Paraone Pita: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2251] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I am probably one of the few people participating in this debate who does not have a law background and therefore cannot be called a lawyer—although some of my relatives have referred to me as being a bush lawyer having come from the bushes of Motatau. 
First off I shall respond to a comment made by one of the speakers from National. I remind that member that New Zealand First did not support the replacement of the Privy Council so National cannot put us in that category. Probably one of the reasons we did not support the replacement was that we saw it as a first step towards republicanism. It is funny that a former leader of the National Party actually promoted the notion of New Zealand moving to republicanism. 
The other comment I make is that the Minister in the chair Jim Sutton made reference to the apparent breakdown between ACT and the Maori Party in that there seemed to be some dissension. I just point out to members in the Chamber tonight if it is not known that there was a dissenting voice in the Maori Party caucus regarding the decision for the Maori Party to be present at the ACT annual general conference. That dissenting voice is present in the Chamber so the Minister in the chair should not be too surprised at what might be an apparent breakdown between the Maori Party and ACT. 
In talking to this bill I say that the evidence is quite clearly that criminal appeals have increased as have miscellaneous appeals while at the same time it appears that civil appeals have declined. As I understand it both miscellaneous and civil appeals are heard by permanently appointed judges. An increase in the number of Court of Appeal judges and the continued use of High Court judges will as the Government Administration Committee found ease the predicted workload in the foreseeable future enabling the Court of Appeal to hear appeals more promptly. Whatever we might say about the law and the process system—that the law is shonky or is not up to the standard we expect; however we might want to describe it—at the end of the day if there is a breakdown in the process then it can equally be argued that it is justice denied. 
However it is important that judicial independence is not compromised. I do not believe that as a consequence of this bill the independence of judges will be compromised. I am not so sure about the use of video interviewing and the passing of sentences per that medium. I believe that if defendants have been tried by their peers then it is important that those peers pass their judgment face to face rather than behind the anonymity of a video camera. At the end of the day if that is the way we are likely to move I would tend to support the concerns expressed by the member from the Maori Party. 
Although no mention has been made of the amendment proposed by Chris Finlayson I say to this Committee tonight that although I might personally agree with the intent of the amendment I am also bound by a signed confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and the Labour-led coalition Government. Unlike previous coalition Governments whereby there was a breakdown of a signed agreement on behalf of New Zealand First I will certainly ensure that we complete our agreement.