Hon NATHAN GUY (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 Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred to the Government Administration Committee and that the committee present its final report on the bill on or before 1 July 2011.
As the House will be aware, the Statutes Amendment Bill is an annual legislative vehicle that makes 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. This is achieved with the support of all parties in Parliament.
The bill as introduced amends 20 Acts administered by eight different Government agencies. Many of the amendments are designed to correct drafting errors and incorrect references. I will give members a few examples. The amendment to the Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area Act 1991 replaces the misspelled “Saddlebank Island” with “Saddleback Island”. The amendment of the definition of “lawyer” in section 5(1) of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 replaces an incorrect cross-reference to the now-repealed Law Practitioners Act 1982.
Others make unobjectionable refinements to machinery provisions, including an amendment to the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act 1981 to allow up to nine directors to be appointed by the Minister as comprising the New Zealand Railways Corporation. Under the current wording only seven directors can be appointed. The corporation needs additional directors to manage the increased workload associated with the 10-year turn-round plan, which involves the corporation investing $4.6 billion in its assets.
There are a number of amendments to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. For example, one amendment redefines a state of emergency as lasting 168 hours, which is, obviously, 7 days times 24 hours a day, unless it is stated to expire earlier, is terminated earlier, or, indeed, is extended. The September earthquake in Canterbury highlighted that when acting under pressure the current wording of the Act is difficult to understand and apply for some members in the civil defence emergency management sector. This amendment will help people more clearly calculate the duration of a state of emergency.
I want to mention two amendments that I expect the committee will wish to have a closer look at. The amendments to the Wills Act make it clear that the Act does not change the law about the formalities for making a will set out in its predecessor. The Wills Act 2007 modernised and updated the law relating to wills, which was previously contained in the Wills Act 1837 (UK). The intention was to carry over the law about the formalities for making a will into the new Act with updated language. Following the passage of the 2007 Act concerns were raised by legal practitioners, academics, and the judiciary that the 2007 Act had unintentionally changed the formal requirements for executing a will. If that were the case, the 2007 Act might have unintentionally invalidated some wills that were valid when they were made. I have received correspondence from beneficiaries who have been adversely affected. This amendment was originally included in the Statutes Amendment Bill for 2009, but was removed at the Committee of the whole House stage because of an objection to it. Opposition to the amendment as it appeared in the Statutes Amendment Bill 2009 arose from public commentary that was not available to the Government Administration Committee during its deliberations on the bill. I am satisfied that the objection to the amendment was based on a concern that the matters raised be given proper select committee scrutiny, which will be afforded by the inclusion of the amendment in this bill.
The amendments to the Charities Act 2005 include a proposed change to the definition of “charitable purpose” to clarify the circumstances in which amateur sports purposes are indeed charitable. This amendment is meant to address uncertainty amongst sports groups, funders, and the legal community about the charitable status of amateur sports and the consequent confusion about funding eligibility. I look forward to hearing the committee’s views on this matter.
In conclusion, the examples of amendments I have mentioned demonstrate the value of the Statutes Amendment Bill as a vehicle for advancing technical yet important amendments. I look forward to the passage of this bill, and to working constructively with parties across the House on bills that we put together in the near future. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
If ever listeners to Parliament needed to have it reinforced in their mind that this Government is full of bureaucrats rather then people who are going to grow the economy and get us out of an economic malaise, this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) would do it. The delivery of that last speech by Nathan Guy, fine as it was in content, hardly excited anyone. In fact, I think if there were 100 people listening on the radio to the start of that speech, by the end of it most of them would have fallen asleep. Of course, this really does show up National. If we look along the front bench of National and are honest about it, we see that the majority of the National front bench are long-term bureaucrats; they have spent most of their life in this place.
Institutionalised by too many years in Parliament! John Carter is shaking his head, but he knows the error of his ways and he is off to the Pacific Islands. He is not going to be put out to pasture; he is going for a little sojourn to the Pacific Islands. I wish him well in that appointment and I am sure he will do it well.
Here we are again sitting under urgency, at a time when we have a $16 billion Government deficit; when we are into a second recession, or we are very close to it; when we are suffering an economic malaise that seems to be longer in duration than is the case in just about any other Western country; and when the Government seems to have given up on its objective to close the wage gap with Australia. Yet here we are in urgency in the third year of this Government, not discussing its grand vision for the economy—because it does not have one—and not discussing how it will close the wage gap with Australia. Even in terms of the Government’s mantra about—what is it, making front-line services—
Well, the closest we get to moving services to the front line is the amendment to the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act to increase the number of directors from seven to nine. This is in the same week as the State is taking over legal services. I am disappointed that this bill is not of more substance. I know that Statutes Amendment bills are meant to deal with issues that are not controversial and to tidy up little pieces of legislation that need to be tidied up. But can it be said in respect of most of the things that are being done here that they are more important than other Government business? How can it be important to pursue this when we have rising unemployment, and huge problems in the economy? What is the number of young Pacific Islanders and Māori who are now leaving school and going into unemployment?
Hon Steve ChadwickIt is between one in four and one in five. Between one in four and one in five of our young Māori and Pacific Island peoples, an increasing proportion of our population in New Zealand, have nowhere to go but on to the dole queue. They are not going into training. They are not going into further education so as to improve their capability and to improve the future productivity of the New Zealand economy. It is little wonder, then, that more and more of them are leaving every week to go to Australia—so much so that, as we were embarrassed to find out when Julia Gillard was here recently, Australia views New Zealand as a source of well-trained, well-educated, civil people who fit well into their society, who go across to Australia, settle there, and make Australia’s economy thrive rather than ours. As a consequence, we are in the doldrums from economic mismanagement under a Government that does not have a plan.
