Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill

I move, That the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that the Justice and Electoral Committee consider this bill.

The genesis of this bill, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, occurred when I was in Opposition and was placed on the Justice and Electoral Committee. At the first meeting I attended the Law Commission, represented by the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer, appeared before us for a financial review of its activities. The Hon Chris Finlayson, who had explained to me that he thought it important that membership of the Justice and Electoral Committee should not just be the preserve of those with legal training and practice experience, invited me to lead the queries to Sir Geoffrey. It was a great experience. One of the questions I asked Sir Geoffrey was: “How much of the commission’s revised work is taken up by parliamentarians and processed?”. In response, he said that very little was taken up, and he qualified it by saying that he understood that successive Governments had heavy legislative programmes and that it was not easy to fit revision bills into the programme.

In response I undertook to introduce a member’s bill, this particular one, which adopts many of the Law Commission’s recommendations to further improve the Habeas Corpus Act, which in itself was a member’s bill initially put in and passed through by the Hon Simon Power. It is a privilege to be following in his footsteps with this bill, particularly with regard to this writ.

The writ of habeas corpus is known as the “great writ”, for good reason. It requires that the applicant be brought before the court, and that the court examine the legality of detention, whether public or private, of that person—that is, the writ exists to protect personal freedom from unlawful detention. It is a fundamental guarantee of liberty that no one can be imprisoned or detained without lawful authority. It has been called by New Zealand courts “the most famous of all writs”, “the ancient and powerful prerogative remedy”, and “an ancient and specialised jurisdiction”. It is a very old piece of legislation, older indeed than Magna Carta.

In spite of this, or perhaps because of it—its importance as a foundation stone of a free and fair society—it has had a long history of being updated and improved as the ideal of freedom evolved and expanded. Even before the writ was brought to these shores, it had already been through changes, challenges, and great improvements and had continued to prove its importance. As the Rt Hon Lord Sir Alfred Denning noted in his work Freedom under the Law: “In 1627, when the executive Government cast Sir Thomas Darnel and four other knights into prison because they would not subscribe money for the King, the Court of the King’s Bench, to its disgrace, held that if a man were committed by command of the King he was not to be delivered by habeas corpus. Those were the … days when judges took their orders from the executive. But the people of England overthrew [that particular] Government which so assailed their liberties, and passed statutes which gave the writ its present power. Never thereafter have the judges taken their orders from anyone.”

The changes proposed in this bill are not quite as dramatic as was the case then. The situation today does not require such sweeping change, but they are important changes for the continuing relevance of the writ. It is important that we have a modern justice system to deal with modern times, technologies, and legal practices.

The writ was previously purely an instrument of the courts in common law, but it was codified in the Habeas Corpus Act. In 2007 the Law Commission reviewed the workings of that Act and the practices that surround it and recommended certain amendments in order to improve its operation. Among these recommendations were removing the priority rule, the extension of the 3-day rule, and summary dismissals of inappropriate applications.

By removing the priority rule—to explain each of those points—the High Court or a judge of that court will be given the ability to dispense, in appropriate cases, with the rule that habeas corpus applications take precedence over all other business. Currently that is the rule—habeas corpus must take precedence over all other business. The presumption will be, in this bill, that habeas corpus applications have precedence over other matters, but with the ability of a judge—a High Court judge—to relax that presumption if circumstances demand it. The Law Commission gave examples of a court needing to intervene to ensure that children receive lifesaving medical treatment, or an interim injunction to prevent publication of material that could endanger national security. The Law Commission was very clear that the requirement of priority and urgency for applications will remain. It said: “By amending the requirement for absolute precedence over all other court business it is not suggested that habeas corpus applications be dealt with in any other way than as a matter of priority and urgency.”

The second amendment, the extension of the 3-day rule, will state that although a 3-working-day time frame for hearing an application should remain the ordinary rule—the ordinary rule—the High Court or a judge of that court should be given the ability to dispense with this exacting requirement, again, in cases that are appropriate. Applications should always be treated urgently. But in complex cases it may be well be, and it is sometimes found, that parties actually require more than 3 days’ preparation to argue the case properly. Otherwise there is a risk of inadequate decision-making, or of judges issuing interim orders that have the effect of delaying a substantive decision longer than is necessary.

