Shirley Ken: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Shirley Ken: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:622;Page:17326] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I believe that the Hon Nick Smith has summarised the situation: it is an arrogant disregard of due process in this Parliament. Quite frankly I cannot think of a precedent in my time in Parliament for the Government having to introduce a bill as a notice of motion. This is an omnibus bill and irrespective of its content from what I understand of it I believe the ACT party would have supported it. I believe from what I have seen—which is very limited and I will come to that—that the bill is probably very important for the country and I am sure the whole Parliament would have supported it. 
The matter did go to the Business Committee—I sit on the Business Committee—and that committee said properly: “If this is what you want to achieve let’s see your proposal.” But the Government had no proposal. It just said it wanted to do this that and the other and wanted to amend the Resource Management Act and the Electricity Act. We said: “If it’s so important let us see the bill—it is quite a short bill.” There was no bill. So the Business Committee properly said: “No bill; no approval.” That is the way this place should work. We are not going to write a blank cheque for the Government to slip something in without our knowing what it is. 
So the Government went away having being denied at the Business Committee and has now brought this motion to the House. I saw it on the Order Paper first thing this morning. I immediately rang Minister Benson-Pope’s office and said: “You’re looking for our support for your notice of motion so that you can introduce the bill because it’s an omnibus bill. Let’s have a look at the bill. If it’s what you say and looks reasonable we’ll support it.” Then we probably would not even have needed this debate. 
But the Minister’s office said no the bill was not drafted yet. That was at 9 o’clock this morning and the bill was not drafted. They are out in the back rooms now cobbling something together. The bill is not on the Table. Parliament is being asked to address something—effectively to write a blank cheque for the Government—and the Government has not even had the courtesy to show Parliament the bill and to consult with Opposition parties as to its detailed contents. 
I had a very helpful discussion with one of the people in Mr Benson-Pope’s office and I made some notes. I have no doubt that the one-page sheet Mr Brown referred to is actually a result of my telephone call this morning. The Government still had not prepared the bill but it thought it would give us this one page of notes—which of course is not a bill. I have been in Nelson and have just got back. I missed question time as members might have noticed and I picked up this one sheet just when I got back. I am horrified—and Mr Speaker you should be horrified too quite frankly—that a Government should abuse the processes of Parliament in this way. 
As I understand the issue it is about access for power lines of more than 100 megavolt amperes and more than 110 kilovolts—that means all the arterial routes in essence. We know that the infrastructure of our country’s transmission system is in a very parlous state indeed. Much of our vulnerability in relation to electricity security rests with the inadequacy of our transmission system. For 10 years investment in this country’s transmission network has been neglected. We have a very serious tight constraint between Whakamaru and Auckland in the northern half of the North Island and we know about the publicity surrounding the north of Christchurch situation in the South Island. We are very vulnerable. 
The Public Works Act provides for works on private land. That Act can be invoked to put major public utilities like power transmission across private land—with compensation I might add and so there should be. But what we are talking about here is crossing roadways and railway crossings. There is a procedure to do that with minor power lines—that is those of less than 100 megavolt amperes and 110 kilovolts. They can cross roads and there is a process for negotiation with the road utility that involves appeal rights and appropriate compensation. 
But there is in essence a vacuum of procedure for arterial routes above 100 kilovolts and the proposal is to provide a process so that we do not have just an impasse. As it stands now there are time constraints on those negotiations. Time constraints are needed. Parties will come to a joint agreement only if there is a time constraint; otherwise one party will just wait the other party out. The legislation is to bring about a common process for the major arterial networks so that there is a process with a time constraint rights of compensation and so on. 
On face value the ACT party would be likely to support that but we cannot support this motion. This is a terrible way of proceeding with legislation and it is really just a reflection of the arrogance this Labour Party has adopted. I think we have seen a pattern of second-term Governments developing terrible arrogance and we are seeing more and more of it from this Labour-Progressive alliance or whatever it is these days. The Government’s second-term gross arrogance is epitomised by its gall in coming to Parliament and saying that it is going to use the tyranny of its majority—obviously with the support of one of its doormats be it New Zealand First or United Future—to have the numbers to override the Standing Orders over a matter I sense the House would actually have supported if the Government had followed due process. I have no doubt in my mind that if the merit of the Government’s argument is such— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: That member stopped it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Where is the bill Minister? Minister Benson-Pope is chirping away. Where is the bill? Here you are breaching the Standing Orders and flaunting your breach of the Standing Orders. All you had to do was come to Parliament with a bill—and you have not done that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please don’t bring the Speaker into it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: All Mr Benson-Pope had to do was come to Parliament with his bill but he has not done that. It is a constitutional outrage and I fear that if we let the Government get away with it in this instance it will become a routine pattern of behaviour. I have no doubt about that. It is unnecessary—it is procedurally unnecessary. There are better and more appropriate ways within the Standing Orders by which the Government could have brought this legislation to the House. 
I reiterate that I suspect we would not have opposed it. We probably would have supported it once we saw the detail—because with all legislation the devil is in the detail. 
There are some real issues with transmission lines because most of our power lines were put in during the days of publicly owned utilities and locally owned power boards. Often they were put in over private land on a grace and favour basis because a valley of farmers for example wanted the electricity on. Now that those companies are privatised we have some serious property rights issues. I want to see the detail of how property rights are protected by the bill—the bill we do not have. 
That is the point. Parliament is debating something and we do not know what it is. Therefore the ACT party will certainly oppose this motion although in essence we may well have supported the substance of the Government’s intention. 
I say in conclusion that we do not want to see this behaviour repeated. It is an outrage that the motion is on the Order Paper today. I know that Minister Benson-Pope is new to Parliament. He has been elevated through the ranks perhaps too quickly has not learnt parliamentary procedures and is struggling in his jobs. We do not like this arrogance and we will be voting against it.