In fact, not only has the Government stopped talking about closing the wage gap with Australia, it now seems to be promoting it. Last weekend on Q+A when Bill English was asked questions by Guyon Espiner, in what I thought was a very good interview, he said: “Oh, well, we are so far behind Australia in wages now—30 percent—we’ll give it up and we will promote ourselves as being a source of low-cost labour to Australia for when it wants to outsource things.” That will have an impact upon the Public Finance Act 1989, because, as a consequence, public finances will be much more affected by that than this amendment to the Public Finance Act. Clauses 78 to 81 of this bill amend the Public Finance Act, but not in any way that materially affects the performance of the economy.
Another change made by this bill is to the Wills Act. From memory, I was on the select committee that considered this amendment at the time of the last Statutes Amendment Bill—I was involved in some part of the process, anyway—and I can recall that what the Minister says is correct and that an attempt was made to tidy up this matter in the last Statutes Amendment Bill. There is a tradition that the Statutes Amendment Bill does not take anyone by surprise, and the provisions relating to wills were very important—we need to make sure that wills are appropriately witnessed because they control the disposition of people’s assets upon their death. The change proposed was not controversial but it was of significant effect, and because it was introduced late in the process it was thought to be inappropriate by some of the interested parties, including, from memory, the Law Society, to include it in the previous bill. It was thought that if there was going to be a change of substance like that made, it ought to have a full select committee process, and people should have the opportunity to make submission on it. So it was withdrawn from the earlier Statutes Amendment Bill and it is now found in this bill, in a way that enables the Law Society and other interested parties to fully submit on it in an open way to the select committee. The Labour Party supports that provision and the other provisions being referred to a select committee.
But, having said that, and having dealt with how this bill does not do anything to advance the need for an economic plan to get our economy going forward rather than backwards, I repeat my earlier criticism that I think it is because National is bereft of vision. National pretends that it is full of business people but it is not, it is full of long-term politicians who have been here too long. There is the occasional person in National who does not meet that prescription, but we have more movers and shakers on this side of the House than there are in National.
Nathan Guy is giggling away on the other side of the Chamber. I think I heard him admit that he is giggling, although I might have got the pronunciation a little wrong.
Another provision in this bill relates to the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994. I have no objection to the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act being amended in the way that is being proposed—but in urgency? We are in the third year of a Government during a time when we have an economic malaise and increasing unemployment. Criticisms are being made of the Government that it has no credible economic plan to get us out of this hole. More and more people are going to Australia. Why are we discussing the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act? How will that help people pay their bills? How much has the price of butter, cheese, and other staples gone up in the last year? Is it 30 percent or 50 percent? The cost of living is going up, in part because the Government has put up GST on those items, yet here we are dealing with these matters. It shows just how out of touch the Government is with ordinary Kiwis who are struggling to make ends meet. The Government is fixated on these bureaucratic steps that make no difference to the lives of ordinary New Zealanders, who look to their Government to improve their lot, and, if the Government is not doing that, they are rightly critical of it.
Again, the amendment to the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act might be technically correct but it does not meet the duty of the Government, which is to work for New Zealanders and the future of their families, rather than to work for the narrow interests of the few that this Government so plainly governs for, with its income tax.
We support this bill being referred to a select committee, but we are disappointed that more vision has not been shown for the growth of our economy.
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this
I am delighted to speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). I commend the Associate Minister of Justice for bringing it to the House.
In all the work we do, the housekeeping has to go on; the previous speaker, the Hon David Parker, clearly does not understand that. I am disappointed that he said that this bill has no substance, then followed that statement up by saying how good it was that the amendments to the Wills Act was going ahead; it had been previously unable to when introduced in an earlier Statutes Amendment Bill. He was quite hypocritical in saying there was no substance, then saying there was some substance—
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member used a word, directed to a member on this side of the House, that was unparliamentary. She accused the member of being hypocritical. I think the member should withdraw and apologise.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
Yes; the member cannot use those phrases. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.
I am happy to withdraw and apologise.
As I said, the previous speaker talked about the bill having no substance, and then said that he was pleased to see that the amendments to the Wills Act were taking place. I was quite intrigued by that contradiction of terms and sentiment.
I am delighted that we are making these amendments to these Acts, because we have to do the housekeeping required for legislation. That is why I support the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2).
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) Link to this
I am delighted to follow Sandra Goudie. I will pick up on a couple of things. Firstly, being in Government is about choices. It is about making choices about where money is spent, about how parliamentary time is used, and about strategic direction. We were told by Sandra Goudie that now is the ideal time to choose to do housekeeping. She said that the most important thing we need to do now is housekeeping. As Sandra Goudie was speaking a phrase came into my head, a saying my grandmother had handed to me: “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.”
As we are sitting in this House, allegedly on Tuesday, hundreds of young New Zealanders going out into the workforce are facing the bleak prospect of being placed on the unemployment scrap heap. In South Auckland two or three families are living in the same house. Twenty people are living in one house. People are living in garages. They are shacked up in bunks all around the garage. People in Christchurch are facing a grim prospect of living in a broken house with winter coming. In the middle of all these major decisions the Government, as a matter of urgency, is considering the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2).
