State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7308] 
State Sector Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 23 July. 
Clause 1 Title ( 
continued 
)  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 We were saying that this bill is shockingly misnamed and I am pleased that the Minister of State Services Trevor Mallard is here as the Minister in the chair. This small amendment bill has 13 pages of amendments in it and the United Future party has signed up to it without those amendments having had select committee or parliamentary scrutiny—the public process. 
We say that this bill should be called the “Let’s Override the Parliament Bill” because it gives enormous power to the executive to restructure Government departments. It could be called the “Let’s Get Rid of Christine Rankin Bill” because that is its purpose. Trevor Mallard did not like her and wanted her to be fired. Because he did not want her to get the big golden handshake he restructured the civil service just to get rid of one person. That is what that Minister did. We could also call the bill the “Time Doesn’t Matter to the Socialists Bill” because the cause of this bill is over 2 years old. The Minister of Maori Affairs realises that that is so and nods his head in agreement. Christine Rankin is long gone but we are still sitting here with this bill which gives the Government the power to get rid of her through the restructuring of the civil service. 
I would like Trevor Mallard to take a call and explain why the executive should have that power and to explain why 13 pages of amendments should be rushed through Parliament with the doormat’s—the United Future party’s—support rather than going through the select committee process. I would like the Minister to take the call and explain— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I ask the member to desist from using that sort of description of another party in this Chamber. In fact I ask him to withdraw it. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I withdraw it. The United Future party is the “Agree With Everything This Government Does Whatever it is Party”. 
Opposition Members 
: Doormat! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I could not possibly say that. Members of that party just agree with everything the Government wants. They may speak against what the Government wants and oppose it vehemently in this Chamber but then they vote for it. That is probably what we will see today although I do not think they have examined the ramifications of doing that. 
I would like the Minister in the chair to take a call and explain this bill and its title rather than riding roughshod over the United Future party which is very friendly to him. Why does he not put in the title what the bill is intended to do? Or have we got it wrong? Is it not the case that under this bill the executive can restructure a department without coming to Parliament? Is it not the case that under this bill chief executives can be fired without the Government following the proper process? The Minister just sits there. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 We in the National Opposition oppose this bill and for very good reason. I commend Mr Hide for his description of what the bill’s title should be. In speaking to the title I say the bill could very aptly be named the “Ill-conceived State Sector Amendment Bill” and I shall proceed to tell members why I say that. 
There are some guidelines for the formulation of a bill. First one has to ask whether the legislation is actually needed at all. Secondly one should consider the need to involve lawyers early in the policy formulation stage. I would like to refer to the New Zealand Law Society’s submission on this bill because in my view it addresses a very very critical part of something that has been totally overlooked in the formulation of this bill. The submission states that the proposed provision overrides contracts by means of statute and that that point of principle requires careful consideration. It goes on to state that whilst Parliament has the power to pass laws that alter the terms of existing contracts that power should be used with caution and sparingly. That comes from the New Zealand Law Society. I do not see any reference to those issues that are present in the bill because there is no commentary on it. 
That is why I refer members back to the title “Ill-conceived State Sector Amendment Bill”. There is no reference to the Law Society’s submission on the bill or to the matters it raises which are of significance. I will read out to members a little more of what the society has to say. It states that the legislation involves a statutory interference with private rights that arise from negotiations undertaken and concluded pursuant to other statutory provisions. Here I would like to refer members to another basic principle in the formulation of legislation: the legislation that is being formed must fit appropriately into the general body of existing law. The question could well be asked as to whether that has been considered in this case. Again the bill has no commentary to explain those matters or to address the concerns put forward in the Law Society’s submission. 
I refer to another crucially important point in the society’s submission—the last point that it makes. It states that the Crown is not only promoting the legislation but also will be the contractual beneficiary of it. Because no reference is made to the serious concerns raised by the submitter—there is no commentary—this bill is ill-conceived so hence my suggestion that it should be called the “Ill-conceived State Sector Amendment Bill”. 
I have further reasons for calling this bill ill-conceived. In 2001 there was a 6-page Supplementary Order Paper on it. We now have Supplementary Order Paper 107 which at 13 pages is exactly the same length as the bill itself and it has a Bills Digest covering it. There is absolutely no commentary on any of those documents. When one has a Supplementary Order Paper that is exactly the same length as the bill itself I ask how one could possibly suggest that the legislation has been well conceived. I refer back to my suggested title of the “Ill-conceived State Sector Amendment Bill” because the Supplementary Order Paper is the same length as the bill itself. 
I would also like to raise another matter. The Public Service Association made a whole lot of recommendations in its submission. These amendments have all been done to satisfy the concerns raised by the Public Service Association. Was there no consultation on the policy that was being established prior to the drafting of the bill? Again I say this is the “Ill-conceived State Sector Amendment Bill”. If the proper guidelines had been followed and met lawyers would have been involved at the outset and those matters would have been addressed. I say to members again that the Crown is not only promoting the legislation but also will be the contractual beneficiary of it. 
I would also like to refer members to another issue that was raised and that is the issue of transparency and accountability. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I want to make some relatively brief comments. First of all it is good to see the member in the Chamber and I apologise for not recognising her as a member of Parliament when we were at a recent function. But I will catch up with the new National Party back-benchers at some stage. 
Simon Power 
: How is this related to the bill? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am being nice to the member. 
Simon Power 
: That is unusual! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is right and because the member is relatively new I think it is probably worth explaining one or two points. 
The essence of this bill—the piece that she focused on and the bit that we care the most about—goes to a fundamental question about whether a public servant or a State sector employee should get redundancy pay as well as a job when there is a nominal change of employer through the amalgamation of agencies. That is the guts of it. Should they get redundancy pay as well as a job? 
Sandra Goudie 
: That is contractual interference. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well the member is absolutely right. There is contractual interference in this case; we are interfering with a contract. We say that we should not pay out probably hundreds of millions of dollars of redundancy to the staff members in Work and Income New Zealand because the name of that agency changed. That is what we are on about here. 
Sandra Goudie 
: The Public Service Association addressed it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: One cannot address it by way of a backdated precedent. The member has suggested that every individual contract with every person who was an employee of Work and Income New Zealand should be debated and dealt with in every case when there are tens of thousands of employees. Frankly the member is bonkers. Legislation is the only way of doing something like that. 
I want to make one more point as National Party members have criticised the redundancy area of the bill. I want to remind them about the Tourism Board and how it had a bunch of incompetents on it—Murray McCully’s mates—and paid $400000 to an individual when he resigned. This Government stands up for probity and that lot are opposed to it. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I wish to follow the Minister’s comments and address some of the concerns raised by my colleague the MP for Coromandel Sandra Goudie and to get a little more specific about why the title to this bill—the State Sector Amendment Bill—does not reflect the actual position that is being stated. 
This bill effectively exempts public sector organisations from a series of rules that apply to the way private sector organisations are restructured or if different companies within a parent company are transferring employees from company to company or entity to entity within an umbrellaed company structure. There is no way that private sector organisations would get away with trying to pull the stunt that the Minister is trying to pull while sitting in that chair and promoting this bill. Because of the facts surrounding Christine Rankin’s removal from Work and Income New Zealand the Minister is trying by promoting this ill-conceived State Sector Amendment Bill to exempt the Government from the very provisions it put in place under the Employment Relations Act and the very provisions that members on this side of the House told the Government would occur in exactly this type of situation. 
I cannot believe for one moment that the Minister in the chair could seriously want members of this House to deprive employees and workers of their rights to claim redundancy entitlements because they happened to work in the public sector and decide that the public sector needs to be reformed in a way that makes its entitlements different from those available in the private sector. How can United Future members sit there and allow two standards of redundancy compensation to apply—the difference between private and public sector—and sanction the removal of redundancy provisions in the public sector because this Minister took his time some months ago to remove Christine Rankin from a position in Work and Income and was required to legislate that restructuring in a way that avoided the provisions of the Employment Relations Act? That is why this bill should not be called the State Sector Amendment Bill but the “Trevor Mallard Exemption to the Employment Relations Act Bill”. 
That is a serious concern and it is a double standard when one considers that if in the private sector two entities both owned by the same parent company were to undergo the transfer of employees from one company in a structure to another company in a structure this Government would be crying foul if those employees were prevented from bringing technical redundancy cases. This Minister should get to his feet and explain why Parliament should pass legislation that devolves from those employees the rights they are entitled to under legislation promoted and passed by this Government in the last term. 
