Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2)

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) Link to this

I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration.

As the House is well aware, Statutes Amendment bills are a useful vehicle for making minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. They allow amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed. This is achieved with the support of all members of this House.

The House has only recently dealt with the Statutes Amendment Bill. The reason for the second bill being introduced so soon after this is primarily to regularise the annual timing of the Statutes Amendment bills, following requests from members of this Parliament needing to plan their consideration of the proposed amendments within their annual parliamentary schedules.

I thank members for their feedback on the Statutes Amendment bill process, and for their cooperation with the revised process, as all members had input into it. I also thank members for their consideration of the amendments proposed for this bill, and for expressing their support for the amendments included in it. I acknowledge the splendid work of the various officials coordinating the administrative aspects of the development of the bill, and those who have provided very valuable support and information for members while they have been considering the proposed amendments.

The bill as introduced amends 14 Acts administered by eight different departments. Proposed amendments include an amendment to the Crimes Act 1961 to correct and remove a reference to the death penalty, which was abolished some time ago, and an amendment to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995 to substitute the term “video record” for the outdated term “video tape”. This change in terminology is to reflect the definition in the Evidence Act 2006, which is broad enough to cover digital video recordings. An amendment to the Historic Places Act 1993 amends a drafting error and removes ambiguity in a provision that creates an offence of, and imposes a penalty for, the damage or destruction of a property under the control of the Historic Places Trust. An amendment to the National Parks Act 1980 removes an incorrect statutory reference and corrects a drafting error. An amendment to the District Courts Act 1947 removes subsections that also reside in the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, to clarify in which court certain proceedings should be brought.

Amendments to the Veterinarians Act 2005 close a gap in the legislation that permits people who hold a recognised veterinary science degree to be registered only on the basis of their qualifications. Veterinarians will now have to satisfy the Veterinary Council of New Zealand of their fitness to practise in order to be registered. This change brings the Veterinarians Act up to date with comparable legislation for other professions—for example, lawyers and teachers. I particularly want to thank the Green Party for its support of these amendments to the Veterinarians Act 2005 being included in the bill.

To conclude, I point out that the examples of amendments I have mentioned that are included in the bill demonstrate the value of Statutes Amendment bills as a regular vehicle for advancing technical yet important amendments to current legislation. I again thank members on all sides for their support of the bill, and I commend it to the House.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

National will support the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and will support its referral to the Government Administration Committee so that the matter can be dealt with as quickly as possible. My friend the junior Opposition whip did interject on the Minister Clayton Cosgrove and ask why it was necessary to have two Statutes Amendment bills, and I do not think I heard an answer—or, if I did, it was not in any way adequate.

I do not think this is a good way of legislating. Indeed, I refer members to an excellent paper, which has just been published by the Law Commission, called Presentation of New Zealand Statute Law. It is worth reminding the House when we deal with these sorts of bills that there are certain fundamental principles about legislation, and it is necessary to emphasise the importance of access to legislation. As the learned authors of this text say: “It is a fundamental precept of any legal system that the law must be accessible to the public. Ignorance of the law is no excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law.” If I can interpolate there, one sees that this is indeed the law if one looks at section 25 of the Crimes Act, which states: “The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence that may be committed by him.”—or her. As the authors of this report go on to say: “That presumption would be insupportable if the law were not available and accessible to all. The state also has an interest in the law’s accessibility. It needs the law to be effective and it cannot be if the public do not know what it is.”

As the Law Commission also says, it is notorious that New Zealand’s statute law is untidy, and one of the reasons for that is that we have to pass this kind of legislation— and I am prepared to say that we do so all too frequently. Mistakes are made and slip-ups occur when they should not occur, and it comes back to that important issue of accessibility to the law, given that the citizen is presumed to know the law and that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Indeed, the Law Commission report goes further to state that where there are substantive amendments to legislation, given that New Zealand’s legislation is amended very frequently, it should be necessary to revise the legislation. Well, these are not substantive amendments. They are, as the Minister said, in the nature of minor amendments, but that does not mean to say that the principle I have outlined about the need for this place to take greater care in legislating, and about how those who advise the legislators need to dot the i’s and cross the t’s, does not apply.

With those comments I turn to this bill. There are a number of reasons why one has a Statutes Amendment bill, and they have been outlined by the Minister. The first is to correct minor errors that may have crept in, and I refer to Parts 5 and 9 of this bill. A second reason will be to deal with minor changes to ensure consistency with other legislation—for example, Parts 4 and 12 of this bill. The third reason will be to make minor improvements that were overlooked when the legislation was being dealt with; I refer members to Part 7. Finally, some minor changes may be required consequent upon administrative acts—like, for example, a name change—and I refer members to Parts 8 and 10 as illustrative of that principle.

