Clendon David: Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clendon David: Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8074. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. Thank you.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I had to make sure it was a Green call Mr Clendon. 
DAVID 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. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: 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.