Prebble Richard: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Prebble Richard: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19595] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I am not often shocked but I am shocked at what the Government is doing today. The Minister tabled a Supplementary Order Paper but he did not refer to it in his speech. It did not go to a select committee. It was also clear that the next Government speaker knew nothing about it because he did not speak to it; he talked about the need to talk about substance. It appears that this is a very good example of what Mr Tamihere is warning us about—that this Government tries to slip through legislation. 
There is an absolute obligation on the Government to be upfront on Statutes Amendment bills and to explain everything to every member. To put in a last-minute amendment and then not even mention the amendments in the two Government speeches is inviting the Opposition to say no. I have looked at the amendments. The first ones are actually procedural as Mr Fairbrother would have seen had he looked at them. But the next amendment is substantive. It makes changes to what judges are able to do. 
We ought not make a law change that has not been to the select committee. We have just been told by Mr Tisch that the select committee members had no knowledge of this. The Minister who moved it did not even mention it nor did his associate. I think that Mr Fairbrother did not know it was there and I suspect that Mr Barker did not know what is in that amendment. That is exactly what Mr Tamihere talked about. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Before the dinner break we were debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) which has been explained as a special procedure whereby the House can amend a large number of Acts at the same time—in this case 26 Acts. This can be done only providing that every member agrees and that requires the Government to be very upfront and to explain every amendment fully and carefully. 
I was extremely disturbed to hear from the National Party member Mr Lindsay Tisch that there were two Supplementary Order Papers on the bill—which I point out for the benefit of listeners are amendments placed on the Table of the House—because the Minister did not mention it during his speech. I discovered that yes there are two. The first Supplementary Order Paper divides the bill into 26 separate bills which is what we would expect but the second makes some substantive amendments regarding fiscal matters. Then there are amendments to the Judicature Act and when we look at the explanatory note we see that those amendments give extra powers to judges. So first I say in my new position today as the longest-serving MP that it is unsatisfactory— 
Jill Pettis 
: Interrupted service though wasn’t it? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am the longest-serving MP who has also had a sabbatical but I am still the longest-serving member of Parliament. I came in in 1975. It is completely—[ 
Interruption 
] The senior Government whip is interjecting on me and I say to her—because I suspect she actually agrees with me—that it is extremely unhelpful to the Government whips the Opposition whips or anyone interested in the business of the House for the Minister to table a new Supplementary Order Paper but not explain it. That is extremely sneaky. It is something that Labour Governments have done. 
I can remember Stan Rodger putting in a Supplementary Order Paper and telling the House that it contained just some technical amendments. I could not believe it when I heard that over the radio because it actually turned the railways into a State-owned enterprise. It turned a department into a State-owned enterprise and nobody in the Opposition realised it because he had not done it properly. 
The point I am now making is this: are we seeing another example of it? We have been told by Mr Tamihere a Cabinet Minister in this Government until very recently and still a member of the Government caucus that this is the Government’s style. Mr Tamihere said: “It’s too clever. You’ve got Cullen—we wouldn’t survive without Cullen—he can cut a deal on a piece of legislation he can change a single word in a piece of legislation without those other”—unparliamentary word—“[coalition partners] knowing about it and it melts down everything they wanted but they still think they got their clause in.” We have heard from the Government’s coalition colleagues today that they still think they got everything they wanted in the various clauses. What I am now saying to the Government is— 
Jill Pettis 
: We thought you were going to save rail and look how we were sucked in. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It is still there. If the member goes and looks she will find that all the rail is still there. We did not lose a bit of it. In fact more things have actually happened under this Government than happened under me but there we are. Leaving that aside the question I put to the Government whip who is now interjecting is this: why did the Government not mention to the House that it had a Supplementary Order Paper? As Mr Tisch points out this Government has just introduced another Statutes Amendment bill today. What a Statutes Amendment bill does largely is fix mistakes. Well this Government makes so many mistakes. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Two running together. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes. There are two running together between them covering over 50 bills. I suspect that that is some sort of record. But leaving that aside and leaving aside the criticism that that might mean of the Government what I want to know from the members opposite— 
Jill Pettis 
: There are no votes in these bills. It’s like swallowing dead rats. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Government whip says there are no votes in it. I think that probably sums up this Government. It is interested only in votes. It is driven only by popularity. It is never worried about principle or about whether what it is doing is good lawmaking. It does not worry about whether it is double-crossing its coalition colleagues and it is not prepared to give me an assurance or an explanation as to why the Government has introduced amendments without telling anyone about them. 
If we go back and look at the Minister’s speech we see there is not a word about it. Then we heard from Mr Fairbrother and there was not a word in his speech either. I suspect that that is because he knew nothing about these Supplementary Order Papers either. So where does it come from? Does it come from the Leader of the House Dr Cullen and if it— 
Jill Pettis 
: Forty-seven percent against 2 percent. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well could it come from Dr Cullen? I suspect that it does. The member starts quoting her public opinion poll rating as if to say that providing the Government has a high public opinion poll rating it is allowed to pull any trick it likes—it can go on misleading its coalition colleagues it can mislead this House and it can treat Parliament with contempt. 
I would still like to hear what the nature of this Supplementary Order Paper is from the next Government member who speaks. Why should this law be amended? Is the country not entitled to know? Does any Government member actually know? I suspect not. Could we hear from Mr Tamihere? Could he explain to us? Is this the sort of trickery he was referring to in the now infamous article? 
I watched television in the break and I saw Mr Willie Jackson speaking on behalf of Mr Tamihere. Willie Jackson said that Mr Tamihere stands by everything he said. So what we are arguing about is not the truth of what Mr Tamihere said—that is apparently accepted. What we are arguing about is whether it is correct under this Government to tell the truth. I say to the Government that in this House Ministers have an absolute obligation to tell us what is in the nature of the legislation and why we should make this change to the law. 
I find this situation thoroughly unsatisfactory and unless we get a decent explanation before the Committee stage begins the ACT party for one will not agree to this Supplementary Order Paper. We are not going to be like the United Future party—change one word it all melts down and we turn over and put our legs in the air. We will not do that. We will hold this Government to account. Part of the ACT party’s job is to keep the Government honest. It is a full-time job. It is hard work. Tonight the Government has made it even more difficult by following what I have to say is a very slippery way of introducing amendments to the law. We are entitled to better than that. Can the next Government member—hopefully Mr Tamihere but a Minister will do—actually explain to the House what this Supplementary Order Paper is and why it should be passed?