The bill has some really fabulous pieces of important, strategic thinking! For example, Part 17 is about a protected conservation area. We are changing “Saddlebank Island” to “Saddleback Island”. Well, I am sure the poor people of South Auckland will go to bed happier tonight! They will feel warm and comfortable as they pull the blanket up to their neck and cuddle their teddy bear, knowing that this Government’s got their interests at heart! It is going to correct the name of the island to “Saddleback”. They will be even further buoyed up, they will wake up in the morning full of hope and optimism for a new dawn, when they see we are changing the Wild Animal Control Act! We are amending the word “thar” to “tahr”.
This is big! This is really big! When we come to the House and see this, we understand the vision of this Government. It is standing up on the bridge, scanning the horizon, looking to ensure that the good ship “New Zealand” is navigated past those swirling whirlpools, past the rocks that would consume the ship “New Zealand”. It is navigating us past all of those stormy seas, because we will now amend the Wild Animal Control Act to correct the spelling of “thar” to “tahr”. Yes, it is important to do some housekeeping, but we have to ask ourselves the question whether this is, in fact, the appropriate time to do it.
There are some other interesting things in this bill. I am really intrigued by a number of them. I made some notes. I see we are going to make amendments to the Marriage Act. Is it to promote more marriages, or to make them more difficult? I am not sure.
Is it about offshore marriages? There is something about people who are foreign nationals coming here who do not need a certificate to be labelled a New Zealand citizen. I wonder what is promoting National’s concern about this. Maybe those members should explain it to us.
There are parts about social security, retirement, limited partnerships, and so on. I ask myself what the importance or the value of those parts is when we have a major economic crisis on our hands. We have had a sequence of major financial crashes—South Canterbury Finance, AMI—and here we are making tinkering changes to the legislation. What is the Government doing to ensure that the place is well run and tighter, apart from putting more and more taxpayers’ money at risk? I ask the drafter of this legislation where the strategic vision is. What is it that we are trying to do to improve the well-being of New Zealanders?
We will also be making changes to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. I think those changes are probably a good thing, but, thinking about the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, why is this House not consumed with not just the passing of legislation but the very important issues that underpin it? A major construction boom is going to happen, and what are we doing in this House to find the workforce to undertake that work? Where is the discussion about training young New Zealanders—those on the unemployment scrap heap—to get the skills to have the opportunity to undertake the work? We all know we should be doing this work now. Young people should be taken on today to be given basic training. They should be given their education today, or it should even have started last week, but no activity is being undertaken. Yet we are worried sick about having our sequence of plans in order and in the right process. Well, this is another example of Nero fiddling while the House burns.
Other changes in the bill are to justice legislation—to the Judicature Act. I am really intrigued as to why they are appearing in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and not in the justice bills that have come before the House. We finished debating a justice bill some weeks ago. We just debated the first reading of a justice bill. These provisions could have been incorporated into that legislation, but we have this piecemeal process. Instead of having one justice bill, we now have three. I have to ask what is happening within the organisation of the National Government that it cannot tidy up its legislative programme. Why are we debating three bills when there could have been simply one? Why are select committees considering three bills when there could have been one? Why are the public being asked to put in submissions on three bills when there could have been one, and why, if they wish to speak to their submissions, do they have to come to the House of Representatives three times, attend three select committees, and make three presentations when there could have been one?
The doozy of all of the amendments is the change to the Railways Corporation board. We are going to increase the number of board members by a Statutes Amendment Bill because they have an increased workload over the next 10 years. What is the message that Bill English has been sending to State servants in the last few months? He has been telling them they have to do more with less—more with less! But when it comes to the management class, they will get more for less! It is exactly the reverse. It is like Bill English’s tax cuts: when one has more one gets more; when one has less one gets less. I think this reflects National’s attitude. If the Government were serious about expecting more for less out of public servants, it should have said to the board of directors that, no, it would not give them more directors, that those guys are paid a very, very good salary, and that it expects them to step up to the mark. As the Hon Paula Bennett says: “Step up! Step up! Do the job! Step up! And if you can’t do it, move on.” The board of directors has, obviously, complained about being overworked. They have said it is too hard, there are too many reports, and, by the way, they do not have enough people in the boardroom to have a very enjoyable morning tea, so they want to be given a few more mates. I think that is a very poor signal. If we are genuinely talking about difficult and constrained times, if we are talking about the rest of New Zealand having to work harder to make ends meet, then what is wrong with a board of directors doing more work with the same number of people?
And what is so difficult about a 10-year plan? That has not been explained by the Hon Nathan Guy. I want to know what justifies such a significant increase in the number of board members, when the rest of the Public Service and the New Zealand public in general are working harder for less. That is the message this Government has given, but for its own people, for directors—who support it, no doubt—it will make sure they not only have more directors but receive more directors’ fees, at greater cost. Well, I think every group of cleaners in New Zealand would like two extra cleaners on the job, for the same reason—because they have a big 10-year plan. I think every group of carpenters on building sites would like a few more carpenters to lighten the load.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired.
RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this
As other speakers have noted, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) consists entirely of amendments to Acts. All of the amendments are simply technical, which lend themselves to non-controversial changes to give effect to Parliament’s intent for each piece of legislation.
