Statutes Repeal Bill- Third Reading – Video 2

Statutes Repeal Bill- Third Reading – Video 2

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


else the quit the quit the question is that the motion be greeted Chris up comes mr. speaker I’m absolutely astounded that the minister in charge of the bill didn’t manage to fill in the full ten minutes on this the the crowning jewel of the government’s regulatory reform agenda this statutes repeal bill but I do want to commend him for bringing it to the house and bringing this bill to fruition the statutes repeal bill process as it’s gone through the houses for forestry one could say to end up debating aspects of legislative process in New Zealand that I didn’t really ever realize that I would be able to speak for so long about but yet but you never quite know what’s possible until you try mr. speaker there are many aspects of this process which which I support I certainly support the notion that we should regularly update and streamline our laws in New Zealand and we should repeal those that are no longer relevant I attempted to do to add to that process during the committee stage of this debate by repealing the law of blasphemy which of course is no longer applied in New Zealand unfortunately the committee of the whole house did not agree by majority to incorporate that into this bill so it will go no further at this point and I hope that the house will have an opportunity to come back and look at that at some stage because I do think that that fits within the spirit of what this bill is trying to do it – to do I note on page one of the repeal bill is presented back to the house by the government administration committee it adds additional X to be repealed there are five additional acts that the government or that the government are seeking to repeal here the educational or Amendment Act of 1933 the infants Act repeal Act of 1989 the taxation x repeal act of 1986 and the Wellington City reserves Act of 1872 and the Wellington City reserves act of 1871 one could argue that those acts that are now being added for repeal had not gone through that a consultation process that the minister mentioned and therefore shouldn’t be included in this bill I personally would not be comfortable with that argument I’m quite comfortable that there is good grounds for repealing these just as I’m comfortable that there would be good grounds for repealing the law of place for me without it going through a further process but there were some interesting submissions raised and I was particularly taken by the submission of Sir Kenneth Keith who members on this side certainly quoted during the committee stage of the debate and I think it’s important when we debate something like the statutes repeal bill to ask a couple of questions one of those questions is what’s the mischief so what is the problem that we’re trying to solve by repealing whatever the legislation is that’s in this bill then the second question relevant to that is what’s the harm so what is the harm in either appealing or not repealing and the point that sue Kenneth Keith made in his submission to the committee was that in fact many of these bills no longer have any legal effect whatsoever they are there only in name and in some cases there was debate as to whether they were even there a name or whether in fact they had already been repealed and therefore ceased to exist and so we were appealing laws that no longer actually existed in the first place and the the question therefore becomes what is the point of repealing them again and the point that so Sir Kenneth one of the points that he made were in that regard was with regard to amendment X so these are acts that have no standing in their own right they simply remove or amend things in other acts so once they have done that job they effectively cease to exist because they were never acts in their own right there were only amendments to other act and you’ll see some of those X now being repealed but there’s actually no need to repeal them because they were never standalone laws in the first place once their amendments had been incorporated into the statutes that they were amending then they effectively ceased to exist so what’s what’s the mischief what’s the harm what are we trying to by repealing them because they don’t actually exist then there are some other acts which have ceased to exist through other means so for example the Rugby World Cup 2011 and powering Act of 2010 has already been discharged by orderin Council so their act allowed ministers by order and Council to say this act has now expired and they have done so so why the need to repeal them when they’ve effectively been repealed by another means already there was a lot of just in case there was a lot of discussion about the sentencing counts elective 2007 and whether in fact this was the appropriate mechanism to repeal that legislation as the minister noted the government have signaled their intention for some time to repeal this legislation but I think as some others have argued the fact that this legislation has been on the books for some time and is not being implemented isn’t good grounds to included in the statutes repeal board because it doesn’t actually make the fit the criteria of a law that’s become redundant it’s a law that was never enforced that doesn’t mean that it’s become redundant because it’s expired or all the the issue was there’s no longer passed it hasn’t been implemented because government policy has changed and therefore it doesn’t actually fit the criteria of what this bill is trying to achieve and therefore somewhat surprising that the government have incorporated it within this that within this legislation so I mean I think that’s a quite a legitimate concern to race there are some other examples in here which are somewhat interesting is the minister noted there is the the last statutes repeal bill then actually I have to correct them I did some research of my own and there has been another statutes repeal bill since then but it has already been repealed but the last the statutes repeal bill on the books was from 1900 and whatever at work account that’s 1907 and it is now being repealed by this and we will not need to do to repeal this egg because the egg self that we’re about to pass includes a repeal provision within it so basically once once it’s been it once it’s been enacted it will itself just it’s got a self-destruct mechanism built within it and then something that I’m sure the house will welcome so that we don’t have to torture ourselves with too many further debates like this one and but but I do I do welcome the progress of this legislation mr. mr. speaker I’m disappointed that place for me is not being repealed as part of this process and I hope that we will get a chance to do that very soon members the time has come for me to leave a chair for the dinner break the stir bait is interrupted and I shall resume the chair at 7:30 [Music]

Leave a Reply

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