Jones Dail: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Jones Dail: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12891] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This legislation is a disgrace to the New Zealand Parliament especially in the year in which we are celebrating 150 years of our democratic system of government in New Zealand. One of the fundamental aspects of proper democratic constitutional government is the independence of its judiciary. Any means of changing the independence of the judiciary itself should surely be conducted by way of a substantial majority vote of this Parliament—that is at least a 75 percent majority vote of this Parliament. Instead what do we see here today? We see a substantial change in the way the judiciary will operate in New Zealand. The judiciary is losing its independence. I say that not because of what New Zealand First has to say about this bill but because of the views of the New Zealand Law Society for example. The Law Society rarely—I cannot use the word unique—ever indicates a view on legislation yet it says it opposes this legislation. It says the basic reason for its opposition is the fact that this bill shows that we are losing the independence of the judiciary in New Zealand. 
Again we have the view of the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties as expressed by Tony Ellis Barrister LLB LLM and a whole host of other qualifications. He takes the view that this part of the bill and the bill generally is nothing more than an elaborate piece of window dressing and does not give effect to the comments of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights of 15 March 2000. He said it would also appear to be nothing more than an unnecessary complication to the current unencumbered right of Parliament to impeach a judge. 
Until the passing of this legislation in its final form this House would have been able to say that Judge X or Y of the High Court was not doing his or her job properly and that that judge should no longer be performing his or her role as a judge. That right has never been exercised by this Parliament but today we say that there needs to be a change to that role. What is the reason for it? There is no reason for it. It is the politically correct whim of Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark to try to set up a system by which any member of the public can come up with some possibly fictitious complaint about a member of the High Court and put him or her to a considerable degree of trouble as a result of that complaint. 
The complaint itself might not be just because of the way that judge is performing on the bench; it can also be related to the judge’s behaviour elsewhere. That is totally intolerable. Can our judges not have a good time and relax—as we saw with those barristers coming back from Pitcairn Island? They were possibly behaving slightly outrageously but having fun as they crossed the equator. This bill prevents High Court and District Court judges from having a good time in their private lives and other judges including Maori Land Court judges. 
If one is a Maori Land Court judge and at a hangi and having a damn good time does one have to constantly comply with tikanga Maori? There is no provision in this bill for the description of tikanga Maori and just how a Maori Land Court judge should behave in his or her free time. Yet this bill states that if a judge is having a good time at a hangi a marae or somewhere like that and if he or she perhaps commits a breach of tikanga Maori someone can say to this complaints body that “Judge so and so” should be the subject of a complaint and lose his or her job. What a terrible piece of legislation to pass by a majority of about 63 to 55! 
Brian Connell 
: I thought the member supported the Government. 
DAIL JONES 
: Brian Connell has not been listening. He is so out of touch. Once again I advise a National Party member of Parliament to listen to me and take notice of what I am saying. I say to Brian Connell the National Party member of Parliament for somewhere in the South Island that he should have been here all the time during this debate as I have been. 
We have been opposing this legislation. In fact we oppose this Labour Party Government more than the National Party does. We do not support the Government on votes of confidence as Mr Connell has done. Our record on votes of confidence against this Labour Party is twice as good as that of the National Party. Mr Brian Connell should stop chipping in because he has really put his foot in it once again. For example we will oppose the Government on the Forests Amendment Bill. As I understand it the National Party will be cuddling up with the Government. 
 Mr Connell should wake up and take notice of the way New Zealand First uses its brains as much as its mouth in coming to a decision. I appreciate that that would be a difficulty for Mr Connell but not for New Zealand First members. I hope Mr Connell will desist from his totally baseless interjection. 
As I was saying before Mr Connell’s totally baseless interjection this legislation is a constitutional outrage. It should not be passed in this way. I am surprised and amazed that the Maori members of this House especially Tariana Turia have not taken a call in this debate. Maori members are closely linked with the Crown and the way in which New Zealand has been established. Our right in this Parliament to impeach a judge goes back to 1700 not just 1852. 
If we look at the overall history of the New Zealand Parliament and New Zealand generally our rights in 1852 under the Westminster system can be traced back at least to 1700 and William and Mary—well before we could say that there was a United Kingdom under the Act of Union of 1707. I would have thought that the Maori members of this House especially Tariana Turia would be up here supporting New Zealand First—even supporting the National Party United Future and the ACT party—in ensuring that this constitutional outrage did not take place. 
During the course of the earlier part of this Committee stage we found the Greens once again supporting the Labour Party on constitutional matters. The Greens say they listen to what the Maori people of New Zealand have to say. That was not the case with the Supreme Court Bill that is for sure and it is not the case with this particular legislation. As I said during the Committee stage it is sad that the hikoi took place last Wednesday. It should have taken place this Wednesday because something more important has taken place in the House this Wednesday than took place last Wednesday—the constitutional outrage we are seeing in this legislation. It is regrettable that Mr Richard Worth is not here to fill in Mr Connell but perhaps he might fill him in later on with regard to the attitude Mr Connell is taking at the present time. 
I did express my support for the fact that this bill allows the appointment of part-time judges. Let us give some credit where it is due. I think that is a good move but it is very very sad that it is part of this particular legislation. It is in total contrast to the thinking behind the legislation. This legislation generally is the type of PC stuff we would expect from Margaret Wilson and the Rt Hon Helen Clark. It is legislation that does away with the well-established rights of New Zealanders and especially the rights of this Parliament. As I said at the beginning of this speech the New Zealand Parliament has been going for 150 years. For 150 years we have had the right to impeach judges. We have never done it once during that time yet this particular Government has decided in this legislation that some judicial commissioner or judicial conduct officer can do it. 
The National Party does not seem to be interested in opposing this legislation but New Zealand First is determined to oppose it. 
Brian Connell 
: Take another call. 
DAIL JONES 
: I will take another call if I can get it. I assure the member that New Zealand First opposes this constitutional outrage. If we have to show the National Party how it is done then we will. 
Between 1975 and 1984 I had pretty good experience of knowing how long to speak in a debate. In those days members could speak for 20 minutes and sometimes for 30 minutes so in speaking for a mere 10 minutes I will be just warming up. It will be like a good old Morris Minor just getting under way for a long haul. If Brian Connell does not want to take a call and the National Party is not interested in opposing this bill that is their problem. New Zealand First opposes it. I am here on behalf of New Zealand First to oppose it. That is what I will do and that is what I am doing now. 
We have seen problems with this legislation as I have said.