💬 Andrew Little: It’s about freedom, not preparation. I thought you were the party of freedom.

As the Law Commission has said: “An inadequate timeframe can operate to the disadvantage”—Mr Little—“of the applicant as much as it can to a respondent.” Again, this bill does not diminish the substantive rights and safeguards of the applicant during the process.

The bill will provide a new power to dismiss applications without the need for the defendant to establish the lawfulness of the detention where the application is statute barred under section 15(1) of the Act or involves the wrong procedure. The judge could indicate the procedure by means of which the application is appropriately brought. Sometimes it is clear on the face of an application for habeas corpus that the writ could not be issued, and this is one of the central problems that need to be addressed—for example, when the writ has already been refused by the court, or when a prisoner is serving an unexpired sentence. In that case, an immediate release is not a possibility, and yet the legal fraternity uses this as a device.

The Law Commission noted that some of these applications appear to have been brought by applicants who know that it is the incorrect procedure. I am sure that members in the House with legal practice experience will be able to elucidate on the way applications for habeas corpus can be used as a device to defer High Court activity, and for other reasons. Allowing judges to summarily dismiss such applications will save time and make our courts more efficient.

The bill also provides an express provision permitting pre-hearing conferences by telephone, video link, or other technology authorised by the rules of the court, so it brings it into modern communication practice. This will allow greater numbers of applications to be disposed of with more efficiency, especially for the summary cases I have just referred to, while still being consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

To conclude, this bill further clears courts of inappropriate stalling tactics, it allows judges to serve justice in a timely fashion, and it is part of this Government’s focus on promoting an effective, efficient, and fair justice system. This bill promotes a better justice system, and I hope it will garner the support of this House, as its intentions towards the great writ are noble and in keeping with the intentions of the writ itself. I thank the House for its time, and look forward to hearing discussion from my esteemed fellow members of Parliament on this bill. Thank you.

This bill, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, would implement word for word the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 30-page 2007 report Habeas Corpus: Refining the Procedure. Law Commission reports normally have great merit. This one does. Labour will therefore support this bill through all its readings and all its stages.

But I do want to say this: Law Commission reports should be progressed by the Government. The last Labour Government introduced procedures, in its third term of office, to ensure that Law Commission reports would be expedited. Those procedures have been abandoned by the present Government, and that is why so many Law Commission reports now sit on the list of unactioned items from that body. Instead of the Government of the day implementing Law Commission reports, we now see this tactic from the National Party backbench of using up members’ day time by putting up—

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

—Law Commission - recommended bills.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: This is cutting!

This is not the purpose of members’ day. Although members opposite think that this is a joke, I know that those watching Parliament and listening to Parliament tonight will not be impressed by the fact that this tactic involves the Government of the day getting two bites of the cherry at Law Commission recommendations, and essentially stopping every other member of the House from using members’ day for what it was intended to do—to progress important matters of conscience or other issues that matter to them.

Well, the Government might decide that this is an appropriate use of the House’s time. I think it is disrespectful to Parliament, and to the Law Commission, which is entitled to have the time and the public money that it expends on its law reform work better credited.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Do you remember the Parana Park bill? How long did you spend on that?

It should be responded to by the Government of the day, by way of Government legislation.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: Mr Chauvel, you shame yourself.

The Government members of the Justice and Electoral Committee ought to listen carefully to this point. Rather than waste the time of that committee as well on protracted debate on a bill that has been extensively researched and is the subject of a 30-page report of the Law Commission, I am going to do now what I am going to suggest in the committee, and that is commend the Law Commission’s 30-page report to every member and suggest that we get on and not waste time debating this bill, but spend much more time on the important and genuine members’ business that remains on the Order Paper.

