committee, Shane Ardern. The bill is a constructive approach to getting something done—to getting very necessary work done.
Fifty Acts are to be amended. I do not want to talk about 50 Acts, but I want to mention a few. One amendment that really struck my attention was to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. It allows court officials to use facsimile copies of warrants. That seems to be very simple and very necessary. We are also proposing to change the name of the Ministry of Energy (Abolition) Act to the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act, which again is non-controversial but has good reasons behind it. Other members have mentioned the amendment to the Racing Act, which would allow a suitable replacement to sit on the Racing Board nomination advisory panel in the place of a panel member who cannot be present. Another amendment would allow customs inspectors to seize imported goods that have not been declared or goods that have been declared using misleading or fraudulent documents, even if the goods are not at-risk goods.
One amendment that struck my attention was the update to the Human Rights Act. The amendment is about extending section 136 of the principal Act to apply to civil unions and de facto relationships. It corrects an oversight in the passing of the Relationships (Statutory References) Act 2005. This is consistent with New Zealand’s excellent commitment to human rights. Human rights legislation is very necessary because it protects people in New Zealand from discrimination in a number of areas of life. Just in case people do not know what discrimination is, I will tell them that it happens when a person is treated unfairly or less favourably than another person in the same or similar circumstances.
Statutes Amendment bills are designed to provide technical and non-controversial amendments to existing statutes. The amendments in them cannot effect policy change. Because unanimous, cross-party support must be obtained prior to the inclusion of an amendment in a Statutes Amendment Bill, many of the debates and issues have been sorted out before the first reading. However, one of the things I learnt very quickly is that should just one member object to a clause in the bill during the Committee of the whole House stage, that clause is struck out, which means that only those provisions in Statutes Amendment bills that are acceptable to all the members of the House can proceed.
I note—and it is in our report—that there are members who will object to Part 36 of the bill, which amends the Public Audit Act 2001, on the basis that the amendment does not fit with the conventions relating to Statutes Amendment bills because it is not minor or non-controversial. Part 36 of the bill provides for the Auditor-General to perform services in relation to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. As the bill was introduced, the services that could be performed are review, inquiry, or reporting services that are currently provided for under the Standing Orders. It is important to recall, for the benefit of listeners to this debate, just what the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament is and how it came about. The Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill was introduced in 2003, and as a consequence the House amended its Standing Orders in 2005 to provide a system for members of Parliament to register their pecuniary interests—in other words, the assets, debts, and gifts they may each have accumulated or received. The purpose of the pecuniary interests register is in line with other steps of public accountability that are very important in an open democracy.
The World Bank basic score card describes 10 transparency reform components. No. 1 is interesting; it is the public disclosure of the assets and incomes of politicians. It actually goes a bit further than that and includes the public disclosure of those matters by candidates, public officials, and their dependants. Some people’s wives might have something to say about that. The World Bank governance indicators rate New Zealand very highly in the anti-corruption stakes. Again, going back to the World Bank governance indicators, we score enormously well—way up in the high 90s—on most things. Voice and accountability in 2006 was at 97.1 percent, political stability in 2006 was at 93.8 percent, Government effectiveness was at 96.2 percent, regulatory quality in 2006 was at 96.9 percent, rule of law was at 97.6 percent, and the control of corruption was at 98.5 percent. That is a record for us to be proud of.
Thus the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament is a vital tool for ensuring that New Zealand has transparency in its politics regarding members of Parliament. I understand the right of members to object to the inclusion of the powers of the Auditor-General as set out in Part 36 of this bill, but I thought it was worth recalling, for the benefit of listeners to this debate, what that issue is about.
The chair of the Government Administration Committee, Shane Ardern, has mentioned that there were a small number of submissions on the bill. One submission that has led to a proposal for change was about issues around the proposed amendments in clauses 32 and 33 to the Companies Act 1993. Consequently, the committee is recommending that those amendments be deleted. There was quite a long discussion about the Companies Act and about what happens in liquidations and so on. I thank the officials for their patience with the committee in helping us to understand those issues, and for taking us through them. The other change that is being proposed is with regard to the Local Government Act 2002, where the committee is recommending that the bill be amended by inserting clauses 108A, 109A, and 109B. The main effect of those amendments is to confer on Watercare Services Ltd the same protection that is currently afforded to local authorities under section 225(1) of that Act. There are also consequential amendments.
Of course, many other statutes are to be amended, and I am sure that other speakers will mention them. Some are laws that I did not know existed. Somebody may be able to tell me exactly how many statutes we have on the book in New Zealand. I suspect it is many.
