Statutes Repeal Bill- Third Reading – Video 4

Statutes Repeal Bill- Third Reading – Video 4

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


other than the statute books Thank You mr. speaker the Honorable Ruth Dyson I’m delighted to be speaking in the third reading of the statutes repeal bill and I want to commend the member who’s just resumed his seat on his contribution at our Select Committee consideration of the spill and you probably assume I would probably assume from hearing the title of statutes repeal bill and that it wasn’t going to be a very interesting or exciting bill but actually exactly the opposite was the case with this bill we started off with a proposal to repeal 132 pieces of legislation which were no longer in use which were out of date surplus to requirement and this was described by the minister as being a Greek the minister was the honorable Steven Joyce at the time was the great leap forward in the implementation of the productivity commission’s recommendations I have to tell you mr. speaker there is not a single thing in this bill which will improve the productivity of New Zealand not our single thing because none of these bills are enforced anymore none of them are being used they are all super Stu requirement we have spent hours of parliamentary time debating the need to repeal bills which are no longer used then as Steven Joyce’s idea of a major contribution to improving the productivity of New Zealand so we started off with a hundred and thirty two x to be repealed two of those hundred and thirty two were controversial now this is not a statutes amendment bill so the the controversy around those two X to be repealed was not relevant in the way that it would be in a statutes amendment bill and but I want to come back to those two we got so enthused by this that by this process of repealing things that meant nothing that we added another five so we ended up with 137 X I remember Paul Foster Bell and I heaven a little who was right on these figures and during the committee stages of the debate and indeed we were both right because we started off with a hundred and thirty-two ended up with a hundred 37 and the the 2×2 be repealed that were controversial are the sentencing it in the medicines 8 and those two were not neither of them were considered appropriate to be included in this legislation because they weren’t surplus to requirement in the way that the others were they were X that the government no longer wanted to progress so the X have been passed by Parliament they were in force they hadn’t been implemented we had an outstanding submission from Sukeena the–the and i’m sure that the Minister of Justice the Honorable Amy Adams as well aware of his legal mind and would be inclined on many occasions I would imagine to agree with his views so Suki Neff Keith has been well recognized by New Zealand government’s he’s received a order of New Zealand the kbe he’s a Queen’s Counsel he was in New Zealand judge the first appointment to the International Court of Justice efficient is ilnur he was a judge in the High Court the Court of Appeal member of the Judiciary Committee of the Privy Council and one of the inaugural appointments to the Supreme High Court of New Zealand he’s got quite a good record and the law knows a thing or two about it and said to our committee in his submission that it was wrong for us to include the sentencing council 8 in this bill and I agree with them labour agreed with them the Green Party members on the committee agreed with him and I don’t for the life of me know why the National Party who who seemed to be nodding their heads all the way through his submission at the committee then got rolled by the minister who said leave it in there the proposal that because a government doesn’t want to proceed whether with a net doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate to repeal it through as statutes repeal bill it is of course appropriate for the government to go to the country and by introducing a bill and saying we’re over this we don’t want this to happen is what governments are elected to do they’re entitled to do that of course but sneaking it through in a statutes repeal bill isn’t appropriate so Kenneth Keith was pretty pretty TIGI about it actually and his submission was was quite quite strong can I just quote a piece of it that had particular impact for me he quoted some of the reasons that were noted in the introduction of the explanatory note of the bill in one of those the citizen council 8 2007 came into force and those are important words on the 1st of November 2007 but was not implemented the the expenditure note goes on to say repealing that act will clarify that the government will not see that the cygnets and capsule in the future mmm allow the courts to retain their ability to develop their own sentencing guideline judgments he described there is misleading in said that the center’s sentencing council 8 presents a completely different case from that of X not enforce that it has been enforced as part of the law of New Zealand since 2007 the executive has suspended its operation which he described as an apparent breach of section 1 of the Bill of Rights 1688 and referred to the first year old mrs. Muldoon case which many members in this house who are interested in political history will be aware of he described its inclusion note he described the refusal to put that into operation and then to include it in the statutes repeal bill as a serious constitutional issue I actually think that when we have a submission from a person who is of such high quality legal standing is to Kenneth Keith that we should take notice of it and you know and this doesn’t actually do anything anyway it doesn’t do anything so why would you why would you thumb your nose at one of the sharpest legal brains you know over the exception of course of the Honorable Christopher Muslim and that we have in New Zealand why would we do that well as a parliament I think it’s really disrespectful in unnecessary the other thing that I found quite gobsmacking was the response to Chris Hopkins supplementary order paper to include the repeal of the bliss for me is it in this a perfectly sensible thing to do because everyone in this house agrees it’s no longer appropriate to hit the best for me it included in our statute david seymour tried to introduce it and billing i’ve said what a jolly fine idea we should repeal it but not through that process we see what about a statutes repeal bill and the prime minister seem to agree with it but when it comes to the crunch when it comes to putting as money whereas Malthus or actually New Zealanders money where his mouth is he couldn’t do it he voted against inclusion of the bless for me a to appeal despite him and said within just days that it was it was a prime spot for repeal a prime bill for repeal the the other controversial piece of legislation and this and repeal legislation was the medicines act in again this this is a an act of Parliament that the government just doesn’t agree with it’s not that it’s surplus to requirement it’s not that it hasn’t been put into force the government just doesn’t agree with it in the way to repeal legislation that a government doesn’t agree with is to introduce repeal legislation standing alone not under a statutes repeal bill so mr. speaker while we support this bill in agree that 137 acts of parliament with the exception of those two contribution ones should be repealed this has made Steven Joyce a laughingstock in the business community who took him at his word when he said that he would implement the recommendations of the Productivity Commission a body set up to look at how we can improve New Zealanders productivity we leg a long way behind other come that we should be heat of in this regard so Steven Joyce has used this is the one and only response to the recommendations of the Productivity Commission and it will achieve absolutely zero absolutely nothing because these are X that are no longer used they are not the barriers to improving productivity that the Productivity Commission was talking about so the government has squandered hours of parliamentary time to achieve absolutely nothing has used this is an opportunity to slide legislation off our statutes but but because they don’t seem to be able to go through a proper process and they squandered the opportunity to include in this repeal legislation the bless for me despite saying that it no longer had a place on our statutes book this makes absolutely no sense and Mr Speaker I think we did a jolly fine job at our committee and but I also know that not one single member of the committee felt that it was the most productive thing we could do met duty thank you very much mr. speaker

Leave a Reply

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