Carter David: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7316] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I congratulate Peter Brown the deputy leader of New Zealand First on that superb contribution. I am superb—I am so pleased that the member walked in today. I thought that was a wonderful contribution. 
Sandra Goudie 
: You are superb Mr Carter. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I thank the member. I want to talk to clause 2 “Commencement” and the purpose. I am surprised. We have before us a bill that went through the select committee process 2 years ago and that sat on the Order Paper until yesterday but suddenly Mr Mallard decides that it is appropriate to advance this legislation so he tables Supplementary Order Paper 107 which is longer than the original bill. I say to members of the Committee that they should examine that Supplementary Order Paper with care because it will not have the opportunity to go before a select committee. That is fundamentally wrong. When one examines the Supplementary Order Paper—and I direct these comments to the United Future party particularly whose members are not giving me much indication that they have even picked it up and had a look at it— 
Simon Power 
: Ask Larry Baldock what’s in it. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: My colleague suggests that we ask Mr Baldock what is in the Supplementary Order Paper. The record will show there was no response. 
I will take some time to talk about this Supplementary Order Paper because its amendments to clause 2 as alluded to by my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry provide for the retrospective nature of the commencement date. The amendment to clause 2(1) retrospectively validates the Government’s restructuring of Work and Income New Zealand which was done only to get rid of Christine Rankin. Various provisions will be deemed to have come into force on 1 October 2001. That is unacceptable. Legislation should not be backdated the best part of 2 years to make sure this Government can attempt to dig itself out of a hole. 
There is another aspect of retrospectivity. The amendment to clause 2(2) states that various provisions in so far as they relate to the Department for Courts and the Ministry of Justice coming together will come into force on 1 October 2003. The Opposition feels so deeply aggrieved by that move that we will still be here debating it on 1 October. Mr Mallard does not have a hope of getting it passed for the royal assent by 1 October. That is the second aspect of this legislation that is retrospective. 
The third point I want to make is about any future restructuring coming into force the day after the legislation receives the royal assent. That is a relatively typical clause that we see in this Parliament from time to time but I suggest that there should be a time delay on any further restructuring and that it should come into effect on 1 June 2006. The reason I say that is this Government is obviously intent on another round of restructuring that it is not prepared to bring before Parliament for debate. I know that before 1 June 2006 there will be another election and I as a member of the National caucus will take those further restructuring plans to the electorate which will have an opportunity to comment on them. If those people vote for a National Government in the next election as I am sure sensible people will do we will have a chance to undo the restructuring plans that are about to be initiated under the cloak of darkness by this Government. 
Those are the three points—[ 
Interruption 
] He is the knight of darkness is he not? Those are the three points I want to make on the commencement. The fourth issue I want to raise is about the purpose of the bill. A very substantial amendment to the purpose of the bill is tabled in Supplementary Order Paper 107. I do not recall in recent times a substantial amendment to the purpose of a bill being tabled in a Supplementary Order Paper which does not have the opportunity of going before a select committee. That is a very dangerous precedent that the Minister— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: An abuse of the process. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Absolutely! It is an abuse of process. Surely Mr Mallard in preparing the original regulation knew the purpose of it.