The member says there are lots and lots, and I am sure that is right. It was interesting to find that there were things like the Tokelau Act, the Gas Act, the Biosecurity Act—well, I knew about the Biosecurity Act—and some other Acts that people mentioned, I think, in the first reading that were quite obscure Acts, but that I am sure are very, very important. I am looking forward to some debate on the various amendments during the Committee of the whole House stage.
Once again I record my thanks to everyone involved in putting this bill together. As other speakers have said, it is a rare moment when we agree on something in this House, a rare moment of consultation and of working together to do the business that really needs to be done.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this
The member for Taranaki - King Country has already addressed the concerns expressed about the Public Audit Act 2001. There was an argument in respect of this Statutes Amendment Bill that Part 36, which amends the Public Audit Act, did not fit into the conventions relating to statutes amendments. I can understand why the Government Administration Committee expressed this concern. Indeed, Dr Richard Worth raised the issue in his first reading speech that, essentially, if one looks at Appendix B of the Standing Orders, which deals with the pecuniary interests of members of this House and the requirement that members fill out certain returns each year, one sees that there is very much a code. There is no need for that to be supplemented by references in the Public Audit Act. I would have thought that that particular concern should be paid to the kinds of provisions that were proposed to be included in the Public Audit Act, because of the possibility of judicial review.
Of course, no court will entertain judicial review of the legislative process of this House or, I would have thought, of the requirement that members complete declarations or returns in terms of their responsibilities under the pecuniary interests section of the Standing Orders. None the less, we would not want to get to a situation where by a side wind the courts were starting to review any aspect of the process of this House. This is not to say that what is proposed to be included in the Public Audit Act 2001 is necessarily erroneous, but the select committee said that it is not the kind of provision that should be amended by a Statutes Amendment Bill, and I endorse what my colleague has said.
I want to make only a couple of comments about some of the legislation that is proposed to be amended by this bill. The first category of legislation I wish to refer to deals with the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. Most of the amendments proposed in this bill repeal enactments that have been superseded by laws promulgated by the States themselves. The remaining amendments tidy up some miscellaneous matters. I must say that I was surprised when I looked at the scope of the amendments proposed to the Cook Islands Act 1915, for example, and what it is proposed to repeal. I think the legislation is probably overdue for comprehensive reform. Although one can understand this tidy-up exercise for these islands in the context of a Statutes Amendment Bill, perhaps all three pieces of legislation need to be comprehensively reviewed in due course.
Dr Sharples observed in his first reading speech that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Peters, had had considerable help from Professor Tony Angelo for the work that he had done with aspects of the law in Tokelau and Niue, and from Alison Quentin-Baxter, who was recently honoured in the Queen’s Birthday honours for the work she has done in the Pacific Islands over the years. I, too, endorse the work of both those fine New Zealanders. Professor Angelo, of course, is well known to members of this House. He regularly makes submissions to select committees, most recently in relation to the Wills Bill. He has always been a very helpful submitter and has made a huge contribution to the law over the years, particularly in the Pacific Islands, where he has had a very real interest. I know that he has spent many months in Tokelau serving the people of those islands in respect of law reform. I praise him and acknowledge his contribution to the law reform process in the Pacific Islands.
The next category of legislation I want to refer to deals with minor amendments—for example, to the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Part 18 of the bill makes a minor amendment to the Family Courts Act 1980 to reflect the passage of the Civil Union Act. That is the kind of minor law reform that is required in this Statutes Amendment Bill, which is designed to reflect law changes or, as in the case of Part 29—which deals with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006—to remedy minor errors. I will not waste the time of the House by going into the detail of that. A similar minor amendment is in Part 30, which deals with the Legal Services Act 2000.
I want to make one brief comment about Part 8, which proposes to amend the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. The amendment proposes changes to a section that permits facsimile copies of warrants to be utilised. I really wonder why it is necessary to provide for that kind of detail on procedural matters in legislation. It is the sort of thing that is, in my opinion, more properly covered in a comprehensive set of rules for a Family Court. I sometimes think we make a rod for our own backs in this House when we have legislative requirements like that, because the legislative process is time consuming and expensive. We know, for example, that this legislation was introduced earlier this year and has been before the select committee for some time. I would have thought that this kind of minor procedural stuff is more effectively dealt with by rules. I make that comment in relation not only to that particular species of family legislation but also to the legislation that has been the subject of debate this afternoon about making miscellaneous changes to other family law statutes.