This bill should be renamed the “Double Standards for Redundancy in the Public Sector (To Get Us Out of a Tight Spot With Christine Rankin) Bill”. It is unacceptable for the Committee and in particular United Future to sanction such a differentiation between public sector and private sector employees. It is being done in a way that seems unprincipled and is nothing short of desperate retrospective legislation to get this Minister out of the tight spot he created by supporting the passing of the Employment Relations Act through the House in the last parliamentary term. These are serious legal questions and that Minister should get to his feet and answer them. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I have been brought to my feet in some excitement by the comment made by the Minister in the chair because if I heard correctly this bill will deal with that long-running sore that the Minister was so hot about in 1999. According to his comments this bill would in some way change the outcome if Mr Murray McCully again had to deal with dud directors or dud employees—I think he referred to the Tourism Board as the example. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I did not say it applied to Crown entity boards. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: From what the Minister told us I understood that this bill would have made some difference to the dumping for $400000— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The $400000 was explicitly mentioned. That is what I heard from the Minister. When I heard that and looked at the title of the bill I started to think that I must have misunderstood. I thought: “We should be voting for this bill.” It occurred to me that if there were a way of getting rid of these rorts—these claims by duds this abuse of the legal system these horrendous golden farewells these things that inflame ordinary people directors business people and Ministers alike—and if the Minister had had the courage to bring in something even if he was sliding it under the title of State Sector Amendment Bill and had the courage to do something about the abuse— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member may not question the courage of any member of the House let alone a Minister. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am sorry. If the Minister had had the openness and fortitude to do what he said he was going to do in 1999—that is get rid of the law that held businesses to ransom when they were getting rid of a dud senior employee—we would certainly be voting for it. ACT would be absolutely into this bill if the Minister were doing anything more than just making an empty political speech. 
I have scanned the bill as best I can and see that there is a clause in it that would perhaps justify the title “State Sector (Ministerial Decree) Reorganisation Bill”. That might be a little bit of an example. There is the provision that states that the Minister can by Order in Council do things that up until now we thought would require reversion to Parliament. But I certainly do not see anything to do with the address the Minister gave us two speakers ago when he referred to Mr Murray McCully. But if I have misunderstood the bill—if there is something in it that does address the issue—then the misnaming of the bill will certainly not stop us from reconsidering our opposition because it is a very long-overdue reform that the Minister— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: ACT should support this bill. It does not support double-dipping for public servants. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: We do not support double-dipping but we certainly would support the Minister if this bill contains what he implied it contains—that is the ability to return employment to at-will terms. What I understood from the Minister’s intervention is that he supports at-will employment for senior executives as does every sensible economist employment lawyer board of directors and senior employee. They know that when they are taken on there is an allowance in their enormous salaries to reflect the risk of being dumped should they be found unsatisfactory. 
If this bill actually contains something along the lines of what the Minister intimated then we certainly would need to reconsider our opposition. From looking at the actual words and not the Minister’s description the best we can tell is that it does nothing of the sort. In fact it expressly preserves all the existing rights and entitlements. The effective reorganisation is said not to affect existing rights and entitlements—other of course than the minor redundancy he is trying to tackle. That presumably concerns those sorts of technical redundancies that the Government imposes on the private sector—the redundancies that the Hon Margaret Wilson was very happy to try to trigger with her proposals for a law that would attack transfers or reorganisations of private businesses. But for the State sector the attitude is: “Oh no we can’t do that.” 
Simon Power 
: Different kettle of fish. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It is a different kettle of fish. No we will take State employees and make sure that they do not get the kind of windfall opportunity that the employees of  
The 
Dominion Post  
got for example. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I note that the Hon David Carter has been seeking the call for some time but members have been clearly indicating that they wish to move on to the bill itself. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman for observing my persistence. I certainly want to talk to the title “State Sector Amendment Bill” because in my mind that title does not reflect the true ramifications of this legislation. We see a lot of amendment bills going through this Parliament and in many cases they involve minor amendments but I want to argue that this bill is not about a minor change to the State sector and therefore should be called the “State Sector Restructuring Bill”. The history of this legislation was detailed when the Minister himself took a call about a quarter of an hour ago to explain why we are discussing the State Sector Amendment Bill. This bill is about the ability of the Government to significantly restructure our State sector and not have to bring that restructuring back to Parliament for Parliament to debate it. 
When Mr Mallard took his call he said that this bill was a relatively minor piece of legislation—I think he used the word “innocuous”. He talked about a situation occurring whereby if a public servant “got a nominal change in his or her role” then that person should not be entitled to redundancy. That is why this legislation was rushed into the House at the time we had the Christine Rankin issue on the table. The Minister shakes his head—he has forgotten. That is why the Minister introduced this legislation and gave it a 5-week period in the select committee before it had to be reported back. It was because there was an important issue around a certain embarrassment for the Government associated with a certain person called Christine Rankin. The Government restructured her job restructured the department and took that as an opportunity to get rid of her. That is why this legislation should be called not the State Sector Amendment Bill but the “State Sector Restructuring Bill” because that is the sort of power it gives the Minister. 
The Minister can take the next call to explain why the select committee was given only 5 weeks before the bill was rushed back into the House—where lo and behold it sat on the Order Paper for two long laborious years before Mr Mallard thought: “I think we should try to finish it off. We’ve got ourselves into an embarrassing situation with the State Sector Amendment Bill and we now need to at least complete the process we started.” That is the issue with this legislation. It is not about a minor amendment to State services. It is not about changing the redundancy possibilities or provisions for employees of the State sector when there is a nominal change in role. Christine Rankin was not faced with a nominal change in her role. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Her contract had expired. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That Minister wanted to get rid of her—so did Mr Maharey—because she was so effective. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Ha! Ha! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister laughs again. He should be ashamed at the way sickness and invalid beneficiary numbers have increased under that Government. Christine Rankin would not have let that happen; she cared too much about the people. She was not going to cast those people into the benefit trap whereby the Government hopes they will vote Labour for the rest of their lives because they do not know any better. She wanted to actually help people and give them an opportunity to make a commitment. 
I say to Mr Mallard that that is what this legislation is all about. It is about making sure that the Government does not get into an embarrassing situation when it has someone who is actually good at their job and performing so well that it goes against the interests of this Government which quite likes seeing people trapped on a benefit. That is why I am arguing strongly that this legislation be meaningfully named by calling it the “State Sector Restructuring Bill”. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1 Preliminary 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 Part 1 as introduced was a relatively straightforward part. It contained the commencement date of the Act and the purpose. It was relatively straightforward given that the bill was introduced a couple of years ago. But with the passage of time the Minister of State Services has really abandoned the bill. He has wandered off and decided that he does not really have the heart to follow it through. 
What has happened in that period of time of course is that there have been some departmental mergers. The Government decided it did not like the culture in the Department of Work and Income. It was a culture that forced beneficiaries to front up and meet their obligations. So the Government merged that department into a much softer Ministry of Social Development. The Government has decided it does not like the stand-alone Department for Courts. I do not know exactly what the department has done to offend the Minister and the Government but clearly it has done something and it is going to be rolled into the Ministry of Justice. Of course we see the potential—and the Government is already talking about it—for a whole lot of other smaller departments to be rolled into some of the larger ones so that their voices will not be heard. 
We have a Supplementary Order Paper that is longer than the bill. In it we are being asked today to deem that with regard to the Department of Work and Income and the Ministry of Social Development parts of the bill came into force on 1 October 2001. So here we are 2 years later passing some retrospective legislation to say that we deem that all of this came into force 2 years ago. That is because the Minister might well face some sort of challenge in the courts. He rushed through his ideological change to that department and never bothered about the details. His attitude was just to bully everybody into place shout loud enough look like he was going to be tough enough and it would all hang together and it kind of does. The Minister nods because that is the way he operates; he thinks it is fine. But now he has to come to the Chamber to say that he wants Parliament to rubber stamp this and say that all of this came into force a couple of years ago. 
The irony is that the Minister is going to get there with the votes of the United Future party which was not in Parliament 2 years ago. The United Future party is going to vote to deem that those provisions became law at a time when it was not here. That party is going to support that. [ 
Interruption 
] One of its members was here but a whole lot of others were not yet they are going to vote for this measure as if they were here. 
The other great irony is that the purpose of this bill is to allow the Minister and the Government to roll up a whole lot of departments they do not like. They do not like some of the advice they get from the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and from the Ministry of Youth Affairs. Those Ministers are a risk to them so if the Minister of State Services and the Government can roll those ministries into a bigger department then that is fine. Those Ministers will not lose their salaries and perks. They can become Ministers of State. The Government is very adept at keeping Ministers on high salaries with chauffeured cars and Ministers’ houses—the whole works—but without their having a job. So the Government will just roll up some of the ministries into bigger departments. I predict we will now see a whole lot of Government departments being either rolled together or under the threat of being rolled together. That is the sword that hangs over a chief executive’s head. Should he or she deem to give advice that the Minister might not like? If the Minister does not like it or if the Minister is not competent the department could just be rolled into one of the bigger departments. That shields some of the more junior and incompetent Ministers from questions in the House shields them from any real accountability but protects their salaries and their perks. That is what this provision is about. 