It is a great pleasure to stand in support of this bill, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. I do want to commend my friend and colleague Chris Auchinvole for his initiative in introducing it to the House, and I congratulate him on having it drawn from the ballot, because it is always a significant achievement for a member to be given the privilege of introducing a bill to the House through this means. I commend him for that.

I do want to acknowledge that Mr Chauvel has indicated that Labour will support the bill through all its stages. I am very pleased to hear that, and I thank him for that. But I also want to make the point to Mr Chauvel that far from being an abuse of the members’ bills process, this bill actually introduces a measure that was recommended to the House by the Law Commission. For 5 years it has sat unenacted, and for some of that time, of course, the Labour Government was in office. I want to say to him that there are a number of members of the public of New Zealand, including many in my electorate, who would much prefer this House to be spending its time discussing measures of this nature than some of the other bills that come forward. So it ill behoves the Labour Party to criticise members on this side of the House for bringing bills of their own nature forward, when many of their own bills are actually abhorrent to other members in the country. This is a House of many different shades of opinion, and it is a time and it is a place for us to be considering all the bills, not to be casting aspersions on the motives of some who bring a bill to the House.

As the member who has introduced the bill has told us, in 2007, following consultation with the judiciary and Government agencies, the Law Commission issued a report proposing tweaks to the procedure for habeas corpus applications. Just as was the case a fortnight ago, when we debated the first reading of the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill, in the name of my colleague Simon O’Connor, the member for Tāmaki, here again we are dealing with a specific recommendation from the Law Commission. It would be quite wrong, I believe, for us to be ignoring these recommendations. We owe it to the Law Commission, which plays such an important role for us, to give due weight to its recommendations.

As every law student learns early on in his or her tertiary training, habeas corpus is an ancient writ, requiring a person in State detention to be brought before a judge or court to determine whether their detention is lawful. That is absolutely fundamental to our legal system, and it would be quite wrong for us to understate that and to mock what is behind this bill. That is a very, very important constitutional procedure. In fact, habeas corpus is understood to date back as far as the 14th century, and how often do we get the opportunity in this House to debate measures of that constitutional significance in history? A key provision—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Quite recent.

Well, Mr Williamson, having been here since the 14th century, remembers plenty of them—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: I wrote some of them!

As he says, he did write many of them. But most of us, not having the advantage of his advancing years, sadly, have not had that opportunity.

A key provision of this bill is for the High Court or a judge of the High Court to be able to dispense with the rule that habeas corpus applications take precedence over all other business. It is also to give judges more flexibility to dispense with the 3-working-day time frame for hearing a habeas corpus application where it would be appropriate for more preparation time. As my colleague has indicated, it is expected that if this bill passes its first reading tonight, it will be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing. I look forward, if that happens, to hearing from the profession and members of the public, and to working on this bill. It does, in my view, fit very neatly with National’s commitment to the delivery of better public services in the justice sector.

I will simply close at this point by saying that I look forward to working on the bill. I look forward to hearing the submissions that we will receive on it. I again commend my colleague for promoting it. As I say, it was recommended more than 5 years ago by the Law Commission. This is sound and sensible legislation. If it is passed tonight, my select committee will give it the attention and the intelligent examination that it deserves.

As my colleague Charles Chauvel has noted, Labour will support this bill, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, but we will support it because it needs examination. As other speakers have said, the holy writ—almost—of habeas corpus is very important. It goes back to the Magna Carta. Those were feudal days. The National Party will be familiar with them, because those are its underlying values, those are its underlying precepts—it understands feudalism. But what is important about—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: This is how the EPMU used to work, in the feudal days.

Everybody in the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union was delivered up on request, I can tell you that. It is a very important protection of liberty and freedom. On this side of the House we value it and we treasure it. This writ is not a matter of statute; it is part of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court—a court of inherent jurisdiction. It is not something that should be lightly interfered with. It is not appropriate, in my view, to justify changes to this important institution—the institution of the writ of habeas corpus—on the grounds of greater efficiency.

