Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the second reading of the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. It is interesting to note the comments that were made by the sponsor of this bill, Chris Auchinvole, who has taken credit for the significant amount of work that he has put into it.

I want to remind the House, just in case members have forgotten, that when the Law Commission reported its recommendations on the habeas corpus legislation, it in fact included a draft bill within the report. I think members on this side of the House, having listened to that member’s contribution, would be surprised to know that it was absolutely word-perfect. Word for word it was the bill adopted from the Law Commission’s report, with his name on it. That is actually the only difference. The only value-add that Chris Auchinvole has made to this bill is the addition of the words Chris Auchinvole. There has been nothing else of any substance or value offered to him. [Interruption] I actually think my colleague here is questioning whether that is adding value, and I think that is a very good point indeed.

But I think that what the member has also failed to do is to reflect on the work that the Justice and Electoral Committee actually did, because he congratulated us on considering his bill in depth, as we were wont to do, as we are always wont to do, but what he has failed to acknowledge are the changes that we actually made. The select committee made a number of changes. I am actually wondering whether the member understands the changes that we made, so perhaps I could take the House through them.

One issue that was contained within the legislation related to time frames. There was some concern about the length of time that was being addressed in the legislation. The committee recommended that subclauses (2) and (3) be removed from clause 5 of the bill, in order to retain the 3-day time frame within which a habeas corpus application must be heard. The bill as introduced would have allowed a judge of the High Court to extend this period, but committee members understand that there is little evidence that the current time frame is problematic. We did receive evidence on this particular matter, and we wondered why it was important to proceed with the particular changes proposed, when in fact the current time frame was not understood to be problematic.

We also noted that extending the time frame would expand the court’s jurisdiction regarding habeas corpus, potentially leaving it to determine matters that might be more appropriately dealt with by another procedure. This could have had the unintended consequence of removing current rights of appeal against successful applications. So our proposed amendment would retain the status quo and protect current rights of appeal.

I am surprised that the member Chris Auchinvole, whose name this bill is in, did not even mention this in his contribution to the second reading debate. After all of the work that we did at the select committee, I would actually have liked him to go through this particular matter and to perhaps express his own personal view as to the nature of the changes that we made. Obviously, he is quite happy with those changes. But he does not seem to understand what they were all about, and I think that is a bit of a shame. What it does tend to say is that the National Government has decided that Law Commission reports that have bills contained within them ought to be given to otherwise unoccupied backbenchers, to put their name on them to go into the ballot for members’ bills, and then ultimately take up the time of the House in respect of members’ bills, but actually let a Minister off the hook for not doing their job.

Who is the Minister who is responsible for the habeas corpus legislation? Who would that be? Could that be the Minister of Justice? Justice. What other roles does the Minister of Justice have? The Minister of Justice might be somewhat preoccupied with other legislation that she is responsible for, so she has in fact asked one of her colleagues to take over this piece of legislation, which the Government could have put through, quite rightly, not using up the time of members’ bills, which are available to members to bring up issues that are actually of passionate concern to them. And we have the habeas corpus legislation from Chris Auchinvole. I do not think that he sounded particularly passionate about this particular issue, and I think that he has actually taken up a space on the members’ agenda, as it were, in order to remove opportunities for other members, who have got lots of pieces of legislation. I know that I have had more than one bill in the ballot of late.

It was interesting that the member said that we did not pursue particular pieces of legislation that were promoted by the Law Commission. I remember I myself had a Law Commission bill in the ballot. It was successful, and the Government was so impressed with my success that it introduced legislation and passed it before the House got to the first reading of my particular bill. But it was legislation that we all agreed with. The point is that I think this member has played a little bit of a game with the House today.

The Justice and Electoral Committee recommended the removal of clause 6. Did I hear Chris Auchinvole speak about the removal of clause 6? As introduced, this clause would have allowed a judge to convene a conference of the parties to a habeas corpus application, and determine how proceedings would advance, including whether appearances would be made by remote means. In effect, the provision restated the High Court’s existing rules regarding the power of judges. We considered this as a select committee, and we discussed this. It was completely unnecessary to have that clause in the bill. In fact, it was potentially confusing. That is why we recommended removing reference to these powers by deleting clause 6.