I was thinking back to the time when State sector reorganisation was going on in the early 1990s. I was thinking of some of the speeches that Labour members used to give in which they opposed technical redundancies. They used to rail against them. 
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? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I congratulate Peter Brown the deputy leader of New Zealand First on that superb contribution. I am superb—I am so pleased that the member walked in today. I thought that was a wonderful contribution. 
Sandra Goudie 
: You are superb Mr Carter. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I thank the member. I want to talk to clause 2 “Commencement” and the purpose. I am surprised. We have before us a bill that went through the select committee process 2 years ago and that sat on the Order Paper until yesterday but suddenly Mr Mallard decides that it is appropriate to advance this legislation so he tables Supplementary Order Paper 107 which is longer than the original bill. I say to members of the Committee that they should examine that Supplementary Order Paper with care because it will not have the opportunity to go before a select committee. That is fundamentally wrong. When one examines the Supplementary Order Paper—and I direct these comments to the United Future party particularly whose members are not giving me much indication that they have even picked it up and had a look at it— 
Simon Power 
: Ask Larry Baldock what’s in it. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: My colleague suggests that we ask Mr Baldock what is in the Supplementary Order Paper. The record will show there was no response. 
I will take some time to talk about this Supplementary Order Paper because its amendments to clause 2 as alluded to by my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry provide for the retrospective nature of the commencement date. The amendment to clause 2(1) retrospectively validates the Government’s restructuring of Work and Income New Zealand which was done only to get rid of Christine Rankin. Various provisions will be deemed to have come into force on 1 October 2001. That is unacceptable. Legislation should not be backdated the best part of 2 years to make sure this Government can attempt to dig itself out of a hole. 
There is another aspect of retrospectivity. The amendment to clause 2(2) states that various provisions in so far as they relate to the Department for Courts and the Ministry of Justice coming together will come into force on 1 October 2003. The Opposition feels so deeply aggrieved by that move that we will still be here debating it on 1 October. Mr Mallard does not have a hope of getting it passed for the royal assent by 1 October. That is the second aspect of this legislation that is retrospective. 
The third point I want to make is about any future restructuring coming into force the day after the legislation receives the royal assent. That is a relatively typical clause that we see in this Parliament from time to time but I suggest that there should be a time delay on any further restructuring and that it should come into effect on 1 June 2006. The reason I say that is this Government is obviously intent on another round of restructuring that it is not prepared to bring before Parliament for debate. I know that before 1 June 2006 there will be another election and I as a member of the National caucus will take those further restructuring plans to the electorate which will have an opportunity to comment on them. If those people vote for a National Government in the next election as I am sure sensible people will do we will have a chance to undo the restructuring plans that are about to be initiated under the cloak of darkness by this Government. 
Those are the three points—[ 
Interruption 
] He is the knight of darkness is he not? Those are the three points I want to make on the commencement. The fourth issue I want to raise is about the purpose of the bill. A very substantial amendment to the purpose of the bill is tabled in Supplementary Order Paper 107. I do not recall in recent times a substantial amendment to the purpose of a bill being tabled in a Supplementary Order Paper which does not have the opportunity of going before a select committee. That is a very dangerous precedent that the Minister— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: An abuse of the process. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Absolutely! It is an abuse of process. Surely Mr Mallard in preparing the original regulation knew the purpose of it. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I simply cannot resist making a contribution on Part 1. It is the part of the bill that looks at the commencement. As we know the commencement date in the first subclause of clause 2 on Supplementary Order Paper 107 is 1 October 2001 which shows the sort of shambles that this Government is involved in—it having legislation here that is so far out of date. That is the first point. 
But this bill is the biggest fraud ever to go through this New Zealand Parliament. It is absolutely appalling legislation because it involves this Government using this Parliament to shield itself from a huge embarrassment it faced in its first term of office—the huge scandal and embarrassment over Christine Rankin the chief executive whom it wanted to destroy. What did the Government do? Rather than go through the proper employment process—so that she might have a payout or whatever—it decided to use the power of Government and the power of this Parliament to bring in legislation that had no other purpose at all but to restructure the Department of Work and Income so that the Government could axe Christine Rankin the chief executive in a way that did not bring it public embarrassment. The Government went out and said: “This is a big department. We need an umbrella organisation. We need a Ministry of Social Development.” It was a plot hatched by the Minister sitting in the chair Trevor Mallard; by the Prime Minister; and by the social services Minister Steve Maharey. It was those three who decided that that was a perfect way to put up a front and get rid of a chief executive without having to give her a golden handshake. 
I say to the Minister of State Services that of all the things he has done since he has been in Government he should be more ashamed of this bill than of anything else. It brings the whole of Parliament into total disrepute. Those three people announced a restructuring of the biggest Government department the Department of Work and Income without the chief executive knowing without the chief executive of the Department of Social Welfare knowing and without any of the 5500 staff knowing and with no costings no consultation and no research. It went against all the papers that had been produced about what should be done about the social services sector if changes were wanted in the future. The Government did that for one reason and for one reason only—to be able to restructure the public service without it having to go through due process. So now with an Order in Council the Government can change everything in the public service without there being any checks and balances and without there being any proper scrutiny of the reasons that those changes are being made. I say to that Minister that I still think it is the most appalling thing that he ever did. I do not care what answers he gives in this Parliament; he knows in his heart that it was simply a way for his Government to avoid embarrassment. 
I say to Green Party members who went along with it that they should be ashamed of themselves as well. I can understand that they did not like the Department of Work and Income. They did not like the work-for-the-dole scheme the department being tough on benefit fraud and all those things so I can understand why they supported that change. I cannot understand why United Future members would ever support it. They say they want to be tough on welfare. Well that mechanism allowed this Government to go totally soft on welfare. It got rid of all the good things and that is why sickness beneficiary numbers are increasing. 
When there is a downturn in the economy welfare will be the single biggest problem that this country faces. It already is with about 400000 people on benefits in spite of all the employers out there who want people to go and work for them. We have a Government that already has created a huge problem. Do members remember that before Labour changed welfare back in the 1970s there were 28 workers to every person on a benefit? Right now there are four workers to every person on a benefit and when the economy turns down under this Government’s changes to the welfare system there will soon be three workers to one then two workers to one. This Minister in introducing this bill which allows the Government to manipulate the public service is responsible. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to speak against this bill and Supplementary Order Paper 107 and to speak in relation to the commencement and the purpose of the bill. I take up the cudgels on behalf of people in the public service who are doing their job too well. If they do their job too well if they get people off the dole if they get people away from being beneficiaries they are liable to find themselves restructured out of a job and on the dole themselves. That is what this Minister of Sate Services is all about. 
Under Supplementary Order Paper 107 subclause (1) of the commencement provision which has been spoken about so eloquently by speakers from this side of the Chamber provides that sections 6 to 11(1) as they relate to the Department of Work and Income and the Department of Social Welfare are now deemed to have come into force on 1 October 2001. That is a disgrace. It is 2 years too late. It is retrospective legislation. 
The Supplementary Order Paper which we were given yesterday is longer than the bill itself. One of the reasons that this is so shocking is that this bill went to a select committee and the Supplementary Order Paper did not yet the substantial part of the legislation is in the Supplementary Order Paper. That is a disgrace. We note that the New Zealand Public Service Association gave submissions on the bill on behalf of its members. But what about all the thousands and thousands of individual members of that association who would have loved to give submissions on this bill but who really could not because they know what happens to any public servant who says “No” to this Government? That is a shame. 
This bill is all about retrospectively trying to tidy up the Government’s mess in relation to Christine Rankin who was too jolly good at her job. Now I see that the Government is trying to do it to the Department for Courts and the Ministry of Justice. How many other Supplementary Order Papers will we have slotted in today? How many other departments are going to be done away with or is this a way of getting a rid of a Minister? The Department for Courts and the Ministry of Justice have two different Ministers. Why are those departments being merged? Is it because the Prime Minister has lost confidence in one of those particular Ministers or is it because she has lost confidence in both? Certainly this Parliament has lost confidence in both as has the public of New Zealand. How many others will be included here? 
This bill is all about giving powers to the Government that it wants to take away from the private sector. It wants to make technical redundancies in the public service just that—technical with no capability of their being paid out no capability of any due process. Yet in relation to the private sector there is talk about getting rid of any possibility of the same sort of protection for employers. The Government wants to do away with it to get rid of any technical redundancy provisions. That would make private sector employers far more responsible than this Government will ever be for its workers who happen to be public servants. This bill is bad for public servants. It is bad for the chief executives. It is bad for New Zealand and it is bad for employment generally because it has two different standards: one for the Government and one for private employers who have mortgages on their homes and whose businesses are on the line every day that they are at work. Those are the people who create most of the jobs in the country and who keep the country going yet they are getting a tougher standard applied to them than what the Government gives to itself. 
