Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) Link to this
I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) 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 at one time. It allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority in their own right to be progressed. This is achieved with the support of all parties in Parliament, and I thank them for that. The bill was reported back by the Government Administration Committee on 21 February 2008, and I thank the Government Administration Committee for its careful and expeditious consideration of the bill.
The bill amends 14 Acts administered by eight different departments. The amendments proposed by the bill include an amendment to the Crimes Act 1961 to correct and remove an outdated reference to the death penalty, which, as we all know, was abolished in 1989; and an amendment to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995, which substitutes the term “video record” for the outdated term “videotape”. This change in terminology is to reflect the definition in the Evidence Act 2006, which is broad enough to cover digital video recordings. The amendments proposed include an amendment to the Historic Places Act 1993 to amend a drafting error, and to remove ambiguity in a provision that creates an offence and imposes a penalty for the damage or destruction of a property in the control of the Historic Places Trust.
There are also amendments to the Veterinarians Act 2005, to 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 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, that of lawyers and teachers. An amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 will reflect changes in the terminology used in the armed forces.
The select committee received only two submissions on the bill, and it has reported the bill back to the House unchanged. To conclude, this bill proposes a number of positive changes to the statute book that are minor or technical in nature. I again thank the select committee and the officials for their work, and I commend the bill to the House.
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) Link to this
The Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) was referred to the Government Administration Committee, as the Minister said, on 20 September 2007. The closing date for submissions was 9 November. By that date we had received two submissions.
The Statutes Amendment bills probably need a bit of explanation in the Chamber, because I do not think too many people, in public or in Parliament, really understand the purpose of these bills. They are designed to provide a legislative vehicle for minor, technical, and non-controversial amendments—generally typing errors or other such minor amendments—to legislation or Acts of Parliament. They are known as omnibus bills. Unanimous cross-party support must be obtained prior to the bill being included in debate and going to a select committee.
The select committee received an interesting submission from a Mr Graeme Edgeler, who is a lawyer in Wellington. He raised the issue of the bill potentially crossing the line of being non-controversial and of potentially introducing a statute amendment that would have an effect on people. He did not disagree with the change; he disagreed with the fact that it should happen in a Statutes Amendment Bill.
My colleague Mr Finlayson may later describe the issue around the Historic Places Trust that was raised by this gentleman.
He may not, but we will wait and see. We received advice from the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and various other Government advisers. On balance, the committee decided that the issue was not outside the normal gambit of a Statutes Amendment Bill and therefore supported the bill coming back to the House.
But it raised an interesting point, which is that the executive needs to be reminded at times of just exactly what these Statutes Amendment bills are for. They are an interesting and useful tool for Government. Government needs that tool, and all Governments, regardless of their political persuasion, need this vehicle. If the executive were ever to start venturing out into more controversial amendments, then these bills would get vetoed, and potentially a vehicle would be lost whereby it could otherwise normally carry out such work.
I know that the Assistant Speaker has a keen interest in the Standing Orders, and the Standing Order concerned in regard to Statutes Amendment bills is 263(1)(e). I thought I would just point that out to Mr Assistant Speaker in case he needs it later in the debate.
The Statutes Amendment Bill we are debating here tonight, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), received the support of the select committee. This particular bill includes amendments that involve the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, the Ministry of Fisheries, the Ministry of Economic Development, the Department of Conservation, Land Information New Zealand, the Biosecurity Act—which is one I myself am particularly interested in, being the spokesman for that particular subject—the Cadastral Survey Act, the Fisheries Act, and the Veterinarians Act.
Fourteen various statutes and 50 clauses in total were involved, so we have to pay close scrutiny to make sure that amendments are just minor and not any more substantial than was designed. The select committee, as the Minister very kindly spelt out, did its work in that regard.
From time to time in the Government Administration Committee we have sought support on various issues from the Regulations Review Committee, but in this case we received the standard response from the committee, which was that the bill was fine. With those comments, I say that the National Party supports the bill and I recommend it to the House.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
I am very pleased to make a contribution to the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), and I think some speakers have already noted the background of Statutes Amendment bills—that they are designed to provide minor, technical, and non-controversial amendments to existing statutes. The amendments in these bills cannot affect policy change, and unanimous cross-party support must be obtained prior to the inclusion of an amendment in a Statutes Amendment Bill. This Statutes Amendment Bill is typical. It sought to amend 14 statutes, and there were just two submissions, which the Government Administration Committee considered and took advice on. I do commend the cooperation of the select committee and the officials in returning this bill expeditiously to the House.