I think that the member needs to listen up, because he is going to have to go into the chair when we get to the Committee stage, and there is going to be intense questioning from this side of the House as we go through the Committee stage of this bill. So he is going to have to really, really swot up on this detail, because the detail will really matter when we get to the Committee stage. But I do not know that Chris Auchinvole is a details man, because, really, as I said before, the only—the only—thing that he has added to this bill is, in fact, his name.

The select committee also recommended omitting clause 8 of the bill and substituting a new clause to the effect that the provisions of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 apply to habeas corpus proceedings, which, of course, are civil proceedings. Clause 8 as introduced would have inserted a new section enabling a judge to allow habeas corpus applications to be heard by video link or other court-authorised technology. In the meantime, the Courts (Remote Participation) Act actually allows audiovisual links to be used in courts and sets out decision-making criteria for different types of cases.

This Act had not been enacted when the Law Commission recommended this amendment. Chris Auchinvole would have known that, if he had in fact gone through an analysis of the legislation that he had just put his name on. Putting your name on something is not good enough. You should have known that in fact the Courts (Remote Participation) Act had been passed in the meantime and that it dealt with this matter. We as a select committee would not have had to deal with this issue if, in fact, the member had been on the job.

Overall, Labour members, of course, support this legislation. We think it is an important piece of legislation. But I think that that member is going to have to do a little bit of homework before we get to the Committee stage, because we certainly will be making sure that it is worthy of having his name on it when it passes into law.

The Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, in the name of my colleague Chris Auchinvole, is a good bill. The Justice and Electoral Committee—so ably chaired by my friend and former chair of that committee, Tim Macindoe—in its report back has done a good job. I support and commend this bill to the House.

It is a pleasure to take a call on the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. As I said at the first reading debate on this bill, we should never trifle with matters as serious and as important as habeas corpus. We know the status and standing of this application to a court. It comes under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, it cannot be interfered with by the Crown, and it is one of the important bulwarks against fascism, tyranny, and despotism. So we tread very carefully when this House is required to formulate some rules and refinements in terms of the way the courts should handle these applications.

When the bill was first read, there were necessarily some issues that stood out immediately. When judges are given the right or the power to exercise discretions over the handling of applications before they have been considered and heard, effectively adding another hurdle before an applicant can make their application, or when a judge has the power to delay or postpone the hearing of an application beyond the 3 days that has been accepted, then we should look very carefully at such provisions in law. It is very pleasing to see at this stage of the passage of the legislation that the Justice and Electoral Committee, after looking at the bill, has made some quite significant and material changes. My colleague the learned Lianne Dalziel—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Ah!

—the most learned Lianne Dalziel, who may well now be considered as one of the first applicants under the QC legislation that was passed just before Christmas—or is it Chris Finlayson who is going to get one of those now? Anyway, she has taken us through those important changes. When you look at those changes, when you look at what has been taken out, it is significant, and it is good that the select committee has done its job in that regard.

I want to just draw attention to that important clause, clause 5, the amendment to section 9, which deals with urgency. One of the important things the select committee did was to ensure that it is not just any officer of the court who can decide whether or not an application for habeas corpus will be given urgency. Under the 2001 legislation, an application for habeas corpus had the effect of—I hesitate to use the term, because it is used in the immigration arena most offensively—jumping the queue and pushing out of the way all other applications before the court for consideration. Actually, when it comes to the liberty of the citizen, the liberty of the individual, that is probably justified—almost certainly it is justified—but what the original drafting of the bill would have done is allow not just a judge but a registrar or other officer of the court to decide whether or not that level of urgency should be given. The select committee has come back and has quite rightly said that this is a matter for a judicial officer to consider and to make a decision on.

