Carter John: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Carter John: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:630;Page:2193] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 In addressing this motion I start with the point that the Government has just shown us another example of its absolute arrogance. We have an arrogant Government led by an arrogant Prime Minister. New members of the House and those who have been here a while should listen to some of what I am about to say on matters of procedure in this House because today we are seeing a Government that is trying to manipulate the Standing Orders of this Parliament—something that all of us should be absolutely aware of—and we should be absolutely certain that we understand what it is this Government is trying to railroad to ram through this House. I say to the likes of Peter Brown and to the Greens the United Future Party the Maori Party and ACT: please understand what the process is here because we need to be mindful of it. 
I make this point: the Standing Orders do not permit omnibus bills for the reason that a Government could decide to bring to the House 10 pieces of legislation—legislation relating to transport local government health and the police—put them all into one bill and have only one debate. The reason the Standing Orders prevent that is to ensure we have proper debate on one subject at any one time. What this Government is doing today is railroading an omnibus bill through the House. That has happened before. Normally omnibus bills are non-controversial. In fact Statutes Amendment bills have to be non-controversial and agreed to by all parties; omnibus bills do not but normally they are non-controversial. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Well what’s controversial about this? 
JOHN CARTER 
: We will come to that in a minute. Part of what happens when a Government introduces an omnibus bill—and this has always been a convention—is consultation; it talks to other parties about the legislation and about what is proposed. Well I consulted other parties in this House yesterday and found that a good number of them were surprised about this bill. They were surprised about it being brought forward by this motion and about what was in it. When I told a number of the members of the various parties about the bill they did not know about it. Indeed I make the point that I was the one who initiated finding out about this bill. I rang the Minister’s office he spoke to me about it— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: That was 2 weeks ago. That was a third copy. 
JOHN CARTER 
: —if the Minister would just listen—then yesterday morning he allowed a conference call so that one of his officials and one of his staff members could advise me of it. At quarter to eight this morning I finally got a paper that gave some explanation—given that I had been given a paper on Thursday that gave just headings. I tell the Minister that that is sheer arrogance. If he expects this House just to roll over and put through legislation particularly omnibus legislation then I say “forget it”. The parties in this House deserve to be consulted—they deserve to know what is going on—but they have not been. 
The Minister asked what was controversial about this bill. Well I refer to the motion because we are hearing all sorts of stories about what may be in the bill. I particularly draw the House’s attention to the reference in the motion to the Dog Control Act 1996. I had a number of officials ring this morning to say that that part is not going to be in the bill. I do not know— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: It is. 
JOHN CARTER 
: It is going to be in the bill? 
Hon Mark Burton 
: It is guide dogs. 
JOHN CARTER 
: It is guide dogs in the bill. The original papers I saw referred to microchipping. Now the Minister says we have to believe him. Well if the Minister gives us some papers that state that microchipping is referred to in the bill—a bill that is yet to be tabled because we debating the motion to introduce it—and then he interjects across the House and tells us not to worry about it because reference to microchipping will not be in it what are we to do? We were told that it might be. I asked specifically to be given papers that show that microchipping would not be in the bill. We have come down to the House today to find here in the wording of the motion reference to the Dog Control Act 1996—and the Minister says it is to do with seeing-eye dogs. Well I tell the Minister that I will wait and see the bill because I do not like the way in which he has gone about this whole issue of presenting this omnibus bill to the House. The way the Minister has done this is an absolute disgrace. He should be ashamed of himself for allowing this process to be trampled over in this way. 
Actually this House is guided by a whole lot of conventions and by a whole lot of Standing Orders. A responsible Minister would want to see that they were upheld. I feel embarrassed that Mr Burton is trying to railroad this legislation to ram it through and ignore the Standing Orders and conventions of this House. It just shows the arrogance of this Government. We have an arrogant Minister led by an arrogant Prime Minister and quite honestly this process is just not acceptable. 
I want to talk a little about the microchipping of dogs because it is hugely controversial. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: It’s not in the bill. 
JOHN CARTER 
: How are we to know? The Minister interjects and tells us that microchipping is not in the bill. He should tell us what is in the bill then we could debate it. In the meantime I have to assume from the motion in respect of the Dog Control Act 1996 and its subsequent amendments that the legislation obviously has some reference in it to microchipping because initially the papers we were given stated that. 
I have here some Treasury documents that we got under the Official Information Act. In fact my friend and colleague Craig Foss to his credit obtained these. They are startling. Other members of the House may be interested to read them. These Treasury documents which advise the Government state that the cost just of managing the national database—which is nothing to do with the microchipping of the dogs registration and all the stuff that councils have to do—will cost the Department of Internal Affairs or the taxpayer $1.3 million just for the capital costs then over $400000 per annum to maintain it. The documents also go on to state—and I think this is absolutely important for the House to understand this: “We note that Treasury is concerned that the national dog database will not address the issue of dog control and comes with significant cost and risk of technological obsolescence.” When the Government starts ignoring it’s own Treasury’s advice—advice that it has asked for—and when it has been given good advice by Treasury and been told what the costs are likely to be then unfortunately once again it is displaying its arrogance. 
Again although we do not know for sure we are led to believe that there are other matters in this bill that are also important. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How come you don’t know? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Because we have not been given enough papers yet. At a quarter to eight this morning I got an email. On Thursday I got— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Where’s the bill? 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is exactly right. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: You can’t table the bill until— 
JOHN CARTER 
: But the Minister could actually give us a copy to read. He has not done that. There are things in it that relate to roading for example. We would like to know what they mean because they could be controversial. We are not sure. We do not know. It has things in it relating to litter control. Surely to goodness the Minister could have told us about that. There are things in it relating to regional parks. Surely to goodness the Minister could have given us the bill so we could understand what he is trying to do. It may be that had he done so we would have been happy to support the motion and we may well have supported the legislation. It may well be that it actually makes common sense—unlikely with this lot but it could be so. 
It is a great shame to get a Government that is so arrogant—led by an arrogant Prime Minister—that it tends to railroad override not to care not to consult and cannot be bothered to inform us. I hope it has consulted with the other parties but I am not sure that it has. I hope the other parties understand what is happening here today because what we are seeing is a Government that is trying to change by its own actions our Standing Orders and our conventions and we should not tolerate it.