Jones Dail: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Jones Dail: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12884] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 “Judicial immunity number of Judges principal Judges part-time Judges and other matters relating to judicial officers” of the Judicial Matters Bill I would like to commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for disregarding the attempts of the Attorney-General the Hon Margaret Wilson to set the number of the judiciary by way of Order in Council. That matter should always come before and be considered by Parliament and the attempted sleight of hand by this Government in terms of clause 41(2) which would have set the number of judges by way of Order in Council in the future was absolutely rejected by the select committee. I am pleased that the provision was struck out by a majority and the provision put in by a majority that that matter should not be done by way of Order in Council but by way of an amendment to the appropriate legislation. That is a victory for common sense and the constitution and is an effort to make sure this Labour Government’s unconstitutional way of doing things if I may say so without a proper 75 percent majority of Parliament is set back in one instance at least. 
I am particularly concerned that in terms of clauses 72 73 and suchlike the Maori Land Court should now become subject to this legislation which no one has really requested. Where is the demand for this legislation? Have the Maori members gone to Margaret Wilson and said some legislation is needed to cover that issue? Have they asked her to please set out the amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act? When I look at the unconstitutional nature of this matter I wonder whether the hikoi was 1 week too early. I wonder whether the hikoi should have been this week rather than last week because this is a real change to our constitution. I think if the people on the hikoi knew what was happening in this legislation they would have been here this week as well as last week because this week is much more important than last week. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DAIL JONES 
: After enjoying the hospitality of Mr Speaker reference to the Judicial Matters Bill can be something of a tongue-twister at 7.30 p.m. We are back to talk about the constitutional outrage before us. We have had a situation since the Act of Settlement in 1701. I think William and Mary were King and Queen in those days. That was before the Act of Union of 1707—before the United Kingdom even and well before Great Britain. This minority Labour Government supported by the Greens is trying to rush this legislation through the Chamber at this time of the night. At least we are on the air—that is something we can say about the present situation. 
Who asked for this legislation? Who asked for this bill? Nobody has asked for this bill. About the only people who want it are Margaret Wilson and the Labour Party supported by the Greens. [ 
Interruption 
] The Green member knew exactly what I was going to say. A conscience exists in this Chamber on the part of the Greens. He knew that I was going to mention him and he sang in unison with my phrase. This bill alters for example the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. I ask the Maori members—the Maori Labour members in particular—what they have to say about that constitutional outrage. They have been quiet up until now. I would have expected them to get up speak to Part 2 and ask what the problem is that requires the amendment in Part 2. 
I would have expected other members to ask why we now need to increase the number of District Court judges from 123 to 140. It is absolutely disgraceful. This Government does not have control of the judicial system in our country—that is very very clear. More and more money is being spent on the judiciary because this Government is passing more and more unusual laws. That causes all sorts of unusual problems for the judiciary especially I suspect in the Family Court area with regard to some of the same-sex legislation and suchlike. I suspect the reason why we are seeing the increase in judges is that they are trying to interpret very unusual legislation. 
This Government should ensure that the judiciary in this country operates efficiently. I know that when I was in Parliament way back in 1979 and we introduced provisions arising from the findings of the royal commission on the judiciary the idea was to reduce the number of judges.