Brown Peter: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7315] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have some sympathy for the thrust behind this bill as have my New Zealand First colleagues. The thrust is to remove the potential for payment of redundancy to a person who was employed in the public sector but now has a job in an associated area. We see that as an issue that needs to be looked at examined and addressed. But my having said that it is the procedure that the Government has taken that causes us immense concern. It is not a new procedure. It is quite common now for this Government to present Parliament with a bill of a certain size and to present a Supplementary Order Paper of equal size. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s bigger. 
PETER BROWN 
: In actual fact it is not. I say to Mr Carter that if he examines the pages and takes out the contents and the explanatory note he will find that it is about the same size. It is 12 pages. But it is disgraceful. 
And of course it is retrospective legislation. As the Hon Roger Sowry indicated part of the bill is retrospective to the degree that it relates to a time before United Future was in this Parliament yet its members are going to vote for it. In actual fact I think it relates to a time before United Future was formed. I do not think United Future was formed on 1 October 2001 yet its members are going to vote for legislation that goes back to that date. United Future is supposedly the common-sense party that stands for fair play yet it is going to support this measure. I would welcome United Future members taking the call to explain that. 
In Supplementary Order Paper 107 the Department for Courts is mentioned for the first time. The wording of an amendment to clause 3(b) is: “(iii) the abolition of the Department for Courts and the transfer of its functions to the Ministry of Justice.” What effect will that have on the people there? Frankly we do not know. What opportunity will they have to table their concerns? None. There is no select committee and no public hearing. It is simply a fait accompli. The Minister feels like getting rid of the Department for Courts of taking it and putting it under the Ministry of Justice and that is it. 
I ask the United Future people whether that is what they stand for. Is that what the Greens stand for? I know that it probably is what the Greens stand for. They have allowed significant legislation to go through this House without their giving any explanation whatsoever. I remind both the Greens and United Future that there is pressure to televise this Parliament eventually. The public will see first hand MPs sitting here not prepared to make a contribution at all and allowing a Supplementary Order Paper equal in size to the bill to go through without their making any word of comment at all. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s outrageous. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is. It is shameful. This is not democracy. These are dictatorial and autocratic procedures. I have already stated that the thrust behind the bill has merit but the way that it has been handled is absolutely deplorable. Come the next election United Future members will have to stand on the platform and say that they put their hands up for bills that the public did not even have the chance to contest before a select committee. That is absolutely shameful. The Greens have a habit of giving support lightly but I thought more of United Future particularly as it makes much in its advertising of it being the common-sense party the party for fair play that looks after the interests of New Zealanders. And United Future members sit there in silence. 
Hon David Carter 
: They’re called the “Doormat Party”. 
PETER BROWN 
: Why is it called the “Doormat Party”? Is it because people walk all over it and wipe their feet on it? Surely not! I find that incredible. I see Mr Baldock following this with extreme interest. I look forward to his call when he will explain the briefing he got and why as he understands it these people will have their potential right to redundancy removed without their having any opportunity whatsoever to go before a select committee. Is that what the member stands for?