It is true, and it is one of the complaints under the 2001 legislation and indeed of habeas corpus applications, that, occasionally—occasionally—there are frivolous applications, which put other applications before the court to a disadvantage. So there should be some mechanism to deal with the potentially frivolous applications, particularly when they are applications that have been made before, or, potentially, in other courts. It is right that there should be a mechanism, but a very closely guarded mechanism, for the application to be considered for timetabling and placing before a judge in open court. The select committee has come back and said that it must be a judge who makes that decision. We look to our judges to be independent of the State and to have the power to make that sort of judgment and that sort of decision, so that is the correct thing to do.

In the next area, which is convening teleconferences, it is a good thing that our judicial system has developed and kept pace with technology, and that judges and courts can be convened using the latest technology. The problem with the bill as originally drafted was that this provision was completely superfluous in this bill because it was already provided for in other legislation. But at least with the use of video technology it means that a judge can see that a citizen who has been detained in arguably questionable circumstances can actually be viewed through the technology before consideration is given to releasing that citizen from detention, where the case is made out. That change has been made, and that ties in with the reference to an application proceeding under the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010, which now deals with that.

These are significant changes that have been made to this bill dealing with a very important issue. As I said at the beginning, when it comes to matters like habeas corpus, when it comes to matters of dealing with the inherent jurisdiction of the court, we should always tread lightly. These matters go to the fundamental rights of every citizen, and when this Parliament speaks, when this Parliament acts, the one thing it should be doing in passing any legislation, but particularly legislation that deals with either detention or the possibility of releasing from detention—when this House is dealing with the liberty of the individual, then it is dealing with that most precious of commodities, and we need to take cognisance of that and proceed cautiously, deliberatively, and deliberately.

It is good that we have done that, but I reiterate too the point that Lianne Dalziel also made. When it comes to these matters—the fundamental rights of the citizen—it is a matter for a Minister to bring to this House, not a member in their personal capacity. It is not an appropriate matter for the members’ bill provision. This is a matter that the Crown should speak on and that the Crown should take responsibility for when making these rules for courts to consider the liberty of the individual. It is disappointing that this Government is developing a habit of taking matters of great importance that are matters for the Government of the day, for the executive of the day, and handing them over to individual members to process through the members’ part of the proceedings of this House. That does not augur well for, and it does not send a good signal about, the seriousness with which this Government takes these important matters. When the procedures of legal development or law development or statutory development have involved a body as august and as important as the Law Commission in their development, then the least we can expect is the responsible Minister, in this case the Minister of Justice—and it is not as if she had an exhaustive workload last year in terms of her legislation; she had the alcohol law reform legislation—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: She was busy, though. She was breaching people’s privacy.

She had one or two administrative matters on her hands, but the ever-able Paula Rebstock was able to step in and clean up that mess. But it is not as if she is a Minister who was so rushed off her feet with other legislation that she could not have taken this important matter, stamped her imprimatur on it, said as Minister of Justice that she took responsibility for important pieces of legislation dealing with the liberty of the individual and the liberty of the citizen, and herded us and guided us through this piece of legislation. I would like to think that had this been a matter that was dealt with by the Minister of Justice, then it is more likely that a well-formed piece of legislation would have made it through the first reading without the select committee having to tire itself and exhaust itself with its amendments and changes, in order to bring back to this House a better-quality piece of legislation than it was before it went to the select committee.

💬 David Clendon: Mr Speaker—

Let me have a look. I call the honourable member David Clendon.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I had to make sure it was a Green call, Mr Clendon.

Of course. I am pleased to take a call on this Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. The legislation deals with an issue that is one of the fundamental cornerstones of our democracy, which is, of course, the right of a person not to be detained without due cause and to be brought before an appropriate judicial process sooner rather than later, and so any amendments, any consideration, of these fundamental cornerstone issues of our core democracy ought not to be dealt with lightly or in any significant haste. When this bill was first proposed, we were given some comfort by the fact that it was drawn from a Law Commission report some years previously. I think it was pointed out that it was drawn virtually word for word, in fact, from that Law Commission report, which is not, in itself, a bad thing. The point was made—and I think it is worth recalling that Mr Charles Chauvel, in the first reading of this legislation, did point out—that perhaps it would have been an appropriate change, an appropriate amendment, to be made by way of a Government bill rather than a member’s bill. After all—we had this discussion earlier—members’ days are primarily for allowing Opposition parties and members to put legislation through the House when they do not have the avenue of Government bills being presented.

