Statutes Repeal Bill- Committee Stage – Clause 1- Video 1

Statutes Repeal Bill- Committee Stage – Clause 1- Video 1

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


is a 60 in the nose 59 promotion has carried now report the bill with amendment presently members we now turn to the statutes repeal bill and the questioners that Clause one stand part the Honorable Ruth Dyson and mr. chairman if you look at the the name of the bill in the size of it you might think not much to see here not much of any consequence but actually this citrox repeal bill which is quite an unusual provision for our Parliament to make I think takes about 132 x of the statutes bill so it repeals about 132 pieces of legislation hundred and thirty-seven I stand corrected by the Deputy Chair of our committee and I am relying on his memory which may be a little bit of the mine the work so it somewhere between 130 to 137 X are repealed by this legislation all but two we’re agreed to unanimously by the Select Committee but two of these provisions and we’re quite contentious caused us some difficulty but before I move on to discussing the specifics of those in the consumes that labor and greens members head about those two provisions there may be others that Barry coats may want to mention but I know on those two we were certainly concerned about it I want to just take a step back and say what is the point of this legislation because actually there was some debate about that as well there doesn’t seem to be a difficulty if ministers want to say these these X are clogging up the statutes but you know they’re causing there’s a lot of difficulty when we try and find something let’s have a bit of a spring clean in a tidy up and it’s repeal a whole lot of bills it that is entirely within the Mandate of a minister to do in might be seen is quite a good thing to do by other parties in the house but actually what what the bill reports is doing and I think it’s in the name of the Honourable Steven Joyce so you’ve never quite know whether it might and but what the bill says it’s it’s pointers is in response to a recommendation by the Productivity Commission to reduce unnecessary legislation I think that the driver behind the statutes repeal bill in the recommendation of the Productivity Commission are entirely different I am strongly of the view that if the Productivity Commission was presented with the statutes repeal bill and was asked is this what you had in mind when you said that government should reduce unnecessary legislation is a key priority I think the Productivity Commission would laugh I think they would say this is not what we had in mind at all this does not reduce unnecessary legislation all it does is take off the statutes book legislation which is no longer being used how on earth could this bill increase productivity which was the driver of the recommendations of the Productivity Commission I thank Minister Stephen Joyce has yet again got it wrong he hasn’t paid enough attention to the detail of the productivity commission’s recommendation let alone transferred it into you know into a legislative or policy framework at all so once again Stephen Joyce his mr. Mack he’s not attentive to detail he’s only attentive to slogans he has been getting those right for quite a while until the last few months but certainly in terms of a grip on legislation he’s way off the map can I move now mr. chairman to the 2x that are repealed by this statute repeal bill that caused as concern at the committee end 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 the spill not many people considerate of interest but one of our submissions was extraordinarily high quality and raised significant constitutional concerns with the sentencing council repeal that submission was from sue Keinath Keith Oh indeed kbe QC I am sure that every member in the House will be familiar with the very fine legal record of Sukeena theat is a New Zealand judge he was New Zealand’s first appointment to the International Court of Justice in 2005 he served as a judge on both the High Court and Court of Appeal he was a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and he was one of the inaugural appointments to the Supreme Court of New Zealand so he is a very fine legal track record and is very well regarded mr. chairman mr. chairman so um Sir Kenneth it made her submission not by any means the few cities made to a committee and but he agreed with the point that I’ve just made about this legislation not being consistent with what the Productivity Commission said in raise there is a more of a matter of interest and then a matter of substance when it got to the matter of substance and in relation to the sending sentencing council may I just quote from her submission mr. chairman he sees the seniors in council 2007 came into force and it’s a critical word and for people with good legal minds and such as the presiding officer came into force on 1 November 2007 but was not implemented repealing that eh will clarify that the government will not see that the seniors in council in the future and will allow the courts to retain their ability to develop their own sentencing guideline judgments that’s what the purpose of the bill is so it’s quite different than removing from the statutes but legislation which no longer has any use is no longer being implemented the so sue Kenneth was quoting the point of the bill and he said that was misleading he said the sentencing so it presents a completely different case from that of the X not enforce the Act has been enforced as part of the law of New Zealand since 2007 for the past eight years the executive has suspended its operation which he described as an apparent breach of section 1 of the Bill of Rights 8 in quoted Fitzgerald vs. Muldoon another case which many members in this house will be familiar with he said that refusal to give effect to a statute in force appears to me to be a serious constitutional matter so having started with a bill that all of us thought well this has probably got not a lot of contention and these bills are not being used their surplus to the requirement of the New Zealand public in Sydney the New Zealand Parliament they could be repealed we had a man probably a listen to the Honorable Chris Anderson’s opinion of course but I would have thought somebody who’s regarded as having one of the highest legal minds in the sharpest legal minds in the country saying that this part of the school was a serious constitutional matter and maybe a breach of the Bill of Rights he went on to say I do see the value of repealing X which have not been brought into force but again to repeat the sentence and gown select presents a sharply different case not just for the constitutional issue raised the it is enforce its proposed repeal presents the following question of policy how is the balance to be struck between promoting greater consistency in predictability in the justice system 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 guideline judgments given by appeal courts so mr. chairman it was actually quite a frustrating situation for as I think the members of the government the government members of the committee were persuaded actually by Sakina theeth but for whatever reason they decided to just tow the party line I think this is the sort of legislation where they could have actually stood up and said no we could where he labor could could have supported the entire remainder of this legislation and but you know because although it didn’t actually achieve anything it certainly didn’t do any harm but the medicines legislation with the government’s change in policy with the therapeutic products regime in the sentencing council um caused us a lot of concern those issues need to be addressed by the minister I know the minister and the Chia now isn’t the minister whose names on the bill but he’s got a good mind in actually I’ve noticed and I don’t want to do him any harm by praising him but I have noticed that each he takes serious issues seriously when they’re raised in the committee stages of the of the bill so I would like him to consider the submission of tsukina the–the in also the inappropriateness of heaven 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 not to implement a provision that is in the law is in does enforce so mr. Chairman 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 tsukina the–the I hope the Minister has got the confidence to consider these issues and respond to them your honourable David Parker Thank You mr. chairman

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *