Graham Kennedy: Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Graham Kennedy: Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8080. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I just rise to join my colleague David Clendon in expressing the Green Party’s support for the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill at its second reading. On following the discussion tonight quite closely and with interest I just want to say in passing that I am stumbling with the logic of our good colleague Denis O’Rourke from New Zealand First in his exposition this evening. He essentially excoriated the intrinsic merits of the bill which we are not disposed to do and I do not think any other party is but New Zealand First was wont to do tonight. That is all well and good. It is one thing to oppose a bill. It is one thing even to change a party’s position from first reading to second reading; we do it and other parties do it. But that is usually done on the basis of logic and I will—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: That is quite OK Mr Speaker. Thank you for your concern. I will be interested to discuss it out of the Chamber perhaps with the speaker. 
Let me just follow the logic. I do not wish to spend too much time on this but very quickly in the first reading New Zealand First in the form of Mr O’Rourke said the following with regard to the priority provisions: “all those are quite important issues …”. With regard to the time extension he said: “we see no problem there either.” With regard to summary dismissal he said: “That seems appropriate as well.” With regard to the non-appeal issue he said: “That again we think is quite appropriate and allows some flexibility for the court to order its business efficiently.” Then finally he said: “New Zealand First does approve and support the bill as a whole. We think it is well drafted [and] is in accordance with the Law Commission’s recommendations”. 
Normally a party lays down certain conditions. If those conditions are not met in the select committee then you change your vote. But the criticism advanced tonight which was to say that the thing was a “next to nothing” bill by “Dr Dolittle” and was “redundant even before it was drawn from the ballot.” seems to be—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Order! I have already cautioned the member on my left. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: —fundamentally illogical— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Speaker Arthur 1984: it is a convention in this place that those in close proximity to each other especially on the cross benches do not interject because of the effect on the microphone. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: That is all I have to say on the matter. It seems fundamentally illogical and I am more than happy to discuss it after the House so that I can be corrected perhaps. 
Having seen what I take to be a fallacy in New Zealand First’s position let me convey my own personal fallibility because in the first reading I said I could see nothing wrong with the bill and clearly the Justice and Electoral Committee in its sublime wisdom did. Two aspects the time extension and the pre-hearings were dropped and the other two provisions were retained and we respect that. So we will support the bill. Perhaps we have laboured mightily and brought forth a mouse but it is all in good fun and with good intent I have no doubt from Mr Auchinvole. 
Andrew Little said this matter is not to be trifled with and we agree with that. But not trifling with the intrinsic merits of the bill does not preclude us from criticising as Labour has especially and we have the procedure of introducing these kinds of bills into the members’ ballot. We strongly disagree with that. Lianne Dalziel said she thought that Chris Auchinvole was playing a game with the House. We would not be as mean-spirited as to advance that criticism but we would share—or at least echo—Lianne Dalziel’s warning that the bill will be subject no doubt to intense questioning in the Committee of the whole House and we will be expecting replies perhaps in Latin from the author of the bill. 
Perhaps in light of the criticism of the procedure of putting this kind of bill into the ballot the author Chris Auchinvole could write an op-ed for the nation to read as to why it was the case that it had to go through this procedure recalling perhaps his moment of inspiration that led to the drafting of the bill. Was it on the road to Damascus? Was it while under the apple tree? Was it while reclining in the bath-tub? Did he leap out and run in full glory shouting “Eureka!” through the streets? Or was it perhaps none of the above? And if it was none of the above do we deserve an apology from him to the House for this? 
With what dedication perseverance and commitment did Mr Auchinvole steer this through? With what stealth did he introduce it into his caucus and guide it through into the ballot? Perhaps he could write an op-ed that explains this because I think it has become an issue of abiding concern to the House and I do think that it should perhaps be the subject of a Standing Orders review when the time comes.