Worth Richard: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11520] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 There has been earlier comment in the House today about one particular provision in the Statutes Amendment Bill that is not to proceed and it is on that particular part that I would like to make some passing comment. The starting point of course for any discussion on the types of issues that arise in a debate on a Statutes Amendment Bill is that it is enshrined in our Standing Orders that bills are to relate to one subject and only the most limited exceptions to that are created. One of those exceptions relates to Statutes Amendment bills. That is why in the course of this argument a number of speakers have spoken about the mishmash nature of this legislation which contains multiple parts and makes multiple changes. 
Part 36 justifiably consumed time before the Government Administration Committee. Headed “Public Audit Act 2001” it sets up a rival regime to what has been very carefully laid out in the Standing Orders of this Parliament. There was an argument that the provisions in the Standing Orders relating to the register of pecuniary interests were completely unnecessary because it is clear law and accepted convention in this House that if a member has a conflicting financial interest he or she is bound to disclose it. But out of an abundance of caution and in keeping with what is going on in a number of Western parliaments this Parliament wisely decided that it would establish a more formal pecuniary interests regime. That was set up quite recently in Appendix B of the Standing Orders. 
The argument really in connection with Part 36 swings around Part 2 of Appendix B because it is there that the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament is set up. There are formal requirements that as members know returns are to be made on an annual basis as to the exact asset position of any member. But it is significant—and this is where the argument takes us—that under clause 15 of Part 2 of that appendix the Auditor-General is given wide-ranging powers of review and inquiry. Not only does the Auditor-General when the returns flow in from individual members have to look and see what has occurred but the obligation he or she has is a continuing one in terms of a power to inquire either on request—that might be a request by a member of the public or by the media—or on his or her own initiative as to whether any member has complied or is complying with the obligations that are in Appendix B of the Standing Orders. 
The Auditor-General is given powers to follow through if he or she decides to embark on an inquiry and finds that there has been a breach. Under clause 15(3) of Appendix B of the Standing Orders the Auditor-General after he or she has completed an inquiry can make a report to the House on the findings of that inquiry. That is much more than simply a slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket because a report to the House brings into play the considerable contempt powers of this House. Within Standing Order 400 there are illustrations of contempt. The most relevant one would be Standing Order 400(h) which states that the House may treat as a contempt a member “knowingly providing false or misleading information in a return of pecuniary interests:”. If a contempt were committed that issue would go the Privileges Committee. If it were well founded it would carry with it the substantial sanctions that the committee can impose. Those sanctions of course include fines and imprisonment. 
So we have set up that regime that self-contained code as others have said and the Government for some reason best known to itself decided it was not content with that regime and wanted additional powers to be engrafted. That was wrong in principle. If additional powers are seen to be appropriate then changes should be made to the Standing Orders. But the Government decided not to do that and instead decided to make far-reaching changes to the Public Audit Act. And they are far-reaching changes because the bill proposed to give powers to the Auditor-General in the nature of access to premises the issuing of warrants and the ability to bust down doors and enter property in order to search. That is why a number of members of this House expressed concern that in constitutional terms this was clearly an inappropriate course to follow. 
A key provision in the context of Statutes Amendment bills is that one MP one member of this House can at any particular part of the parliamentary process take objection to the inclusion of a particular provision. There is nothing like that in any other part of our Standing Orders and perhaps wisely the Government Administration Committee so ably chaired by a competent farmer from the Taranaki - King Country electorate decided that the move should be done pre-emptively rather than waiting for what might happen in the Committee stage and that objection should be taken. There was good reason for doing that because this provision was not a technical amendment. It was not a non-controversial amendment. It was a far-reaching constitutional change that should never have found its way into this bill. 
So I commend the select committee. I commend speakers who have earlier commented on the inappropriateness of Part 36. What will happen? Well Part 36 will not be in the bill when it goes through the further stages that lie ahead and that is quite proper. 
Bill read a second time.