Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)

I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a second time. This bill was introduced into the House on 4 December 2003 and was referred to the Government Administration Committee. It was reported back to the House on 10 August last year. This bill proposes amendments to 26 different Acts and includes six new parts for which the Committee gave leave to be included in the bill. New parts to the bill include amendments to the Armed Forces Discipline Act, the Constitution Act, the Government Superannuation Fund Act, the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Act, and the Sale of Liquor Amendment Act of 2004.

The select committee has recommended amendments to three existing parts of the bill relating to the Fire Service Act, the Maritime Transport Act, and the Motor Vehicle Sales Act. I thank the select committee for its work on the bill, particularly given the pressure it faced in responding to a number of late inclusions. I am pleased to inform members that the Cabinet Office recently issued a circular containing new initiatives that will address the challenges posed by such late inclusions and enhance the process of gaining cross-party support.

Earlier I mentioned that the bill included amendments to the Constitution Act. I want the House to note that there may well be a further Supplementary Order Paper to come into the House during the Committee stage. I understand that that matter has been subject to intense discussion between Dr Cullen and the Clerk of the House and was considered at the Business Committee today.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Standing Orders Committee.

Yes, the Standing Orders Committee. I believe that an agreement has been reached that will see fruition in the Committee stage. As a reassurance to the House, I shall repeat the point made earlier by Richard Prebble that one of the beauties of a Statutes Amendment bill is that it has to be agreed to by every member of Parliament. Should any member raise an objection to any part of the bill, then that part does not proceed. That is a very good guarantee.

Lastly, I take the opportunity to convey the Government’s appreciation of the parties’ patience and support for the amendments that have come through and are proposed in this bill. I recommend the bill to the House and that it be read a second time.

National supported the Statutes Amendment Bill (No. 4). We were concerned about one part that relates to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act. We managed to get that changed at the Government Administration Committee, and we were happy to support that. But yesterday, at 5 minutes past 12, the Clerk’s Office released two Supplementary Order Papers—Supplementary Order Paper 342 and Supplementary Order Paper 343 dated 16 March. The first I saw of those Supplementary Order Papers was today.

The Minister has just said that he wants cross-party support. He has just mentioned that at the Standing Orders Committee a debate is going on on as to whether there will be another Supplementary Order Paper. I am flagging to the Minister and to the Government that National is not happy that the Minister lodged those two Supplementary Order Papers just yesterday and is considering lodging another one for the Committee stage on Thursday. If the Minister wants cross-party support—and this is the point Mr Prebble has talked about—for this legislation, which contains amendments to 26 Acts, then the Government needs the goodwill of the whole House.

I refer to page 9 of the commentary on the bill—and I have brought up this issue before—and to the heading “Committee process”, under which is stated: “In particular, we expect departments to have gained cross-party support for all proposed ‘late’ amendments. All inclusions in a Statutes Amendment bill are made with the unanimous agreement of the committee and should have been subjected to prior consultation with all parties in the House. No provision should be included until it has received support from all parties. We consider that if departments adhere to this particular convention, then the ‘good will’ shown by all parties in the House to the annual Statutes Amendment bill will not be undermined. … Officials are obliged to make legislative deadlines and the status of inter-party agreement explicit in their advice to Ministers, and to work within the legislative timetable set out for the bill.”

This bill was introduced on 4 December 2003. It had its first reading on 19 February 2004, the select committee completed its report, and it was reported back on 10 August last year. But what we see now are these late amendments in the two Supplementary Order Papers, and there is likely to be another one coming shortly. Mr Prebble made the point about how the Minister of Finance, Mr Cullen, can cut a deal that no one knows about. Well, this is exactly the case. We have two Supplementary Order Papers at this stage, and another one is likely, without the scrutiny of the select committee. No one has seen these. I saw them for the first time today. Our people have not had a chance to look through them. The Government is asking us to move through the second reading today and, more important, the Committee stage on Thursday.

I am giving notice to the Government that it will have to have pretty good reasons in order for National to want to support these Supplementary Order Papers. The Government can withdraw them—and we will be happy then to support the bill in its original form with the amendments we made at the select committee—or it can take the risk that we will not support the Supplementary Order Papers, and then each part will be voted out. That is the choice the Government has. I draw the attention of the Government to Standing Order 298(2), which states: “If any member objects to a clause standing part of a Statutes Amendment Bill (or of a bill that was formerly part of a Statutes Amendment Bill), the clause is struck out of the bill.” I say to the Minister that that is the point we are coming to. There has not been any consultation on the two Supplementary Order Papers standing in the Minister’s name. We will look very closely at what the impact of that is, because at this stage—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Is the member on the select committee?

