Dyson Ruth: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 April 2014. Volume:698;Page:17340. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I commend the member who has just resumed his seat Chris Auchinvole and say that the only point of disappointment I have with his contribution to the House is that he did not acknowledge as deputy chair of the Government Administration Committee our absolute delight that the Associate Minister of Justice—out of all the select committees that he could have chosen to receive this bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) for consideration—chose ourcommittee. As the chair I am particularly delighted that he has done that. I have to say that my delight is enhanced by the fact that we have not got any other legislation before our select committee at the moment. We have got the obvious Budget-related reviews to go through we have got an inquiry and we have got a petition but it seems like the Government has pretty well run out of work which is amazing given that it is an election year. We end up with the highlight of this week’s debate seeming to be a Statutes Amendment Bill.The member also noted that there is not much drama in this bill. Well there should not be because it is a Statutes Amendment Bill. Every party in the House has to sign off as agreeing that the material in it is appropriate for a Statutes Amendment Bill and therefore non-contentious in nature. But compared with the drama that we have had this week with the Minister of Justice when she was in China giving her anti-corruption speech at a conference I do not think we need any more drama. I think she is providing us with more than enough drama to keep us entertained. This bill amends 33 statutes a number of which come under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. I hope that she has been able to give them the sort of attention that they need although I am not sure that she has given how busy she must have been preparing her answers and her apologies in relation to that trip.On a serious note although we are debating something non-contentious in this legislation which is being referred to the Government Administration Committee the actions that Judith Collins has undertaken that have been the subject of many questions in this House are not just contentious but very unusual. It is unusual for any Minister in Parliament to be so much on the edge of a clear conflict of interest to be denying members of the public access to information and answers to questions as well as members of Parliament yet to remain so aloof and arrogant about it. I suppose that is the bit that has surprised me. I know that the Minister concerned has a level of arrogance that is surprising in comparison with most other members of Parliament but to be caught out so blatantly and then to say in her apology that what was surprising was that she was apologising—that is what the Minister actually said. She said that it was surprising that she was apologising. So I think that disconnect with how people feel about accountability and the need to be able to trust their Ministers is really surprising. We know that Judith Collins went on a taxpayer-funded trip to China—Hon Dr Nick Smith: We know that this member has got a conviction for drink-driving.Hon RUTH DYSON: That is right. We know that the Minister went on a taxpayer-funded trip to China. We know that her husband went with her. What we did not know before she left and what we did not know until it was prised out of her because of public exposure was the fact that she actually had a visit to Oravida the company that her husband is a director of and also had a private dinner not just with the directors of Oravida but also with—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Points of order will be heard in silence and there is no need to engage in unparliamentary language. I call the Hon Nick Smith for a point of order.Hon Dr Nick Smith: My point of order is that we are debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). That is not a licence to give a general debate speech or a diatribe on any particular member of the House but to speak about the bill and what it will do for New Zealand. The member is not doing that and I ask that you call her to order.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well I thank the member for his elicitation and say that I am actually looking through the bill and trying to find something along the lines—I will just ask the member to try to speak directly to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4).Hon RUTH DYSON: I certainly will. I want to speak about the provisions in this legislation that come under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice Judith Collins. One of the amendments that is being made in this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) is to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. It is entirely appropriate that that Act is amended. I hope that the Minister is still in charge of that particular Act by the time this bill progresses to the select committee but I think that it is not entirely likely.One of the other amendments that is made in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)—and my colleague Andrew Little referred to it in his all too brief contribution on this first reading—is the amendment to the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982. I think that that is an area that the current Minister of Justice Judith Collins will be very pleased to hear about. It was so obvious at question time today that a friendly society was something that she is desperately in need of as she blundered her way through questions about her engagement with Oravida and her inability to answer questions. She then further blundered her way through the ACC questions exposing her misrepresentations in the House yesterday in relation to the document that she tabled.I just want to talk about the last Statutes Amendment Bill that we had referred to the Government Administration Committee. It was smaller than this bill. This bill amends 33 statutes and our one was I think smaller than that but perhaps not by much. Our select committee unanimously took the quite unusual step of removing some of the previously agreed statutes amendment provisions because it was our view that when they were taken as a whole they comprised far too much to be legitimately considered in the Statutes Amendment Bill. I think that that was a very good position for the select committee to take—that the threshold of acceptance for amendments in a Statutes Amendment Bill should be quite high. We should not use it as a way of sneaking things through. I do not think that was the intention of the Associate Minister—let me make that clear. I think it was a genuine attempt to get something not very big and not controversial pushed through Parliament in a comparatively speedy way.What our committee also did—and I think this was the good part which I want to draw to the attention of the House because I referred to it only briefly in passing in the deliberation on the previous Statutes Amendment Bill—was not only remove those provisions but say to the Minister and give the assurance at the committee that we would ensure the speedy passage of those provisions when they were moved into a separate piece of legislation. I think that is a pretty respectful thing to do. We had no doubt that the Minister was not trying to trick us. He wanted to get those particular provisions passed quickly. They were not controversial; they were constructive. So I think we acted in a moment of multiparty common sense in an effort to make genuine progress on an issue there was not any debate on. I am sure we will do the same for this current Statutes Amendment Bill.We will apply rigour to the consideration. We will be applying the same sort of rigour to considering this bill at the committee that we will be applying to the questions we will continue to ask Minister Judith Collins during question time. I have been surprised at the new standards in question time. It is a real shame there is no statute amendment in this bill in regard to the standards for question time. If a Minister is able to get up and say: “That’s quite a long question and I really can’t be bothered answering it.” they might as well say: “I’ve got a headache. I’m going to have a wee lie-down in the lobby. Could you just send something to me by email.” This is the onlytime in the day in Parliament that we have the opportunity to hold a Minister to account for a very serious responsibility they hold as the Minister of their particular portfolio. We get only half a dozen questions a day between the Opposition parties and that is for only 3 days a week when the House is sitting and not under urgency unless we have been given the opportunity to ask questions. So it is a very short period of time for us to get public accountability from the Ministers and frankly we have been really short-changed by the Minister of Justice.I have heard some answers from Ministers of the current Government that have made me think: “Oh that’s frustrating and I don’t think that’s quite right.” But I have never seen a Minister absolutely refusing to front up to their responsibilities. I certainly hope the Minister of Justice has taken up her responsibilities in the Statutes Amendment Bill in respect of the amendments to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act the Official Information Act and the other legislation she is responsible for such as the Ombudsmen Act and all those pieces of legislation that are quite rightly the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. I certainly hope that she has applied more consideration to them and will give the public more confidence in her actions as the Minister responsible for those amendments than she has been able to do in relation to her Oravida visit. There is a clear conflict of interest in the Oravida engagement where the Minister has obviously promoted one company a company of which her husband is a director using her ministerial position. That is something New Zealand does not often get to hear about. I hope it is dealt with speedily by the current Government because it does this Parliament a disservice. The Minister really needs to take that into account and vacate her seat.