The only other part I wish to refer to is Part 41, which amends the Resource Management Act 1991. It provides that the Attorney-General is to be responsible for appointing an environment commissioner or deputy environment commissioner, and that the Minister of Justice shall henceforth not have responsibility for this particular task. This is entirely consistent with other mechanisms for appointing judges. Of course, the Prime Minister is responsible under the Judicature Act for appointment of the Chief Justice, but the Attorney-General is responsible for the appointment of other judicial officers—judges in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, and the District Court—and is also responsible, as we know, for the appointment of coroners. We know that Dr Cullen made a complete hash of that earlier this year in relation to the appointment of the coroner in Wellington and that he dealt in a very shabby and unacceptable manner with Mr Garry Evans. Mr Evans has, thankfully, now been made a relief coroner by the Attorney-General, who saw the error of his ways.
It makes sense that these persons who perform an important judicial function as commissioners should also be appointed by the Attorney-General. The only point I make—and it applies not only to these appointments but also to the other judicial appointments—is that while the Attorney-General does have responsibility for these appointments it is extremely important that he or she properly consult other members of this House on such appointments. In the case, for example, of Supreme Court judges, they are now appointed until the age of 70. They wield considerable power, and it is extremely important that the Attorney-General consult not only with members of his own party but with other parties as well so that the best decisions are made. That having been said, I am pleased that the Attorney-General will now have responsibility for the appointment of all judicial officers, because the change here reflects what happens with appointments to the courts I have mentioned.
As previous speakers have said, this is a mishmash of legislation that deals with minor changes, some of a technical nature, some to correct previous errors, and some to tidy up statutes. Subject to the point that the member for Taranaki - King Country made in relation to the Public Audit Act, and subject also to the comments that were made by the Government Administration Committee in its commentary, National supports the second reading of this bill.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I a au e tū nei, ka rere ngā whakaaro ki tērā e takoto māi rā i roto o Ngāti Kahungunu. Me mihi ki a Ngāti Kahungunu rāua ko Ngāti Porou e tangi nei ki tā rātau mokopuna, tamaiti i tēnei pō. Hirini, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā. Me pēnei rawa te kōrero, ko te hunga mate ki te hunga mate, ko tātau e kōrero nei, e wānanga nei i ngā kōrero huri noa, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau. Kia ora.
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. As I stand here, my thoughts fly to that one lying in state in Ngāti Kahungunu. Indeed, I acknowledge Ngāti Kahungunu and Ngāti Porou, who are grieving for their grandson and child tonight. Syd, sleep, slumber, and rest there. The saying should be this: the dead to the dead, and we the living to the living, as we make speeches here and debate what is being said. Throughout the Chamber, greetings to you and to all of us. Thank you.]
As far as I can see, debates on Statutes Amendment bills are generally rather timid debates, such as we have had tonight, in keeping with their very nature. The amendments, from what I understand, need to be minor, technical, and non-controversial, and so it is with the 50 assorted statutes being amended here tonight. But when this bill came into the House on 1 March, the debate took on the Exclusive Brethren Church, giggling schoolgirls, and openly gay members of Parliament. As a new member still learning the ropes, I thought I must have got the wrong bill, or perhaps there is more to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act than meets the eye.
On a more serious note, the Māori Party is happy to support the bill, which introduces amendments to these 50 Acts administered in a host of different departments. Most of the amendments, as mentioned, are inconsequential. The fact that the application for the conversion of a society into a branch in the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982 now requires only one copy rather than two copies will probably not make tomorrow’s headlines. I do not think there will be too much controversy associated with adding the subscriber’s name and address details in applications for incorporations within the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. Actually, we wondered how the charitable trust movement had survived for 50 years without needing these sorts of details.
Some of the changes are a consequence of the benefit of new technologies, so we are happy to support amendments to the Care of Children Act 2004 and the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act for the purposes of enabling any authority executing a warrant to be able to do so on the basis of a faxed copy.
The amendments to the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act 1989 are likewise a result of improvements and advancements in this sector, with the addition of definitions of “biofuel” and “engine fuel”. There are, however, some more substantial changes, which I would like to refer to briefly.
One significant amendment is to the Local Government Act 2002, which provides water care with the same protection currently afforded to local authorities under the Act. It requires that third parties that want to carry out work on or in relation to a local authority’s waterworks must notify it and get its consent, thus minimising the potential for damage to the water infrastructure. It is a move towards transparency that we fully endorse.