This Government bullies its chief executives and in fact bullies its own members—as we saw today in the House with Dianne Yates—to try to keep them in line. This Government is a disgrace. As Dr Newman said this bill is something that Trevor Mallard should be absolutely ashamed of. It is an acknowledgement that he cannot organise his own departments without having to fire chief executives in some way or other. He is too frightened of treating those chief executives with decency and restraint as a good employer would so he wants this Committee to get rid of those chief executives by law. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I am very grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. I have had a full 5 minutes or so to read the bill and I admit that in the first 2 or 3 minutes of perusing it I thought it was rather innocuous but as I read further I started to have some concerns. In particular I am concerned that this bill as it has been drafted will start to create some instability because as Government Ministers determine that they do not like someone they will seek to restructure a whole department just so that they can get rid of an individual or individuals. Of course the name Christine Rankin comes to the fore. 
That must have been a black day in the book of Trevor Mallard. It is a day that he will always remember with some regret. She was too good at doing her job so rather than embracing someone who was strong he decided to get rid of her. What will happen is that instability will creep into the public sector as people get nervous. They will be looking over their shoulder if they have had the courage of their convictions and stood up to the Minister and said: “Minister with all due respect on this occasion I don’t think you are right.” 
Essentially this bill allows the Government to change or amend the names of departments or the structure of departments at a whim. It lacks transparency. There were people who submitted to the Government Administration Committee who warned that Government departments would become destabilised and that departments would be changed at the whim of a Minister. I refer now to an article in the  
Dominion Post 
 entitled “Public service under threat” that was relevant to those submissions. It reads: “Appearing before the Government Administration Select Committee on behalf of Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand Ms Wallace said the proposals had repercussions for State agencies.” It goes on to say: “In particular the bill proposes allowing technical changes to departments to be authorised by Cabinet and not involve legislation in Parliament.” 
That is a very very dangerous precedent and the creation of the Ministry of Social Development is just an example of it. Fancy having a ministry with the name of “social development”! What we are doing is encouraging welfare entitlement as opposed to trying to do something about it. I do not have to but I want to commend the contribution made by Dr Muriel Newman when she attacked Trevor Mallard and Steve Maharey on their support of those who would rather seek welfare than work and make a contribution to this country. Good on Dr Muriel Newman—she was dead right! What is happening in this country under the guise of social development is an absolute disgrace. It is of extreme concern to me and it is extremely dangerous. 
Muriel Newman pointed out that one in four people in this country is now on a benefit of some sort. [ 
Interruption 
] That makes for a population that is bigger than that of the city of Christchurch—indeed one would need a shoehorn and a crowbar just to get the population on welfare in this country into the city of Christchurch. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Go and join the ACT party. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Those members who are yelling out support that. That is what those members across the Chamber are doing. 
The other issue I want to address is that of technical redundancy. [ 
Interruption 
] The bullfrog is yelling out again. Does he want to say something? I thought not. He will make cheap shots but he has no courage: he does not want to take a call but he will yell out. Technical redundancy is something that concerns members of this party and members on this side of the Chamber. I remember very clearly that it was the Labour Government of 1984-87 that introduced it. The Minister forgot that but his party introduced it. When I was trying to introduce companies to New Zealand I faced— 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 107 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Reorganisations within Public Service 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak to this part. I would like to commend my colleague Judith Collins for an exemplary speech to the Committee raising some very important points with regard to Part 1. Part 2 about reorganisation with regard to the public sector is a pretty substantial part. I would like to raise a matter that was also raised by one of the submitters to this. In mentioning the submitters my colleague Judith Collins is quite right that the public sector employees would find it very difficult to put in any form of submission protecting their interests on this bill. They would face dismissal or job placement elsewhere—maybe even legislation to move them along. 
I would like to bring the Minister’s attention to a document I have here called  
Legislative 
Change: Guidelines on Process and Content 
 revised edition. This was report No. 6 by the Legislation Advisory Committee. This document talks quite clearly about the role of transparency with regard to State sector departments. One of the things this document says is that Parliament should have to approve the addition of new departments to the list of departments scheduled to the State Sector Act 1988 as well as deletions and alterations and it also recommends that departmental statutes and related legislative provisions should not in general be enacted. 
Here we have some major concerns around the rearrangement of State sector departments. There should be public and parliamentary debate around the legislative processes to test the merits and demerits of any changes that are proposed. But this part of the bill takes all of that away. That denies the public the right to ensure that the processes and the provisions in their interests will be protected. That is absolutely wrong. They should be able to make sure that whatever has been put in place to protect the interests of the people are clear transparent and accountable. 
If we adopt the provisions in Part 2 we are shutting down that openness and that transparency and the public interest will not be well served in that regard. The recommendations come from some pretty substantial people. There is a list of the components of that committee and their recommendations should not be ignored. 
These are the guidelines that have been accepted by this Parliament. They say that the responsibility of developing legislation in accordance with the guidelines rests with the Minister. We have already seen that he has failed in a number of respects in introducing this legislation. He has failed to provide the opportunity for the Supplementary Order Paper to this amendment bill to be put before the select committee and that is a gross omission. That is an absolute failure of fiduciary duty of this Government. I note that the Hon Lianne Dalziel used that term today—fiduciary duty. Do Government members understand its use when they fail to ensure that the fiduciary duty of the Government has been followed in regard to this Supplementary Order Paper? 
I was about to tell members who made up the committee for setting the guidelines for legislative changes and those legislative changes are meant to be the responsibility of the Minister. I find it surprising that he wants to ignore these recommendations given the calibre of those who made them in the first instance: Professor F M Brookfield Mr J G Fogarty QC Mr A R Galbraith QC Mr W Iles QC CMG Sir Kenneth Keith Dr Mervyn Probine CB the Hon Mr Justice Robertson Judge D F G Sheppard Mr C J Thompson Adrienne von Tunzelmann and Rodney Harris as secretary. The calibre of those people is substantial. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 It is interesting that today we are debating a Supplementary Order Paper that covers Part 2 and which is a complete rehash of the bill that we debated way back in July 2001. I was in that debate on 11 September 2001. Here is the bill that we debated then and even at that time I said that this had been rushed through because we had 4 weeks from introduction through to the second reading and the select committee. One of those 4 weeks was a recess week. In effect we had only 3 weeks and we heard nine submissions at that time. 
Here we have a Supplementary Order Paper tabled at the eleventh hour last night that nobody has had an opportunity to go through to see what it means. What impact does this have on the Government’s organisations? We do not know what the impact is because this Government at the eleventh hour—which it so commonly does—drops legislation on us where there is no scrutiny no opportunity to go through to appraise the legislation to debate it and to scrutinise the impacts of it because this was dropped on us last night. 
When I look at this Supplementary Order Paper which in effect absolutely replaces the whole of Part 2 that was in the bill I see that it is a complete rewrite. This Government is now in the habit of trying to sneak this stuff through at the eleventh hour without that opportunity of clear scrutiny and transparency that we would expect. If we look at what this bill is to do we see that it will allow by Order in Council the executive to make the decisions about merging. It will make the decisions about what happens to staff and chief executive officers. Under this regulation people will not have to fire anybody because they just amalgamate or abolish the department and there will be no redundancies for those people. We are aware of what happened with the Rankin affair. 
I want to bring the Committee’s attention to a very important message in a submission made by the Regulations Review Committee dated 15 August 2001. I was a member of that select committee at that time. This is the point that was made: “We question whether there are sufficient reasons to allow an Act of Parliament to be amended by a regulation in this way.” It said that there needed to be much closer scrutiny. It then went on to say: “The proposed change may be administratively convenient but this must be weighed against the loss of parliamentary oversight.” That is a very very powerful message. That came from the Regulations Review Committee of which I was a member at that time. 
It goes on to say that the amendment will allow an Act of Parliament to be amended by a regulation. This is a Government that is using more and more regulations to get what it wants—more and more regulations so that the scrutiny of Parliament does not take place. This is the place that we should scrutinise these things. This is the place where we should debate these issues but when this bill is passed it will allow by Order in Council the executive to make those changes. National’s position is very very clear. We believe that it is an abuse of the process and that it politicises the process and it is something that we will not support. 
The Regulations Review Committee also made the statement that the amendments will allow an Act of Parliament to be amended by regulation. I am stating that again because that is what will happen. It goes on to say: “It is therefore important to consider whether there are sufficiently strong reasons why this matter should be dealt with in regulations rather than primary legislation.” That is the message that the committee set. It had doubts about the process going by regulation and said that there were insufficiently strong reasons that it should not be through primary legislation. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 This amendment and in particular the Supplementary Order Paper that introduces all the provisions to exclude the State sector from the consequences of deemed redundancy on reorganisation should be an automatic benefit for everyone in the community. But that is obscuring another problem in this part and that is the constitutional implications of resuming the Department for Courts into the Ministry of Justice. I say there are constitutional implications because the Department for Courts is shortly expected to have the administrative control of a new Supreme Court. If there is one thing about Supreme Courts around the world it is that they are intended to have a degree of administrative and budgetary autonomy. That is certainly not expected to be available to the new Supreme Court under the bill that is before the Parliament or under the pattern that has been established in New Zealand in our Department for Courts model. 
