Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15233] 
5.  
TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: When was the last time an Attorney-General sought judicial review of a decision of a judge in the Maori Land Court? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
 
 on behalf of the 
 Attorney-General 
: Judges’ decisions are quite properly subject to judicial review. I am advised that Maori Land Court decisions have been subjected to judicial review on previous occasions though information is not kept on Crown cases in a manner that enables me to provide specific details on when it last occurred. 
Tariana Turia 
: Is the Attorney-General motivated by pique rather than by principle and has she seriously considered her motives in bringing this case forward? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Attorney-General as always of course is motivated by principle. The principle in this case and what judicial review is actually about is the fact that Judge Wickliffe was both judge and claimant which meant that she was acting as a judge in her own cause. The case law describes that as a situation requiring automatic disqualification from sitting on a case. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn the Minister that I do not want any comment to be made about the case that is at present before the courts. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Has the Government often undertaken judicial review proceedings that involve a New Zealand court? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answer to that is yes on occasions there have been dozens of cases in a year where the Crown has undertaken judicial review proceedings that involve a New Zealand court. Those cases most often relate to criminal proceedings. 
Richard Worth 
: Why has the Attorney-General allowed a situation of unprecedented tension and conflict to arise between the Government and the judiciary given that we have the Attorney-General suing the Maori Land Court for bias we have trenchant criticism of the judges by the Government we have spats over court facilities and support and we have the Attorney-General name-calling the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court a “shop steward”; is she concerned about that relationship or is she indifferent to it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Obviously a lot of the member’s comments raised in that question are taken totally out of context. I say it is not unusual for a judicial review to be taken. That is about enforcing the rule of law—and judges like anyone else are under the rule of law. This application for judicial review will decide whether the judge has strayed from the proper legal path. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Government not guilty of duplicity in taking judicial review action and demanding that the Maori Land Court— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows she cannot say that. That accuses the Government of something there have been numerous Speakers’ rulings about. The member will reword her question. That is her one and only chance. 
Metiria Turei 
: Thank you for that clarification Mr Speaker. Is the Government not guilty of inconsistency in taking judicial review action and demanding that the Maori Land Court delay its proceedings until the Privy Council has released its decision when the Government denies hundreds of New Zealanders the opportunity to be heard on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill because it wants to get its legislation passed before the Privy Council makes its decision? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Government is not guilty of inconsistency in that regard. I am not on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee but I understand the select committee is being run in a very proper and an efficient way in order to hear the cases. Nor is the Government guilty of any constitutional wrongdoing in applying judicial review to a case where it is believed by Crown Law that the judge acted wrongly. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does the Attorney-General feel any need to apologise to her Cabinet colleagues for having to allege bias against Judge Wickliffe when the Attorney-General must have known that less than 6 months before Ms Wickliffe was appointed to the Maori Land Court she told a major conference in this House that Government institutions in Aotearoa New Zealand must be relegitimised by negotiation for a partnership with a national Maori body politic and when the Attorney-General must have known that Ms Wickliffe had publicly approved of and encouraged indigenous Fijian racism after the second coup; has the Minister now learned anything about appointing her ideological comrades to high office? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There were a number of questions there— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And the Minister will be brief in his reply. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. The question essentially is about the accusation of bias. Under the law there is a provision whereby judges can recuse themselves—that is stand aside on the grounds of apparent bias. The judge did that but only after she had already made a decision. What the judicial review is about is whether the judge acted properly in the first instance. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The actual nature of the allegation I consider to be something that pertains to the court and to be something we would not comment on. My question was about the suitability of the appointment in the first place given the position the Government now finds itself in. The Minister did not reply to that at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did not have to because there were about four or five questions in that question. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Two questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were about four or five— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Two! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the last time I will warn the member about interjecting while I am on my feet. I heard a number of strands to the supplementary question that was asked. The Minister chose to answer some of them. That is his right. 
Donna Awatere Huata 
: Will the Attorney-General reassure Maori that Pakeha judges are free from the stereotypes and prejudices about Maori that researchers show are held by a majority of Pakeha; and will she reassure Maori that in the case of the foreshore Pakeha judges will not be influenced by the majority of their race who object to Maori ownership and how will she measure that? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member who made that statement will leave the Chamber. 
Hon John Tamihere withdrew from the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not warn members any more today. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: By definition judges must act in a way that demonstrates they are free from stereotypes and prejudices of any sort. Of course judges must also be sure that they are not influenced by public opinion. That is what the independence of the judiciary is all about. 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Generally in the House the person who asks the principal question does get a final supplementary question. Why am I being discriminated against? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. She is not being discriminated against. The member has one supplementary question a day and she chooses when she asks it. 
Tariana Turia 
: I seek leave of the House to ask a further supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the member to have a further supplementary question. Is there any objection? There is.