The proposed amendments to the Electricity Act 1992 have special meaning in relation to the ongoing adverse impact of electricity costs upon the more vulnerable segments of our population. The tragic situation in South Auckland earlier this year highlighted the fact that there is no incentive for power companies to avoid disconnections. In fact, the Association of Non-Governmental Organisations in Aotearoa has reported that in the company accounts of one power company it had made the princely sum of $6.5 million alone, just from the disconnection and reconnection fees that it had charged customers.
In line with this, the amendments intended to gather information about the generation, conversion, transformation, conveyance, sale, consumption, and use of electricity for statistical purposes are a very useful change, which we hope will provide the nation with a stronger information base with which to understand the true cost of electricity charges. If we as a Parliament are committed to ensuring New Zealanders have access to an electricity supply that is efficient, fair, reliable, and environmentally sustainable, then having the best information in front of us is obviously a priority.
In much the same way we support the amendments to the Gas Act, which will mean that consumers can switch gas suppliers. Currently the regulations allow any changes to be made only in respect of gas retailers. We have a particular interest in protecting the rights of the low-income, domestic consumers of energy sources to have the opportunities and information to enable them to get the best deal for their dollar, and we think that this amendment will assist that.
Another issue that stands to impact on the health and well-being of New Zealanders is the proposal to amend the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994. We are happy to support the proposal for the Minister of Health to consult the Health and Disability Commissioner on the appointment of a deputy commissioner. It is vital that the person appointed to the deputy role, who, after all, may have the delegated authority of the commissioner for specific functions and who will deputise for the commissioner on occasion, must be someone who has the confidence of the commissioner to be an independent voice for that agency.
Although we are looking for independence, the Māori Party is interested in the concerns raised by the select committee about the Public Audit Act 2001. Earlier Mr Finlayson provided a solid overview of this, but my understanding is that the role of the Controller and Auditor-General is to monitor the lawful and efficient use of public moneys and financial accountability to the public sector and to report findings to Parliament. The amendments in this bill introduce services in relation to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. Mr Finlayson noted the concerns of the National Party that the Standing Orders encompass the provisions requiring all MPs to make returns on their pecuniary interests, but I have to ask what the problem is with increasing accountability and transparency of the pecuniary interests of members of Parliament. Why would we want to stand in the way of being held to account?
Another of the set of amendments we are interested in concerns the Resource Management Act. The changes provide for the Attorney-General, not the Minister of Justice, to appoint environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners. These are extremely significant appointments and, given the importance of direct accountability to Parliament and the high value we place on having an independent, external point of view, we support the shift to bring these appointments under the responsibility of the Attorney-General.
Finally, I make reference to the amendments to the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the Trade in Endangered Species Act. Both sets of provisions enable inspectors to seize unauthorised goods, along with the risk goods, if unauthorised goods are found, or, in the case of endangered species, to seize a specimen of endangered, threatened, or exploited species from a ship, an aircraft, a port, or an aerodrome if the species is being traded. It raises the question for the Māori Party of how decisions about risks and endangered species are made, particularly when we consider the current environment of both the Wai 262 and the Crown discussion document on bioprospecting.
Bioprospecting, the search for and gathering of biological material that may have some commercial value, is an extremely contentious area of debate as the policy pre-empts the Waitangi Tribunal’s findings by assuming that the Crown already owns biological resources. The Wai 262 claim seeks recognition and protection for mātauranga Māori in respect of indigenous flora and fauna. As part of the hearings, scrutiny has been applied to the intellectual property regime, the protected objects regime, environmental decision-making, and the wider way in which policy is arrived at regarding biological and genetic resources of indigenous and taonga species. The Wai 262 claim raises relevant issues on the ownership of biological resources on mātauranga Māori, and indeed the debates that may be had around the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the Trade in Endangered Species Act.
As I said earlier, from what I have seen Statutes Amendment bills are generally played down as minor, technical amendments that are not worthy of terribly much attention. But there are some important relationships and contextual matters that we suggest officials should give consideration to. The submissions on the bioprospecting policy framework close on 12 October 2007, and the consultation process officially finishes this Thursday, actually, 6 September. Meanwhile, the Wai 262 hearings have only recently wound up, and it would no doubt be some time before the Waitangi Tribunal reports back.
In the meantime there are two particular recommendations that the Government could follow when considering particular issues of sensitivity to do with endangered, threatened, or exploited species. It could agree that further policy making on such matters is deferred until the tribunal’s report is released, and if that is too challenging it could agree to an alternative course of action whereby the Crown endorses an ethical framework for resolution, which is basically about operationalising a working Treaty relationship instead of Māori being a bit player.