If I may, in passing, just comment on Mr Chauvel’s imminent department from the House. We regret that genuinely. He has, in my experience, been an extremely thoughtful, well-informed contributor to this House. He will be missed, and we, the Greens, wish him well in his new career. I would also add that given his imminent departure, I suspect that his speech in the first reading of this bill will go down in the record books as his shortest-ever contribution to this House, for reasons of his concern that, in his view, members’ day was being abused in this way.

It is, in a sense, a pleasure for the Greens to be able to support a justice bill coming from the other side of the House. Unfortunately, we seldom find much to enjoy or support when we see justice bills coming from the Government. Democracy and justice seem to be issues that this Government can take rather lightly. We had this conversation last night, of course, in the context of the denial of the people of Canterbury of their right to vote for a period of some 9 years, by the time they get to have a vote. We have seen, for example, a member’s bill from a member of this Government in the last term that denied all prisoners the right to vote by forcing them off the register of voters, which is an appalling misuse of the members’ bills process and a very unfortunate outcome. We could quote at some length a number of other issues where we have seen amendments made to justice, corrections, police, and the courts that have not been desirable and are not helpful. As I say, we are quite pleased to be able to support this Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill.

Going into some of the detail, I did not have the pleasure of sitting on the Justice and Electoral Committee for the consideration of this bill, but it is clear that the select committee has gone to quite reasonable lengths and given it a very thorough looking over, and appropriate attention has been paid to it. I am just reminded from looking at my notes that when we first had sight of this bill, we generally saw no harm in it and saw some potential good, but I am somewhat concerned about the general reference to the use of video links and other technology. That is simply because in something as fundamental, as cornerstone, as habeas corpus, I just had some reservations about the use of technology that might somehow prevent an individual literally being able to confront his accuser, which is the essence of the habeas corpus writ, of course. We are pleased to note that, in fact, in the deliberations of the select committee, it came to the conclusion that the existing legislation, the remote participation legislation—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! Can I just say to members that it is a longstanding convention of the House that members should not conduct conversations in the House unless it is necessary to do so, and to do so only in such a way as to not disturb the proceedings. There is continual chatter going on and I am finding it difficult to hear what Mr Clendon has to say. So I ask members, if they do want to have a private conversation, please do it outside the Chamber.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s courteous, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Courtesy is contagious.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is something worth recalling. As I was saying, we were pleased to see that the select committee in doing its work was of a mind that the existing legislation, the Courts (Remote Participation) Act, is adequate to cover the situations that might arise in the context of this, and so there was no necessity to include that. The proposition is that that clause should be deleted from the bill, and we are entirely in support of that.

Another major clause, as has been mentioned already, is clause 5, which clarifies that judges alone should have the right to allow other business to be prioritised ahead of applications for habeas corpus. We think that is appropriate, because this is a significant power that has been given. I have to say, if I may draw on some personal experience here, that I had an unfortunate experience of what I can only describe as incompetence in the administration of a particular court. It was a minor matter, a traffic matter, that took 3 years to resolve, primarily because the administration of the Waitakere District Court some years ago proved itself unable to correctly record my address. That is a very personal and trivial reason, perhaps, but, more profoundly, I do think that it should rest on the shoulders of judges and judges alone to make these decisions that potentially have significant consequences in terms of basic justice and basic democracy. We select our judges carefully. They are given significant responsibility. They are subject to accountability requirements, which is appropriate, but, really, we should leave these significant matters in their very capable care, I think.

There was also an issue around timing—the proposition and the original drafting of the bill—that perhaps there could be an extension of time. This was, again, dropped and I think it indicates that the select committee was quite thoughtful and careful in its work, that it worked its way through the legislation and looked at issues that perhaps, dare I say it, erred on the side of conservatism—to make the fewest changes necessary to achieve the outcomes of this legislation. Going back to the original purpose of it, it is clear that on occasion, albeit habeas corpus is an important matter and applications should always be taken seriously, equally there are other matters before the courts that are of significance and are of importance, and where time is often of the essence. So allowing for this slight amendment, allowing for a judge to make that call that habeas corpus is not the single most important issue to be considered on a given day, is, we think, an appropriate move from there.