I am on the select committee.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: And this wasn’t raised at the select committee?

These Supplementary Order Papers were tabled yesterday.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: There was no notice of them in the select committee?

No.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: That’s outrageous!

This is the point Mr Prebble made during his speech. I flagged it a moment ago during the debate on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5).

The Supplementary Order Papers were released at 5 minutes past 12 yesterday from the Clerk’s Office. We are expected to have a say on these and to be informed about what they are all about. The Minister said in his speech a few minutes ago that the Standing Orders Committee at this time is looking to come forward with another Supplementary Order Paper. That is completely outrageous.

If the Government wants support—as the commentary on the bill states—then where is the goodwill? There is no goodwill. This bill is a complete abuse of the system, and National will not support it. The Government has a choice. It can withdraw these Supplementary Order Papers, and we continue with the bill the select committee has looked at, or it can take the risk that they will be voted down. Why can these Supplementary Order Papers not be included in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5), which we have just agreed, not 10 minutes ago, should go to the select committee? That is the point I am making. If the Government wants support for these non-contentious technical issues—and that is what they are, because the Minister said so, and we have agreed with that—then where is the goodwill?

This situation is an abuse of the system, and I give notice to the Government that we will look very closely at it. The Government has two choices: it can withdraw the Supplementary Order Papers on Thursday during the Committee stage, if that is when we are to debate them, and we will go ahead with the bill as reported back; or, if it insists on having the Supplementary Order Papers there, it takes the risk that they will be voted down. That is National’s position.

What a sad, sad, lonely speech that was. The member said nothing about the contents of the Supplementary Order Papers. His speech was all about stamping his foot over procedure. There was no objection at all to what is sought to be achieved by this bill. It was just a rant that possible objection could be taken because the procedure is not as envisaged by Mr Lindsay Tisch. That is a sad commentary on a bill that is essentially non-controversial and gets on with the business of this country. One would have thought that at this time of the day Mr Tisch would have cast his mind to the contents of the Supplementary Order Papers, but, maybe, given his threat of violence to the process, we will live another day and have to think of another way of going about it.

I want to move to the amendments proposed in this bill to the Evidence Act 1908. That Act had been amended by the Evidence Amendment Act 1994. That was a remarkable change, because it heralded the working more closely together of the legal systems in New Zealand and Australia, and recognised the increasing community of citizens between Australia and New Zealand. The 1994 Act extended the right to subpoena within Australia and New Zealand a citizen of the other country for civil proceedings. That has proven to be remarkably successful. It has sped up the process, it has reduced the costs, and it has taken the objections to procedure—which we have heard from the last speaker—out of the picture, so that courts can get on with their business.

The next step is to move further to where that principle can apply. This amendment bill, which will be supported by all parties, is to extend that to the Family Court. It does not extend it to the area of the Family Court that intrudes on rights issues, such as conventions under The Hague convention—that is, the child abduction clauses—or affecting the status or property of persons with disabilities. It relates to family proceedings that want to get to the heart of what is causing a family to malfunction, and what can help that family to function more effectively.

This bill recognises the breadth of community we have between Australia and New Zealand and the fact that many families now span the Tasman Sea—the “ditch” as it is commonly called. It enables both courts in both jurisdictions to operate more efficiently by issuing a subpoena without the need for a separate application to be made in the trans-Tasman court. This is a sensible amendment, and I cannot see it being objected to by any party in this House.

But, I get back to the previous speaker’s complaint—that he really picked up from Mr Prebble’s rant—about the procedure not being correct, rather than his studying the substance. The amendment bill looks at the substance, it faces reality, and it makes the changes accordingly. If Mr Tisch and Mr Prebble have concerns about the procedure, perhaps they should weigh those concerns against the substance of what is to be achieved, and then make a value judgment rather than an outright threat of disruption and inconvenience.

It is my pleasure to support the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4).

I am not often shocked, but I am shocked at what the Government is doing today. The Minister tabled a Supplementary Order Paper, but he did not refer to it in his speech. It did not go to a select committee. It was also clear that the next Government speaker knew nothing about it, because he did not speak to it; he talked about the need to talk about substance. It appears that this is a very good example of what Mr Tamihere is warning us about—that this Government tries to slip through legislation.

There is an absolute obligation on the Government to be upfront on Statutes Amendment bills and to explain everything to every member. To put in a last-minute amendment and then not even mention the amendments in the two Government speeches is inviting the Opposition to say no. I have looked at the amendments. The first ones are actually procedural, as Mr Fairbrother would have seen had he looked at them. But the next amendment is substantive. It makes changes to what judges are able to do.