I would like to address just one of the statutes that the bill will amend, which is section 35(a) of the Crimes Act, and that will remove an outdated reference to an offence punishable by death. I must admit that I was somewhat astonished to discover that we still had a reference to the death penalty in statute despite the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act in 1989.
I am glad to live in a country where we do not have the death penalty. Around 124 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, but it troubles me deeply that there are still some notable exceptions such as China, Iran, the United States, and Viet Nam. Those countries accounted for 97 percent of the executions recorded by Amnesty International in 2004. Between 1976 and 2005, 1,004 people were executed in the United States and over 3,000 prisoners were awaiting execution on what is known as death row. In China in 2001 alone, a Government crack-down on crime resulted in the execution of at least 1,781 people in about 4 months. Those statistics are barbaric. So I am particularly pleased that New Zealand, under our Prime Minister, Helen Clark, has been working with other countries in the United Nations for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.
On 18 December 2008 the General Assembly of the United Nations voted by an overwhelming majority for a resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. This was the objective of the World Day Against the Death Penalty held on 10 October. As our Prime Minister said at the time, “Capital punishment is the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The death penalty violates the right to life … It is known to have been inflicted on the innocent.” Quite simply, the death penalty is a failure of justice.
The first execution in New Zealand was that of a young Māori named Maketū, convicted in Auckland in 1842. Walter Bolton was the last to be executed when he was hanged at Mount Eden Prison in 1957. In total there were 83 verified executions for murder and one for treason in New Zealand between those dates. The method of execution was hanging, and before 1862 executions were conducted in public. Colour Sergeant James Collins of the 65th Regiment was the first to be executed out of public view, and he was executed at Wellington in January 1862. The official method of execution was outlined in an 1880 “Memorandum upon the Execution of Prisoners by Hanging with a Long Drop”. The offences that carried the death penalty in New Zealand were, in accordance with English common law, murder, treason, and piracy.
Interestingly, the Labour Party had opposed capital punishment, and after it took office in 1935 it commuted all death sentences to life imprisonment. This policy was confirmed by the abolition of the death penalty for murder in 1941. The National Government restored it in 1950, and from 1951 to 1957 there were 18 convictions for murder and eight executions. Labour returned to office in late 1957, and the following year made the death penalty inoperative.
With that matter seemingly swinging from one situation to another depending on which party was in office, it was put to a conscience vote in 1961. Members of Parliament were not forced to vote according to party policy, and accordingly 10 members of the National Government voted with the Opposition, and capital punishment was removed from the statute book.
No, I say to the member that that is not quite correct; it was a conscience vote. With all due respect to the member, it was a conscience vote.
Treason, mutiny, and treachery in the armed forces are no longer punishable by death, under the terms of the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act 1989. The last execution was of Walter Bolton when he was convicted of poisoning his wife Beatrice and was hanged for her murder at Mount Eden Prison. According to the reports at the time it was gruesome, and it was believed that some of those in the death chamber had to swing on his legs after the hangman miscalculated and Bolton did not die instantly from a broken neck.
The death penalty for murder was abolished in New Zealand in 1961 and there were claims that this was due partly to the circumstances surrounding Bolton’s case. But we should not think that this issue is not still alive in the minds of some New Zealanders. At times of perceived increases in violent crime or when there has been a particularly high-profile murder, debate about capital punishment comes up and inevitably there is a call for the death penalty again in New Zealand.
Some believe that the death penalty will deter people from committing crime, and although I have empathy with those who have lost a loved one through violent crime the facts from the United States and other countries just do not back that up. In some countries, as we know, executions go way beyond violent crime; executions for political belief, for speaking out against the ruling power, for trade union activity, for being gay, and many other reasons, are still being carried out today.
Although this Statutes Amendment Bill is like others in that its changes are minor, technical, or inconsequential in nature, it is an important moment in New Zealand’s history that the last remaining reference to capital punishment in New Zealand’s statutes is finally being removed. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am glad I live in a country without the death penalty; long may it stay that way.