So, in summary, then, I think there are, as I said, matters within this bill that ought to be treated seriously. It is a cornerstone issue. The select committee has, I think, done its work very diligently, as well. It has applied sufficient time and thought to it. The amendments that have been made since the original drafting are amendments that we do think have improved the bill, which we supported at its first reading. So, of course, at this point we are happy to continue to support this legislation through its further readings. Kia ora. Thank you.

This Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill is a fine bill and I commend this bill to the House.

I call—[Interruption] Order! Have we finished? I call the honourable member Denis O’Rourke.

This bill, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, as amended is a classic “Dr Dolittle” bill. In the end it does next to nothing to improve the habeas corpus procedure. Chris Auchinvole has clearly not done his homework, and this bill as a result is now to be amended almost out of existence. It has been a substantial waste of time.

Let us have a look at the Justice and Electoral Committee’s recommendations, which will back up what I say. First of all, it recommends “clarifying clause 5 of the bill to ensure that only a judge would have the power to direct that another matter take precedence over a habeas corpus applications or an appeal …” in respect of one. “As introduced, the bill would allow courts or their judges to make decisions …”, so the recommendation is, of course, that because of the interpretation of the word “court”, only judges should be able to do that. This is hardly worth a bill—hardly worth a bill. It is a matter so minute in its importance that it is barely worth the ink for consideration.

Secondly, the select committee recommends removing subclauses (2) and (3) from clause 5 of the bill to retain the 3-day time frame within which habeas corpus applications must be heard. The bill as introduced would have allowed a judge to extend that period. The select committee found that “there is little evidence that the current time frame is problematic.” In other words, this matter should not have been looked at in the first place.

Thirdly, I note, and the select committee noted, that “extending the time frame could expand the court’s jurisdiction regarding habeas corpus, potentially leading it to determine matters that might be more appropriately dealt with by another procedure. This could have the unintended consequence of removing current rights of appeal”. Again, the select committee recommends instead the status quo, so, again, the bill is found wanting.

Fourthly, the select committee recommended removing clause 6 because “As introduced, this clause would allow a judge to convene a conference of the parties to … determine how proceedings would advance, including whether appearances would be made by remote means. In effect, this provision restates the High Court’s existing rules”. Once again, the bill is actually a complete waste of time and achieves nothing new.

Fifthly, the select committee recommends “omitting clause 8 of the bill and substituting a new clause to the effect that the provisions of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 apply to habeas corpus proceedings”, which, of course, is the case anyway and is precisely why that Act was passed. Chris Auchinvole should have known about the 2010 Act, and, therefore, not included that provision in the bill. It is just a waste of time.

I quote the select committee’s report, which said: “we think that having different requirements for audio-visual links in the principal Act and in the Courts (Remote Participation) Act could lead to confusion”, so this bill is actually counter-productive and is, therefore, a waste of time.

As I have said, we see that the main provisions of the bill are recommended to be removed. Clause 5 has been amended to clarify that a registrar cannot make the decision under section 9(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act. Well, big deal—no real change. Clause 6 is to be removed because it restates the existing High Court Rules. Again, no big deal.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Are you voting against it?

Yes, we will be voting against it because it is a nonsense bill. Clause 8 is to be removed because the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 has been passed, a fact that Chris Auchinvole did not seem to know, even though he was a member of the Parliament that did it. We are left with nothing much at all. In fact, only clause 7 stands, simply to confirm that the High Court can refuse an application because habeas corpus is not the proper procedure. In fact, it can do that already.

So in the end it is a “do next to nothing” bill by “Dr Dolittle”. Surely, Chris Auchinvole can find a better subject for a member’s bill than this. He has wasted the time of the House with this piece of legislative nonsense. New Zealand First supported the bill’s referral to the select committee. The committee has effectively amended it out of existence. Therefore, New Zealand First will now vote against it as being redundant even before it was drawn from the ballot.

The Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill is an excellent bill, and I commend my colleague Chris Auchinvole. I commend it to the House.

For those watching Parliament TV tonight—those who have chosen to watch the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, instead of watching England’s run chase—I just wanted to give you a bit of a match update of where we are at this point of the debate. What we have got here is a match within a match. There is one that is quite serious—a legal argument about habeas corpus—but there is another match. We call it gerrymandering, and I think you could probably call it batting for time with the Government, because it is trying to stretch out what is going on on this members’ day. It is trying to make sure that it can stock its side of the agenda with a lot of meaningless bills, which should not be put through under a members’ bill. I do—

💬 Tim Macindoe: So what is the score at McLean Park?

And that is the real story of what is going on here. This bill should not be being debated on this day, a members’ day, because this bill should have been put through as a Government bill and should have been dealt with by the justice Minister. With all due respect to the member in charge of the bill, Chris Auchinvole—a very fine member of this Parliament—essentially, what he has done is take the recommendations from the Law Commission report. It had put a draft bill in the report. He has pushed Ctrl-C, he has pushed Ctrl-V, and then put this bill into the member’s ballot, and this is what we have got in front of us here today.

This bill should not be taking up the time of this House, and I think maybe some members on that side of the House realise that. Alfred Ngaro and Scott Simpson took all of about 10 seconds to debate this bill, and that is the level of respect, maybe, that they have for this bill and the time that it is taking up in this House. Earlier in his contribution, or it may have been by way of an interjection, Mr Auchinvole was asked why he did not got into more detail about this bill, and his reply was: “Time constraints.” I will probably ask those who may be recording this debate at home to go and check just how much time Mr Auchinvole took up during his contribution to the bill. He had a 10-minute call and took up probably 5 minutes, so there were no time constraints at all preventing him from going into some of the finer details of this bill.

This bill should not be being debated as a member’s bill. The members’ bill process is here for all members of this House to be able to put through issues that they hold dear, whether it be for their own electorate or their portfolio area. On this side of the House we believe that the Government’s ploy is to stack the ballot with bills in the names of National backbench MPs, basically to stop other meaningful bills that could be being put through under a member’s bill from being put through this House—being put through this House. So we do not support the way in which the National Party has used the process of members’ bills to put forward bills of this nature. We have seen other bills put through last year under this same guise, while other, more meaningful bills that have been put forward by other members and have had the luck of being drawn from the ballot have been at the bottom of the Order Paper on these members’ days, and we certainly think that that is a shame.

But looking at some of the details of the bill itself, there are some recommendations that have been made by the Law Commission that I think are worthy. I think it may have been Andrew Little who talked about the benefit of being able to have the provision of permitting pre-hearing conferences by either telephone or video link, or by other technology, authorised by the rules of the court. We think that that could be quite handy in terms of making sure there is swifter justice for people who find themselves in the situation of having a habeas corpus hearing, where it is appropriate, of course. I do note there is some concern from the Green Party about whether or not a videoconference facility, or making use of that technology, is the appropriate thing to do, and I guess that is something that we will continue to debate. But there was also another recommendation by the Law Commission that “… the High Court or a Judge of that Court, should be given the ability to dispense, in appropriate cases, with the rule that habeas corpus applications take precedence over all other business:”. That has come about because there have been quite a few cases of the misuse of the habeas corpus procedures by some applicants in order to get priority over other issues that should have been dealt with.

That deals with a couple of issues around the details of the bill, but I just did want to go back to the nature of way that this bill has been brought to the House. You know, if you are going to use a word that the Hon John Banks might use, it could be described as gerrymandering. We do not believe that this bill should have come to this House in this way. Mr Auchinvole claimed that this bill is worthy of working into the night hours, but on this side of the House we really do wonder whether that is certainly the case. We do believe it should have been brought to this House in a much more substantive way by the justice Minister, Judith Collins, but—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: But there’s no substance in it.