We ought not make a law change that has not been to the select committee. We have just been told by Mr Tisch that the select committee members had no knowledge of this. The Minister who moved it did not even mention it, nor did his associate. I think that Mr Fairbrother did not know it was there, and I suspect that Mr Barker did not know what is in that amendment. That is exactly what Mr Tamihere talked about.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Before the dinner break we were debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), which has been explained as a special procedure whereby the House can amend a large number of Acts at the same time—in this case, 26 Acts. This can be done only providing that every member agrees, and that requires the Government to be very upfront and to explain every amendment fully and carefully.

I was extremely disturbed to hear from the National Party member Mr Lindsay Tisch that there were two Supplementary Order Papers on the bill—which, I point out for the benefit of listeners, are amendments placed on the Table of the House—because the Minister did not mention it during his speech. I discovered that, yes, there are two. The first Supplementary Order Paper divides the bill into 26 separate bills, which is what we would expect, but the second makes some substantive amendments regarding fiscal matters. Then there are amendments to the Judicature Act, and when we look at the explanatory note we see that those amendments give extra powers to judges. So first I say, in my new position today as the longest-serving MP, that it is unsatisfactory—

💬 Jill Pettis: Interrupted service, though, wasn’t it?

I am the longest-serving MP who has also had a sabbatical, but I am still the longest-serving member of Parliament. I came in in 1975. It is completely—[Interruption] The senior Government whip is interjecting on me, and I say to her—because I suspect she actually agrees with me—that it is extremely unhelpful to the Government whips, the Opposition whips, or anyone interested in the business of the House for the Minister to table a new Supplementary Order Paper but not explain it. That is extremely sneaky. It is something that Labour Governments have done.

I can remember Stan Rodger putting in a Supplementary Order Paper and telling the House that it contained just some technical amendments. I could not believe it when I heard that over the radio, because it actually turned the railways into a State-owned enterprise. It turned a department into a State-owned enterprise, and nobody in the Opposition realised it, because he had not done it properly.

The point I am now making is this: are we seeing another example of it? We have been told by Mr Tamihere, a Cabinet Minister in this Government until very recently and still a member of the Government caucus, that this is the Government’s style. Mr Tamihere said: “It’s too clever. You’ve got Cullen—we wouldn’t survive without Cullen—he can cut a deal on a piece of legislation, he can change a single word in a piece of legislation without those other”—unparliamentary word—“[coalition partners] knowing about it, and it melts down everything they wanted but they still think they got their clause in.” We have heard from the Government’s coalition colleagues today that they still think they got everything they wanted in the various clauses. What I am now saying to the Government is—

💬 Jill Pettis: We thought you were going to save rail, and look how we were sucked in.

It is still there. If the member goes and looks she will find that all the rail is still there. We did not lose a bit of it. In fact, more things have actually happened under this Government than happened under me, but there we are. Leaving that aside, the question I put to the Government whip, who is now interjecting, is this: why did the Government not mention to the House that it had a Supplementary Order Paper? As Mr Tisch points out, this Government has just introduced another Statutes Amendment bill today. What a Statutes Amendment bill does, largely, is fix mistakes. Well, this Government makes so many mistakes.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Two running together.

Yes. There are two running together, between them covering over 50 bills. I suspect that that is some sort of record. But leaving that aside, and leaving aside the criticism that that might mean of the Government, what I want to know from the members opposite—

💬 Jill Pettis: There are no votes in these bills. It’s like swallowing dead rats.

The Government whip says there are no votes in it. I think that probably sums up this Government. It is interested only in votes. It is driven only by popularity. It is never worried about principle or about whether what it is doing is good lawmaking. It does not worry about whether it is double-crossing its coalition colleagues, and it is not prepared to give me an assurance or an explanation as to why the Government has introduced amendments without telling anyone about them.

If we go back and look at the Minister’s speech, we see there is not a word about it. Then we heard from Mr Fairbrother, and there was not a word in his speech either. I suspect that that is because he knew nothing about these Supplementary Order Papers, either. So where does it come from? Does it come from the Leader of the House, Dr Cullen, and if it—

💬 Jill Pettis: Forty-seven percent against 2 percent.

Well, could it come from Dr Cullen? I suspect that it does. The member starts quoting her public opinion poll rating as if to say that providing the Government has a high public opinion poll rating, it is allowed to pull any trick it likes—it can go on misleading its coalition colleagues, it can mislead this House, and it can treat Parliament with contempt.

