O'Rourke Denis: Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8076. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill as amended is a classic “Dr Dolittle” bill. In the end it does next to nothing to improve the habeas corpus procedure. Chris Auchinvole has clearly not done his homework and this bill as a result is now to be amended almost out of existence. It has been a substantial waste of time. 
Let us have a look at the Justice and Electoral Committee’s recommendations which will back up what I say. First of all it recommends “clarifying clause 5 of the bill to ensure that only a judge would have the power to direct that another matter take precedence over a habeas corpus applications or an appeal …” in respect of one. “As introduced the bill would allow courts or their judges to make decisions …” so the recommendation is of course that because of the interpretation of the word “court” only judges should be able to do that. This is hardly worth a bill—hardly worth a bill. It is a matter so minute in its importance that it is barely worth the ink for consideration. 
Secondly the select committee recommends removing subclauses (2) and (3) from clause 5 of the bill to retain the 3-day time frame within which habeas corpus applications must be heard. The bill as introduced would have allowed a judge to extend that period. The select committee found that “there is little evidence that the current time frame is problematic.” In other words this matter should not have been looked at in the first place. 
Thirdly I note and the select committee noted that “extending the time frame could expand the court’s jurisdiction regarding habeas corpus potentially leading it to determine matters that might be more appropriately dealt with by another procedure. This could have the unintended consequence of removing current rights of appeal”. Again the select committee recommends instead the status quo so again the bill is found wanting. 
Fourthly the select committee recommended removing clause 6 because “As introduced this clause would allow a judge to convene a conference of the parties to … determine how proceedings would advance including whether appearances would be made by remote means. In effect this provision restates the High Court’s existing rules”. Once again the bill is actually a complete waste of time and achieves nothing new. 
Fifthly the select committee recommends “omitting clause 8 of the bill and substituting a new clause to the effect that the provisions of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 apply to habeas corpus proceedings” which of course is the case anyway and is precisely why that Act was passed. Chris Auchinvole should have known about the 2010 Act and therefore not included that provision in the bill. It is just a waste of time. 
I quote the select committee’s report which said: “we think that having different requirements for audio-visual links in the principal Act and in the Courts (Remote Participation) Act could lead to confusion” so this bill is actually counter-productive and is therefore a waste of time. 
As I have said we see that the main provisions of the bill are recommended to be removed. Clause 5 has been amended to clarify that a registrar cannot make the decision under section 9(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act. Well big deal—no real change. Clause 6 is to be removed because it restates the existing High Court Rules. Again no big deal. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Are you voting against it? 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: Yes we will be voting against it because it is a nonsense bill. Clause 8 is to be removed because the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 has been passed a fact that Chris Auchinvole did not seem to know even though he was a member of the Parliament that did it. We are left with nothing much at all. In fact only clause 7 stands simply to confirm that the High Court can refuse an application because habeas corpus is not the proper procedure. In fact it can do that already. 
So in the end it is a “do next to nothing” bill by “Dr Dolittle”. Surely Chris Auchinvole can find a better subject for a member’s bill than this. He has wasted the time of the House with this piece of legislative nonsense. New Zealand First supported the bill’s referral to the select committee. The committee has effectively amended it out of existence. Therefore New Zealand First will now vote against it as being redundant even before it was drawn from the ballot.