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this
I am delighted to speak to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). It is meant to be a non-controversial bill, so I am surprised that the previous speaker, Darien Fenton, has found occasion to take a little bit of grandstanding in regard to it. One would have to question whether in fact the provision is as non-controversial as she tried to make out, or whether it is quite the contrary. Having said that, one of the aspects of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) is the fact that because it is non-controversial it means that if any matters are raised that are questionable and will challenge the non-controversial nature of the change, they are removed and do not proceed. One of those matters was the changes that were proposed in relation to the Companies Act. A submission was received from Chapman Tripp that raised a number of concerns around the provisions that it was suggested should be included in the bill in regard to the Companies Act. It was proposed that the bill should amend sections 224 and 223 to also require notice to a person who is entitled to a security interest in respect of which a financial statement is registered on the Personal Property Securities Register. It all became a little bit dry but it was quite clear—
Hone HarawiraI cannot help it. It all became a little bit dry but it was quite clear that it was not quite as non-controversial as it first appeared to be, and so the matter was actually dropped out of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) forthwith. It showed that it is quite an important process and that people take notice of the process and make submissions. The submission from Graeme Edgeler raised his concerns but had no quarrel with the changes proposed, and it was very interesting to see what his concerns were.
Some of the other parts that are in here—and they are quite varied—are technical. They include amendments to the following Acts: the National Parks Act; the New Zealand Horticultural Export Authority Act; the Radiocommunications Act; the Reserves Act; the Historic Places Act; the Fisheries Act; the Veterinarians Act; the Criminal Investigation (Bodily Samples) Act 1995; the Crimes Act, which has just been described by the previous speaker; the Cadastral Survey Act; and, as I said before, the Biosecurity Act. All of these Acts have had a number of minor amendments made to them, and I do not think we need to go through them in any great depth. As has been explained previously, these matters are non-consequential; they are really just technical amendments, and National is happy to support the bill going through.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. The Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) is another one of the buffet of bills that come within the context of minor, technical, and non-controversial amendments to existing legislation, as other members have talked about. I sometimes wonder why we bother to look at them when they are such minor adjustments. I would be interested in learning from members who have been here for ever and a day about the real value of these statute amendments coming into the Chamber rather than being done by other methods. Some suggest, say, an Order in Council, but I leave that for others to consider. That aside, the fact that some proposed amendments do not hit the table because they have been vetoed by parties tells us that this kind of bill might be an efficient way of dealing with what we might say are straightforward pieces of legislation.
Having said all that, I say there are some issues of interest here that the Māori Party is pleased to put forward for debate. In the first instance, the amendments in Part 1 to the Biosecurity Act 1993 will enable deputy chief technical officers to appoint inspectors, authorised persons, and accredited persons. That means, in effect, that they are able to delegate some of their functions. It is interesting that this provision is being discussed today, in light of the major risks that have become apparent to the local and national $200 million mussel industry following the defouling of the Ocean Patriot oil rig in Tasman Bay last December. As a result of that fiasco, bio-fouling was carried out within the 12-nautical-mile boundary in Tasman Bay. The issue I raised in question time today was that asked by iwi of Tasman Bay—namely, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Rārua-Ātiawa Iwi Trust, and the Wakatu Incorporation—and it is all around accountability. They want to know, regardless of whether the oil rig was being de-fouled inside or outside New Zealand territorial waters, who is responsible for the clean-up to prevent the potential biosecurity risk from Perna perna—the potentially invasive South African brown mussel.
The question that is raised in my mind by this Statutes Amendment Bill is whether the delegation of some functions under the Biosecurity Act will actually do anything to address the obvious flaws in the low level of biosecurity standards required for the aquacultural industry. Will the amendment to enable deputy chief technical officers to appoint inspectors, authorised persons, and accredited persons have any impact on the aquacultural sector, or will they be allocated to, and work within the boundaries of, the horticultural and agricultural sectors only?
Keeping with that Minister, Jim Anderton, another set of amendments in this bill, to remove the requirement to gazette the Minister’s notification of fish stock or species ceasing to be subject to a moratorium, seems to be a more logical position than the current arrangements. The amendments to the Fisheries Act 1996 require that such stock or species will cease to be subject to a moratorium from the start of the fishing year, rather than the date of the Minister’s notification of the decision in the Gazette. The fishing year date would, by all estimates, be far more meaningful to fishermen than a randomly selected publication date of the printed Gazette.
