Prebble Richard: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — First Reading 
Prebble Richard: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19589] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 Statutes Amendment bills are interesting in their nature because they are omnibus bills and they amend a large number of Acts—in this case 24 Acts. Under our Standing Orders an omnibus bill is actually out of order. One cannot introduce a bill to amend a number of bills but there is just one exception which is the Statutes Amendment Bill. A Statutes Amendment bill does allow technical-type amendments to be made providing all MPs agree on them. The public ought to know that this happens by the Government circulating the amendments. The amendments normally come up from departments which give members background material and suggest that they ought to make an amendment. If we look at the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) one classic example is the amendment to the Commerce Act 1986 which must have been passed when I was a Minister. So this must have been a muck-up made— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Is it your fault? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well I was not actually the Minister in charge of the bill but I cannot have been reading the drafting carefully enough because apparently the word “not” was left out. When one reads the legislation whether one puts in the word “not” does seem to make a difference. 
From the ACT party’s point of view we have been reading the background material provided by the Ministers to make it in this case a single word amendment and we had been proposing to say yes. But I want to give the House notice that ACT party members are reviewing whether they ought to say yes. The reason is that we have been reading a rather interesting article that sets out how this Government deals with its coalition partners. If Labour deals with the parties that are in coalition with it in that way we were wondering how would it deal with a party such as ACT which is totally opposed to most of what the Government is saying. 
What I am referring to are the statements made in the article by Mr Tamihere. He stated: “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”—and then he uses a swear word that is unparliamentary—“[coalition partners] knowing about it and it melts down everything they wanted but they still think they got their clause in.” Members can see the problem that I have which I would put to the Government now that it is asking the whole of Parliament to agree with it. It is that if this is what Labour does to its coalition partners is it dealing with members in a straightforward fashion or is it having a “single word” here or there taken out of a bill? If we are to understand what the Government is really doing does it actually melt everything down so that it would not be what we would have agreed to? 
I could say I guess that I am much smarter than Peter Dunne and that I am much smarter than Rod Donald and those Greens. 
Paul Adams 
: That’s a debating point. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member helps me out but I might not be smarter than Peter Dunne. Maybe I have been made a fool of as well. When I ask Peter Dunne: “Look if that’s how the Government treats you why do you agree to anything?” the question I would then ask the whole House is why any member of Parliament should agree to any amendment to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5). I guess members would say: “Because we say it’s OK.” Well Mr Tamihere says that we basically cannot trust this Government. It is too clever. That is what he told us. He told us that Government members can make a single amendment without us noticing it and it has the exact opposite effect of what we think it has. 
So I most certainly say to the people on the Government Administration Committee that I think we will have to examine every single one of these clauses very very carefully. But I also say that I would personally find it very helpful if Mr Tamihere could take a call in this debate. He could get up and tell us when Government members make those sorts of “smarmy”—that is the word he used—and “too clever” deals while double-crossing their own coalition colleagues how far that double-dealing goes. Does it extend to bills such as the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5)? Now it would be a great shame if it did because the reality is that if the sorts of mistakes such as the one in the Commerce Act which occurred in 1986 were made—and I am one of the few MPs around who was a Minister in 1986—one would think that it ought to be fixed up. But when we think about it we can make those sorts of changes only if we can rely upon the word of the Government. 
I tell members that prior to reading Mr Tamihere’s article it had not occurred to me that Ministers might be writing legislation about this sort of matter and that what they were saying was—how can I put it in a way that is parliamentary—unable to be relied upon. If one treats one’s friends in the way that Mr Tamihere says that they are being treated how does one treat those who are not one’s friends? I understand that Mr Tamihere has not retracted a single word of what he said. He may regret having said it he may regret that it was recorded he may regret that it has been printed he may regret what it has done to his career but I understand that he does not say that anything he said was not true. Well if that is how the Government treats the United Party and the Green Party who support the Government how does it treat the ACT party and the National Party who do not support it? How can we possibly be asked this afternoon to support a bill that actually relies upon the integrity and the word of Ministers? 
The more I think about it the more worried I am about agreeing to this bill and the more I wonder whether there are not “single words” in here. As Mr Tamihere’s article states: “… we wouldn’t survive without Cullen—he can cut a deal on a piece of legislation”—and that is what we are dealing with here—he can change a single word in a piece of legislation—well I gave an example of that—without those other “[b’s]” [coalition partners] knowing about it and it melts down everything they wanted but they still think they got their clause …”. Well if we cannot find Mr Tamihere to explain it I would ask the next member to ask why we as a Parliament should accept that this is a bill we can accept Labour’s word upon. 
If Labour members cannot give us a reason to do so then it seems to be a very hard problem for them to get out of is it not? Once somebody says that one cannot be relied upon how does one demonstrate that one can be relied upon? Credibility is a very slippery thing. Once it is lost it is very hard to get it back. 
It may well be true that the person who was interviewed for this article was stressed but it does not follow that what he said was not true. If it is true then how can we as a House rely on anything this Labour Government says? How can we possibly agree to this bill? How will the public treat us? They will say: “Look you’ve read this article. You knew you couldn’t trust them.” then when on the day after the article appears the Government introduces a bill that requires every single MP to consent the public will ask how on earth Parliament did that. That is the dilemma the ACT party has. 
Hon Member 
: It’s difficult. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It is very difficult and we will ask that the select committee look at the bill very carefully. 
I give notice to the Government that we want it to give us some way that we can rely on its word. But how are we to do that when a former Cabinet Minister—a caucus member who sits among Government members and who must know them better than any of us—has actually stated in this article: “[Dr Cullen] can cut a deal on a piece of legislation he can change a single word in a piece of legislation without those other … [coalition partners] knowing about it and it melts down everything they wanted but they still think they got their clause in.”? If that is how the Labour Party treats the United Party and the Green Party I want to know how it is treating the rest of the country.