The Māori Party will support this bill as it moves into the Committee stage of the debate, but we simply raise for the attention of the House the need for new systems for protecting indigenous knowledge, a code of conduct for researchers, and a comprehensive and thoroughly thought-through strategy around the access and benefit sharing of genetic resources, as just some of the issues that have arisen out of this bill and warrant more in-depth study. Kia ora tātou.
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) Link to this
There has been earlier comment in the House today about one particular provision in the Statutes Amendment Bill that is not to proceed, and it is on that particular part that I would like to make some passing comment. The starting point, of course, for any discussion on the types of issues that arise in a debate on a Statutes Amendment Bill is that it is enshrined in our Standing Orders that bills are to relate to one subject, and only the most limited exceptions to that are created. One of those exceptions relates to Statutes Amendment bills. That is why, in the course of this argument, a number of speakers have spoken about the mishmash nature of this legislation, which contains multiple parts and makes multiple changes.
Part 36 justifiably consumed time before the Government Administration Committee. Headed “Public Audit Act 2001”, it sets up a rival regime to what has been very carefully laid out in the Standing Orders of this Parliament. There was an argument that the provisions in the Standing Orders relating to the register of pecuniary interests were completely unnecessary because it is clear law and accepted convention in this House that if a member has a conflicting financial interest, he or she is bound to disclose it. But out of an abundance of caution, and in keeping with what is going on in a number of Western parliaments, this Parliament wisely decided that it would establish a more formal pecuniary interests regime. That was set up quite recently in Appendix B of the Standing Orders.
The argument, really, in connection with Part 36 swings around Part 2 of Appendix B, because it is there that the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament is set up. There are formal requirements that, as members know, returns are to be made on an annual basis as to the exact asset position of any member. But it is significant—and this is where the argument takes us—that under clause 15 of Part 2 of that appendix, the Auditor-General is given wide-ranging powers of review and inquiry. Not only does the Auditor-General, when the returns flow in from individual members, have to look and see what has occurred but the obligation he or she has is a continuing one, in terms of a power to inquire either on request—that might be a request by a member of the public or by the media—or on his or her own initiative as to whether any member has complied or is complying with the obligations that are in Appendix B of the Standing Orders.
The Auditor-General is given powers to follow through if he or she decides to embark on an inquiry and finds that there has been a breach. Under clause 15(3) of Appendix B of the Standing Orders the Auditor-General, after he or she has completed an inquiry, can make a report to the House on the findings of that inquiry. That is much more than simply a slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket, because a report to the House brings into play the considerable contempt powers of this House. Within Standing Order 400 there are illustrations of contempt. The most relevant one would be Standing Order 400(h), which states that the House may treat as a contempt a member “knowingly providing false or misleading information in a return of pecuniary interests:”. If a contempt were committed, that issue would go the Privileges Committee. If it were well founded, it would carry with it the substantial sanctions that the committee can impose. Those sanctions, of course, include fines and imprisonment.
So we have set up that regime, that self-contained code, as others have said, and the Government, for some reason best known to itself, decided it was not content with that regime and wanted additional powers to be engrafted. That was wrong in principle. If additional powers are seen to be appropriate, then changes should be made to the Standing Orders. But the Government decided not to do that, and instead decided to make far-reaching changes to the Public Audit Act. And they are far-reaching changes, because the bill proposed to give powers to the Auditor-General in the nature of access to premises, the issuing of warrants, and the ability to bust down doors and enter property in order to search. That is why a number of members of this House expressed concern that in constitutional terms this was clearly an inappropriate course to follow.
A key provision in the context of Statutes Amendment bills is that one MP, one member of this House, can at any particular part of the parliamentary process take objection to the inclusion of a particular provision. There is nothing like that in any other part of our Standing Orders, and, perhaps wisely, the Government Administration Committee, so ably chaired by a competent farmer from the Taranaki - King Country electorate, decided that the move should be done pre-emptively rather than waiting for what might happen in the Committee stage, and that objection should be taken. There was good reason for doing that, because this provision was not a technical amendment. It was not a non-controversial amendment. It was a far-reaching constitutional change that should never have found its way into this bill.
So I commend the select committee. I commend speakers who have earlier commented on the inappropriateness of Part 36. What will happen? Well, Part 36 will not be in the bill when it goes through the further stages that lie ahead, and that is quite proper.