Contrary to Mr Barker speaking for 10 minutes—more, actually—on the bill and making points that seemed to oppose the points that are being dealt with in the bill, Labour is not opposed to any of these changes, because otherwise they would not have come to the House. In order to be included, amendments must be minor, technical, and non-controversial. If any party objects to any of these amendments, the statute requiring amendment must be removed from the bill before it is tabled. None of these amendments have been removed, so obviously Labour does not object to them. We have just spent 10 minutes listening to a member who is not actually objecting to any of the changes that are being made. To this end, the substance of the debate would probably be more interesting if we were debating the changes that the Māori Party have not agreed to.
There are just a few points that I want to make in this debate. The first is around the proposal that section 26A(6)(b) of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act be amended to require the writ for postal referenda to be returned within 60 days, rather than 50 days, to allow sufficient time for the Chief Electoral Officer to complete the final count of votes, endorse the writ, and return it to the Clerk of the House. Ten days is neither here nor there, but in the interests of due access to justice we are of course keen to support this, to ensure a full and comprehensive referenda process can be undertaken.
But I would just like to raise an issue in the debate regarding the possibility of electronic voting, also known as e-voting. Electronic voting technology can speed the counting of ballots and can provide improved accessibility for disabled voters. Polling place electronic voting or Internet voting examples have taken place in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Estonia, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Venezuela, and the Philippines. Unfortunately, New Zealand is not on that long list. I wonder why we cannot add New Zealand into that list, to trial both electronic means of casting a vote and electronic means of counting votes. If we already have the facility for online enrolment, then it would seem to me an ideal opportunity for citizens initiated referenda to serve as a pilot for e-voting.
As the member for Te Tai Tonga, the amendments to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 are also worthy of a brief comment. In essence, this reform will amend the Act to clarify that there may be only one state of local emergency in force, in the same location, at any one time. If Parliament were sitting in Tokyo, the fact that we have just experienced earthquakes, a tidal wave, and a nuclear meltdown would mean only that there was one national state of emergency. If we were sitting in Christchurch, we would have gone through two earthquakes, but there would be only one national state of emergency. The events as they have unfolded in Canterbury have certainly informed the importance of maintaining consistency of communication and the need for a coordinated, comprehensive approach. Obviously, we support this change.
Consistency is also a concept that we considered when looking at the amendments to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act. The bill amends section 24(2) of the Act, so as to provide that “every tangata whenua appointee shall continue in office until the appointee’s successor comes into office notwithstanding that the term for which the appointee was appointed may have expired.” This is a pragmatic response to issues that occur from time to time, between retirements, resignations, and new appointments. The Māori Party is aware that unless we set up procedures such as this amendment, there might be serious consequences for the work programme and issues involved in the management of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, if indeed tangata whenua representation were missing from the table.
I want also to focus on issues around the Domestic Violence Act. I want to correct the gross misinformation put to the House this morning by Carol Beaumont about domestic violence prevention funding. Ms Beaumont suggested that there should be great concern about the nature of the funding cuts to family violence prevention funding. Actually, she could not be more wrong. In actual fact, not only has funding for family violence prevention been maintained at $11.035 million, as part of the 2011-12 funding plan, but in actual fact the announcements by my colleague Tariana Turia included mention of $2.8 million for a period of 1 year to support innovation and joined-up approaches to the coordination of responses to family violence. This may include responses such as community networks and case collaboration. So the funding for family violence prevention has not only been maintained but it has grown.
What is different about the approach is that we now see far more emphasis on front-line services. In particular, the Family-Centred Services Fund will enable family violence prevention service providers and provider collectives to work more flexibly to restore family safety and family well-being where violence has occurred, and to help create the longer-term changes needed to prevent violence from recurring. The Māori Party welcomes this refocus on families and believes it is the right emphasis for our future.
The amendments in this bill to the Domestic Violence Act will make it clear that a person may be taken into custody only for refusing or failing to comply with a police safety order if, after issue, the order has been served on the person. They also enable community magistrates, justices of the peace, and court registrars, as well as District Court judges, to issue warrants of arrest under sections. We welcome the move for transparency, and note also that it reflects the widespread ownership of the prevention of family violence right across Government.
Finally, we support the changes to the Charities Act to clarify the definition of “officer” and to amend the definition of “serious wrongdoing” to include: grossly negligent record-keeping, gross mismanagement, destruction, and misrepresentation of records. It is all good to have such specificity written into the law. There is an amendment made to section 5 of the Act so that the meaning of “charitable purpose” is defined as it applies to amateur sport. This will be in line with current case law, which provides that amateur sport is not a charitable purpose for its own sake, but it can be charitable if it is a means to achieving charitable purposes such as promoting health or education. We support all these changes, and we believe it is consistent with the wider context about ensuring the Charities Commission is more aligned with New Zealand communities. We note in the commission’s statement of intent its commitment to enhance its responsiveness to Māori, Pasifika, and ethnic communities, and we obviously welcome this wider direction of change.
There are many other amendments made within the bill. So many of them are technical and should not have to be made, but they were made because of spelling mistakes, because of commas or full stops being in the wrong place, or simple typos, which should not have slipped through and in fact would not have slipped through if we had a better process in this Parliament. To this end, I am really looking forward to the constitutional review and to submissions that the public will make on whether this Parliament needs a second House to review what is going on, so that we do not have to pass through things under urgency, so that we do not pass through things that should not be passed through, such as a simple spelling mistake or a typo. The Māori Party is happy to support this bill at its first reading, recognising that further points of detail can be raised at successive stages.
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) Link to this
Sat sri akaal. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. First of all I congratulate you on your appointment as Assistant Speaker.