We are very pleased to support the amendment to the Crimes Act 1961, which has been referred to by other members. It will remove an outdated reference to the death penalty, which was repealed in 1989. There seems to me to be some irony in that this amendment will pass through this House with barely a murmur whereas another amendment, to repeal section 59 of the same Act, which dealt with the hitting of our tamariki, created enormous reaction—reaction that still is generating some heat judging by the petition being promoted by various lobby groups. In fact, so hotly debated was that particular amendment that Parliament agreed that the law would be reviewed after 2 years, and it appears that every Government department in town is gathering information, to be ready to be assessed and evaluated.
The other interesting amendment, perhaps, is that relating to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. This amendment updates the definition of “videotape” to “video record”, in line with the Evidence Act 2006 definition, which allows for digital video recording. Well, that is all well and good, but I cannot help but think that, in light of some of the changes we were discussing today in relation to the Broadcasting Act, the impact and influence of digital platforms and new technologies would have meant the definition was expanded to also include, say, DVDs and CDs.
I was reflecting today, as we celebrate the fact that, as stated by my colleague Mr Hone Harawira, on this day, 11 March, in 1987 the Maori Language Act declared Māori an official language in Aotearoa, on the advancements that have been taking place in the revitalisation of te reo rangatira that absolutely demonstrate the power of information technology at its best. We can download Māori language lessons and linguistic interpretations. Some of our more innovative tertiary institutions promote language use through distributing CDs and DVDs. Last year, two of our talented young leaders, Pōtaua and Nikolasa Biasiny-Tule directed a team of volunteers from around Aotearoa in translating Google search pages into a Māori language option. Te Ara Poutama of Auckland University of Technology has trialled te reo Māori on an iPod. We can access Microsoft Office and Windows in te reo Māori. In other words, almost anything literally is possible.
Speaking about te reo, I briefly congratulate Jemma, an air hostess on my Air New Zealand flight this morning, on welcoming and farewelling all passengers in Māori, and taking real care with her pronunciation of Māori names. It was really refreshing to have someone consider the pronunciation of Māori names. It is something pretty simple, yet so many cannot be bothered. Kei runga noa atu koe, Jemma—too much. I promise that the Māori party is not receiving any political sponsorship for this—although we are very happy to—but if one goes to a BNZ ATM machine, one can now choose te reo Māori as an option. Ka rawe nē? Awesome!
Let me get back to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). The other point I want to raise is in relation to the amendments to the Historic Places Act 1993 that set out procedures for dealing with extraordinary vacancies on the trust board. The trust is governed by a board of trustees comprising nine members, six of whom are appointed by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. It is a board of high calibre, including in the current membership Te Auē Davis, Merata Kawharu, Tumu te Heuheu, and Judith Binney—a very impressive line up, I would have to say. Although we understand the rationale behind specifying procedures for dealing with extraordinary vacancies, we are interested in some of the wider context to this amendment. We support the concept of inserting those procedures into that Act, but merely wonder whether provision for vacancies created by death, resignation, or removal from office is included in legislation for other such boards. I just ask that question.
The Māori Party is happy to support this bill going forward.
DIANNE YATES (Labour) Link to this
It gives me pleasure to speak on the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and to congratulate the Government Administration Committee on the work it has done on this bill. It is a very interesting committee to be on because it does have such variety, and these omnibus bills illustrate that variety.
I note the changes that the committee agreed on in regard to the Biosecurity Act, and that it makes matters clear in relation to the appointment of inspectors and accredited persons and their delegation of authority in terms of the Biosecurity Act. Unlike the previous member, I think these people do a fantastic job. New Zealand can be duly proud of its biosecurity and of the people who carry out the legislation and ensure that this country is kept free of things that could attack our agriculture and otherwise affect our exports.
I note also that there are changes to the Cadastral Survey Act. Some of those are to do with issues around who is a licensed cadastral surveyor, some are about disciplining surveyors, and some are about complying with the digital cadastral survey data sets. I suspect that some of the change in this legislation came about through a complaint made to the Regulations Review Committee, some many months ago. I am sorry that members from the Regulations Review Committee are not here to make that clear, but there was a complaint about changes in measurement, changing to digital data sets, and the possibility that there could be some sort of slippage in how much land one actually had. I suspect that this change in the legislation came about through this complaint, which was upheld by the Regulations Review Committee.