Yesterday the Justice and Electoral Committee heard from a person who is regarded as probably the academic expert on top courts in the British system. He is a New Zealander in London. He told us: “Ideally and in fact commonly a top court will appoint its own registrar who will then manage the court’s other administrative personnel appointments.” He had a lot more to say on that but he said: “It’s a significant detraction from the court’s institutional autonomy and not consistent with international best practice in the design of top courts if administrative personnel are treated as ordinary public service employees. The bill should be amended to allow the court to appoint its most senior officers who should themselves have the responsibility of employing the court’s other administrative staff.” 
And there is more in the same vein about budgetary independence and about parliamentary supervision of the budget of such a court. He tells us that in the United States two justices of the Supreme Court and in other countries senior administrative officers go before a committee of the Parliament to report on operation. In other words there is a review process. He says: “In a system as relatively small as New Zealand’s it may be even more important that the court enjoy much greater autonomy in such areas.” 
I say to you Mr Chairman and to the Minister in the chair that that is important because this bill is effecting a merger that has never been explained. Nor has there been any significant report on the effects. Indeed the Justice and Electoral Committee felt compelled unanimously—Labour members members of the Green Party and other members—to express strong concern about the absence of any explanation of this merger. I quote from our report last month: “We have found it difficult to assess the impact on Vote Justice and Vote Courts since the merger appears to have been decided upon after the preparation of the 2003/04 estimates.” 
We quoted various advice and then indicated that we did not consider there was an adequate level of discussion for a decision of this importance. We referred to the Auditor-General’s article on organisational change. We have cited the article. We said: “We consider that—as a first step—the purpose of the change and the results sought should be clearly articulated if Parliament is to be assured that the change is in the public interest and the effects of the change are to be measured.” This has not happened. There has been no real explanation of why the Department for Courts is being subsumed. The only statements we have had are indeed very worrying when we put them in the context of a Supreme Court that is to have the powers to develop the kinds of laws the Attorney-General Margaret Wilson wants it to have. 
The purpose according to what the Minister of State Services said the merger would achieve is to “enable better coordination of the relationship between the Executive and Judiciary in respect of both policy and administration”. I say to the Minister that we need to know just what is meant by this proposal that it is not just the executive and the Department for Courts or the administrators. It says “the judiciary” in respect of policy and administration. Is this an attempt by the executive to bring the judges to heel in policy terms? 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to speak against this bill and in particular Part 2. There are many reasons for opposing this bill and there are many reasons for the Minister to want us to just roll over like the United Future party and the Greens and accept this sort of behaviour. One of the things that is very very concerning about this bill—and I note the submission of the New Zealand Law Society which has yet again given a very very good submission—is that it overrides contract law where that contract law is to the benefit of the employee. I say that is wrong. 
Many people have entered into employment contracts—either collective contracts or individual contracts in relation to the more senior members of staff in particular—and they are entitled to know that their contract means what it states. They are entitled to know that where their Minister has been slack and allowed provisions in the contract such as technical redundancy provisions whereby they can be paid compensation they are entitled to the benefit of such clauses because the contract law should be paramount. In respect of that I would have thought that those parties in Parliament that are always bleating on about the rights of the employed would actually look at that issue and consider why they want to take away from employees the rights that they currently have under their contracts. Those particular parties the Labour Party and the Green Party should be ashamed of themselves for supporting this bill. 
The United Future party which was not in fact a party at the time when this bill was introduced should be ashamed of itself because it has promoted itself as the party of common sense. However it has shown no common sense here although it has in many ways tried to uphold some centre-right principles in its allegiance with the Labour Party which has been very difficult for it. Yet here United Future is again saying that the contract law on employment or employees’ rights can be stood over by a Minister who loves to bully people—a Minister who loves to try to shout people down—and that he can just continue to do the same to Public Service Association members. 
That Minister wants to say the Public Service Association and the Council of Trade Unions made submissions. But I say to the Minister that they did not actually agree with his bill. This bill has been rewritten by Supplementary Order Paper 107 which was lodged only yesterday. It is being rushed through Parliament so that the Department for Courts can be merged with the Ministry of Justice because obviously the Prime Minister has lost confidence in either one of her Ministers or both of them. Also the Minister has his eye on any other department or ministry where the chief executive may be doing too well may be trying to get people off benefits or may be trying to stand up to a Minister. 
The employees of every single ministry should be out there considering their situation in terms of the fact that the rights they have won through their contracts are being overridden by legislation that is being rushed through the House after sitting around for 2 years. After 2 years of going nowhere suddenly this legislation is being rushed through without consultation because the Minister does not really want the employees of the ministries to know what is happening. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I notice that some members on the Government side of the Chamber are calling out “2 years”. They think that makes a difference. But the fact is that if they bothered to look at the Supplementary Order Paper that has been introduced they would discover that it makes this a different bill from the one introduced then. 
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 We are going through a very important process at the moment. My colleague Judith Collins has just said that this legislation is being rushed through. Members on the Government side of the Chamber have said that it has been sitting around for 2 years—that is what they have just said. But the point that we made earlier is that this bill is actually a rewrite because we had Supplementary Order Paper 107 lodged yesterday at the eleventh hour. No one has had an opportunity to look at it and what are Labour members doing? They are rushing it through now. 
Last night we started on this debate and here we are today with a completely new bill. Part 2 and all the schedules are absolutely new. The point that I made in an earlier debate was that the original bill went to the Government Administration Committee which had only 9 days for submissions. I was on that select committee and heard those submissions. Then what happened? The second reading was on 11 September 2001 and the bill sat in abeyance for 22 months. When we came back yesterday to debate this bill we found that it is not the bill that we had talked about back in September 2001 because we now have a Supplementary Order Paper that is longer than the original bill. We have 13 pages of new material that no one has had an opportunity to look at. The point here is that we believe there needs to be scrutiny and transparency. This is an abuse of the process because the Minister has lodged a Supplementary Order Paper without the opportunity for anybody to have a say about it. 
I want to hark back to the point that Judith Collins and I made about the Law Society. The Law Society stated that the need for cautious assessment of the proposed provisions is given emphasis here because one of the parties to the contracts that are to be overridden by means of statute is the Crown. That is what the Law Society stated; contracts will be overridden by the Crown by Order in Council. The executive will decide to merge departments amalgamate them and abolish them. Those matters will not come back to Parliament for us to debate and to see the merits or otherwise of—[ 
Interruption 
] I invite the Minister to take a call and substantiate the reasons that we are debating Supplementary Order Paper 107. It is interesting is it not that not one Government member has taken a call on that substantial Supplementary Order Paper? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I did. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Oh well the Minister says that he took a call but at that stage we were debating the title. We are now debating the substantive part of the bill and I would have thought that if the Minister believed that he is not by regulating overriding what Parliament can do then he would take a call to put that matter to rest. The Law Society in its submission stated that the Crown would override contracts by means of statute. 
The Law Society went on to state that the Crown is not only promoting the legislation but will also be a contractual beneficiary of it. This Government by regulation will be able to take away the right of the public to make submissions. This Government is becoming increasingly arrogant and is increasingly using regulation to push through its programme without the scrutiny of this House and without the transparency that all members and every other New Zealander expect there to be. 
I go back to the point about the Regulations Review Committee. The Minister might like to take a call and answer the question that I put to him earlier on. I invite him again to take the call because that is what the Regulations Review Committee said. That committee is the watchdog and the question has not been answered. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 Madam Chairperson— 
Stephen Franks 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I wanted to ensure that I did not get into a position where I was debating or questioning the closure motion but I do ask that before you take the next speaker you consider that Supplementary Order Paper 107 effects a change in the Department for Courts and there will be no opportunity for select committee discussions on that. This will be the only time that Parliament can debate the detail of that particular change. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I was going to call the member next but David Cunliffe has called. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I want to make a point that has not been raised except in the last call that I took that this bill effects the disappearance of the Department for Courts. The merger announcement and what I understand to be effectively the only explanation for that was the statement made by the Minister of State Services on 16 May this year. That merger announcement talked about the justice sector review. A paper to Cabinet released at the same time indicated the merger would have a number of beneficial effects. But there has been as I understand it no other explanation of the reason for the provisions in Supplementary Order Paper 107. There has been none of the normal regulatory impact statement that would have been expected had that measure been in the bill when it came in. There has been nothing to indicate the attention that we would expect to be given to a matter of some constitutional significance. 