It is my privilege to speak on the first reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill is an omnibus bill that amends a number of different Acts. It amends 20 different statutes, including the Wills Act, which relates to the signing of wills, witnesses, and the validity of the documents. The Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) also amends the Charities Act 2005, the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, the Companies Act, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, and the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act. The bill also includes updates, and definitions will be clarified and simplified for most aspects of these bills. I commend this bill to the House.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, and as it is the first occasion on which I have spoken since you have moved to your new, elevated status I will just acknowledge that. There is some confusion around the House about whether we are, in fact, blood relatives, and I see that today you are wearing the clan tartan tie. But just for the record, once and for all, I say that we are not related, although I do hold you in the greatest of respect. I thought I would just clarify that.
I stand to speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and, following just one speaker on from Rahui Katene, who spoke before, I have to take up some of the issues that she raised. Standing here in urgency, I question whether this is the best that the National Government can do, and the question that I would have thought the Māori Party would be asking is whether this bill is the best that the Government can do for Māori. I ask whether it should not actually be bringing to this House something that will address the appalling rate of unemployment among young Māori.
Unemployment among Māori is now the highest since the Second World War. Where is the plan to grow opportunities for Māori youth? Where is the plan for training? We have had $55 million taken out of training by this Government. Where is the plan to have young Māori in training? Where is the plan to support young Māori into university, so that they can be the leaders of tomorrow? Where is the plan for Māori growth in business and for entrepreneurship for Māori—where is the plan for that? That is the question that I believe the Māori Party should be asking of the Government, as we are here in urgency today debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2).
The other matter I will take up from Rahui Katene is a serious one, and that is the question of funding for anti-violence measures in this country. I was the recipient of a letter, as were many others in this House, from Women’s Refuge. That letter told us that it was concerned that $380,000 had been taken out of its budget—$380,000. That is a cut. That is a cut to an organisation that I think every single member of this House would have respect for. The women’s refuge down in Christchurch at the moment is having to deal with more and more women coming to see it. I have had Women’s Refuge come into my office during the last year saying that it is full up and cannot take any more people—$380,000 has been taken from that organisation’s budget. It is the end of the Te Rito programme, a programme that Minister Turia used to champion, but not now. I am sorry to say that it is not correct for Rahui Katene to stand up and tell us that there have not been cuts. Women’s Refuge wrote to this House. Annette King raised the issue with Paula Bennett and tabled that letter in this House. That is an issue the Māori Party and others need to answer. In this bill we have a provision about the Domestic Violence Act, but it is not the kind of provision we should be seeing from this Government. It is not a plan to address the reduction of domestic violence; it is a tinkering change, just as the rest of this bill is.
We are here in urgency and I raise the issue, yet again, that the National Government has decided that amendments like those being made to the Wild Animal Control Act and the Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area Act are the urgent business of this House. There is one thing I can say for the Government on this: at least this bill is going to a select committee. In this term of Government 17 bills have come into this House and have not been referred to a select committee—17. That number compares, in the last three terms of the Labour Government, with one bill in one term, four bills in another term, and five bills in another term. Doing that with 17 bills is to corrupt the democratic process.
It tells us that this Government does not want to hear from the public, I say to Mr Horomia. That is what it tells us. It does not want to hear from the public.
One of the first bills I debated when I became a member of Parliament was the bill that rammed through Anne Tolley’s national standards. That bill did not go to a select committee. I ask what could be more important to send to a select committee and get expert opinion and public opinion on than a fundamental change to the way our children are assessed and the way that children’s reports are given to parents. That is a major issue, and this Government rammed that bill through under urgency. It did not send that bill to a select committee. But today we sit here under urgency debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). This is meant to be a tidy-up kind of bill. It is, as Sandra Goudie said earlier, some housekeeping. Well, as my colleague Steve Chadwick said, that is right; Sandra Goudie is doing the housekeeping. She is polishing up the family silver before the National Government sells it off. That is what it is doing. That is the kind of housekeeping this Government has indulged in, because this bill does not give us any kind of direction or any kind of plan for New Zealand. This bill is the priority. The choice that the National Government has made today is to bring this bill before the House. It does not provide any kind of economic plan. It does not help people who are struggling in New Zealand to pay their food bills, to pay their rent, to pay their power, or to put petrol in the car. It does not help them, at all. Here we have the National Government fiddling while Rome burns.
If we look at one of the clauses, perhaps we can see an inkling of a plan for the National Government. It is the clause that amends the Marriage Act. What this clause does is to allow a New Zealander who intends to marry outside New Zealand to apply to the registrar-general for a certificate that states that there is no lawful impediment to the marriage. This is another part of National’s strategy of running up the white flag, because it knows that so many New Zealanders are going to go overseas and will need to get married overseas that it had better change the law to make it easier for them. That is it: run up the white flag on the economy. Bill English has given away catching up with Australia, and now he will make it easier for all the people who have gone to Australia to get married over there.
That is right—pick it off. This is the first step in giving up on catching up with Australia: New Zealanders can get married overseas far more easily. Well, that is fantastic! On this side of the House, we think that we should be working hard to keep people in New Zealand.
Hon Parekura Horomia Link to this
And then they’re going to bring foreign businesses here because the workers are cheap.
Mr Horomia is absolutely right. Because there is no plan for the economy, only foreign capital will be in New Zealand and only foreign-owned businesses will be able to do that. On this side of the House, we believe that New Zealanders should own their own future. We believe we should keep assets in New Zealanders’ control and build an economy that works for all New Zealanders, not the economy that this Government is trying to build at the moment.