Well, it could have, if it was put together with a whole lot of other things, which should have been the way that this bill entered the House—as a Statutes Amendment Bill. But it was not brought to the House in that fashion, and you do have to wonder about the way in which the justice Minister worked last year. There are a number of issues that she certainly was not on top of in the justice portfolio that fell over, and certainly we do not need to mention what happened in terms of ACC.

I would like a member’s bill to be pulled out of the ballot. I have not had that luxury yet in my 2.4 years—

💬 Dr David Clark: Oh, really?

No, I have not. I have not had that luxury. So that even more personally guts me to think that this process has been used by the Government to bring this bill to the House in this way. I do note that Labour is supporting this bill, but I just did want to remind people at home, who can now switch over, back to the cricket, of the way in which the Government is using this process to gerrymander the process.

I think the issues on this bill, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, have been well debated in this House today. I look forward to making a contribution in further readings. I commend this bill to the House.

It is indeed a surprise pleasure for me, actually, to be speaking on the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. It is not a bill I ever anticipated that I would be speaking on, and I feel almost certain too that it is not a bill that Chris Auchinvole came to this House to deliver, but such are the vagaries of political life that Chris Auchinvole has none the less put forward this bill as being his major contribution and major piece of work in this Parliament, and I have found myself speaking on his work in this regard.

I want to just start my contribution by reminding people about what the purpose of this bill is. What the bill describes its purpose as is that the procedure for dealing with habeas corpus applications has been misused, whereby some applications that should have been dealt with by other means have obtained priority hearings. Oh, the irony! Oh, the irony! In fact, this bill, which is designed to stop processes being misused when they can be done by other means, is itself guilty of that. This bill has been used in exactly that way. This bill ought to be a Government bill. It ought to have been debated on any of those days that we get all of the time in this Parliament to debate the Government’s business. That is where this bill belongs, but instead we are taking up precious time on a members’ day, which—I will just remind members of the public listening—happen only on every second sitting Wednesday of the House. They do not happen very frequently at all. Yet this business, which ought to be the Government’s business, has landed on a members’ day. So, in fact, the bill is guilty of doing the same thing. This bill is being used for the very purpose that it actually says it is going to stop in a different regard. I think that is hugely ironic.

I have been very disappointed by the contributions from the Government members. As I said, this ought to have been a very simple piece of Government legislation, but here they are, taking up time on a members’ day—members whom I actually have a great deal of respect for, and Chris Auchinvole is one of those. I have a great deal of respect for that member, and I think it is a great shame he has been put in the position by his party of actually playing this game and having an insignificant bill brought before the House in his name. I know he is better than that. I know he is better than that. Then there is Alfred Ngaro, whom I had expected to gain some respect for. I have heard quite a lot about his background from my colleagues. I had expected that I would gain respect for him in his time in the House. But we hardly ever hear from Alfred Ngaro in this House, and when we do it is the 10-second contribution that he got up on his feet to give before. I think his community did not send him here to this place to give that sort of lack of regard to his role here as a member of Parliament by giving that sort of lack of contribution in the House. I think it is very disappointing.

What is the Government really trying to hide here? What is it trying to do? What it is trying to do—let us make it loud and clear—is stop New Zealanders from seeing and hearing debated all the fantastic Labour policy that has been translated into members’ bills. The only opportunity as the Opposition that we have to actually put our ideas forward for debate in this Parliament is through members’ bills. That Government is so frightened of the public hearing our fantastic plan and policy, where it has none, that it has started putting these insignificant bills into the ballot to try to crowd ours out. That is what this is all about. It knows that it would be exposed as having absolutely no plan—absolutely no plan. Does this bill not exhibit exactly that? And the Government does not want the public to see that Labour has a very detailed plan, some of which is actually described in some of our members’ bills.

I think it is wrong that the Government is using members’ day in this way. I have been fortunate enough—it has taken 6 years, but I have been fortunate enough after 6 long years—to have two members’ bills drawn out within 12 months of each other—two of them. I wish that that would happen for all of my colleagues’ bills as well, but it makes it much more difficult when National Party MPs are using bills in this way.

