Statutes Amendment Bill
Rahui Katene, MP for Te Tai Tonga
Tuesday 8 December 2009; 5.30pm

The Statutes Amendment format is one which normally avoids the need for extended discussion.

By its very nature as an omnibus bill consisting entirely of amendments to Acts, we know that amendments must be minor, technical and non-controversial.

Indeed if there was to be any objection, the statute requiring amendment must be removed before Bill is tabled.

It can be taken for granted, therefore, that any amendments problematic to the Maori Party have already been deleted from the Bill.

I do not intend to draw out the debate unnecessarily challenging the basis for the minor drafting amendments submitted to, for example the Animal Products Act or the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act.

Most of the changes are clear-cut.

There’s the amendment to the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Act which repeals section 61 as registrars and celebrants no longer keep register books. Nothing controversial about that.

Some of the changes will cause some angst amongst law lecturers. For example when I was a law student taking equity, the word among students was the lecturer had not changed his lectures for decades. He kept repeating the same lectures

Now, with the changes to the witnessing of signatures on wills, several lectures will definitely have to be changed. It will mean that law students will no longer have to read hours and hours of case law on that subject. That will be a very popular amendment amongst law students.

Some of the changes are thoroughly sensible.

A good example of that is the decision to substitute clause 53 of the Conservation Act with a new section to provide that a person in charge of a dog as well as the owner of the dog, commits an offence if the dog attacks and seriously injures or kills protected wildlife in a controlled dog area.

This is about encouraging collective responsibility, protecting our native flora and fauna, and we should all support that goal.

We are pleased with part 18 of the Bill which amends the Electoral Act 1993 to simplify the process for updating the electoral roll when there are changes to an elector’s details as a result of a marriage or civil union.

Any action which can assist in encouraging and promoting voters to take up their democratic entitlement to vote will always receive the full support of the Maori Party.

We only wish that there were other more visionary amendments for the Electoral Act, including that all people should be automatically entered on to the General Roll at 18 years of age, or the Maori roll if Maori – with an option to transfer to the General Roll.

We believe that such an amendment - which was a proposal that came out of the Maori Party Policy manifesto – would do a great deal to increase the opportunities for New Zealanders to participate in the democratic process.

I noted that clause 103 of the National Parks Act substitutes a new definition of foreshore. I would be interested to hear back from the Minister the precise relationship of that new definition, to the previous Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.

Section 5 of that Act defines foreshore and seabed to mean first the marine area that is bounded on the landward side by the line of mean high water springs and “on the seaward side, by the outer limits of the territorial sea” - that is twelve nautical miles.

The report of the Ministerial Review Panel of the Foreshore and Seabed Act, Pakia ki uta, pakia ki tai, reported that prior to the enactment of the 2004 Act the foreshore and seabed were legally distinct areas, but after its enactment the two are now legally coalesced into a single area.

The Ministerial Review Panel went further and I quote

“The Act has to be the single biggest land nationalisation statute enacted in New Zealand history.

Defenders of the legislation could maintain, however, that the Government was under the impression that the area belonged to the Crown absolutely in any case, and that the legislation was not so much an expropriation as the correction of an anomaly”.

Mr Speaker, I raise the question of the definition of foreshore as it applies to this National Parks Act because I think the Ministerial Review Panel has suggested there is considerable room for variation in the interpretation of definition.

We would expect the highest standards of rigour to applyin the following stages of analysis and we will be watching that debate with considerable interest.

Finally, I want to just make mention of part 43 which amends the membership of the Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre Trust Board in the Wairarapa.

Taratahi has just celebrated its 90th year of operation – it was originally established in 1919 in central Wairarapa as a training farm for men returning from the First World War.

It is a key organisation to inspire young people to a career on the land and to provide opportunities for developing skills and experiences of value in agricultural and other rural industries.

Taratahi has invested considerable time in working with established tertiary training providers such as UCOL and Waiariki Polytechnic, as well as various Maori incorporations and trusts. I note also that included within their educational goals is the intention to increase Maori participation.

So when an organisation with such a solid reputation and a vision for the future asks for amendments to its board membership surely it is the role of Parliament to simply oblige.

And that is what we will be doing. We will support the Statutes Amendment Bill at this its first reading.

ENDS

© Scoop Media