There are a couple of interesting changes that I think the select committee will want to focus on. One has already been mentioned, which is the amendment to the definition of a charitable purpose in the Charities Act so that it can include an entity that promotes sport if that purpose is expressed to be, and is in fact, the means by which a charitable purpose will be achieved. I say in this House that the Charities Act is an area where the last Government perhaps did not get all of the details right, and a number of other changes to the Charities Act might be considered. But again, we have a piecemeal approach to pick this one out. And why just sport? I can absolutely see why organisations whose prime purpose relates to sport would want to be included in a charitable purpose, but I have been on the board of charitable organisations that have struggled with the Charities Act and have struggled to be able to get their exact purpose to fit. There should be a wider amendment here, but it is a piecemeal, picked-off one thing.
There is also another reasonably significant change, and that is an amendment to the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act. What it does is to make provision for the writ for an indicative referendum to be conducted by postal voting. That is probably quite a sensible amendment, but it is a significant amendment. It is something that will merit debate in the select committee. I will pick up another one of Rahui Katene’s points in that regard. I sat on the Government Administration Committee for the last Statutes Amendment Bill. Although there are no objections to these clauses being put before the House, what happens in the select committee process is that we have witnesses coming in, we have evidence in front of the committee, and decisions might be made that perhaps we should not carry on with a bill. Although we are supporting this bill on its first reading, as we do with any bill that comes to this House, when this bill comes to the select committee—if the National Government lets it go there—we will listen to the submissions and make our decision then on whether we support every single aspect of this bill.
As others have mentioned, there are some very small, minor matters of tidying things up. I know my colleague Ruth Dyson will be delighted to see that the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act will now correctly spell Lyttelton, which it has not previously done until now. So that is a change that I know she will be happy with.
Overall, there is very little in this bill, at all, that will give New Zealanders comfort that there is a Government in place that has a plan to make their lives better. It is quite the opposite, in fact. We have a Government that has run up the white flag on its plan to catch up with Australia. The best it can do, as my colleague Rick Barker said, is increase the number of directors on the New Zealand Railways Corporation board from seven to nine. Increasing bureaucracy, doing the opposite of what it says it will do—that is the mantra of this Government and that is what this bill shows us.
KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
I again add the Green Party’s congratulations to you, Mr Robertson, on your promotion to the role of Assistant Speaker. I thank you very much for the work that you have done in this House and will do in your new role. The Green Party supports this bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). It is a tidy-up bill, as has been said by other speakers. It has a consensus. The Green Party has a little bit of a complaint: why is this bill being discussed under urgency? Surely urgency is for discussing the urgent business of the House. It does not appear to us that the tidy-up amendments in this bill are urgent. They could be dealt with during the normal business of the House. Statutes revision bills go through the House pretty quickly, anyway.
There is a misuse of urgency in general that we are involved in at the present time. It would have been quite easy for the Government, which has called urgency mainly to progress the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill, to just extend the state of emergency, which gives it all kinds of powers in the Canterbury area, for a few weeks more. If it had done that, then that would have allowed proper select committee consideration to be given to that bill so that we could get the legislation right, if that is possible. Of course, the Green Party has opposed that bill.
To get back to this particular bill and to follow on from Grant Robertson’s speech, I say the domestic violence issue comes up in Part 8 of the bill in some small, technical amendments. The issue of domestic violence is also related to other problems in society. The more problems and tensions that there are in society—the more poverty there is—the more likely it is that the frustrations within a family will come out in the form of domestic violence, which has to be handled by social workers and by the courts.
I think that is another reason why, to get back to the Canterbury situation—I have friends and relations there, and I have visited Christchurch since the 22 February earthquake—we notice greater tensions within families there. People face uncertainty regarding their futures. They do not know where their jobs are going, or where their businesses are going. They are in financial hardship. Maybe the insurance people have not come around to give a proper quote on their house in order to assess whether it can be repaired, how much it will cost, and how much cover they have, etc., etc. All of those things are up in the air, let alone the provision of adequate water, sewerage, and all of the other things. That situation is ripe for the creation of more domestic tensions and, potentially, domestic violence.
I think that is very relevant to the Government’s policy, because at the moment a lot of workers and businesses that have been affected by the earthquake are not sure how long the Government will continue the income support system. It is due to run out in a week or two, and there is uncertainty and nervousness amongst people in Christchurch who are affected in that way as to whether the Government will continue the support until they really get back on their feet, in terms of full-time, fully paid employment, or in terms of their business operating properly on the level that it did before the earthquake.
Grant Robertson also talked about the charities issue and the inclusion of organisations dedicated to sport under the Charities Act. I think one of the problems with regard to the Charities Act now is the prohibition, in effect, on advocacy by a number of charities. One sees that issue in organisation after organisation. The Government has never properly recognised that charitable organisations are often at the coalface delivering social services, often with money they have got voluntarily from the community. They are at the coalface dealing with poor people, dealing with disadvantaged people, and dealing with people who are suffering from all sorts of problems. They are in the best position of any organisations in our community to offer advice to the Government, to offer advice to the community, and to engage in informed advocacy. Under the Act, as I said, if an organisation is involved in too much advocacy, then it is not really deemed to be a charitable organisation. It is considered to have a political bias, and therefore it is knocked off the list of organisations entitled to charitable status. I think that issue really needs to be looked at and corrected. We want to have real democracy in our society, which involves all the voluntary organisations contributing to the maximum in the debate on the way forward to overcome some of the social problems that we face. With those few comments, I say the Green Party will support this bill.
