vote in favour. The motion is vote in favour. The motion is
carried and I'll report the
bill with amendment presently. Members,
we now turn to the Statutes
Repeal Bill and the we is that Clause
1
you look at the name of the bill and the size of it you might think,
much to see here. Not much of any
Repeal Bill, which is an unusual Repeal Bill, which is an unusual
provision for our parliament
to make, I think takes about 132 acts
off the Statutes Bill so it repeals
about 132 pieces
137. I stand corrected by the deputy chair of our committee and I am
relying on his memory, which may be
a little better than mine. So
somewhere between 132 and 137
acts ary peeled by this
somewhere between 132 and 137 acts
by this legislation. All but two were agreed to unanimously
by the select committee. Two of the
provisions were contentious
and caused us some
difficulty. Before I move on to discussing
the specifics of those and the concerns that
Labour and Greens members had about
those two provisions, there may be
others that Barry Coates may want to
mention but I know on
those two we were
mention but I know on those two we others
mention but I know on those two we were certainly concerned
I want to just take a step back and I want to just take a step back and
say what is the point of this
say what is the point of this
legislation because there was
some debate about that as well. There
doesn't seem to be a difficulty
if ministers want to say these acts
are clogging up the statutes book. They
are causing us a lot of difficulty
when we are
trying to find something, let's have a spring clean
and tidy up and let's
repeal a whole lot of bills. That is
entirely within the mandate of a minister
to do. It might be seen as quite a good
thing to do by other parties in
the thing to do by other parties in the
House. But what the
bill reports is doing, I think it is in the
name of the Hon Steven Joyce, so you never
quite know where that might be
heading, but what the bill
says its point
heading, but what the bill says its heading,
heading, but what the bill says its point is in response to a
recommendation by the Productivity
Commission to reduce
unnecessary legislation. I think that the driver
behind this Statutes Repeal bill
and the recommendation of the
productivity Commission
productivity Commission are entirely different. I am strongly of the view
that if the Productivity
Commission was presented
was presented with the Statutes was
was presented with the Statutes Repeal Bill and
was presented with the Statutes
what you had in mind when you said that Governments should reduce
unnecessary legislation as the
key
Commission would laugh. I think they would say,
Commission would laugh. I think they
in mind at all. This does not reduce unnecessary legislation.
unnecessary legislation. All it does is take off the
statutes book legislation which is no longer
being
increase productivity, which was the driver of the recommendations of the
Productivity Commission. I
think Minister Steven Joyce, has
yet again got it wrong. He hasn't paid enough
attention to the detail of the
Productivity Commission's
Productivity Commission's recommendation, let alone
transferred that into a
legislative or policy framework at
all. Once again Steven Joyce has missed the
mark. He is not atentive to
detail. He is only aat the
endive to slogans. He has been
getting slogans. He has been getting
collection correction he is
only atentive to slogans. He
has Ben getting them right for the past few
months but in terms
of his grip on legislation he is way off the
mark. Can I move to the two acts that
are repealed by the Statutes Repeal
Bill that caused us concern at
the committee, and a lot of debate. One
of them is the medicines
legislation and the other is
the sentencing legislation. I want to refer to a
we only got a few submissions to we only got a few submissions to
this bill. Not many people
considered it of interest but one of
our submissions was extraordinarily
high quality and raised significant
constitutional concerns with the
sentence
constitutional concerns with the high
constitutional concerns with the sentence Sentencing Council repeal.
That submission was from Sir Sir
Kennet Keith ON ZQC. I'm sure every
member in the House will be familiar
with the fine
rort of Sir Kennet Keith. He was New Zealand's first
appointment
appointment to the International Court of Justice and served as
a judge on both the High Court and
Court of Appeal. He was a member of
the judicial
the judicial committee of the privy council and was one of
the inaugural appointments to
appointments to the Supreme Court of NZ. So he has
a very fine legal track record and
regarded.
