Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. That's a superb decision by the Green Party. I want to just reflect on what we've just heard from Grant Robertson the Minister of Finance because I think it is ultimately important that all sides of this House uphold the traditions and conventions that underpin New Zealanders' basic freedom—and amongst those the independence of police from political interference in their decisions to surveil investigate prosecute or appeal against adverse prosecution decisions by the courts. That independence of the police is one of the most important things that we have in New Zealand for the simple reason that you know if the State is going to use its extraordinary power to take you away and lock you up in a cage—which it can do—then you at least should know that there is no bias that you have a right to a trial before your peers and whether you end up on trial is not influenced by political considerations. There's no shortage of countries in this world where you do get locked up for your political opinions and the first thing that happens on the slippery slope to that horrible world is when politicians start blurring the lines between their political objectives and the powers that the police are given to protect citizens' rights. I think it's a good thing that prior to the speech by Grant Robertson many people have said similar things in this House and I hope that for a very long time it will continue to be said. Jacinda Ardern in 2014—you know Maurice Williamson made a very clear error of judgment not just by having a conversation with the police about an open criminal case by just picking up the phone he clearly breached the Cabinet Manual. John Key said in that same Maurice Williamson incident: Mr Williamson assured me he did not in any way intend to influence the Police investigation. However [his] decision to discuss the investigation with Police was a significant error of judgment. The independence of Police investigations is a fundamental part of our country's legal framework." That was John Key. David Cunliffe Labour leader at the time of the Williamson affair: "Mr Williamson's resignation and the issues that led to it are very serious matters that question the independence of the New Zealand Police and its ability to conduct investigations without political interference. New Zealanders must have an assurance that Ministers in any Government will not cannot and must not use their positions either to favour some members of the community or to apply pressure to independent organisations like the Police." It's not just politicians that have said these things; the Policing Act and it's very clear at section 16: "The Commissioner is not responsible to and must act independently of any Minister of the Crown (including any person acting on the instruction of a Minister of the Crown) regarding— … the investigation and prosecution of offences". Our country has also recorded in the Cabinet Manual that "Following a long-established principle Ministers do not comment on or involve themselves in the investigation of offences or the decision as to whether a person should be prosecuted or on what charge." And so it goes on. I think we've got a responsibility in this House to make it crystal clear that one of our most cherished traditions in New Zealand has always been is and will always be that we have a constabulary with extraordinary powers that they may use only under the rule of law and never to advance the political purposes of one side of politics another or those outside of politics altogether. We still have to acknowledge the extraordinary acts of Stuart Nash. First of all he picked up the phone after reading a court case—according to his telling—and spoke to the Police Commissioner while he was a Minister of the Crown and said you know well what did he say? "Surely you're going to appeal this." He was trying to direct a specific police prosecution in a specific case and he went on the radio and actually boasted about doing it. You know now most people have the intelligence to when they break the rules actually try and conceal it so they don't face the penalty. But not Stuart Nash; he actually went and boasted that he'd been breaking the rules. Why? Because I don't think he realised what he'd done. And the reason why I don't think Stuart Nash realised what he'd done is that when he was asked about it he gave the most extraordinarily revealing answers to media this morning: "Oh I was just chewing the fat with my mate who happens to be the Police Commissioner and we happened to be chewing the fat about a prosecutorial decision by the police." The casualness or perhaps it's the brazenness of Stuart Nash riding roughshod over critical conventions that as I've listed so many political leaders have spoken of before that is recorded in legislation passed by this House and the Cabinet Manual created by successive Governments—so many people get this but Stuart Nash didn't. And of course the answer we heard from the Prime Minister today as well "He's paid a penalty". Well that may be true but unfortunately Chris Hipkins is asking the wrong question. The question he should be asking is not "Did I make sure that he paid a price?" That's the student union politician coming out of them. That's the union politics: "Oh he's been beaten down a peg so it's OK now." The question should be "Is he capable to perform as the Minister of Forestry?" Pretty big issues in the Ministry of Forestry right now. Is he capable to be the Minister of Economic Development a portfolio that is inherently about passing out economic resources to particular actors—something where you really have to have some integrity if you think it's a good idea to do it at all. Is he capable of being in charge of ocean and fisheries—a very contestable area of policy to say the least. If he's not capable of discharging his duties as the Minister of Police then why does the Prime Minister believe he's capable of doing those other portfolios? Are they less important? It might be that he offended while he was the Minister of Police but his offences were actually carried out while he was not the Minister of Police. So he's now been put back in the exact same position he had when he did the wrong thing in the first place. He should go. He should go from all of his portfolios. Either he's capable of being a Minister of Police or he's not and if he's not why are those other portfolios less important than Police—fisheries and forestry and economic development—they don't matter as much as Police? It's not logical; he needs to go. The next point is this: the Labour Party got into this trouble because Stuart Nash was trying to be tough on crime. He was trying to boast that he actually—haplessly boast—rings up the Police Commissioner and gets them to prosecute the bad guys. Now we've discussed how stupid and wrong that is and everyone agrees with that. But the real issue is this: the Labour Party have had such a bad time being tough on crime that now their political response is to ignore the rule of law. If a Government wants to get tough on crime—and ACT strongly recommends that this Government should otherwise the next one's going to have to because things are out of control—the way to do it is to write a law bring it to this House debate it in public get a majority pass it into statute and have the courts apply the law equally to all people in order that we have open and transparent justice without fear nor favour. Here's an example. Recently in the wake of Cyclone Gabrielle just as we said after the Kaikōura earthquakes the ACT Party has said there should be a provision in the Sentencing Act—section 9 to be precise—that says if you loot in a state of national emergency that's an aggravating factor and you should get a longer sentence. You should go away for longer—scumbags and lowlifes that loot in a national disaster. But that would be making a law that is written down the same for everyone—not making phone calls in the night to see who should be taken on by the cops and who shouldn't Stuart Nash - style. The next thing we could do is that we bring back three strikes. We say "Whoever you are if you commit three serious violence or sexual offences you get the max." If this Government wants to be tough on crime like Stuart Nash was trying to be ACT's got lots of ideas for doing it in a way that's consistent with the rule of law; written down and applied the same to everybody—not phone calls to your mate to chew the fat in the night and maybe someone extra gets prosecuted along the way. There are many countries like that. We're so lucky to be born and to live in one that is not like that and we in this House have a duty to uphold those traditions in the past today and forever. Thank you Mr Speaker."