I would still like to hear what the nature of this Supplementary Order Paper is from the next Government member who speaks. Why should this law be amended? Is the country not entitled to know? Does any Government member actually know? I suspect not. Could we hear from Mr Tamihere? Could he explain to us? Is this the sort of trickery he was referring to in the now infamous article?

I watched television in the break, and I saw Mr Willie Jackson speaking on behalf of Mr Tamihere. Willie Jackson said that Mr Tamihere stands by everything he said. So what we are arguing about is not the truth of what Mr Tamihere said—that is apparently accepted. What we are arguing about is whether it is correct under this Government to tell the truth. I say to the Government that in this House, Ministers have an absolute obligation to tell us what is in the nature of the legislation and why we should make this change to the law.

I find this situation thoroughly unsatisfactory, and unless we get a decent explanation before the Committee stage begins, the ACT party for one will not agree to this Supplementary Order Paper. We are not going to be like the United Future party—change one word, it all melts down, and we turn over and put our legs in the air. We will not do that. We will hold this Government to account. Part of the ACT party’s job is to keep the Government honest. It is a full-time job. It is hard work. Tonight the Government has made it even more difficult by following what I have to say is a very slippery way of introducing amendments to the law. We are entitled to better than that. Can the next Government member—hopefully, Mr Tamihere, but a Minister will do—actually explain to the House what this Supplementary Order Paper is and why it should be passed?

I rise on behalf of United Future to say that we support the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). We believe that it has value for us, the entire Parliament, and the entire nation. This amendment bill is worthwhile putting through—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: What’s in the Supplementary Order Paper?

—and when we get to the next stage we will look at the Supplementary Order Paper.

A party vote was called for on the question that the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a second time.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek a point of clarification. It is my understanding that all parties have to agree on Statutes Amendment bills. Now we have one party—New Zealand First—that is voting against the bill. My understanding is that we are all in agreement that if there are changes to be made, they will be made at the select committee. I am asking for your ruling as to whether it is in order to conduct a party vote first and whether it is in order for a party to actually vote against a Statutes Amendment bill.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a very simple ruling. There is nothing to stop that happening. It is unusual. However, there is nothing that stops it. The Committee of the whole House then considers the bill.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. To resolve this issue, I say that it appears that a typo was made in our speaking list giving instructions, and our whip has just asked me whether I will change the New Zealand First vote to 13 votes in favour.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will just clarify it. We now have everybody voting in favour, so we do not have to have a vote.

Does he need to seek leave to change the New Zealand First vote?

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, he does not, because we now do not have a vote. I have not announced the result.

It is a very interesting point. I was intrigued that we were having a vote, as that had to mean someone was voting against the bill. As New Zealand First had not spoken it struck me as unlikely that it was voting against it. But in fact New Zealand First did call for a vote. When one calls for a vote, there are other Standing Orders that say that a vote is supposed to follow a call for a vote. So I think that the member actually does need to ask for leave, because he needs to withdraw the fact that he called for the vote. I saw that the Clerk was giving you contrary advice, but I actually think the appropriate course of action, once a member calls for a vote, is for a vote to be held. The saying used to be that a vote in the lobby had to follow a voice vote. The member voted against it by voice, and then called for a vote, and then a lobby vote—which is this—has to follow it. It seems to me that the appropriate action is for Mr Donnelly to ask for leave, which I am sure we will give him. That is my suggestion to the House.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am advised that that is the rule for a personal vote, but not for a party vote.

I concur with what Mr Prebble is saying. It may very well be that that is the rule when it comes to a personal vote, because that is certainly the understanding that I have. If it would make it easier New Zealand First is quite happy to go through the leave provision. If it is unnecessary all we ask for is that our vote be changed in accordance with our will.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not necessary. The question is, as I said, that the motion be agreed to. All those in favour—

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is a new point of order. If we are to have this ruling, it has to be new, because we did not have party votes before. It does not follow what was the convention—which was quite clear; the lobby vote had to follow the voice vote. The so-called personal vote, I assure you, is a new contrivance. All votes were personal until we started having party votes, so I say to you that that rule still applies. But it strikes me as bizarre. The whole House knows that we went through a vote. That ought to be recorded in Hansard. It does not appear to me to be correct that someone can now get up and argue that what his party did, did not happen. I think it wrong for you to direct Mr Donnelly not to ask for leave to withdraw his party’s vote. That is the action that should happen. I realise you are being advised by the Clerk, but with the greatest respect to him, I think he is wrong.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The advice is to the contrary, Mr Prebble.