For example in this bill we do find a number of changes in the schedules—and I am not debating the schedules at this stage—that point up the extent to which the Department for Courts had been given a position of privilege in relation to information. It has been recognised that the administrative role of registrars and other court officials has an important relationship to the independence and impartiality of justice and to the perception of a justice system that is not affected by executive or legislative pressure. My concern is that the only thing we know is that the merger is supposed to do a number of things that look as though they are intended to increase the influence of Cabinet and of the executive over the court system. 
One of the purpose statements the Minister made was: “better align the administration of the justice system with policy advice on the overall development of the New Zealand legal system”. I could spend time deriding the empty-jargon sound of that because there must be better ways of stating what was intended. What does “better align” mean? Does it mean “bring together”? How will we preserve the independence of the courts? There is nothing in this bill that does that. What does “improve connections between research policy and practice” mean? Does the “practice of the courts” mean practice in a timetabling sense or is it “practice” in terms of getting the outcomes that a Government would want in the efficiency of handling appeals or in terms of appointments? There is no detail and this matter is not trivial. 
The Minister’s statement as I have mentioned before stated: “enable better coordination of the relationship between the executive and judiciary”. What sort of relationship is a healthy one in a country with our kind of traditional relationship between the executive and the judiciary? It is very well established by convention that the relationship should be at arm’s length and very carefully handled. But there is nothing in here that says that the Minister has given any attention to those constitutional conventions. 
The statement goes on to state: “reduce fragmentation by combining two agencies in one and be manageable in terms of risk”. I believe that the Minister owes it to the Committee and to the “sector” as it is so often called in the jargon of these kinds of announcements to explain just what needs better alignment and what protections there will be in that alignment against the court system being at least perceived to be and possibly being in reality subordinated to the wishes of an executive that is obviously contemptuous of some of the conventions. 
The Secretary for Justice was not able to help. When asked about just exactly what the “alignment” and “coordination” was to be she said both organisations in question required more staff and the main cultural difference is that the ministry is more policy focused. Of course that is exactly what the Ministry of Justice was supposed to be—that is policy focused—and the Department for Courts was supposed to be justice focused. But the secretary told us the biggest driver behind the merger was to bring the courts closer to policy development. Does that mean the courts will be developing policy that this Government could never get through Parliament? Does that mean that the Minister of State Services wants to see more of the kind of decision that the Court of Appeal has just made whereby a major policy implication of the Treaty of Waitangi a major policy in terms of ownership of and access to beaches and the foreshore is made by the courts in a way that would never have been voted for by this Parliament and is made by judges who are not able to be recalled by the people? Is that what is intended by this change? 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to raise one of the points in the Public Service Association submission that the Hon Trevor Mallard referred to. It states: “Many aspects of the amendment are based on principles that the PSA has negotiated in management of change clauses in collective contracts and agreements.” The Hon Steve Maharey said the association could not do that. Obviously it is doing that because it has said so in its submission. No wonder I came up with the title: “Ill-conceived State Sector Amendment Bill” because clearly there is some confusion on the part of the Minister as to what prevails and what does not. 
In looking at Part 2 I have to raise again concerns about the obvious lack of cognisance of  
Legislative Change: Guidelines on Process and Content. 
 The Minister in that document is clearly identified as being the person responsible for this legislation and therefore he is responsible for the appalling state of it. He is also responsible for Supplementary Order Paper 107 which has come in at the eleventh hour from a Government that has no hesitation in putting a requirement for consultation in all its legislation—and going way way over the top in the Local Government Act—but has not bothered to consult on this Supplementary Order Paper. 
The Supplementary Order Paper has not been referred to the Government Administration committee and in my view that is a complete miscarriage of justice. Some significant concerns have been expressed by the New Zealand Law Society. When one considers that the Crown not only is promoting the legislation but also will be the contractual beneficiary of it and that there is not any select committee process for this Supplementary Order Paper which is a substantive change one realises that there is an absolute miscarriage of justice. There is no commentary nothing. There is no opportunity to have legal involvement in determining the efficacy of this legislation especially in the light of the guidelines on legislative change. If I were assessing this Supplementary Order Paper against the guidelines on legislative change this Supplementary Order Paper would not be happening. Anyone in his or her right mind would not support this Supplementary Order Paper—which in effect is the bill—which has been put forward by the Hon Trevor Mallard. I keep tending to forget that name; I wonder why. 
Consultation is such a biggie with this Government. Government members have put huge costs on local authorities by including a raft of consultative processes within the Local Government Act yet they cannot even adhere to that principle themselves in the introduction of a major Supplementary Order Paper. It is not having any consultative process attached to it. That is a miscarriage of justice. 
Those members are laughing about that. They do not care. They are saying: “We’ll stick it on the public.” They have put in the Local Government Act a requirement to consult. In the Land Transport Management Bill there are about five or six clauses on consultative requirements for Maori alone. Those members love that. They will put that cost on every Joe Bloggs out there through his or her rates or through petrol taxes or whatever but they will not apply that process to themselves. They want this measure so they say: “Stuff the consultative process!”. That is what those members are saying. They are not going to bother. “Why should we?” is what Labour members are saying; “Why should we care what the people think? This is what we want. We want to change round all these departments as we see fit.” They do not want to go back to the public and be publicly accountable for what they are doing. Goodness me no! That is why they are going to shove through this Supplementary Order Paper—which is just about the whole bill—and to hang with any requirement to consult the public. Those members are not interested in public opinion. 
We have a Government that is going to do what it wants at all costs and to hang with the consequences. Who will pay? It will be the people of New Zealand who pay and they will pay in a whole raft of ways. This lack of consultation is typical. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Madam Chair I appreciate your allowing us to express our concern. I had almost completed asking the Minister of State Services in general terms to explain just what is behind Supplementary Order Paper 107 or the merger of the Department for Courts and the Ministry of Justice. I realise that he may not have been prepared for that but he does have officials with him. It may well be that the merger is something that he has not been directly on top of and that the reasons for it are not his responsibility but this Committee is entitled to know just what arrangements are going to be made given that the Ministry of Justice now also includes functions that were previously with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 
The Ministry of Justice now has operational functions that some people might have thought were policing functions. There are crime minimisation or crime reduction functions. There is coordination work that involves the Youth Courts the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and caseworkers. According to what we have been told it involves pilot programmes in a number of places that involve the police and those are at the very least constitutionally awkward if they fit within the same administration without any kind of Chinese wall or any kind of information barrier as the courts. When our courts are administered as an undivided part of a Ministry of Justice that has functions that come very close to policing we have the sorts of concerns that at this very time have led the British to go to all the trouble of abolishing the role of Lord Chancellor and moving the House of Lords out of the legislature. 
These are not light issues. Countries that take human rights seriously that worry about the risk of well-meant structures being abused in times of stress do not simply abolish a department of courts and merge it with a ministry of justice at the same time as they are dumping their top court sacking their top judges and replacing them with a new set of judges with at the moment unknown characteristics and conventions. This Supplementary Order Paper treats this merger as though it were a simple matter of substituting some words for others; substituting references to the Department for Courts with references to the Ministry of Justice. I say to the Minister that that may be easy to draft and it may be that it is administratively convenient but at the very least there should have been a paper that told us just how the Government will go about preserving not only the substance of independence of the judiciary but also the appearance of it. 
I say to the Minister that we need to know that someone has given that some thought. There is no evidence in any document available to New Zealanders that it has even been thought material. For example will the judges be able to have enough authority to discipline or to appoint and change court registrars? Will the judges have any control over court records and the integrity with which they are kept? Will the judges be able to dictate as they should the systems that will maintain confidentiality of papers and records that they believe ought to be maintained in confidence? Will the judges be able to ensure that the treatment of witnesses is consistent with respect for justice that is unbiased and not influenced in the direction of the executive and the wishes of the Government of the time? None of this has been addressed in anything that this Government has stated or explained about this merger. 
Under the theory that set up the Ministry of Justice as a policy ministry separated out the operational arms and set up the Department for Courts the courts were recognised as having a particular constitutional sensitivity. All of that sensitivity at the time that the department was set up has just been ignored and as far as I can tell the Supplementary Order Paper is seen as the only thing that the Government needs to do to set this off—a Supplementary Order Paper that simply adds the merger of the Department for Courts to provisions that previously referred to a merger of two departments of social work. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 107 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedules 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to speak to Part 2 of schedule 2 in Supplementary Order Paper 107. I am getting a little confused between the Supplementary Order Paper and the bill because one has overtaken the other. But I guess what it does is exemplify the fact that we have not had the opportunity to have this bill go through the proper process of a select committee to allow the public to make submissions on it. By so doing the public can throw up all the concerns the anomalies and the discrepancies that so clearly exist within this bill. I think that is a shame. It is an indictment on this Minister and an indictment on this current Labour Government that it can put up something that is so ill-conceived and is such a transgression of justice upon the public service sector. 