If that is the case, and this is the legislation that refers to that, then I am glad to see that the processes are working and that complaints to the Regulations Review Committee can then bring about changes to the substantive Act. That is very important, and it is important that the process actually works. These types of omnibus bills, which make little corrections, some of which can seem very boring, are very, very important for some people and they can make a huge difference.
I note that my colleague Darien Fenton has referred to the death penalty and the changes made to the Crimes Act. I also notice that some interesting changes have been made in terms of the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act. I like this little bit from the explanatory note in relation to Part 10: “The amendments reflect the following name changes: the New Zealand Fruitgrowers Federation, the New Zealand Vegetable & Potato Growers Federation (Incorporated), and The New Zealand Berryfruit Growers Federation Inc have been changed to Horticulture New Zealand Incorporated; and the New Zealand Nurserymens Association Incorporated has been changed to The Nursery and Garden Industry Association of New Zealand Incorporated.”
The New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act was enacted in 1987. At last we have a non-sexist name for the New Zealand Nurserymens Association, which has realised that a certain number of nurserywomen are involved in the industry. That is a really good change.
If Horticulture New Zealand Incorporated are the people who produce Grower magazine, then I want to say that I think it is one of the best magazines we get in this House. Of course, I am from the Waikato and I am concerned about what we grow and export in New Zealand, and I think that Grower is an excellent magazine.
I commend Grower magazine for its very, very good articles on food miles. It produced some of the best counterarguments to the British scare about our exports, food miles, and the amount of fossil fuel it was taking to get our goods to Britain. It explained in its articles that, on the whole, the amount of fossil fuel that is used to get vegetables from the supermarket to the kitchens of British housewives added up to more per vegetable than the actual fossil fuel used in getting them from New Zealand to Britain. So I congratulate Grower magazine, particularly on its food miles articles. I photocopied many of them and sent them to people in Britain, especially to Kiwis living in Britain, saying: “Hey, here is a really good counter to that fuel - food miles argument. Leave them lying around in your supermarket, please.” So I congratulate the authority on that and on the name changes.
I also note that there are considerable changes to the Veterinarians Act. I note that there were only two submissions on this bill, but I am pretty sure that one of them would have been from the Veterinary Association because it is, once again, a very active organisation. As I come from the Waikato I am very, very aware of the tremendous contribution that veterinarians make to our society in keeping our animals alive and well. People are putting a lot more money into their animals because they are much more valuable now than they used to be. Veterinarians are highly valued, especially in the dairy industry. I trust that the association did make a submission, and, obviously, that it has agreed with the changes in this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2).
As I say, the bill seems very routine and technical, but many of these changes are very, very important, otherwise they would not be made. Some of the changes are made because, as we have seen, technology catches up and the language has to catch up with modern times, so Acts have to change. Sometimes other Acts change and, in order to keep Acts of Parliament consistent with each other, changes have to be made in Statutes Amendment bills.
However, I remember that some time ago there was a recommendation that Statutes Amendment bills should say a little bit more in their headings about what they are about. A Statutes Amendment Bill is about amendments to statutes, but which ones? There was a suggestion some time ago that these bills should have a little bit more in their title in order to explain them, so that they are easier to trace, easier to follow, and so on. We could not possibly include every Act that a Statutes Amendment Bill changes, but there should be something in the bill’s title that is more indicative as to what the bill is about.
But once again, I give a big thanks to the select committee, to all the people who advised the select committee, and to the staff who worked in this regard. I commend the passage of the bill.
Russell Fairbrother
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
I hope it will be good for Mr Fairbrother’s sake, because a number of important matters need to be stated tonight. The first is that sometimes people say Statutes Amendment bills are nothing more than pettifogging trivia, and, indeed, I suppose in some circumstances they could be. None the less, as the previous speaker Dianne Yates said, they are important. They pick up errors that should have been detected some time ago. The obvious example of that is Part 3 of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), which deals with the Crimes Act. That was a piece of sloppy drafting that should have been dealt with 20 years ago. Another example of sloppiness is in the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. Again, that is another amendment that should have been dealt with at the time the Evidence Act 2006 was being dealt with in this House.
There are a couple of other statutory amendments to Acts that particularly interest me, about which I will say something in a few minutes—minor changes to the District Courts Act 1947, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and the Summary Proceedings Act of 1957. It is all very worthy stuff, and, as previous speakers have said, not things that need detain this House for more than a few minutes.