I just rise to join my colleague David Clendon in expressing the Green Party’s support for the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill at its second reading. On following the discussion tonight, quite closely and with interest, I just want to say in passing that I am stumbling with the logic of our good colleague Denis O’Rourke from New Zealand First in his exposition this evening. He essentially excoriated the intrinsic merits of the bill, which we are not disposed to do and I do not think any other party is, but New Zealand First was wont to do tonight. That is all well and good. It is one thing to oppose a bill. It is one thing even to change a party’s position from first reading to second reading; we do it, and other parties do it. But that is usually done on the basis of logic, and I will—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

That is quite OK, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your concern. I will be interested to discuss it out of the Chamber, perhaps, with the speaker.

Let me just follow the logic. I do not wish to spend too much time on this, but, very quickly, in the first reading New Zealand First, in the form of Mr O’Rourke, said the following with regard to the priority provisions: “all those are quite important issues …”. With regard to the time extension, he said: “we see no problem there either.” With regard to summary dismissal, he said: “That seems appropriate, as well.” With regard to the non-appeal issue, he said: “That, again, we think is quite appropriate and allows some flexibility for the court to order its business efficiently.” Then, finally, he said: “New Zealand First does approve and support the bill as a whole. We think it is well drafted, [and] is in accordance with the Law Commission’s recommendations,”.

Normally, a party lays down certain conditions. If those conditions are not met in the select committee, then you change your vote. But the criticism advanced tonight, which was to say that the thing was a “next to nothing” bill by “Dr Dolittle” and was “redundant even before it was drawn from the ballot.”, seems to be—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! I have already cautioned the member on my left.

—fundamentally illogical—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Speaker Arthur, 1984: it is a convention in this place that those in close proximity to each other, especially on the cross benches, do not interject, because of the effect on the microphone.

That is all I have to say on the matter. It seems fundamentally illogical, and I am more than happy to discuss it after the House so that I can be corrected, perhaps.

Having seen what I take to be a fallacy in New Zealand First’s position, let me convey my own personal fallibility, because in the first reading I said I could see nothing wrong with the bill, and clearly the Justice and Electoral Committee, in its sublime wisdom, did. Two aspects, the time extension and the pre-hearings, were dropped, and the other two provisions were retained, and we respect that. So we will support the bill. Perhaps we have laboured mightily and brought forth a mouse, but it is all in good fun and with good intent, I have no doubt, from Mr Auchinvole.

Andrew Little said this matter is not to be trifled with, and we agree with that. But not trifling with the intrinsic merits of the bill does not preclude us from criticising, as Labour has, especially, and we have, the procedure of introducing these kinds of bills into the members’ ballot. We strongly disagree with that. Lianne Dalziel said she thought that Chris Auchinvole was playing a game with the House. We would not be as mean-spirited as to advance that criticism, but we would share—or at least echo—Lianne Dalziel’s warning that the bill will be subject, no doubt, to intense questioning in the Committee of the whole House, and we will be expecting replies, perhaps in Latin, from the author of the bill.

Perhaps in light of the criticism of the procedure of putting this kind of bill into the ballot, the author, Chris Auchinvole, could write an op-ed for the nation to read as to why it was the case that it had to go through this procedure, recalling perhaps his moment of inspiration that led to the drafting of the bill. Was it on the road to Damascus? Was it while under the apple tree? Was it while reclining in the bath-tub? Did he leap out and run in full glory, shouting “Eureka!”, through the streets? Or was it perhaps none of the above? And if it was none of the above, do we deserve an apology from him to the House for this?

With what dedication, perseverance, and commitment did Mr Auchinvole steer this through? With what stealth did he introduce it into his caucus and guide it through, into the ballot? Perhaps he could write an op-ed that explains this, because I think it has become an issue of abiding concern to the House, and I do think that it should perhaps be the subject of a Standing Orders review when the time comes.

I want to take a moment to congratulate the member Chris Auchinvole on what must be a most auspicious occasion for him, which is getting his first member’s bill—it is emotional—to the end of its second reading. In fact, I congratulate him so much so that I have invited the member to speak to my electorate in the next month on this topic. Thank you.