Auchinvole Chris: Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8511. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge Mr Andrew Little. Thank you very much indeed Andrew. In some ways—we have worked together on committees and things—you have been a little bit of a mentor to me in legal process and the way you use your knowledge and experience has been good. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Steady on steady on! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: No no it is fair because when I stepped in to pick up this Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill and bring it in as a member’s bill to this Government I was taken aside by someone who knows a lot more about the law of legal process than I do and he said: “By gosh you are being brave. You are being brave because you are stepping into holy ground and there will be people there lurking in hedgerows and pathways and you will easily be caught up.” Hence my— 
Denis O’Rourke 
: And you were. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: —I will come to you in a moment sir—hence my care and reliance on the Law Commission. If we go back to the genesis of this I have been asked to comment on what my eureka moment was: when did I leap out of the bath and rush along saying I would do habeas corpus? It goes back to the Justice and Electoral Committee. When I was put on the Justice and Electoral Committee I did ask the current Attorney-General why that had happened; I am only an ordinary justice of the peace from the West Coast. He said to me that it is very important that we have people on the Justice and Electoral Committee who perhaps are not lawyers so that they can give us an understanding of what we are saying. 
Scott Simpson 
: You’ll be welcome back any time. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Thank you very much. It was a period that I really enjoyed. I did listen to Sir Geoffrey Palmer when he said: “We are dependent on members picking up our bills and bringing them into Parliament because otherwise we have revived them refreshed them and they sit there at risk of nothing happening.” So I said: “Well I will do that.” And I am glad I did—I am glad I did. 
I have just reflected back through all the first reading and the second reading. I noticed that in the first reading New Zealand First thought it was a really splendid bill—it was magic it was brilliant. In the second reading I was castigated like I have never been castigated before—hung drawn and very nearly quartered. Oh the cruel cuts of the man’s vocabulary! But in fact then I found because he was highly critical of what had happened to the bill at the select committee that he was on the select committee. Then in the second reading he voted against it thereby voting against what the select committee had done. I find his logic very very difficult to follow but I am sure we will have an opportunity at some stage perhaps over a malt to reach a better understanding. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I thought you could only be castigated once? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well no. No. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Oh sorry I’ve got the wrong one. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Yes you have. At the second reading members did express deep interest in this bill. In fact everybody has treated it very very seriously. I have been asked: “Well why was it so necessary to do?”. I think it is because the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill is as the earlier speaker Andrew Little said a very fundamental and very significant part of the law. It is one I learned about in civics when I was in the fourth form and it was always highlighted as the common man’s protection against legal entrapment or anything else. It is the King saying “My citizens should be free”. It is all of those things. I do not know whether it is unique to Commonwealth countries. Does it happen— 
Andrew Little 
: It’s widespread. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It is not unique it is widespread. OK thank you for that. But every now and again when I had this critically examined—a clause by clause analysis with someone who really knows their stuff—they said it is actually a very tidy little bill and it is necessary just to do these tidying bits. It is not tweaking it is tidying and it is just bringing it into the modern era so that it is as effective now as it ever was. 
What I have done is get a couple of examples of how it has been—not abused—misused. A prisoner in Auckland had in the space of 2 years brought six applications for habeas corpus on his own behalf four on behalf of other prisoners and two arising from care and protection issues involving his son. All of the applications were without merit. A number of them were subject to appeals to the Court of Appeal and applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. They cannot do that any more. In a number of cases the habeas corpus procedures appear to have been used in an attempt to gain an early hearing although the cases should properly have been brought as a judicial review application. Again a misuse of it. Some attempts appear to have been made to use habeas corpus applications to bypass detention review processes in other legislation such as in mental health and immigration. 
I will not take the time of the House in giving even more examples but perhaps I could close by thanking and expressing my deep appreciation to all who have spoken on this bill. It has been an exciting thing for me. I do not resile from bringing it forward from the Law Commission. Getting smooth operations in the courts is what we are all about. I guess I am very very happy that we have reached this point thus far and I look forward to the third reading. Thank you.