But it seems to me that an enormous amount of effort is put into a Statutes Amendment bill. If only the same effort was put into other legislation. As the Minister of Health would doubtless say when evading questions—and incisive questions at that—from my friend the member for Bay of Plenty, “Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.” That is a quote from Horace that essentially says: “The mountains labour and a ridiculous mouse is born.” In fact, when I think of that quote, I think it would probably be beyond Mr Cunliffe, who rarely gets beyond trite expressions such as inter alia. The point I am trying to make is this: an enormous amount of effort goes into this kind of miscellaneous statute, but the same effort does not go into legislation that could have an enormous impact on the nation’s criminal procedure.
Let us look at the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) again. Part 3 deals with the Crimes Act of 1961, yet the Criminal Procedure Bill also deals with important issues under that statute. In regard to the District Courts Act 1947, the Criminal Procedure Bill deals with questions there, too. Again, in regard to the Summary Proceedings Act of 1957, the Criminal Procedure Bill deals with issues there.
So while this useless Government spends an enormous amount of time on minor pieces of legislation contained in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), it does absolutely nothing with very important legislation that has languished at number 17 on the Order Paper for many, many months—that is, the Criminal Procedure Bill in the name of the Hon Annette King, Minister of Justice. Now, that is a piece of legislation that amends a number of statutes and on which a lot of work ought to be put in. It is legislation that significantly reforms criminal procedure to provide, for example, trial by judge alone in exceptional circumstances. It deals with the issues of double jeopardy, majority verdicts, the codification of criminal disclosure, and the partial abolition of preliminary hearings. One particular change is contained in Part 3 of that bill and deals with the District Courts Act 1947. That, if passed, would create huge improvements in the High Court jurisdiction, because so many of those methamphetamine trials would be able to be dealt with in the District Court.
So what does the Government do with an exquisite lack of sense of priority? It pushes through legislation like the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) but does nothing about the Criminal Procedure Bill, which, as I said, is languishing at item 17 on the Order Paper, yet the criminal bar, the judges, and society generally are crying out for that bill to be given some attention. It is one of those unfortunate things that we deal with this minor stuff with some urgency. We give the minor stuff priority but we do not pay the attention we should to legislation like the Criminal Procedure Bill. I think that is a source of great regret. I would ask someone who is reasonably sensible on the Government side, a very rare bird on the Government side—well, Mr Fairbrother actually, when talking about criminal matters—to stand and explain to the House why it is that this useless Government can spend so much time on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) but give no priority whatsoever to the Criminal Procedure Bill. I invite either Mr Burton, who was the Minister responsible for this legislation, or Mr Fairbrother to take the next call and perhaps explain this rather sad event to the House.
NATHAN GUY (National) Link to this
Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Congratulations on your recent appointment as Assistant Speaker, and I wish you well for your upcoming trip. I will make just a small contribution on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill went to the Government Administration Committee in September last year, and there are 14 Acts amended in it. I will make a small contribution to what I think are very, very important parts of this bill.
In particular, when we are talking about Part 6, which amends the Fisheries Act 1996, I want to highlight how the permit moratorium is currently not subject to the quota management system. At the moment the moratorium could actually lift part way through the fishing year, which ends or starts on 1 October. Currently there could be a lot of fish caught in the small period leading up to 1 October so, in essence, there is a good amendment to ensure the system is in place and that the fishing stock is sustainable.
The other contribution I will make is on Part 14 of the bill, which amends the Veterinarians Act 2005. This will, in effect, give the Veterinary Council more power, which is very important. In this House we probably do not appreciate the good job that veterinarians do around the country. Currently we have a shortage of veterinarians in New Zealand, and the Labour Government is having to spend tens of thousands of dollars trying to attract them into New Zealand because we are not training enough of them. Government representatives are over at recruitment expos in the United Kingdom, trying to attract veterinarians into the country.
The significant point in this amendment is that the Veterinary Council will have more powers. In essence, it will be a bit like a warrant of fitness regime. It will streamline the process when veterinarians are between graduation and registering and that is very, very good. But I come back to the significant point. Although the primary sector—particularly the dairy sector—is booming, we have a shortage of male veterinary students who are needed to deal with the big bovine animals. Currently there is a higher proportion of females coming through that course at Massey University.
This is a 14-Act amendment bill that is supported by the National Party, and we recognise the good work that the Government Administration Committee did under the very hard-working chair, Shane Ardern.