Prebble Richard: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7330] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I have come down to the Chamber to speak to the schedules of the State Sector Amendment Bill in particular and to Supplementary Order Paper 107 dated Wednesday 23 July which is yesterday of course. What the Supplementary Order Paper purports to do is to transfer the Department for Courts to the Ministry of Justice. That is a very very significant change. This is almost a constitutional bill yet we are making this change in a Supplementary Order Paper that is not only not going to a select committee but cannot have been studied by any MP. I say to the Minister that he has a duty to the Committee to explain what the effects of the schedules will be. I am quite prepared to accept that it may well be that the Department for Courts has not been a success but if that is so what is the evidence? Where is the evidence that transferring the department to the Ministry of Justice will overcome whatever the problems were? 
I do not know whether the Minister is aware of this fact but I am told by my friends in the legal profession that registrars in the Department for Courts now have extraordinary powers and if they take a dislike to a lawyer they can make his or her life an absolute misery—failing to call a case until the end of the day and putting clients through all sorts of agony. There is no point complaining to the judge because this Government and the previous Government have not allowed the judges to run the courts. How will the Ministry of Justice handle that any better? 
Every time the Ministry of Justice starts to ask if things are being run right we can see the separation of powers being cited. I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard to tell us whether any consideration was given to allowing judges to be responsible for their own courts. They are intelligent men and women. They are smart enough to interpret this law. Why are they not smart enough to run their own courts? That would seem to me to be a genuine separation of powers. All those issues must have been considered—I have to give the Minister that benefit of the doubt—so why can he not share them with us? That is what the Committee stage is for. If the Minister will not allow the legislation to go to a select committee or the public to make submissions we as members of Parliament are entitled to ask him whether those questions were considered. 
When these schedules were done what were the arguments? Where is the justification for this Government suddenly to change one whole section of the constitution of the courts—the whole way they have been administered—with 24 hours’ notice? Where is the confidence that anyone will have in how this Government is handling the rule of law in our courts when it is prepared to make a radical change of this nature with 24 hours’ notice? So far the Minister has not spoken to it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It was announced on 16 May. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Minister says that it is OK he made a press statement on 16 May and therefore he does not have to explain anything to Parliament. The way this Government does things is to issue a press statement and treat this House like a rubber stamp. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What about the select committee? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: How can the select committee look at a Supplementary Order Paper that was tabled yesterday? The Minister is making the point that I am making. What about the select committee I ask the Minister? Why was the select committee not allowed to look at this Supplementary Order Paper? He is silent now. Apparently the select committee was supposed to know that a Supplementary Order Paper was to go through the day before we were to debate this legislation. 
Will the Minister now take a call and explain why the Government is making those changes because I have looked at the press statement and it does not set out a coherent set of reasons. Was the Department for Courts not working? If it was not working where is the evidence? If it is to be transferred to the Ministry of Justice where is the evidence that the Ministry of Justice will be any better? I see Mr Goff coming into the Chamber. I hope he will make a contribution because I am genuinely interested. Any MP should be genuinely interested in our courts. It has to be in the interests of the whole country to have a good well-functioning courts system. Did the judges ask for this change? In fact what is wrong with my idea of letting the judges run the courts themselves?