Williamson Maurice: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21726] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I have taken a great deal of interest in Part 7 and I have read the entire part verbatim which is something members of Parliament do not often get the chance to do. It seems to me that it is one of the best examples of the situation when more than two full pages of a bill state just one simple thing. Maybe the Minister can tell me whether I have it wrong but I believe that basically the part just states that if an offender has more than one reparation order out and if the orders are for the same offence then the payments to be made should be split equally amongst those who are owed. If the offender has orders for different offences then they should be paid out in the order in which they occurred. 
I ask the Minister whether draughtspeople get paid by the word. I mean why was it not possible to say in two sentences: “We will split the payments; and if it is the same offence the payments will be equal and if it is one offence before the other then the first offence gets paid out.”? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: They wouldn’t want that to be public. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well maybe they do not want that to be public. I do not quite know but I have to say that when I read that and when I look at legislation like this I keep thinking: “Why do we encumber this place with such enormous volumes of verbiage when in fact it is just a simple thing to say?”. If that is not the case then I would really like to know. The Minister could easily take a call to explain whether there is something more devious or more well hidden. 
I notice that there is a lovely little section 145C “No Crown liability for error etc in applying payments of amounts of reparation” inserted by clause 22. I have to say that that will increasingly become a common practice in this Government’s legislation—a clause that says there is no Crown liability for Government error—because this week we have seen the biggest Government error that has ever occurred in this country in the miscalculation of our Kyoto forest credits. The Government told us it was worth $500 million per year—that is what Pete Hodgson said. He asked whether the National Party Opposition was prepared to tear up a cheque for $500 million per year. It turns out that it is actually a bill for $1 billion per year. 
I am sure that if any legislation is to surround the Kyoto Protocol Marian Hobbs will be listening very carefully and looking at that section and saying that yes it is a section she wants to put into any Kyoto legislation in the future. It states: “No Crown liability for error etc”—I love that “etc”! It is not just for the errors—it is for anything. 
Shane Ardern 
: Does it include stupidity? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I guess that is a question we should ask this Minister—does the “etc” include incompetence or sheer stupidity? Let us remember that if this goes to a court—if there is an error on behalf of the Crown—the judge will look at this section: “No Crown liability for error etc in applying payments of amounts of reparation”. That is the heading. The actual provision states: “The Crown is not liable to any person for any error omission or delay in applying any payment of an amount of reparation in accordance with section 145A or section 145B.” Section 145A and section 145B were the two sections I referred to before. They state that reparation is split equally if it is for the same offence to more than one person and that it is split in sequential order to the first person and the second person. Honestly how much belt and braces does the Minister need to give himself to keep the Government safe? 
Shane Ardern 
: I don’t think it’s enough. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: In this Minister’s case it is probably not. But I can see the gleeful look on Marian Hobbs’ face. I know that she would have got on to officials immediately and said that she wants this provision in any Kyoto legislation in the future. The Crown will not be liable for any error of calculation. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Etc. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Etc.! I am very tempted to move in a minute if there is another speaker in this part to add “any error omission delay incompetence or just sheer bungling on behalf of the Minister”. I think the courts may— 
Shane Ardern 
: I don’t think “etc.” is in there. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No the member is wrong; “etc” is already in there. But I think “error omission or delay” needs to have an extended list added to it and I hope the Government will accept my amendments that incompetence and sheer complete bungling on behalf of the Minister should also be a reason why there should be no Crown liability. Because if we are going to have the legislation the way it is then surely that is what it is now. The Minister could easily tell us why it takes more than two full pages of a bill to state something that I think could be stated in two sentences flat—in fact common sense would say that if one were splitting reparations they should be split between two people if there are more than one person or three people if there are more than two etc. Why if there was one order that existed from long ago— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: What about four? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Mr Tisch is now testing me because I know that the moment he wants me to answer in respect of four there will be some bright spark who wants to take it to five and beyond that I cannot count so I am not going to get into that.