Statutes Repeal Bill- Committee Stage- Clause 1 – Video 2

Statutes Repeal Bill- Committee Stage- Clause 1 – Video 2

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


the Honorable David Parker Thank You mr. chairman can I thank my colleague Ruth Dyson for putting that issue so clearly I was I was sitting on the Select Committee when Sir Kenneth Keith came before us and I think it is worthy to note that you would have few jurists more competent to tell a select committee what was wrong then Sir Kenneth Keith as Ruth Dyson has said former Court of Appeal judge then a Supreme Court judge then International Court of Justice a esteemed legal academic and addition to all of those matters and someone who now as a retired jurist felt that this was important enough that he would make his first submission to Select Committee since his retirement as a judge he now has freedom to make submissions in a private capacity that he would not have been able to make when he was on the the bench of a New Zealand Court particularly and probably even when he was in the International Court of Justice now in that he came to the Select Committee and made this point of principle there a statutes repeal bill that is a on the bus bill that is the purpose of which is to repeal redundant or superfluous X because they are they are spent and that they are no longer relevant and have no longer any practical effect is different from repealing an act which whilst not being adhered to by the government remains in force and at select committee and in the report that comes back from Select Committee the issue is not even addressed by the majority the the well that’s not quite fair the the New Zealand Labour Party and the Green Party are recorded in the commentary back from the Select Committee questioning the whether whether this was appropriate but the rest of the silic committee just noted that they’ve had a submission but then didn’t express an opinion upon it now I unsung that the committee didn’t say I know we disagree with Sir Kenneth Keith we don’t think it is a matter of different principle rather the only thing that we get from the Select Committee is quotes we were told that repealing the actors within the scope of the bill is introduced well that may be that obviously is the view of the Clarke of the committee that’s repealing the Sentencing Act is within the scope of the bill but that doesn’t make it right and sir I think Sir Kenneth Keith is correct that if the government wants to repeal the sentencing act because it doesn’t want to implement it then it should repeal it through a piece of legislation to repeal the sentencing it rather than taking it on to the statutes repeal bill if the logic of the government was is correct that there’s no difference between this and any other repeal I don’t see a difference in principle between repealing an act which remains valid on its face but for reasons of administrative wolf administrative neglect is not being implemented I don’t see they’re any different in principle between repealing that through a bill like this and the bill that is being implemented because whether an act is or is not being complied with is not the point X that exists on the statute book that should be being complied with should not be at but aren’t should be given no it shouldn’t be any easier to repeal limb than an act that has been complied with they’re both laws of this Parliament and they’re not redundant just because the government is refusing to implement the Sentencing Act now the government in back in 2008 campaigned on the on the basis that they were not going to proceed with the Sentencing Act mr. chairman on revoke and since then the government would have been quite entitled to come to this house with legislation to seek to repeal the Sentencing Act but they haven’t done that they’ve rather ignored the provisions of the Sentencing Act and not applied them in the way that Parliament said should happen and for them to to to through this instrument the statutes repeal bill remedy their problem by adding it to a long list of these X which truly are redundant seems in the opinion of opposition members to be wrong when for that reason there’s a supplementary order paper in my name which excises from the list of these acts of parliament that are are these statutes that are being repealed it deletes from page 7 just after line 10 the word sentencing Council at 2007 bracket 2007 number 25 close brackets so sir I will hope that National Party members will join in the OP in with the Labour Party and I hope other opposition parties in baking and amendment to the statutes repeal bill as reported back by the government administration committee and excising from the list of statutes to be repealed the sentencing Council X 2007 sir I don’t think I can put it more clearly than that there’s no point me repeating that again I think the logic of Sir Kenneth Keith unsurprisingly given us stature and the fact that he doesn’t make these submissions lightly and had to go to the trouble of preparing a submission and presenting it it said select committee I don’t think there’s much doubt that he’s right I’m convinced I was convinced on the day and I think that that should be taken out of the statute repeal bill and if the government wants to repeal it some other way well it’s got the ability to do so sir the other point that was made I I do think it’s quite a good idea to get rid of some of these old statutes off the book I don’t think it saves much and in terms of compliance costs because these are truly redundant all you’re doing is saving the cost of reprinting them in the future next time you reprint the New Zealand statutes that’s a very small amount of money given that most of these things are published electronically anyway these days but nonetheless it’s a it’s not a silly thing to do to clean up that but those old fine insects which are listed the year over sort of close to more than two pages two and a half pages of amendments to the Finance Act through other finance X hour which are long since overtaken by Vince so sir I’m happy to support the bill I don’t think it has an effect on the compliance costs of businesses operating in New Zealand in any material way it does slightly decrease the costs of people who by statute so I suppose or or indeed people trying to follow the historical narrative of or the to find the current position at law might find that they don’t have to check whether there are some unexpired provisions of these other ex not that i think they wouldn’t practice check that because they know them to be so old as to be redundant but the point in respect of the sentencing council is correct and I would commend that amendment to the house now Michael berry berry coach tena koe

Leave a Reply

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