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) Link to this
I am delighted to take this call, which I know has been eagerly awaited by members opposite. I am delighted that they have stayed around in such great numbers to hear this contribution. But before I speak in support of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) I will say this: I was on my feet speaking on another measure when the dinner break interrupted me yesterday. Mr Assistant Speaker, you were not in the Chair at that time, but you were when we returned after the dinner break. So I was remiss at that time in not congratulating you on your elevation to the role of Assistant Speaker—in fact, your return to that role—so may I congratulate you now. I say that it is particularly good to note that a fine member of Scottish descent will be proudly wearing a tartan tie—albeit the wrong tartan—in the Speaker’s Chair. I look forward to seeing it. I have to say that being a sept of the Buchannan clan we probably have the most bilious tartan in existence, which is why I bring mine out only on very special occasions. I will do so on St Andrew’s Day.
I will return, if I may, to the contribution that was made by the Assistant Speaker’s namesake, Mr Robertson, the member for Wellington Central. He spoke at some length and lamented what he described as a lack of direction and a lack of a plan in this bill. In particular there were some comments directed at the member for Te Tai Tonga. I have to say that the only thing really that was lacking in direction and a plan was Mr Robertson’s contribution. It was very hard to see how on earth he reached some of the conclusions he did about a measure such as the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), which has the support of all parties in the House. I make the comment in reply to him that the picture he was talking about in relation to women’s refuges in this country is not as he described. In fact when there was some concern a year or so ago, I took the opportunity to go and visit the women’s refuge in my electorate. It was made very clear to me that of course there are always challenges in operating women’s refuges, and of course it is essential by the very nature of the sensitive work they do that they operate below the radar, but, nevertheless, they are doing a very good job. They would simply refute some of the criticisms that have been made about them. I acknowledge the contribution that Rahui Katene made on this matter earlier this morning.
It is good to see that there is cooperation in the House on this bill. Those who are listening or watching this debate at the moment may not be aware of the long history of Statutes Amendment bills in New Zealand. They are in fact a very efficient and effective way for Parliament to operate. I was intrigued when Mr Locke spoke earlier that he lamented the fact that we are discussing this bill under urgency. I simply make the point that of course the primary focus of our urgency at this moment is to enact the very important measures for the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. The Local Government and Environment Committee is beavering away today in Christchurch as we speak. It is hearing from all interested parties down in Christchurch. I know that they appreciate that opportunity. They are grateful to the select committee for going down there. It is appropriate that we are in a position to continue with the work, from the second reading right through the Committee stage to the third reading, when the bill returns to the House tomorrow.
Today is an opportunity for us to make significant progress on a broad range of measures. It behoves us all in this House to remember that when we are inclined at times to waste the time of the House, as members opposite frequently do, then there will be consequences. Today is our opportunity to ensure that Parliament makes good progress. We did so yesterday and we will continue to do so today.
We should not be demeaning of this particular Statutes Amendment Bill, because, as I mentioned, these measures have long been used to very good effect in this Parliament, and here we have a bill that actually amends 20 different statutes. Those who are listening to the debate might wonder how one does that and why it is necessary, and the answer is that it is inevitable that mistakes are occasionally made. They are usually minor drafting errors—sometimes as minor as a spelling error—but it is important that when they are detected they are corrected, and this is an efficient way of enabling the House to do so. As has already been mentioned today we are looking at minor amendments to the Wills Act, the Charities Act 2005, the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, the Companies Act, the Judicature Act, the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act, and so on. They are all important measures that have huge implications, particularly for professions and for the not-for-profit sector in our community, and there are many others, as well.
I want to ensure that we keep on track. If Mr Robertson believes that in undertaking a measure of this type we are somehow lacking in a plan or lacking in direction, I invite him to look again at what we are actually doing here. I cannot imagine that there is a single member of this House who would take issue with any of the amendments or any of the changes that are being planned, and I therefore take great pleasure in endorsing them and I commend this measure to the House.
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) Link to this
I also add my congratulations to you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, on your recent appointment as Assistant Speaker. I will say this: it is wonderful to see a person in a job like yours enjoying himself so much. Every time you are in the Chair, or in the chair at the Table—either of the two chairs— your face gives the sense of a person really enjoying what he is doing. I commend you for that spirit, but I also sincerely, as a friend and colleague, congratulate you on your appointment. It was well made.
It was interesting that my dear friend Tim Macindoe took time to tell us how to save time on something inconsequential, but did not point to the consequential parts of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), which we are debating today. My friend could have saved a bit of time. I say to him that the priceless moment that was difficult to capture was when the Green member Keith Locke got the call ahead of him. The look on his face—I would pay money to see that again! But it was good to see him speak.
A Statutes Amendment Bill is an important bill. It is supposed to be non-controversial. It is supposed to collect technical parts of legislation that need to be brought to the House to be tidied up. As others have said, generally they tend to be non-controversial items that most sides agree on. I notice Mr Bakshi took a call earlier, and in classical Bakshi fashion it was brief—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKERI am sorry—the honourable member Mr Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. In typical fashion his speech was brief. It is interesting that the House has taken—
—Mr Macindoe might like to take note of this point—a lot of time on his member’s bill, the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. That provision belonged in this bill—one short paragraph that we would have agreed on. An omnibus bill of this nature should address that type of provision.
There are clearly many good provisions in this bill, and I will talk about a couple of them. There is the series of changes to the Charities Commission. We all know that the commission has in the past 5 or 6 years carefully established itself and is now a key part of the non-governmental organisation sector, the charities sector. It has made huge strides in how it operates and how it regulates, if you like, many of the charities. Its work is quite important. We have a number of amendments in this bill, and most of them are fine and non-controversial. However, some measures require the close scrutiny of the Government Administration Committee, and it is in the Charities Commission area that that case can be made. The amendment to section 40(1) in clause 11 requires the entity—the non-governmental organisation that is applying to be a charity—to inform the Charities Commission if an officer subsequently becomes disqualified under the Act. It seems reasonable, and, on the face of it, it is innocuous. But little amendments of this nature place quite a huge burden on charities. They will need to watch out, to set up a system, so that whoever it is who falls foul and becomes disqualified under the Act is reported. As to how far it goes and into what areas, there is no guidance on that, at all. Labour believes that this requirement could place a considerable burden on small entities. They may not be aware of it; well, that can be easily fixed. But if this amendment is to be supported, it needs to be accompanied by an awareness-raising and training programme for smaller entities. The second point is about the implications. If an entity fails to meet the requirements of the proposed amendment, what then? What is to happen to that entity? That also is something the select committee needs to follow up. A number of points like that need to be made about some of the provisions.
But there is another point about the amendments to the Charities Act. Sometimes an amendment under a Statutes Amendment Bill takes attention away from addressing more fundamental questions. This bill makes three, or four, or five minor amendments to that Act, but there clearly is a need to look at the definition of advocacy in the Charities Act. I agree with my colleague from the Greens Keith Locke, who raised this point, as well. It is a problem, because the National Council of Women and a number of other major charities have been unable to be registered as charities, yet who would argue in this House that the work they do is not charitable? Therefore, they ought to be caught by the Charities Act. That is a major area that the Associate Minister of Justice has not taken up, and he is not likely to do so until the 2015 review of that particular Act, but its implications are serious now. The opportunity to address more fundamental questions has not been taken up. By making minor amendments of the type that are being made here, we lose that opportunity, and it will be some time before we get it back. In any case, even the changes that are being made here to the Charities Act have some implications, and the select committee will need to examine them, as well.
There are many other minor changes in this bill that my colleagues have referred to. I am interested in one change to do with the Marriage Act. It really says that one does not need to be a New Zealander to get a licence to marry. It makes a minor change, and I am glad that that kind of change is there. It reflects the diversification of New Zealand society. Many, many cultural and ethnic groups living in our society do not meet the present provisions. It is good to see a bill like this making that small change, which will be important to those applying for a licence. It also gives quite an important symbolic message to New Zealand—and to this House, I guess—that, going forward, our bills need to take into account the diversification of our society.
There are some changes to the Domestic Violence Act. Again, they are minor changes and nothing to quibble about. But the area of domestic violence in itself requires a lot more of the attention of this House than it has received so far. Although programmes out there are under way to begin to address domestic violence in our society, we need to do a lot more, and these changes cannot be all that we will do. The debate is going on about whether our funding is in the right place and whether it is the right amount of funding. We tend to be very shy of actually committing to a programme of action that we know will need to go for about 10 years before it begins to make a dent in our rather abysmal domestic violence rates. We tend after 2 or 3 years to play around with the resourcing of those programmes. Some of the rules around that that need to be strengthened are not being strengthened—yet some others are. That is another example of an area that demands much greater attention from this House not receiving that attention.
There are a number of areas in this particular bill to be taken up. They appear to be non-controversial but their implications are quite serious. I have spoken on one or two of those areas, and I trust that the select committee will take them up. I look forward to seeing that when the bill comes back to the House. Thank you.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
I first of all congratulate you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, on your reappointment to the position. I must admit that you are one of those people in this House whom everybody finds very easy to get along with, and you are a tremendous servant for this country and for the people of your electorate. Well done on your recognition in that role. I think it shows the esteem that you are held in by all members of this House as somebody they can get along with and enjoy the company of. Congratulations.
Jonathan YoungThat is enough, is it? But he is a good guy. We are discussing the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) this morning. A number of members have talked about it and said that it covers a lot of minor changes and technical amendments that are necessary in certain bills. One part of it that I will focus on this morning is in regard to the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act 1981. The change in this bill enables nine directors to be appointed to the New Zealand Railways Corporation board, instead of the current number of seven. The number of directors of a board is an issue that has been debated a lot in recent years, as people look at having boards that are more effective and not too large, but that represent a variation of views, skills, and experience. That number of nine directors is seen as about right for a large-scale board with a large budget, such as this one. Its budget basically involves the corporation investing $4.6 billion in assets in its 10-year turn-round plan, in which this Government has invested heavily in rail—$750 million investment in rail—to make sure that we get this corporation running effectively, and delivering to all New Zealanders. That change is important in the sense that it will give that board extra strength so that we can deliver on that investment—that vital infrastructure investment in our rail network—going forward. This Government has invested in that, to the future benefit of all New Zealanders. We look forward to that board achieving its goals in the very near future.
I support this bill, which covers a variety of amendments to a variety of Acts. Some of those amendments are minor and technical, and some of them are very important, like the Railways Corporation amendment, which delivers real benefits to New Zealand. I once again congratulate you, Ross, on your appointment. Thank you.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) Link to this
Before I start, I congratulate you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, on your elevation. It is nice to have you back in the Chair. I move, That the Government Administration Committeeconsider the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) , and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 July 2011.