With those general comments in mind, I will now make a couple of comments about aspects of the bill. I do not intend to comment on Parts 1 and 2, but I will say something about Part 3 because it does illustrate the point I have been making about the need to dot the i’s and cross the t’s, and the tendency of this Parliament to be sloppy. Part 3 deals with an amendment to the Crimes Act 1961. It amends section 35(a) of that Act by removing an outdated reference to an offence punishable by death. As the explanatory note states: “Offences punishable by death were repealed by the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act”—an Act that came into force on Boxing Day 1989. I simply cannot understand why it has taken almost 20 years for the draftsman, or some official in the Ministry of Justice, to come to the conclusion that section 35(a) needed to be amended. Section 35, “Arrest of persons found committing certain crimes”, provides in paragraph (a) that any person—not just a constable, but any person—may arrest another person where he or she finds that person “committing any offence against this Act that is punishable by death or for which the maximum punishment is not less than 3 years’ imprisonment.” So it is obvious that that provision should have gone many years ago.

Part 4 amends the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. The changes there are simply to insert a definition of “video record” that is the same as the definition of “video record” in the Evidence Act 2006. Not too much can be made of that. The Evidence Act was the subject of a lot of work last year, and that definition should be standard throughout the statute book.

I will not dwell on Parts 5 and 6, but a couple of changes have been made in Part 7 that I will dwell on for a minute. The changes are amendments to the Historic Places Act, and they are examples of amendments that should have been dealt with last year when we dealt with legislation amending the Act. As far as I can recall, we were dealing, in particular, with the constitution of the Historic Places Trust. Clause 26 proposes to insert after section 43 of that Act a provision dealing with extraordinary vacancies to the board, and I suggest that this is the sort of thing we should have dealt with last year.

Parts 8, 9, and 10 are of no great moment—nor are the other parts—so I will not take the time of the House in commenting on them. They are in the category of minor changes, or fall into one of the categories I mentioned earlier in the course of this speech.

But I come back to the fact that I do not think it should be necessary to have two Statutes Amendment bills following on from one another, as they have here. I agree with the Law Commission that New Zealand’s statute law is untidy. I think that Statutes Amendment bills should be the exception rather than the rule, but at times in this place they seem to be the rule. At the end of the day, bearing in mind the obligations on all citizens to know the law—because ignorance of the law is no excuse—it is absolutely essential for legislation to be accessible to the public. When minor amendments such as these are introduced by Statutes Amendment bills, that important issue of accessibility to the law can be compromised. With those comments in mind, I reiterate that National will support this bill through its first reading and going to the select committee, but I certainly hope we do not have another Statutes Amendment bill this year.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ā, tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. In considering this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), I am reminded of the fact that, like this bill, the Westminster style of Parliament is an exercise in precedent and ritual established over hundreds of years, which is expressed nowhere more obviously than in the movie Amazing Grace.

The move is about a British politician, William Wilberforce, who over a period of 20 years led a fierce political battle to abolish slavery and its trade throughout the British Empire. His campaign culminated in an impassioned speech by Lord Grenville in the House of Lords, during which he criticised fellow members for “not having abolished the trade long ago”, and argued that the trade was “contrary to the principles of justice, humanity and sound policy”. That was followed by a second reading in the House of the Slave Trade Bill, the bill passing by 283 votes to 16, and the Slave Trade Act gaining Royal assent on 25 March 1807.

The surprising thing for me, though, is how in 200 years Parliament has hardly changed. There is the same layout of the debating chamber with tiered rows, the gallery up above, the Speaker of the House, the heckling, the back-door deals, the speech-making, the practices, the processes, and the rituals. Indeed, apart from the wigs and the dress, it seems that little has changed at all.

I raise the matter of the history of ritual and procedure, because it seems that the process of getting to the first reading of a Statutes Amendment bill is something of a ritual in itself—one of those rare occasions when the full cooperation of the House is apparent. Eulogies and events of national and international significance are the other occasions.

The process gives me cause to raise another matter of international significance that had widespread national support from within Māoridom, but no support whatsoever, it seems, from either the Government or indeed the Labour Māori caucus. I am talking about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—a declaration emphasising the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures, and traditions. The declaration is supported by 143 countries of the world and opposed by four, including this Labour Government.