The Better Public Services mantra that we hear all the time might be good for the cost-cutters, the accountants, and the bean counters, but this is a question of individual liberty and individual freedom. Although we can do some things better procedurally when it comes to habeas corpus, when it comes to the oversight that the High Court has to preserve and protect freedom and protect citizens from unlawful detention, we should be very careful about the erosions of those principles—the priority principle—and the requirement for the body to be delivered up in an appropriate time frame. It is entirely appropriate that the court be given guidance that where clearly the detention is lawful, and the application is frivolous or otherwise not meritorious, there should be some scope to dismiss it without the Crown having to defend the detention.

I want to say that in my researches about recent applications for habeas corpus, the House might be interested to know that the most recent application in the Commonwealth jurisdiction was in the High Court of Bombay in the last day or so. It related to the delivery up of a cow, and of course that was in the context in which the bovine species is very important to them. Some chap had lost his cow, had his cow detained last November, and wanted it delivered up. The habeas corpus application was the only way he could think of to do it. The cow, sadly, had passed away some months ago and was not capable of being delivered up, except perhaps as a set of steaks.

I want to say this, though, which is very important: part of the examination of this legislation will coincide with the examination by another select committee of another piece of legislation that is a Government bill, and that is the Immigration Amendment Bill. That is a hideous piece of legislation. It is the total erosion of liberty and freedom. There could not be a greater erosion of it. It is interesting. Mr Auchinvole, the sponsor of this member’s bill, which purports to preserve and enhance habeas corpus, is a Government member presiding over a bill that will do precisely the opposite when it comes to the destitute persons who turn up on our border applying for refugee status, because that piece of legislation will do the opposite of habeas corpus. It will allow the Crown to detain unfortunate persons who turn up on our border for up to 6 months without having any say on any application to detain them, with limited scope for judicial review, and with limited scope for judicial oversight. So we should examine that legislation as against this member’s bill to preserve, protect, and advance habeas corpus.

I just hope that now, as these two bills move through the House, this House will look at these two pieces of legislation and will look askance at Mr Auchinvole, and at the members opposite, and ask how can it be that that party—the great party of freedom and enterprise, as it purports to be—will allow mass detention for up to 6 months without recourse to appeal and also then say that it supports habeas corpus. The two do not stand together.

Kia ora koutou. The point has been made already that habeas corpus is one of those fundamental precepts of our constitutional system, of our rule of law. The Greens will be content to support this amendment to the core Act, the legislation. It is interesting that the 2001 Habeas Corpus Act is itself derived from a 1997 report of the Law Commission, which at that time saw fit to look at the existing situation, then found that it was not as good as it could be and sought to make it better. In 2007—some 10 or so years later—the then Minister of Justice invited the Law Commission to once again have a look at the operation of this legislation, and the result, of course, is the proposed amendment that we are debating, or beginning to debate, tonight. I think it is worth noting that that is an entirely appropriate process and it is useful to have that substantial piece of work already done, which should ease the task of the select committee.

I would have to echo Mr Chauvel’s comments about the appropriateness of how this is coming to the House, however. We know that, of course, every member of this House has every right to put a bill into the ballot and every day that the ballot is drawn there is an intake of breath as we hope we will be the lucky ones. I was interested to read McGee, and of course that reinforces the point that any member may put in a member’s bill, but the inference is clear that the expectation is that this is something, a tool, a mechanism, that the Government will use lightly. The question must be asked, why has this fairly pragmatic technical amendment to an existing Act not been included in some form of omnibus bill or included in another justice bill? It is a peculiar tactic, and it is interesting that a particular journalist some weeks ago was moved to speculate on, perhaps, the motivation behind these members’ bills we are seeing from the Government that are popping up. I do think Mr Chauvel might have traversed that territory very well and come to the right conclusion.

The principle behind habeas corpus in this particular bill, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, clearly is not put at any risk. I was interested to hear Mr Little’s remarks, but generally speaking the notion of habeas corpus—the right of a person to be brought before their accusers to be able to speak in defence of their actions, or whatever it might be—is fairly well protected. We ought never to take it for granted. We have seen the ongoing indefensible abuse of the principle of habeas corpus in the United States over many years in the ongoing stain on the American reputation that is Guantanamo Bay—the detention of people without trial, without access to legal information, and, in some cases, without even being properly identified. One hopes we never see a stain on New Zealand’s reputation, but I think it is an apt reminder that we ought never to take these things for granted, to continue to value these fundamentals of our legal system, and to be thoughtful about any amendments, any changes, we make to them.

