Jones Dail: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Jones Dail: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:609;Page:6235] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I regret to have to tell the senior National Party Opposition whip and the Leader of the House that times have changed under MMP. The days of the National Party and the Labour Party running this House as they want to run it no longer exist. We are now under MMP and minority parties are entitled to have a say. New Zealand First is exercising the right given to members of the House under MMP to do so. Of course what we are doing here indicates that Mr John Carter has not read the Standing Orders and the report of the Standing Orders Committee and has forgotten the progress of the previous Business Law Reform Bill entirely—a bill of course that was introduced by the National Party under the good old National Party - Labour Party way of doing things when National was in power although it was under MMP. However National as usual put it through with the cooperation of the Labour Party because that was the old boys’ and the old girls’ network. Well things have changed and New Zealand First is entitled to express its view under MMP and rely on the report of the Standing Orders Committee of 1995. 
That Standing Orders Committee looked at things like—and this bill really is a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Members can call it what they like; chalk is chalk cheese is cheese and a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill even if one wants to call it something else. Page 49 of the Standing Orders Committee review has a provision about legislative procedures and the Law Reform Miscellaneous Provisions Bill and I quote: “The committee received strong submissions suggesting such bills should be allowed only for technical amendments or amendments for cognate legislation. ... The Committee agrees that the practice of using a miscellaneous provisions bill (apart from a Statutes Amendment Bill)”—New Zealand First supports the Statutes Amendment Bill—“should not continue ...”. What we are seeing here is the continuation of that process in contravention of a Standing Orders Committee report. It “should not continue and ... the form of any other type of omnibus bill should be closely defined. ... The committee proposes”—on page 49—“that the acceptable practices with regard to omnibus legislation be codified (they are not dealt with in Standing Orders at the moment) and that steps be taken to prohibit some of the less desirable practices that have arisen in recent years.” 
I tell Mr John Carter and the Leader of the House that what New Zealand First is doing is totally consistent with the proposals of the Standing Orders Committee. Neither of those gentlemen appears to have read them. I apologise; I am sure they may have read them but they appear to have forgotten them. They do not want to remember them. We in New Zealand First are here to do our job. We have done our research and it is very clear that this type of legislation should not be permitted according to the report of Parliament. 
Page 50 refers to the scrutiny of bills and page 51 has the point about law reform or omnibus bills in paragraph (f): “More than one Act may be amended in a law reform or omnibus bill where those Acts deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy or where the amendments being effected to the different Acts are of a similar nature in each case. Further a law reform or an omnibus bill could also be introduced if the Business Committee agrees to its introduction.” 
We did not agree to it—the Standing Orders Committee report made that clear. Those provisions are intended to permit the present practice of introducing customs legislation amendment bills taxation reform bills and to allow for the companies reform legislation for example to continue. They would not permit Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills and some of the contents of recent finance bills. New Zealand First believes that it is acting in total accordance with the Standing Orders Committee report. 
We have the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill before the House which is an omnibus bill. It has nine pieces of legislation in it and New Zealand First has no opposition to its coming in in that form. As the first two lines state: “This Bill aims to improve the effectiveness of the Department for Courts’ fines and civil enforcement activities.” It has a single motive going through nine bills and we support it. We do not have a bill before us at the moment; I do not even know whether the Government has drafted it. The quotes Michael Cullen was giving were from May to June 2001. The Government has had at least 2 years to do something and it has done nothing. We are now into 2003—another 6 months has gone by since we raised this issue in November last year. The Government has had 2½ years to get something drawn up and as yet we have not seen a bill to back up what is proposed. 
This House is giving the Government carte blanche to put anything into 13 pieces of legislation. Is that the way this House should work? Is that the way that parties in this House should allow the Government to run the business of this House? It is great for National and the Labour Party but New Zealand First takes the view that we are here to play a role in this House and we intend to do so. 
If we look at the previous business law reform legislation introduced in 1999 we will see that it was not here for a few months—it did not go down to a select committee and come back a few months later as suggested by Mr Carter. That bill was introduced and had its first reading on 27 July 1999. The second reading was on 5 October 1999. The select committee issued its report on 2 October 2000—a year later. The date of consideration was 7 November 2000. The date of the Committee stage was 4 April 2001. The date of royal assent was 2 May 2001. That bill took almost 2 years to pass. I am saying that the legislation we have before us could quite easily be introduced on an individual basis. New Zealand First has had an opportunity to read what it believes is likely to be in the legislation and it does not look too difficult. I have suggested that five items within it should be in the statutes amendment legislation but that offer has not been taken up. 
Of course what we are also doing is suspending Standing Orders which must be one of the most crucial constitutional steps for this House to take. One member said once: “The suspension of Standing Orders when it is a contested matter is a very very serious matter indeed.” He referred for example to the Marsden Point Refinery Bill. Who was the member who said it was “a very very serious matter indeed” on 22 June 1994? It was none other than Dr Michael Cullen and what is he doing today? He is suspending the Standing Orders to introduce an amendment to the Distress and Replevin Actof 1908. Does anybody know what that is? That is what members of this House are supporting today. This bill should not just be amended but repealed. I have read the submissions from the Law Society that have been put up on every one of these bills and I have written to the Minister giving him my views on it as well. We are not taking this lightly; we are taking it seriously. 
The Distress and Replevin Act was based on an 1868 Act and we are suspending the Standing Orders so that we can amend it. Why does it need an amendment? Because when the Personal Property Securities Act was passed in 1999 the Distress and Replevin Act was forgotten about. I have acted on the Distress and Replevin Act so I know what it is all about—it is dreadful legislation but it is ancient legislation. It is as if we had a 1908 house which was a run-down sort of a place with scrim an outdoor toilet and all we are doing with this legislation is putting in a new window—we are not doing terribly much. This is a serious objection. It is supported by the Standing Orders Committee report and we will be opposing the motion.