Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise as Attorney-General to make a five-minute contribution in support of the separation of powers. The separation of powers is a constitutional model which democracies such as New Zealand hold dear. It separates government into separate branches each of which has separate and independent powers which they exercise independently. The doctrine of the separation of powers is sometimes attributed to the French political philosopher Montesquieu who in the mid - 18th century said—and I quote—there is no liberty if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive." Essentially he is saying that if you merge prosecutorial decisions with legislative or executive decisions there will be no liberty. It is an absolutely fundamental principle of democracy and the rule of law in countries such as New Zealand that those separations of power be respected and I agree with comments made by all those who have spoken today that it is an absolutely central principle of our system. It is of course given voice in the Cabinet Manual which says at paragraph 4.12 "Ministers must exercise judgement before commenting on judicial decisions whether generally or in relation to the specifics of an individual case (for example the sentence)." Paragraph 4.13 goes on to say that "Ministers should not express any views that are likely to be publicised if they could be regarded as reflecting adversely on the impartiality personal views or ability of any judge. If a Minister has grounds for concern over a sentencing decision the Attorney-General should be informed." and then paragraph 4.14 follows that by saying "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. Similarly they should not comment on the results of particular cases on matters that are subject to suppression orders or on any sentence handed down by a court. Ministers must avoid commenting on any sentences within the appeal period and should avoid at all times any comment that could be construed as being intended to influence the courts in subsequent cases." So the Minister of Police has erred both in terms of criticising the judiciary and making a call to the Commissioner of Police that could be said to have attempted to influence the police in the decision as to whether they appealed. The system of course has worked because there was no appeal. So if that was his intention to influence that decision it didn't have that effect because those systems those principles are well entrenched in the New Zealand system and they're respected by the branches of government and this is a rare error for which the Minister has had to resign as Minister of Police. The Labour Government takes these issues very seriously as we do more generally the issue of the protection of civil liberties and I think there's no better illustration of that than in the response to COVID. With the COVID response legislation we expressly preserved New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provisions and the ability of the court to listen to complaints by citizens as to whether the orders that were promulgated under that legislation went too far in breach of civil liberties in breach of the Bill of Rights. So the separation of powers lies at the cornerstone of our constitutional arrangements and although it gives me no pleasure to speak in this debate in respect of the Hon Stuart Nash's resignation I am pleased that on all sides of this House we have reinforced the importance of the separation of powers. The debate having concluded the motion lapsed."