I reiterate the concerns that we have already expressed with regard to the legislative change guidelines on process and content. Clearly they have been ignored. I think it is shameful that this substantial amendment is not being referred back to the select committee. Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call and explain to me and to everybody else and to the New Zealand public why no one is being given an opportunity to debate this process further to debate this bill further and to have a lot of the questions answered that have been raised here today. Some of the substantive questions come— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Can I just bring the member back to the schedules. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Absolutely! These are the very schedules that we have had no chance to debate and to look at through the select committee process and the receiving of submissions. Where is the commentary that should be addressing the concerns raised by these very matters? There has not been any chance for questions to be answered about the substance of this Supplementary Order Paper the concerns that have been raised about it and about matters contained within the schedules and for commentary to be made about the substantial concerns that have been raised. These concerns are from none other than the New Zealand Law Society as my learned colleagues and I myself raised earlier. 
Stephen Franks from the ACT party has raised some considerable concern about the merger of the Department for Courts with the Ministry of Justice particularly in relation to privacy provisions. Who is going to answer the questions he raises? Will this bill go back to the select committee so that some consideration can be given to these concerns? No that does not appear to be going to happen. This Minister does not want to hear what those concerns are and does not want any response as to how those concerns are being addressed and being provided for within this bill and whether the bill is justified. He wants to ignore the process of transparency and the accountability of any changes to the State sector having to come through this Parliament. 
This Parliament is for the public of New Zealand. It is for the people of New Zealand. It is for them to look at and see the efficacy of any changes in the State sector that any Government is going to undertake. We fully support that happening. We fully support that the public can hold this Parliament to account for the State sector and any changes within it. But clearly this Government does not support that. It wants to do everything behind closed doors. It wants to be able to make any changes it wants without being accountable to the public. That is the whole point of requiring the process through Parliament for any changes in the State sector and that is the point of accountability. This Government thinks it is so crash-hot on that point yet it is not. It will deny the public—the people of New Zealand—the opportunity to make it accountable. It is no less evident in question time in the House which is an absolute disgrace. 
We would like the Minister to take a call on the schedules and answer the very real and pertinent concerns that have been raised by Stephen Franks about the Department for Courts being included in the Ministry of Justice. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I have come down to the Chamber to speak to the schedules of the State Sector Amendment Bill in particular and to Supplementary Order Paper 107 dated Wednesday 23 July which is yesterday of course. What the Supplementary Order Paper purports to do is to transfer the Department for Courts to the Ministry of Justice. That is a very very significant change. This is almost a constitutional bill yet we are making this change in a Supplementary Order Paper that is not only not going to a select committee but cannot have been studied by any MP. I say to the Minister that he has a duty to the Committee to explain what the effects of the schedules will be. I am quite prepared to accept that it may well be that the Department for Courts has not been a success but if that is so what is the evidence? Where is the evidence that transferring the department to the Ministry of Justice will overcome whatever the problems were? 
I do not know whether the Minister is aware of this fact but I am told by my friends in the legal profession that registrars in the Department for Courts now have extraordinary powers and if they take a dislike to a lawyer they can make his or her life an absolute misery—failing to call a case until the end of the day and putting clients through all sorts of agony. There is no point complaining to the judge because this Government and the previous Government have not allowed the judges to run the courts. How will the Ministry of Justice handle that any better? 
Every time the Ministry of Justice starts to ask if things are being run right we can see the separation of powers being cited. I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard to tell us whether any consideration was given to allowing judges to be responsible for their own courts. They are intelligent men and women. They are smart enough to interpret this law. Why are they not smart enough to run their own courts? That would seem to me to be a genuine separation of powers. All those issues must have been considered—I have to give the Minister that benefit of the doubt—so why can he not share them with us? That is what the Committee stage is for. If the Minister will not allow the legislation to go to a select committee or the public to make submissions we as members of Parliament are entitled to ask him whether those questions were considered. 
When these schedules were done what were the arguments? Where is the justification for this Government suddenly to change one whole section of the constitution of the courts—the whole way they have been administered—with 24 hours’ notice? Where is the confidence that anyone will have in how this Government is handling the rule of law in our courts when it is prepared to make a radical change of this nature with 24 hours’ notice? So far the Minister has not spoken to it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It was announced on 16 May. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Minister says that it is OK he made a press statement on 16 May and therefore he does not have to explain anything to Parliament. The way this Government does things is to issue a press statement and treat this House like a rubber stamp. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What about the select committee? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: How can the select committee look at a Supplementary Order Paper that was tabled yesterday? The Minister is making the point that I am making. What about the select committee I ask the Minister? Why was the select committee not allowed to look at this Supplementary Order Paper? He is silent now. Apparently the select committee was supposed to know that a Supplementary Order Paper was to go through the day before we were to debate this legislation. 
Will the Minister now take a call and explain why the Government is making those changes because I have looked at the press statement and it does not set out a coherent set of reasons. Was the Department for Courts not working? If it was not working where is the evidence? If it is to be transferred to the Ministry of Justice where is the evidence that the Ministry of Justice will be any better? I see Mr Goff coming into the Chamber. I hope he will make a contribution because I am genuinely interested. Any MP should be genuinely interested in our courts. It has to be in the interests of the whole country to have a good well-functioning courts system. Did the judges ask for this change? In fact what is wrong with my idea of letting the judges run the courts themselves? 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I would like to follow on from the points raised by the Hon Richard Prebble. The schedules of the State Sector Amendment Bill and Supplementary Order Paper 107 are all about doing away with the Department for Courts. We have a Minister for Courts and a Minister of Justice. Which of those Ministers is losing his job? Maybe it should be both of them. Certainly the Department for Courts is losing its job. What is happening with the chief executive? Which chief executive is losing a job? Who will be subject to a payout? There certainly will not be a simple technical redundancy. What we are looking at here is a Government that rides roughshod over the justice system and has no faith in it or in any sort of due process as required by law and by our constitution. I am shocked that the United Future party which I think has come out against some of the actions of the Government over the Privy Council—it is certainly still considering its position—is supporting this bill yet its members cannot tell us why. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: What do they know that we don’t know? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: One wonders what they know that we do not know. What they do know is how to have their tummies rubbed and scratched and that is not acceptable. This Parliament should have been able to debate properly what is happening with the Department for Courts and the Ministry of Justice. The select committee should have been able to debate properly what is happening with the Department for Courts and the Ministry of Justice. Certainly the public the Law Society and the submitters who would normally come to select committee hearings should have been able to make submissions. 
 What about the people who actually use the courts—the lawyers who work in the courts day in day out? Why are they being stopped from giving submissions on this bill and the schedules to it? When we look at the schedules we can see that they are very substantial and that many significant changes are being brought about to many different parts of our law. The changes are being rammed through without consultation without any public submissions without notice and without any regard to this Parliament. It is not as though the Supplementary Order Paper has been sitting around for years as the bill has. No way! It was pushed into the Chamber yesterday. The Minister tried to hide it amongst everything else. He constantly tried to hide the truth from us all. He is pushing the bill through in Committee. Who knows what else the Government will be pushing through? Who has gone through all the substantial amendments in the schedules to check that they are all right? 
One of the good things with the select committee process is that all the people on the select committee and all the staff look for any errors or problems so that we do not have to come back with yet another catch-up bill to try to fix all the problems that have inadvertently been a result of the changes brought about. That is what we are talking about in the schedules. We are omitting from columns the items “Offender identity” and “Police temporary file index”. The schedules do all those sorts of things. 
I want to know from this Minister when he will take a call and explain how the changes in Schedule 3 will affect the other bills and the law we currently have in New Zealand. I would like to hear from him why he is so dismissive of the people of New Zealand that he will not allow them to make submissions on this Supplementary Order Paper. Why is he so dismissive of it? I ask United Future members who always say they will never look at any amendment that it does not have at least 2 days’ notice of to explain this Supplementary Order Paper. It has been sitting around for only 1 day. What about that? Did United Future members give it proper consultation? Did the Green Party members sit there and say: “Let’s have a real close look at this. Let’s see what the issues are.”? No. The reason is that this Government just bullies its little partners in Government. It does not consult them properly or consider them. It certainly does not consider the people of New Zealand. 
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 Throughout this debate in the Committee stage I have pointed out—and I am still waiting for the Minister to take a call—the way this Government makes a habit by way of regulation through the executive and by Order in Council of allowing legislation to pass without the scrutiny of this Parliament. I said that it was an abuse of the system and I said that it was about politicisation because that is exactly what will happen. I refer back to the warning that was given by the Regulations Review Committee and I will read it again because that was the warning it passed on. But this Government has taken absolutely no notice and that is now reflected in the schedules which we see have expanded. The schedule in the bill started on page 11 went to page 13 and was two foolscap pages long but when we look at page 9 of the new Supplementary Order Paper we see a schedule 2 added on top of that which talks about “Consequential amendments to enactments arising out of the abolition of Department for Courts.” 
