Statutes Repeal Bill- Committee Stage- Clause 4 – Video 5

Statutes Repeal Bill- Committee Stage- Clause 4 – Video 5

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


clear current and so I’m pleased to take a brief call on the statutes repeal bill and I’ve listened quite carefully to the debate particularly around clause for scheduled two and I think that Chris Hopkins has made a really a very good point around that issue of this is supposed to be a repeal bill so why are we having insertions so I’ve been back and had a look at the first reading notes hand side on this speech to see what the minister Steven Joyce on honorable Steven Joyce who as well as he still the Minister for regulatory reform I’m not sure but anyway what he said was and and he talked in and muck for most of his speech about the fact that this bill repeals 132 acts that and what percentage that is of legislation at cetera etc and there’s a one-liner he gives in around schedule two which is the clause for that what we’re debating tonight at the moment we he said that scheduled for scheduled two saves important provisions from a small number of the X being repealed to avoid adverse effects on some parties so I’ve just been having a look at what’s in she jewel – and and I’m wondering and I’ve got a few questions to the chair to the chair to the sorrow not to you mr. chair but to the minister in the chair as to what the adverse effects are in this part of the bill from the analyzed use of king george v memorial children’s health camps federation emblem because i note that at clause 20 AAA brackets for it actually inserts a fine of not an exceeding $2000 for the unlawful use of the emblem of the foundation and i just wonder if we’re able to hear a little bit about what the unauthorized use and the impacts of that’d be because I presume that there must have been some unauthorized use of the emblem of the king george v memorial children’s health camps Federation for this quite considerable insertion to be in this repeals act and and then we’ve got the Auckland Harbour Bridge and the definitions around that which colleagues have talked about but in particular on page 10 of the bill at 87b where it talks about the Auckland Harbour Bridge being properly lighted I would have actually thought that would have should have been lit just as a grammar suggestion but I wonder whether there has there been an issue and the adverse effect of the Auckland Harbour Bridge not being properly lit and and that has required there to be an insertion in this part of of a repeals bill as to there the fact that it should be properly lit and and I mean there seems to be some sensible provisions following that around and installing maintaining or repairing water mains etc or power or telecommunications lines wires or cables without the consent of the agency and again it would seem to it seems to be an odd place to put a provision like this because wouldn’t that already be in legislation but clearly it’s not and and then we go to the Public Works Act and the repeal despite the repeal of the Southland electricity act we’re having to have a an insertion of a provision in here about the Southland electricity act and it sort of seems to to go round in circles that Clause and I saw I’m just wondering what is the adverse effect that’s resulted in that Clause being inserted into this repeals and to this repeal spell so I think there are some it would be useful if the chair if the minister was able to explain to us why we’re having insertions into a repeals book because it’s almost half the bill actually these insertions and what is the I know the minister Steven Joyce did refer to it and he referred to adverse effects it would be useful if there could be some explanation from the minister given that we are discussing this in the House and the committee stage as to what those adverse effects are renal Terra Cotta knee I think you must have check

Leave a Reply

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