As I say, I am sure this bill is coming from a very sound and a very straightforward foundation. I did note initially with a minor concern that there is a clause in this bill that enables the use of audiovisual technology. I am a person, I must say, who immediately hears a wee alarm bell going when we introduce technology into the practice and the execution of justice. In this instance, however, it is clear that the judge may initiate the use of an audiovisual link, for example, but I do note that the test that the judge must be convinced of is that it is in the interests of justice before he or she determines the use of such a technology. I think that is an interesting test. It is perhaps a useful conversation for the select committee to have, just to think through exactly what that would mean in the real world, in the application of this bill. So with those few comments I do reiterate that the Greens will be supporting this bill. We have our suspicions and questions about the mechanism used to bring it into the House, but that will not prevent us from supporting what we see as a useful piece of legislation.

The right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus, as we know, is a basic right under English law that has developed over centuries, and the English Act of 1679 is the most important historical Act of those. There is an interesting story attached to the passing of that Act. It had had difficulty in passing through the House of Lords and had gone to and fro between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. On the last occasion in the Lords, Lord Grey was one of the tellers. Seeing one very fat Lord going through the Ayes door, he counted him as 10 in jest.

💬 Hon Member: No, no—oh!

He did. So the bill passed by 57 to 55, even though only 107 Lords were sitting at the time. So I just thought you would like to know how it arose.

But habeas corpus in New Zealand is under the Habeas Corpus Act of 2001, and section 7(2) of the 2001 Act will not, we think, be affected by this amendment, because it preserves “the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to hear and make an order on an oral application at any time in circumstances of unusual urgency.” So we think the ancient law is preserved, and this amendment does not alter this. Also, it preserves no disqualification for lack of standing or capacity, it preserves no discovery of documents available, and it preserves no fee payable to file an application, and all those are quite important issues as well.

Section 9 of the 2001 Act is amended in three ways, fundamentally. Section 9(1), giving habeas corpus precedence over other court matters, is amended by adding the words “unless the court considers that the circumstances require otherwise”, and, secondly, in section 9(3), the existing requirement for the application to be heard within 3 days remains. But now that will be subject to the words: “Unless a Judge otherwise orders,”. We in New Zealand First think that is appropriate. It provides for some flexibility for the court, in appropriate cases, to allow for the efficient ordering of court business and prioritisation without compromising the need for prompt attention, ordinarily within the 3-day limitation, and it prevents abuse by applicants who ought to be using other procedures. Thirdly, the new section 9(4) requires that parties be given an opportunity to be heard, and that is very important, as well.

In clause 6, which inserts new section 10A(1)(a), a judge can extend the 3-day time limit for the “just and efficient determination of the application,”. The requirement for “just and efficient” should ensure a prompt hearing, even if it goes beyond the 3-day rule, so we see no problem there either.

Clause 7, which amends section 14A(1), says that even if a defendant has not proved the lawfulness of the detention, a judge can refuse to grant habeas corpus only if—two circumstances—firstly, section 15(1) applies, which prevents more than one application on substantially the same grounds, or, secondly, the habeas corpus procedure is not the appropriate one having regard to the applicant’s allegations. That seems appropriate, as well. It does not infringe the right of habeas corpus, really, at all, in any genuine application.

Finally, the amendments to sections 17(1) and 17(1A) allow the Supreme Court in appeal not to comply with the usual requirements for habeas corpus if the court decides that “circumstances require otherwise”, while otherwise giving precedence over all other court matters. That, again, we think is quite appropriate and allows some flexibility for the court to order its business efficiently.

New Zealand First does approve and support the bill as a whole. We think it is well drafted, is in accordance with the Law Commission’s recommendations, and continues to preserve the fundamental right for any person to apply for a writ of habeas corpus and to have that dealt with expeditiously, but with some flexibility for the court to reorder its priorities. So we will be voting for it. Thank you.

