Franks Stephen: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9530] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I was delighted to hear Dr Paul Hutchison Dr Lynda Scott Mr Dail Jones and my colleague Heather Roy finally say that it is almost irrelevant what the Minister thinks he has provided in the Supplementary Order Papers we have had during this urgency. We have had page after page of amendments in Supplementary Order Papers that have been dropped on Parliament without members being provided with any adequate explanatory notes or explanation as to why they were so late. Members of Parliament are being expected to push provisions through in 1 day the real import of which they could have absolutely no knowledge. We cannot have any understanding of them and I believe I am a reasonable reader of legislation. We cannot know the effect of these pages of amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 161. 
It may well be that all of the parties on this side think this is good law that should be put through but it would be utterly irresponsible to vote for it. It would be utterly irresponsible for Parliament to continue to connive with a Government that is so incompetent that after 4 years it has to dump this material on it in urgency expect us to vote for it and for the people of New Zealand to respect Parliament while it happens. This Minister is utterly incompetent. 
The last time the Minister in the chair Phil Goff did this he got caught. He dumped a Supplementary Order Paper on the House in respect of the Victims Rights’ Bill that utterly gutted the way burglaries were prosecuted. The Minister is sitting in the chair pretending he cannot hear but the Government dumped on Parliament a Supplementary Order Paper that reversed the effect of a unanimous select committee change to the Victims’ Rights Bill that allowed the police to at least tell the court the address of a burglary. No this Minister knew better. He did not consult the select committee or his own members. He dumped a Supplementary Order Paper on us and he pushed it through. What happened? Suddenly there were 60000 prosecutions where the police were not allowed to tell the court the address of the victims. 
Would Mr Goff care to comment on just how much that has cost the country? The last time he tried to ram a Supplementary Order Paper through in these circumstances without Parliament being able to know what was going on it meant that in 60000 burglary prosecutions there was a need—at an estimate about an hour extra in procedure—to explain to the court what they were doing. What was the explanation for that? Oh it was that the officials and Mr Goff knew better than the select committee so they just changed it back to what they had before the committee had considered it. Let us put it into a great fat Supplementary Order Paper that no one understands and push it through! But the Minister is begging us to allow the fix-up to go into the Statutes Amendment Bill. 
Now we have silence on the other side of the Chamber. Now we have the three musketeers sitting there—one of them with his hand over his face. Of course it is embarrassing! 
Hon Rick Barker 
: This is so funny. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It is not funny when the member has to sit there in embarrassment with his hand over his mouth because he knows that these kinds of Supplementary Order Papers have got Mr Goff into trouble and when this side of the House finally says: “Enough is enough. We’re not going to tolerate any more of this kind of Supplementary Order Paper.” Whatever the merits of the bill we will not rubber-stamp legislation that the Minister has not explained. We will not vote for it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There will be fewer interjections from the Government benches. They are not making any sense. If there are interjections they need to be relevant to the issue before us. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not need any argument. I am here you are there; I hear you. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I believe that the broadcasting of Parliament saves those people from a little bit of public disclosure of just how bereft they are. Faced in this Committee stage with 10 pages of material that they have not seen but are expected to vote on—material that they do not understand and that this side of the Chamber certainly cannot understand—all they can do is yell and then cover their mouths with embarrassment when the consequences of the last time this Minister did that are pointed out. 
The Minister in the chair could perhaps explain just why this is so urgent that none of it was disclosed to the members of the committee before.