Prebble Richard: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7362] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 This State Sector Amendment Bill originally had one purpose which was to enable the reorganisation of the Department of Work and Income and the Ministry of Social Policy and the abolition of the Department of Social Welfare and the transfer of its functions to the Ministry of Social Development—in short a sort of “Christine Rankin Restructuring Bill”. That was its original purpose but since then and very suddenly last week the bill has taken on a total new purpose—that is to abolish the Department for Courts. That is quite a large department with 1890 staff. That change was added to the bill last Wednesday after it had been through the Government Administration Committee so it did not allow for the public any right to discuss it. 
 I want to make this comment to the Government and to Mr Smith from the United Future party who has just sat down: they owe a duty to this House to tell us why a department of State the Department for Courts should be abolished. 
Murray Smith 
: This bill doesn’t abolish it. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well that is interesting. It must be very easy to get them to support the Government when they actually do not even realise they are voting for a bill to abolish the Department for Courts. [ 
Interruption 
] Well it says so—that is what the bill says. An interesting thing I say to Mr Smith concerns the Committee stage of this bill. I say to the fourth estate that they have a duty to report this House and how the Government is treating Parliament the judiciary the legal profession and the public. We are being treated with contempt. I say quite sincerely that I do not know why the Government is promoting this measure because no Minister has seen fit to get up and explain. 
The Minister said: “Oh I put out a press statement.” I found it thanks to the help of the library. Yes on 16 May he put out a press statement and this is what he said: “The merger between the policy and operations functions of the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Courts will strengthen the overall justice sector”. That is interesting. How? I read the rest of the press statement and there is no way of telling. The United Future members told us they all got a briefing so I thought they were going to come and tell us. But they have not. 
I have made some further inquiries and I discovered—and I wonder whether Mr Smith can tell us whether he knows this—that Treasury does not agree. This is what Treasury said to the Government about it: “There is limited evidence that sector performance is impaired by the way it has been structured.” It then went on to say: “The five indicators for structural change do not present a strong case for merger. Our view is the proposed merger would be more likely to worsen performance.” That was said by Treasury—but the Government has not told us why it thinks it would be strengthened. I would like to know whether the judges were consulted. Are the judges unhappy with the Department for Courts? 
Stephen Franks 
: Some of them are. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Some of them are—righto. Now I have the ridiculous position that one of my own members of Parliament thinks he can answer for the Government and I want to know from Government members whether they think that. 
Darren Hughes 
: It’s only a junior member. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: What? 
Darren Hughes 
: It’s only a junior member saying that. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well that is all right but I am asking the Government whether it thinks that. In 1995 there was a review of the Ministry of Justice which concluded that the ministry was not doing its job properly because it was confused between operational matters like looking after the courts and the prisons and providing policy advice. That was the decision in 1995. I am asking the Minister what has happened to change that. Why are we not entitled to know? If the Government does know some reasons why the secrecy? Why can it not be shared? I would like to know this from United Future members: why does the United Future party think that a department of 1800 staff should be abolished by a press statement then a Supplementary Order Paper with no opportunity for any member of the public to make a submission? [ 
Interruption 
] The member has just said it is the executive’s prerogative. Why bother I say to Mr Smith having Parliament? He said it is the executive’s—well actually it is not because it is actually in a statute and that I say to Mr Smith is legislation and that is our prerogative—in this Parliament. If we did not agree as a Parliament to this vote the Department for Courts could not be abolished. It is not the executive’s prerogative to abolish statutorily set-up departments. 
I would like to know from United Future members why they just agreed to this. They actually campaigned saying they wanted to improve the accountability of the Government. They said they wanted to lift the standard of Parliament—yet they want to know why they are regarded as a rubber stamp. They have agreed with a press statement of 18 May not setting out any reasons then with a Supplementary Order Paper that came in on Wednesday of last week. Now on Tuesday the department is abolished with no consultation at all. I say that that is a parliamentary outrage. I believe that the Labour Government is abusing Parliament. When Labour wants to know why the public are concerned on a serious constitutional issue like that of the Privy  Council things like the foreshore and things the Government is doing in other negotiations it is because the Government is treating this Parliament and other constitutionally important institutions with contempt. Indeed this bill is contemptible in that it is retrospective—right back to 2001. Even the United Future party did not think that that was a very good idea yet it is going to vote for the measure. I say to the House that we— 
Murray Smith 
: I wasn’t here in 2001. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is true; the member was not here in 2001. But he is here now and he is now going to vote for a measure that is retrospective. He is now going to vote for the abolition of the Department for Courts without in any way knowing whether that is a good measure. I have to say to the House that I do not know whether it is a good measure because the Government has not put forward any arguments. But I can see some counterarguments. If it has not been working well when it was administered by the Department of Justice prior to 1995 it seems to me extremely unlikely that it is going to work when it goes back to the department in 2003. It also seems to me that when the Ministry of Justice is going to have 1800employees in the Department for Courts and only 180 from the old Department of Justice that this is such a large addition that as Treasury rightly observes this could easily result in top management getting diverted. In fact they say the Ministry of Justice could become overly focused on court operations and the other departments will not perceive the combined Ministry of Justice and courts department as neutral and that the restructuring process could distract management focus from current initiatives. Those are not my words; they are Treasury’s. 
We have the right to have the Minister actually speak to this part of the bill. If we look at his third reading speech we see that there was not a word about the Department for Courts. There was nothing during the Committee stage. Government Ministers and members just sat in their seats when we asked these questions. They would not answer. United Future members just called out from their seats: “We know the answer but we won’t tell you—there there there!”. I just say to them that they are not performing correctly as parliamentarians. This bill is a piece of contempt to Parliament. The Government owes it to Parliament the judiciary the legal profession and the public to get up and give us an explanation of why the Department for Courts is being abolished. If they will not then we as a Parliament should vote against the bill.