Tisch Lindsay: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19592] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 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? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I am on the select committee. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: And this wasn’t raised at the select committee? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: These Supplementary Order Papers were tabled yesterday. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: There was no notice of them in the select committee? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That’s outrageous! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: 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.