In line with the efforts of those slaves, freed men and women, parliamentary speakers, and community leaders who fought for the rights of all men, women, and children of colour to be free from the bonds of slavery, I am mindful also of the efforts of our own indigenous leaders who spoke up for the declaration over the past 25 years.

As we give thought to the historical processes behind the acceptance for bills such as this one, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), I would like us to consider the fact that although Nanaia Mahuta spoke against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, history will tell us that Sir Robert Māhuta and, indeed, Te Atairangikaahu were both strong supporters of the declaration.

Again, as we debate the historical development of change in legislation that gives rise to the amendments suggested in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), I would like us to consider also the fact that although my whanaunga Shane Jones spoke against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, history will also tell us that Shane’s and my whanaunga, Sir James Hēnare and Dame Mira Szaszy, were noted supporters of the declaration.

In a final reference to the history behind the technical changes to legislation necessitating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), I would like us to consider also the fact that although Mita Ririnui is recorded as a member of the Government that opposed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, history will also tell us that the late Whakahuihui Vercoe was a member of an indigenous delegation that travelled to the United Nations to support the declaration.

Indeed, historical references that give us the background to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) also enable us to reference the historical support given by other individuals such as Sir Paul Reeves and the late Syd Jackson, as well as organisational support from groups such as the Māori Women’s Welfare League, the New Zealand Māori Council, and the National Māori Congress for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in the face of opposition to the declaration from the Labour Government and the Labour Māori caucus, including Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Mahara Okeroa, Mita Ririnui, Dover Samuels, and Shane Jones.

On the eve of the 2007 Māori Women’s Welfare League conference, I am happy to note that its support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the same as that given to the declaration by the Māori Party.

There are a couple of very important amendments to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) that I would like to speak on. I note with horror but no surprise, being a Māori, that section 35 of the Crimes Act still includes reference to the death penalty, which was supposed to have been abolished nearly 50 years ago, for heaven’s sake!

We have a history in which New Zealand carried out legalistic and ritual murder from 1842 to 1957, a history in which New Zealand legally executed 83 people, and a history in which Māori people have featured disproportionately—again, to the surprise of no Māori. It is a history of death by formal execution that began with the killing of Maketū Wharetōtara, son of the Ngāpuhi chief Ruhe of Waimate, but it did not end there. It is ironic that at a time when England was fretting over its new colony, peopled by lawless, pox-ridden, land-grabbing white whalers, sailors, traders, double-dealers, thieves, mongrels, and scum of the white nations of the world, the first person who was executed happened to be Māori. Why are we not surprised at that?

This history includes the execution of Te Whakatōhea chief Mokomoko and four others, Heremita Kahupaea, Hakaraia Te Rāhui, Horomona Poropiti, and Mikaere Kirimangu, for the murder of the missionary Carl Völkner. Yet, for Mokomoko, as for many other Māori, execution was only the middle punishment. Prior to that, colonial militia had been allowed to rampage through Te Whakatōhea territory, looting, pillaging, and burning villages and crops, in order to smoke out Mokomoko and his comrades. After the execution, the land-grabbing white settler Government proceeded to steal thousands of hectares of Te Whakatōhea land as a further reprisal.

Others in the list of those receiving the death penalty that is referenced in this bill include: Maroro in 1849, Tāherei in 1863, Ruarangi in 1864, Nikotema Okoroa in 1864, Whakamau in 1869, Hāmiora Peri in 1869, Kereopa in 1872, Nūtana in 1875, Te Mohi in 1877, Tuhiata in 1880, Wīremu Hīroki in 1882, and the list goes on and on to Edward Te Whiu in 1955.

I have called out that roll of 17 names deliberately, to remind us of our shameful history of racism, and to remind us that in taking steps to remove the words “punishable by death”, we do not forget the history of legitimised murder and land theft that is part of our colonial history.

On a personal note, I say that in 1981 a number of us were picked up and jailed in Mount Eden Prison during the Springbok Tour, including Shane Jones’ relations, such as Haami Piripi, Mangu Awarau, my brother, and myself. Following a revolt against prison regulations we were split up. Haami got left in remand, I got sent down to the separation wing, Mangu got sent to the pound, and my brother Arthur was put in a cell where they used to hold guys just before they hanged them. It was a freaky experience, he tells me, and a good note on which to end that part of my kōrero.