It is a huge pleasure to rise and take a very brief call on the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. I appreciate the contributions from all sides of the House. I notice with great delight and pleasure that the whole House is supporting this bill, and I commend my colleague Chris Auchinvole for his eminently pragmatic bill. I must say that I do appreciate the contributions of Mr Charles Chauvel, both in the select committee and in the House, on matters legal, but I did find his comments today a trifle judgmental and churlish, especially with regard to the filibustering on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill that the other side was party to only a few short months ago in this very Chamber.

I was not a great Latin scholar. I did it only until fifth form, year 11. I did manage to get through School Certificate. I can still remember the first line in the Latin primer: “Supra est via Romana, via et lata et recta est.”—above is a Roman road, the road is broad and straight. I can still remember that. “Habeas corpus” means, I think, “you have the body”. I was wondering what Su’a William Sio and the Hon David Cunliffe were speaking about in the House during this debate. I wondered at the new, cleanly shaven, trim, tanned, and Olympic hopeful haircut on David Cunliffe, and I wondered whether my colleague from South Auckland was saying: “Habeas corpus. You have the body. You have the body to be a leader of our party. You have the body to be a leader of our party.” That was just a thought. I cannot confirm that. Of course, another David could say “Ecce Davidus, habeas corpus.”—alas, David, you have the body. But, then again, it has to be a living body, as we heard from a previous speaker when talking about a cow in Mumbai. It has to be a living body, so that may be a line call with some members of the Labour caucus.

Colleagues, habeas corpus is an ancient writ. It has been called a great writ, and, not being of the legal fraternity, I did look up Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, which, of course, is the repository of all legal wisdom. I learnt that habeas corpus ad subjiciendum—habeas corpus ad subjiciendum—was actually a writ issued first in the reign of King Edward I in 1305. There have been other writs, as we have heard, preceding that, with a similar target, but the basis of the writ is that “the king is at all times intitled to have an account, why the liberty of any of his subjects is restrained, wherever that restraint may be inflicted.”—so, basically, to answer the question of whether that detention is lawful. The writ exists, basically, to ask that question and to protect, thereby, the personal liberty of a subject and a citizen. Then, as now, the writ of habeas corpus issued by a superior court is in the name of the sovereign and commands an addressee—perhaps a sheriff, a lower court, or a private subject—to produce the prisoner before a royal court of law.

We have heard an excellent summary from my colleague Tim Macindoe, the chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee, and also Mr Auchinvole outlining the history of how it came to pass that in 1997 the Law Commission decided that we needed to simplify procedures for dealing with habeas corpus in the New Zealand jurisdiction. This led to the Habeas Corpus Act of 2001, which implemented the changes of that report and formalised habeas corpus in legislation. There were, however, some anomalies, which have been pointed out by previous speakers. In 2007 the Law Commission, in consultation with the judiciary and Government agencies, came up with the report we are considering now. As Charles Chauvel so well pointed out, it forms the basis of this legislation. I do commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in the first reading of the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. It is always a pleasure to follow Dr Cam Calder in this House. He is always entertaining, but rarely informative. This bill is in the name of Mr Chris Auchinvole, and I will congratulate him and commend him for the fact that he has had this bill pulled out of the ballot. It is a pleasure I have not had in my time in the House.

This bill has come about because there was a perception that the procedure for dealing with habeas corpus applications has been misused, where some applicants have used it to obtain priority on hearings that should have been dealt with by other means. It does come about from a Law Commission report in 2007 that my legally learned colleagues Andrew Little and Charles Chauvel have already talked about, and there are examples within that report. Because of the nature of its being a Law Commission report, as Charles Chauvel and Andrew Little have said, we will be supporting this bill through all its stages.

As Charles Chauvel pointed out in Labour’s first contribution on this bill, we do question why this law is navigating its way through this House as a member’s bill. We do believe it should be a Government bill. I did congratulate Mr Auchinvole on his luck in getting the bill pulled out of the ballot. We do think that it could have been given more priority and probably a little bit more seriousness if it had been a Government bill.

