Mapp Wayne: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mapp Wayne: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12878] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I listened with a great deal of interest to the contribution from my learned colleague Judith Collins who I should inform the House is the former president of the Auckland District Law Society. She has a huge array of contacts in the profession and the judiciary. I make the point to the Minister in the chair that when judges use terms like “unintended dilution” it is expected that the more astute members of the ministry such as I assume Mr Tamihere is will read it for what it is. I think that we on this side of the House would all know that it is actually “intended dilution”. 
This legislation is a constitutional measure. To have legislation that seriously affects the Constitution Act which is something of a little prized gem of Sir Geoffrey Palmer and greatly treasured by him as part of the constitution framework and for this Government to dilute that one would think that at the very least it would wish to have the consent of Parliament as a whole but it does not. 
As I indicated in my second reading speech last night this kind of legislation does smack of arrogance. In the past it has always been the practice of Governments—both Labour and National—to consult with the other side on constitutional issues and to try to get a consensus. We are not supposed to do violence to our constitution by narrow majorities. That has always been the practice in New Zealand in the past. Take the MMP legislation that was passed by the consent of the vast majority of Parliament; and indeed the Constitution Act itself and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However this legislation which does affect the independence of the judiciary is being forced through by a narrow majority. 
It reminds one also of the Supreme Court Bill which is now an Act which had precisely the same result of major changes to the constitution forced through on the narrowest of majorities with Mr Locke providing the majority as one would expect. That party purports to be the protector of the constitution. One hears Mr Locke always going on about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the rights of citizens. But obviously he is not overly worried about the independence of the judiciary because I suspect that he will vote to help the Government pass this bill which will damage the constitution. 
These are important issues to state and I note that when the Law Society opposes legislation because it is not needed and will affect the independence of the judiciary one would think that the Government would take that on board; but it has not. It is passing this legislation. 
My final point is that this bill is part of a total package. The Government is intending to change fundamentally the role of the judiciary in both the appointment process and judicial conduct issues where people may have concerns about the judiciary. It is all being removed to politically appointed non-accountable people. 
The Government will say that that is advantageous. I suggest that it is not. At least the value of the Attorney-General is that she or he whoever the person might be from time to time is answerable directly in this House and accountable to the people of New Zealand through the parliamentary process. An independent panel appointed by the Government of the day—almost certainly from its preferred friends—will not be accountable and that is not the way we should treat the judiciary. It has the effect of reducing their role.