Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14307] 
10.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Following her advice to judges that they should “stick to the bench” how does she believe that Chief Justice Sian Elias should pursue her concerns about the “institutional independence of the judiciary as a whole from the Executive.” given the Chief Justice’s view quoted in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that the judges are “very vulnerable on this question of independence”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The constitutional convention is that the Chief Justice conveys any concerns about the relationship between the judiciary and the executive to the Attorney-General. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chief Justice who said before the British Parliament: “I think in a way the executive has beaten up the anti-democratic unelected angle—in other words inflamed legislative suspicions of judicial over-aggrandisement.”; if she does not agree with that does she have full confidence in the top judge of our top court? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would find it hard to think how the statement the member has quoted would be substantiated but if the Chief Judge wishes to come to the Attorney-General and attempt to substantiate it we would be all ears. 
Richard Worth 
: Would a wise Prime Minister dismiss the views of a concerned and committed Chief Justice as minor when the issues involve the relevance significance and sufficient resourcing of our new and highest court? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Try as I can and having read what was said to the select committee in the United Kingdom I cannot add up issues around the employment of staff library facilities information technology and the security of officers of the court and make those into a statement about an intolerable pressure on the independence of the judiciary. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Could I ask the Prime Minister to confirm that the information technology available to the new Supreme Court judges is significantly superior to that available to either the executive or other members of Parliament? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not have precise information on that but I am very happy to take the Minister of Finance’s advice on it as he almost certainly is the one who is paying for it. 
Dail Jones 
: What responsibility will the Prime Minister accept for this unique debate between a Prime Minister and a Chief Justice and will she acknowledge it is symptomatic of the lack of consultation that surrounded the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council and the establishment of an under-resourced Supreme Court? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I cannot take responsibility for the Chief Justice initiating a debate with comments before a British select committee. What I have observed is that when a Chief Justice or anybody else from the judiciary makes such comments it starts a political debate that the judge cannot then continue to pursue—as her own press statement yesterday made clear. I also note that in the evidence to the select committee in the United Kingdom Justice Gault specifically stated: “At the same time I do not criticise the administrative support the court so far has had and it has had a great deal because it is the new game on the block and it is getting a lot of attention.” 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Prime Minister of the view that New Zealand’s historical dependence on the Privy Council as our superior court has meant that in the past our judiciary has not been able adequately to maintain its role in the balance of powers and does she think that the various constitutional debates now being entered into by the Chief Justice indicate a welcome robustness in the relationship and raise important questions? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure the fact that the top court of appeal for New Zealand has resided 12000 miles away has had an impact on the development of the judiciary in this country. But as I said in response to an earlier question I do find it hard to add up the series of comments around employment of staff library facilities information technology and security of officers to make an intolerable threat to the independence of the judiciary. 
Stephen Franks 
: Following on from the Prime Minister’s answer to the question about what the judges should now do where the Prime Minister referred them to a discussion with the Attorney-General does she consider that that is entirely fair given that when the Chief Justice was asked before the British select committee whether the Attorney-General was independent she confined herself to saying “Yes although …”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The simple advice I have is that the constitutional convention is that the Chief Justice would raise such concerns with the Attorney-General. Of course if the Chief Justice felt that she needed to take the matter further there is always the possibility of appearing before a select committee. One might also expect that given that the Chief Justice has a warrant from the Governor-General approaching her might be a course to follow. But I am not convinced that the avenues for discussion of these issues were exhausted. Indeed those comments were made in May; I understand that further progress on a number of these issues has been made since that time. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does the Prime Minister understand the confusion left after her Deputy Prime Minister castigated activist judges who “express views on what the law should be” when her Attorney-General had promoted a new Supreme Court expressly so that the judges could “develop an indigenous law for New Zealand”; and in view of her advice to the judges to in effect butt out what is the difference between activism usurping Parliament and judges “developing an indigenous law”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Deputy Prime Minister’s comments on judicial activism have had enthusiastic support in a number of parts of the Chamber—not least from the member who has just asked the question who has been heard to opine on that matter in the past. As I infer the Attorney-General’s comments were directed entirely to the top level of appeal for the judicial system being located here in New Zealand; that therefore makes the decisions those entirely of the indigenous law of New Zealand. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that our top judges felt the need to fly 12000 miles—all the way to London—to say things to the British Parliament that they were clearly not prepared to share with our Parliament; and what will she do as Prime Minister to ensure that our judges can raise serious concerns here in New Zealand without any fear of executive intimidation or retaliation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My understanding is that the reason for the Chief Justice and two others going all the way to the United Kingdom at that time was to attend at least one formal ceremony around the end of New Zealand appeals to the Privy Council; it was thought it was an important symbolic occasion and there should be high-level representation which also included the Attorney-General. In addition the Chief Justice and the two others were asked to appear before a British select committee because Britain is also considering a major change in its top court levels; it was in that context that they gave evidence presumably under oath to a select committee. I am sure that if the New Zealand select committee that is relevant to the judiciary would like to invite the judges in they would similarly answer such questions. 
Stephen Franks 
: Will the Prime Minister in future try to make it easier for the judges to follow her advice and “stay out of the political arena” by ridding the Government’s legislation of deliberately undefined politically loaded terms like “principles of the Treaty” “kaitiakitanga” “accountability” “spiritual and intrinsic values” “tikanga Maori” and so many other terms that force the courts into the political arena? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am astonished that the member thinks the word “accountability” has no place in the law but then I am also astonished that he would think it possible for the law in New Zealand not to have regard to concepts such as the ones he mentioned.