There were some comments made earlier by Tim Macindoe that our comments in regard to this bill and how it is navigating its way through this House were that we were ignoring the issue. We were not. We are not ignoring the issue. We absolutely fundamentally support the substance of this bill. As I say, we just question the manner in which the Government has brought it through this House. We also praise the initiative of Mr Auchinvole for submitting this as a member’s bill, but there is not so much initiative when you just highlight your name, then push Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V on a Law Commission bill that has been submitted.

We will be supporting this bill in the House, but, as has been mentioned earlier in our contributions, this is just a tactic by the Government to use up members’ time.

It is my pleasure to take a short call on this bill tonight. It is an honour and a privilege to be speaking on such an important topic at the first reading of the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. Obviously, my colleagues are very well read on Latin, and I cannot compete in any way whatsoever, apart from to say “Ad astra per aspera”, which are the four words that I know. They mean “To the stars through endeavour”, which was my school motto, so that is as good as I get, I have to say.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What does it mean?

What does it mean? To the stars through endeavour—very important. That is a girls’ school for you. [Interruption] It does indeed.

So I would just like to acknowledge my colleague Chris Auchinvole for the work that he has put into getting this bill to the ballot and drawn for its first reading today. I would also like to acknowledge the Law Commission for the work that it has put into the bill’s early stages to get it to the House today, and also the Justice and Electoral Committee, which is led by the fabulous Tim Macindoe and deputy chair Cam Calder, for the work that they are going to do when it gets to the select committee, of course. Obviously it will be a quick turn-round for this bill to get it back to the House for the second reading.

Habeas corpus is a pillar of the criminal justice system. It safeguards the liberty of New Zealand citizens. This relates to an application under the 2001 Act, which allows the validity of any arrest or detention to be tested. If it is found to be unlawful, the court may issue an order and that person is released. This reflects one of the most important ideas in a free and democratic society—that there is a general right to liberty unless there is a legal basis for that liberty to be removed. This idea is so important it is enshrined in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in recognition of the importance of this. This bill helps us to recognise and modernise the process under which the courts examine the wrongful detention of applications. These changes prevent the erosion of process through misuse and allow for technological advancements to be incorporated, facilitating the progression of applications through the courts. This bill does come in the light of the Law Commission’s report and the anomalies of how the original Act has been applied. I know that previous colleagues in the House have spoken to that in detail so I do not need to speak to that.

Obviously the history of habeas corpus is long and varied. It comes from way back in the 14th century, so it has a long history in our court judicial system through New Zealand and the United Kingdom as well. With its enactment there was a requirement that the applications take precedence over all other court business, and this was a reflection of its absolute importance. However, some applications, including from prisoners serving sentences, have been applying this inappropriately. Because of that, this bill has come about to ensure that the courts have a bit more flexibility, and it allows the justices of the High Court the freedom to dispense with the rule that the applications take precedence, in cases where the system is being abused. It provides them with the flexibility, and makes our court more modern. It also allows them to use more technology, but more technology in a safe way, ensuring that every application is inspected by a High Court judge as it should be. This bill allows for teleconferences or audiovisual links, and it will also allow for a number of applications to be disposed of in a very timely manner.

This is a Government whose priority is about better public services. This is just one more example of that, to ensure we have efficient and effective management of our justice system. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I do not wish to take up very much time of the House, primarily, because I tend to agree with the points that have been made earlier about the undesirability of producing these kinds of bills as members’ bills. There is no point in rehearsing the history of habeas corpus, which we have been treated to a few times already; I think we are all pretty much boned up on the Latin and the history. But suffice to say, as my colleague Dave Clendon did earlier, that the Green Party will support the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill because the bill is inherently a valid one and should be passed through.