That is what the Hon Richard Prebble and Judith Collins have been talking about but what did the Regulations Review Committee say? It said: “The amendments will allow an Act of Parliament to be amended by regulation. It is therefore important to consider whether there are significantly strong reasons why this is a matter that should be dealt with in regulations rather than primary legislation.” That is the point that I keep making to this Parliament. It is the same point and an important point because transparency and the opportunity for people to have a say are taken away. 
The schedules that are now in the Supplementary Order Paper have a schedule 2 that was not in the bill which had only one schedule. We now have a schedule that talks about the District Courts and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. We have a Part 1 that breaks down further; we have a Part 2 that talks about regulations. Then there is a schedule 3. Where was schedule 3 in the bill? There was no schedule 3 in the bill. Where was that very short window of opportunity that we had in the select committee? At that stage the bill was rushed through. Submitters had only 9 days to consider the bill and there is absolutely no opportunity now for anybody to have a say. 
I have asked the Minister—and I am asking the Minister again—how he can now justify bringing in schedules that there has been absolutely no opportunity to debate criticise scrutinise or whatever. Not one Government member has been prepared to stand up in this Chamber today because this is the way they operate. It is all done by regulation and to hell with anybody else! Where is the democracy in that? Where is the opportunity for Joe Bloggs to come in and say anything? We now have a schedule No. 3 that talks about the “Consequential amendments to Fifth Schedule of Privacy Act 1993 arising out of abolition of Department for Courts”. Where has there been any opportunity for people to have an input? There has been no consultation. No one knows anything about this provision. People are hearing about it for the first time today. This Supplementary Order Paper is longer than the original bill and there is more material in it than there was in the original bill. We did not support the bill and we are certainly not supporting a Supplementary Order Paper that people have not had a chance to have an input into. 
I have referred to submissions made by the Law Society and I bet the society did not know about this Supplementary Order Paper because we did not know about it either until we actually got here. I know that the president of the Law Society will be pretty upset to know that this measure has been rushed through without the society having any opportunity to make a contribution. This legislation is wrong. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I had come down to speak on the next bill which is in my particular field but I have been listening to my colleagues and I have been made aware of an appalling process. Through a process of virtual secrecy a whole Government department is being abolished. The Department for Courts ceases to exist. Was there any consultation on that through a select committee process? No there was not. The whole reason for the separation between the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Courts was to separate policy and operations. Surely there needed to be consultation with the profession on such a significant constitutional issue and not just a quiet word saying “This is what we’re going to do; what do you think?” There needed to be a public process before a select committee. 
I have been listening to my colleagues and I have found out that this Supplementary Order Paper which has major consequences not just for the administration of the public service but for the justice system itself was laid on the Table just yesterday. Surely we should have more respect for such things than just to ram this legislation through. There is an argument that the Government could mount to amalgamate the two departments but the right way to do that is to have a dialogue—to talk to the judges and the Law Society and consult the public to find out what people think. After all there is no need to go through with a policy process of change without that because what it invites is a very real suspicion on this side of the House that the Government is simply uninterested in the views of the public especially on something so profound as bringing the courts back into the Ministry of Justice. It invites speculation that the Government has ulterior motives and that it wants a greater level of direction and control over the independent judiciary. 
Just think of the process that is occurring: the existence of the Supreme Court has been established and now we have this amalgamation. What other plans are afoot? Secret plans are being raised by the Government right now in relation to our courts. Who will it appoint to the Court of Appeal? Who will it appoint to the High Court? What is the purpose of this secrecy? Not a single member of the Government has stood and defended this action and explained the reasons for it. Not a single member of the Government has gone out of his or her way to allay the very genuine fears of the public. 
When one thinks about it one sees that it would be quite simple to do that. The Minister could have got up and said: “These are the reasons we are doing it. This is who we have consulted. This is why we are doing it through this process.” That is the very minimum of respect that this House was owed and more important still that is what the public of New Zealand are owed. They should be reasonably able to expect that on issues of this nature—particularly those that involve the constitutional issue of the separation of powers—the Government would have proper respect for consultation and constitutional propriety and that it would allay the concerns I have raised. 
I would like the Minister to get on his feet and say that there are no plans to interfere in the judiciary because he is now required to do that. One cannot put a Supplementary Order Paper into this Parliament with 1 day’s notice and then not explain oneself. That is what the Opposition is asking for. What effectively happens is that the Committee of the whole House is treated as a substitute for the select committee process. It is now our only chance to raise these serious questions and when we do raise them it is reasonable for Ministers to get on their feet and explain themselves fully completely and properly. But there has been virtually none of that—we have had just a few minutes’ explanation at best. This is a shonky procedure. 
David Benson-Pope 
: The member has only just come to the Chamber. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It is all very well for the senior Government whip to witter on and say: “Well he did that hours ago.” Did the public know that? No. Did the Law Society know that? No. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 We are now involved in a very regrettable procedure because we are seeing a Government department being abolished which is always a serious matter. But in this particular case the affected department is the Department for Courts. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Abolish them all. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The United Future member has just said “Abolish them all.” I am obliged to Mr Copeland because he made an interjection when he was asked whether the United Future party had been briefed on this legislation and said yes it had. 
I am prepared to accept that Mr Copeland has been briefed but he has a duty to this Parliament as well. He has heard senior members of this Committee say that we are very interested in the constitution and the courts. We have asked the Minister for an explanation. The Minister has not given us one so I now ask Mr Copeland to give us one. I ask him to please take a call. He should just get up and convince me the Committee his own supporters— 
Gordon Copeland 
: I don’t think I could convince the member. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member says he does not think he could convince me and maybe he could not. But if he is silent I then ask him how the United Future party is lifting the tone of Parliament and contributing to public discussion when it is quite prepared to be secretly briefed and is then not willing to participate in the process. When Gordon Copeland thought he would be a member of Parliament was that what he had in mind—that he wanted a secret briefing that was not given to any other MP that he would smugly call out by interjection that he had been briefed on what the bill was about and that when he was asked politely to take a call he would sit in his seat? 
Gordon Copeland 
: I have politely answered the question. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well will the member take a call? He is very silent now. I think he will not take a call. 
I do not believe the member has been briefed. I do not think the United Future party has seriously considered this bill in any way whatsoever. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It is a convention in this Chamber to accept the word of a member. Mr Prebble has mentioned that I have said that we were briefed. Now he doubts my word. That is unparliamentary. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No that really is a debating point. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am obliged to you Madam Chair. It is a debating point and I invite the member to debate it. I invite him to show me that the United Future party is not the doormat that most of us think it is. I invite him to say that the United Future party is contributing to public discussion and that it is doing something to justify its existence here in Parliament. 
If my words do not move Mr Copeland perhaps he may note the 1.9 percent that the United Future party is sitting on in the public opinion polls. That may be something to do with the fact that Mr Copeland is silent when he is politely asked to contribute by please telling us why he has agreed to the abolition of the Department for Courts why he thinks it is appropriate that that does not go through a select committee process why he does not think members of the public should know about that and why he does not think the Minister should get up and explain that to Parliament and the country. We would all like to know the explanation for that. The member says he was briefed so no doubt he was briefed as to why the Government did not think it was necessary to explain to Parliament or the public why it is to abolish the Department for Courts by means of Supplementary Order Paper 107 which has been introduced 24 hours before the third reading of this bill. Now Mr Copeland tells me that I have to accept his word that he was briefed knew the Government would do that and agreed with it. I ask Mr Copeland why he did so. 
Since the Minister of Justice has wandered into the Chamber I say it may be a good idea for him to tell us why the Department for Courts is to be abolished. I presume Mr Goff does know the reason for that. Would he like to share it with us? It would only take 5 minutes of his time. It would be an indication that this Government is not treating the Committee with the contempt that I think that it is. I just say to Mr Goff and the Government that yes the Government has the numbers—the United Future Party will vote for it—but that is still not a moral reason for putting through a bill of this sort without explaining it. 
We understand that the Minister of State Services Mr Mallard is in charge of this bill. We know he does not actually know about the courts; he would not have a clue about them. We realise that it is just one of the conventions that he is responsible for the bill because he is the Minister. But I presume that Mr Goff does have an idea about the merger. I presume the Minister of Justice knows why the Department for Courts is being abolished and will merge with the Ministry of Justice. I presume he can tell us the good reason he thought up for that. I ask Mr Goff to share it with us. He should get up give us just 5 minutes of his valuable time and be a parliamentarian. 
I also put it to Mr Copeland from the United Future party who tells us he was briefed on this legislation—he agrees with this outrageous procedure which is a constitutional outrage—that he should tell us why the United Future party think this merger is a good idea. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 107 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to the schedules be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the schedules as amended stand part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedules as amended stand part. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.