The Māori Party will be voting for this bill, to enable the necessary changes to be made to tidy up legislation. But we remind the House that in doing so we must never forget the history behind many of the cruel, bigoted, intolerant, and unfair laws that have blighted our history, and we must never forget the role that this Government and the Labour Māori caucus have played in making a cruel, bigoted, intolerant, and unfair decision that will blight our future, in voting against the rest of the world’s support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. On behalf of New Zealand First I would like to make my party’s contribution to this debate. I should say from the outset that New Zealand First will certainly support this bill going to the Government Administration Committee. We have always believed it is important that the people of New Zealand should be given the opportunity to express their views on any legislation and what it might be all about. By referring the bill to a select committee we give the people of New Zealand that opportunity. I know that a number of people around the country are interested in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). These people include Barry Hegley in Howick; Mr and Mrs Jim Stewart, who are also in Howick; and Reene Peach in the Piako electorate. They all seek the opportunity to have a say in the formulation of the laws of our land, and by referring this bill to a select committee we give those people, and everyone else, that opportunity.

I note the citation from the National Party speaker in regard to the Law Commission’s comment about statute law being untidy. I am not in a position to question that comment, and I certainly do not question the Law Commission, but if an august body like the Law Commission should make comments about the statute laws of New Zealand, then it is certainly incumbent on this Parliament to do something about it. I think this bill addresses that concern—probably not in its entirety, but it is certainly going in the right direction.

The bill amends a number of Acts, and I am particularly interested in one or two of the statutes that this bill seeks to amend. I make reference to the Fisheries Act 1996 and the amendment that will allow the Minister of Fisheries to make a decision in terms of particular species, particularly where those species are under threat. I hope that as part of the select committee process, the issue surrounding the authority that is intended to be extended to the Minister—over and above his present authority—will be discussed and given due consideration by the committee.

The other amendment that I am particularly interested in is the one regarding the Veterinarians Act 2005. It is good to know that the amendment intends that those wanting to enter the profession will not only have to have the qualifications but also have to satisfy the profession’s own council before being able to practice.

I do not have too much to say on the bill other than that it will help to keep our laws up to date, thus, hopefully, making our legislation more appropriate and relevant to today’s needs. On behalf of New Zealand First, I say that we support the bill being referred to a select committee.

NATHAN GUY (National) Link to this

For all those people now out there in their vehicles heading up the Kapiti coast, snarled up in congestion, I am taking a call on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). They will interested in the comments I want to make, as will the farmers listening out there in their cowsheds while they milk the cows. I am sure that they will be interested in the comments I am about to make because I wish to cover Part 6, which talks about the Fisheries Act; Part 10, which talks about the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act; and quite an important issue in relation to Part 14, the Veterinarians Act 2005.

SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Ā, kia ora anō tātou, Mr Deputy Speaker, tātou katoa e noho nei i roto i tō tātou Whare i tēnei ahiahi. Tēnā anō tātou. Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and greetings to those members who are upholding the principles of parliamentary democracy by ensuring that debate travels across the House on legislation that wends its way through the House without there being a great deal of knowledge of it amongst the community. This bill reflects one of the key functions that our Parliament is required to fulfil; that is, it turns its attention, using its exclusive lawmaking powers, to ensure that the law changes, the law evolves, and the law reflects the vicissitudes or the challenges of the time.

Earlier today we heard from Mr Finlayson. I must say that when Mr Finlayson—whom I came across before I came to Parliament—stands and addresses our House, I am reminded of the many orations and deliveries he gave in the High Court. There is a certain High Court quality, a certain clipped quality, to his delivery, which reflects the man’s profession. That is permissible because we are a plurality of strengths and weaknesses in this House.

On the question of weaknesses, I have to turn to a diatribe that, unfortunately, came from the member from the far north, from Tai Tokerau, Mr Harawira. Amongst other things that the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) deals with is the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act. I am wondering whether, in correcting whatever redundancies there might be in that legislation, a sample ought not to be taken from that member. He has frothed at the mouth. Spittle has been sprayed around those members who sit near him. I actually feared for their health as he stood and repeated falsehood after falsehood in relation to the document that the United Nations dealt with. I do not know quite why he was allowed to do that, but given that he enjoyed that entitlement, I will continue it.

Mr Harawira seems to believe that because that particular declaration was not agreed to by the Government, it will never find its way into the pages of our law—and long may that prevail. Such a document was, firstly, non-binding. Secondly, it was 24 years in its construction, as if it were conceived in some sort of dinosaur fashion and went through a dinosaur-like gestation period. When the declaration finally enjoyed a vote, matters that we are proud to celebrate in New Zealand that pass for our race relations had long since moved on beyond the issues that consumed the attention of the people at the UN and the small group of Māori advocates that trooped off to the UN.