Franks Stephen: Budget Debate 
Franks Stephen: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:5966] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Nothing in the Budget covers an item that may represent one of the biggest financial embarrassments for this Government over the coming year. Nothing in the Budget covers the indifference by the justice establishment presided over by this Government towards people who are wrongly imprisoned—who could be languishing in prison on false evidence; people who may be in prison on the basis of perjury; people who are in prison on charges labelled rapist or murderer and who may be in prison for many many years. I see nothing in this Budget to recognise that in some of those cases the liability in terms of the principles announced by the Minister of Justice himself may be as much as $600000 per person. 
Perhaps some may think that this is a strange issue for ACT to raise. We are the party that believes in truth in sentencing and zero tolerance and is tough on crime but believes in justice. We believe in the principles of justice and we will defend those principles. We will defend innocents. We will even defend those who may not be innocent but who have raised reasonable prospects of doubt about their conviction. 
A month ago I mentioned the case raised by Peter Hartley of the two Dale brothers and Mr McLeod in prison on the evidence of one Melissa Antunovic. She has since been convicted of false complaints against others using almost exactly the same fabrications. I have another deeply disturbing saga. Again a miscarriage of justice may be involved perhaps involving people who are no angels. However I draw to this House’s attention that in this case the cost of dithering the cost of refusing even to advise the Governor-General promptly on a petition for pardon could run into millions of dollars. That case involves Rex Haig whom the Minister no doubt would say is a scumbag just as he has described the others I have previously mentioned. The man is certainly no angel. 
In 2001 17 months after Rex Haig’s first petition it was rejected. Since then with fresh evidence—12 affidavits two respected former police officers in support and two senior lawyers including a QC in support at I understand no expense—a fresh petition has been lodged. But 17 months have passed since that fresh petition was lodged. The central allegation in the Haig petition is that Haig was wrongly convicted of the murder of Roderique on the pivotal testimony of his nephew David Hogan; that Hogan has portrayed himself as the real killer to a string of friends and former associates; that Hogan is not only a killer but arranged a second murder to silence a man to whom he confessed; that the Solicitor-General may not have had all the relevant evidence before granting Hogan immunity from prosecution. 
With that petition are sworn statements from 12 people who directly or indirectly implicate Hogan in Roderique’s death. They allege that Hogan admitted sole responsibility for the killing on five separate occasions. Comments allegedly made by Hogan about Roderique the murdered victim’s disappearance included “I knocked him off.” or “I blew him away.” Roderique was described in one conversation by Hogan as “fish bait”. Hogan was also stated to have told friends and former associates that he framed Haig for murder. Those admissions were made in the 5 years following Roderique’s disappearance—that is the 5 years before 1999—to people in the Christchurch Greymouth and Invercargill areas. 
Police were well aware of two of those alleged admissions before Haig was charged with murder. That raises a critical question. How rigorously did the police and the Crown test Hogan’s story before deciding to grant him immunity? The Crown Law Office has rebuffed the request by Nigel Hampton QC to source the information on which those immunity decisions were based and the communications between the police and the Crown solicitor and the Solicitor-General’s office were deemed to be privileged. 
One of the two witnesses to whom Hogan allegedly confessed prior to the arrest of Haig. was Anton Sherlock and in a September 1994 statement to the police Sherlock said that Hogan had admitted killing someone at sea. Sherlock later told police: “He said he would kill me if I said anything.” 
In March 1995 9 days before the Roderique murder depositions were to begin Sherlock was bludgeoned to death at Lumsden. A Nigel Johnstone was convicted of murdering him over drug money but that conviction too is challenged through the Haig petition. Sworn statements from new witnesses alleged that another man Greg Iverson also known as Butterfield had killed Sherlock at Hogan’s bidding. 
Why is ACT raising this in the House? Why do we care? Because we are a liberal party. We are tough on crime but we believe that the law should not be brushed aside for convenience. We believe that innocence matters and that the Minister should not have been waiting for 17 months after receiving that petition when the innocents may be in prison however unfavourably he may regard them. We believe that this is symptomatic of a smug attitude to justice and we will speak out against it. 
I want to draw the attention of this House to another smugness and it was a smugness that was finally lost today. The Government was exposed as totally unprincipled in an area that has cost this country billions—that is in treaty settlements. The Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations confirmed today that the public interest prevails over the Treaty of Waitangi. All the wheels of the treaty gravy train fell off this afternoon. We have tried to get principles of the Treaty of Waitangi for more than 2 years in this House and today we learnt the most important one. The most important one is that the treaty does not stand against the public interest. 
The Hon Dover Samuels told us the same thing yesterday and I quote: “I think you can see clearly that in fact in the interests of the nation it would be appropriate that those resources be vested in the Crown” he said referring to oil and gas reserves and I think to the royalties from them. “I think that common sense applies and I hope that the people will see it that way.” I tell him that New Zealanders have been crying for common sense for at least 15 years. A little common sense applied to the treaty would not have had the trust set up for the radio spectrum. A little common sense applied to the treaty would not have had local authorities all over this country spending millions trying to understand how far they must subject the decisions of elected counsellors to the consultations veto rights or involvement of unelected representatives of people with inherited brown skin. 
New Zealanders will be wanting to know from this Government just why it is that the national interest did not prevail and send packing years ago the claim to native plants and animals—the ownership of every native plant and animal species in this country. Why is Wai 262 still before the tribunal if common sense as the Hon Dover Samuels says or the national interest as the Minister Margaret Wilson says is all that is needed to prevail over the treaty industry? New Zealanders will be wanting to know whether the foreshore might now be safe or whether the Queen’s Chain is no longer open to being claimed. They might want to know whether the national interest which now plainly trumps the treaty can protect them from some of those other myths the thousands of lawyers and other consultants who are making a living out of interpreting the completely uninterpretable provisions this Government has been putting into legislation. 
Was it a presentiment of a change of heart that let us see cultural landscapes spiritual values and ancestral landscapes dropped at the very last minute from the Resource Management Act? What about the rest of the Resource Management Act veto powers—the powers that have given the stand-over rights that have allowed Ngai Tahu to extract $1.5 million from Contact Energy; that have allowed thousands of ordinary New Zealanders to be subjected to a treaty toll gate across the roads of their property? In essence to be subjected to claims under the treaty that had no foundation in the treaty claims that were based purely on spurious principles—on principles that never existed that were inserted into the law by this Government—and claims that do not stand scrutiny. These so-called principles we have never been able to find but plainly they do not now stand against the national interest or even common sense as Dover Samuels said. 
Why has this Government refused through 2 years of Parliament to tell us what the principles were? Lurking in the back of its mind we apparently had a principle that all claims need to look to the national interest. Thank goodness for the national interest! This Government should have been looking to the national interest well before it sent these billions of dollars to waste.