Sir Kenneth made his submission and he agreed with the point I just
made about this legislation not being
consistent with what the
Productivity Commission said.
He raised that more as a matter of
interest than a matter of substance.
When it got to the matter
of substance in relation to the
Sentencing Council, may I
just quote from his submission. He says,
Sentencing Council, may I just quote
Sentencing Council Act 2007 came into
Sentencing Council Act 2007 came
word for people with good legal minds such as the presiding officer
2007 but was not implemented. Repealing that act
will clarify that the Government will not set
up the Sentencing Council in the future
and will allow the courts to
retain their ability to develop
their own sentencing
their ability to develop their own
That's what the purpose of the bill That's what the purpose of the
bill is. So it is quite
different than removing from the statutes book
legislation that no longer
has any use and is no
longer being implemented. So he was quoting the
point of the bill and he said that
was misleading. He said,
Sentencing Council Act presents a completely different case
from that of the acts not in force. The act
in force is part of the law of New
force is part of the law of New
Zealand since 2007. For
the past eight years the executive
has suspended
eight years the executive has
described as an apparent breach of described as an apparent breach
of section 1 of the Bill of Rights Act
and quoted Fitzgeralds versus
Muldoon, another case that many
members in this House will be
familiar with. He
refusal to give effect to a statute in force appears to me to be a
serious
in force appears to me to be a
having started with a bill that all of us
having started with a bill that all
probably got not a lot of contention and these bills are not
being used, they are surplus
to the requirement of the New Zealand
public and certainly the
certainly the New Zealand Parliament, they could be
certainly the New Zealand
to the Hon Christopher Finlayson's opinion of course, but I would
have opinion of course, but I would
have thought somebody who is regarded
as having one of the highest legal
minds and the sharpest legal minds
in the country, saying that
this part of this bill was a serious
constitutional matter and may
be a breach of the Bill of Rights. He
went on
breach of the Bill of Rights. He
of repealing acts that have not been brought into force but again to
repeat the Sentencing
Council Act presents a sharply different case,
not just for the constitutional
issue raised. The Act is in force.
It's proposed repeal presents
the following question of
It's proposed repeal presents the
the balance to be struck between promoting greater consistency
and predictability in the justice system
through the application of that
through the application of that
legislation on one side and on
the other, decisions made by the judges
within the sentencing
powers conferred upon them, sometimes
helped by guide join judgements
given by appeal courts
It was quite a frustrating situation for us. I think the members of the
for us. I think the members of the
of the committee were persuaded by sir Kenneth Keith but decided to tow
the party line for whatever
reason. This is the sort of
legislation whether they could have stood up and
said, we, Labour could have
said, we, Labour could have
supported the entire balance of
this legislation because it didn't do any
harm. The medicines
legislation where the Government's change
in policy with
policy with the therapeutics products regime and the Sentencing
Council caused us a
lot of concern. Those issues need
to be addressed by the minister. I know
the minister in the chair now isn't the
minister whose name is in the bill but he has
a good mind and I have
whose name is in the bill but he has
he takes serious issues seriously when they are raised in
the committee stages of
the bill. I would like him to consider
the submission of sir Kenneth Keith
and the inappropriateness of having the
the inappropriateness of having the
medicines legislation altered in such a way. This is not
the appropriate vehicle to use for
a deliberate change in
Government policy or the Government deciding
policy or the Government deciding
not to implement a provision
that is in the law and is in force. So,
I guess none of us thought when we
started this process that it would
be contentious, that it
might be a matter of debate, let alone
a matter of such grave concern raised
by somebody like sir Kenneth Keith. I
hope the minister has
got the hope the minister has got the
confidence to consider these
issues and respond to them.
confidence to consider these issues and respond to them. The Hon
David Parker. Can I thank
my colleague Ruth Dyson for putting that
issue so clearly. I was sitting on
the select committee when sir
Kenneth Keith came before us and I think
it is worthy to note that