But let us pass it through as fast as we can so that we do not unduly waste the time on members’ day. After all, “fides servanda est”—faith must be kept. And faith must be kept with the principle of the original purpose of members’ bills, which is that they offer members of Parliament on all sides of the House the opportunity to develop and advance in legislative form their personal vision of what needs to be written into the New Zealand legislation—personal vision. I just cannot thank Chris Auchinvole enough for the blood, sweat, and tears that he must have shed long into the night, burning the midnight oil, drafting this bill in the pristine way! I mean, here is the bill. Here is the bill. I read through this bill word—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Read it. Read this bill.

Well, I am tempted to, because I think it is the height of legislative artistry and we have it here. Then I looked and I chanced across a document here. I open it up. Lo, there is telepathy going on here, because here is a bill, and I can tell you now—and I do not know whether this comes as a surprise to our colleague—it is word for word.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: So which one should we be voting for?

Well, we could substitute it and call it the “Geoff Palmer Bill”. But I think in deference to the effort and the initiative—I think it was Tim Macindoe who commended Mr Auchinvole for his initiative, and I think it was Mr Bridges who commended him for his exceptionally passionate approach to this bill—we should all pay a tribute to our colleague here for the sacrifice he has made in bringing this bill through on members’ day. I commend you to the House.

Could I ask Mr Auchinvole whether there is going to be any word that he might conceivably alter in this bill as it wends its tortuous passage through the committee—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: No. He chose each one carefully.

Indeed, I think that is quite, quite clear. For example, let me make a suggestion. Just for the sake of generating some enthusiasm for this bill as it goes through the committee, clause 5, “Section 9 amended (Urgency)”, inserts a new subclause (4): “A Judge may not make any order under subsection (3) without giving the parties to the proceeding an opportunity to be heard …”. Can I suggest that in deference to what we heard from Mr Andrew Little, our colleague, we could say “without giving the parties, human or bovine, to the proceeding the opportunity to be heard”. Is there going to be any word that will be changed in this respect? Ecce homo, ecce bovum. I leave it to Mr Auchinvole to give it thought with his colleagues, the learned gentlemen there, Mr Macindoe and Mr Williamson. He can discuss it and decide whether there is any change at all, and he will no doubt have the support of this House, whether it is cows—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: That can’t be the only section you have a problem with.

No, I know that with the experience that Mr Williamson has had, in his longevity in this House, he will be able to advise Mr Auchinvole whether there is any scope for improving this bill whatsoever, because I have to tell you in full admiration that I cannot find it.

I am very grateful indeed for the support of all the parties that have spoken this evening. I note the concern expressed principally by those who are of an academic bent, but I would like to just refer back to my opening speech, where I think I said I gave an undertaking to Sir Geoffrey Palmer that I would do this, and I am fulfilling that obligation. So I do not—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: With you and him in the room it wouldn’t be a short conversation.

No, it was a tremendous occasion and, well, I could talk about that later on, if you wish. But I do not resile from the appropriateness of bringing this Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill before the House on members’ day.

I do not resile from using the good offices of the Law Commission in doing the preparation. Not everything it does is perfect. Not everything it does has an untrammelled passage through this House. I think, in this case, it is a honey of a little bill. I have been to Runnymede, I have involved myself in reading the history, and I think it is a very appropriate bill to bring forward, because it will work and it is of interest to the common people. It would be of interest to me, on a technical point, having listened to Charles Chauvel saying that they made provision to process revised bills—I would like to know how many they actually processed.

💬 Darien Fenton: Who’s “they”?

He did not say, and declined to say. It would be interesting, though.

I was grateful to Andrew Little for his contribution. I respect his legal experience and his acknowledgment that practices that use habeas corpus as a device for delay or devious purposes need to be addressed. This bill—joke about it if you will—has a serious aspect to it.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, it’s a honey of a little bill.

It is.

The contributions from all the parties have shown, I think—including the last one, which I enjoyed—that we as a Parliament take serious matters seriously, all jokes aside. All parties have given careful consideration to this bill before giving their consent for the bill to go further. To all, thank you; to those who have spoken, thank you; and to members of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which will handle this bill if its first reading is passed, I am sure that you can be entrusted to handle it with an efficient, effective, and careful level of consideration. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.