Prebble Richard: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7335] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 We are now involved in a very regrettable procedure because we are seeing a Government department being abolished which is always a serious matter. But in this particular case the affected department is the Department for Courts. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Abolish them all. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The United Future member has just said “Abolish them all.” I am obliged to Mr Copeland because he made an interjection when he was asked whether the United Future party had been briefed on this legislation and said yes it had. 
I am prepared to accept that Mr Copeland has been briefed but he has a duty to this Parliament as well. He has heard senior members of this Committee say that we are very interested in the constitution and the courts. We have asked the Minister for an explanation. The Minister has not given us one so I now ask Mr Copeland to give us one. I ask him to please take a call. He should just get up and convince me the Committee his own supporters— 
Gordon Copeland 
: I don’t think I could convince the member. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member says he does not think he could convince me and maybe he could not. But if he is silent I then ask him how the United Future party is lifting the tone of Parliament and contributing to public discussion when it is quite prepared to be secretly briefed and is then not willing to participate in the process. When Gordon Copeland thought he would be a member of Parliament was that what he had in mind—that he wanted a secret briefing that was not given to any other MP that he would smugly call out by interjection that he had been briefed on what the bill was about and that when he was asked politely to take a call he would sit in his seat? 
Gordon Copeland 
: I have politely answered the question. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well will the member take a call? He is very silent now. I think he will not take a call. 
I do not believe the member has been briefed. I do not think the United Future party has seriously considered this bill in any way whatsoever. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It is a convention in this Chamber to accept the word of a member. Mr Prebble has mentioned that I have said that we were briefed. Now he doubts my word. That is unparliamentary. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No that really is a debating point. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am obliged to you Madam Chair. It is a debating point and I invite the member to debate it. I invite him to show me that the United Future party is not the doormat that most of us think it is. I invite him to say that the United Future party is contributing to public discussion and that it is doing something to justify its existence here in Parliament. 
If my words do not move Mr Copeland perhaps he may note the 1.9 percent that the United Future party is sitting on in the public opinion polls. That may be something to do with the fact that Mr Copeland is silent when he is politely asked to contribute by please telling us why he has agreed to the abolition of the Department for Courts why he thinks it is appropriate that that does not go through a select committee process why he does not think members of the public should know about that and why he does not think the Minister should get up and explain that to Parliament and the country. We would all like to know the explanation for that. The member says he was briefed so no doubt he was briefed as to why the Government did not think it was necessary to explain to Parliament or the public why it is to abolish the Department for Courts by means of Supplementary Order Paper 107 which has been introduced 24 hours before the third reading of this bill. Now Mr Copeland tells me that I have to accept his word that he was briefed knew the Government would do that and agreed with it. I ask Mr Copeland why he did so. 
Since the Minister of Justice has wandered into the Chamber I say it may be a good idea for him to tell us why the Department for Courts is to be abolished. I presume Mr Goff does know the reason for that. Would he like to share it with us? It would only take 5 minutes of his time. It would be an indication that this Government is not treating the Committee with the contempt that I think that it is. I just say to Mr Goff and the Government that yes the Government has the numbers—the United Future Party will vote for it—but that is still not a moral reason for putting through a bill of this sort without explaining it. 
We understand that the Minister of State Services Mr Mallard is in charge of this bill. We know he does not actually know about the courts; he would not have a clue about them. We realise that it is just one of the conventions that he is responsible for the bill because he is the Minister. But I presume that Mr Goff does have an idea about the merger. I presume the Minister of Justice knows why the Department for Courts is being abolished and will merge with the Ministry of Justice. I presume he can tell us the good reason he thought up for that. I ask Mr Goff to share it with us. He should get up give us just 5 minutes of his valuable time and be a parliamentarian. 
I also put it to Mr Copeland from the United Future party who tells us he was briefed on this legislation—he agrees with this outrageous procedure which is a constitutional outrage—that he should tell us why the United Future party think this merger is a good idea.