English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:9086] 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How does she reconcile her statement that establishing the Supreme Court is “not major constitutional change” with her reported statement in August 2000 that the constitutional effects of dropping the Privy Council were vast; and why has she changed her position since August 2000? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The second statement referred to is not a direct quote but if it was ever made it is not a view I now hold. That is because I do not believe that changing the top appeal court’s location is a major constitutional issue and nor did the member in the past. 
Hon Bill English 
: On what advice and what expertise did the Prime Minister rely in coming to her conclusion that creating a new Supreme Court in New Zealand is not a major constitutional change; or did she just take her own advice because it happened to suit her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is perfectly clear that no one’s rights of appeal to a layer across the Court of Appeal are being taken away unlike the proposal that member supported in 1996. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister a direct question: on whose expertise and advice did she rely or did she rely on her own. She made no attempt to answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps the Prime Minister could just slightly clarify her answer. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Over a long period of time I have read a great deal of advice on this subject and have formed my own view. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What has happened in the policy development process since August 2000? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: A great deal has happened. A public discussion document on the subject was issued in December 2000 and submissions were invited. After a number of meetings and reflections on submissions a ministerial advisory group was established in October 2001 to develop a detailed proposal. It reported in April last year. The policy of establishing a Supreme Court was included in Labour’s election manifesto. In December 2002 a bill was introduced. After a full select committee process it is due to pass today—10 months later. This has been a full and proper process with integrity. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When the Prime Minister says she has spent a long time studying this subject and has read widely on it is that what led her to say that the last time Maori went successfully to the Privy Council was in 1927; if so is she not aware of the fact that last year there was a decision in the case of Taito James McLeod Bennett and 10 others that affected hundreds of New Zealanders on the question of legal aid—a case brought successfully by a former clerk-assistant of this House Ellis—and that three-quarters of those people were Maori; is she not aware of that and if she is aware of it then she clearly must be quoted on radio today as telling lies and if not could she explain why she is so ignorant on the matter? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The suggestion that the member is telling lies is out of order and will be withdrawn and apologised for. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is telling everyone around New Zealand that the last time Maori went to the Privy Council was in 1927. Everybody who knows something about the law knows full well that a former clerk-assistant of this House brought the case. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just because the member made a particular statement does not mean that she is telling a lie. Anyway that is out of order in this Parliament. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I left her an alternative. I asked whether she was either telling lies or was ignorant on this matter. Surely she could get up and say she was not telling a lie and was just plain ignorant on the matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is being smart. I would like the Prime Minister now to answer the question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I take it from the member’s question that the matter he refers to is one around legal aid. The statements I have made relate to issues pertaining particularly to Maori and I would not regard that as one such. 
Stephen Franks 
: If it is not a major constitutional change— 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to my honourable colleague. Could you explain to the House why it is that you continue to call the Prime Minister by the title “the Rt Hon” when she is the very person who seems not to want to have anything to do with the Privy Council or its titles. Has she given you instructions to continue to refer to her as such or is she intending resigning the title? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is for precisely the same reason I call the member’s leader “the Rt Hon Winston Peters”. The title applies to both those members and I recognise them in this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect at the start of a session members are asked what title they would like to be referred to by. We are all asked that. I said I would like to be referred to by the title that was conferred on me by the Queen. No doubt the Prime Minister said likewise. But she is in there for some things and not for others. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: At the start of each session I write to all members and ask them how they want to be referred to. Until they advise me differently I will carry on doing that. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is really a frivolous point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: Well that is precisely the answer that I was seeking. I wanted to know why you were continuing to refer to that title. I would have thought that the Prime Minister has long since written to you and said that she rejected the Privy Council and no longer wished to be referred to as “the Rt Hon”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is being totally frivolous and will shortly leave the House if he goes on like that. 
Stephen Franks 
: If it is not a major constitutional change to sack an entire independent top court so we can “mature as a nation” and replace it with a new court—with every member selected by the Attorney-General—to “develop an indigenous law for New Zealand” in the Attorney-General’s jargon what kind of change to the courts would constitute a major constitutional change? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: A major change was proposed in 1996 which was to take away altogether a level of appeal above that of the Court of Appeal in New Zealand. I say that the Supreme Court will be staffed I would hope from the most senior judges in New Zealand appointed with no consideration whatsoever given to politics and every consideration given to distinction and merit. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Prime Minister feeling popular and modest when she has discovered that no one outside the Labour Party caucus agrees with her view that this is not a major constitutional change and can she confirm that the main reason she has turned down a referendum is that she thinks the people are too stupid? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In this country referenda are used sparingly. I understand there have been 10 in the last 85 years. The last one in 1997 cost $9 million for a 92 percent rejection. Neither Canada nor Australia held a referendum when they changed their top court structure and I do not believe that one is justified here. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: If the Prime Minister thinks it would be a more significant constitutional change to end the right of appeal to the Privy Council without replacing it with something like the Supreme Court as proposed by National in 1996 is she aware whether that proposal included a proposal for a referendum? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It certainly did not include any such proposal but then that proposal in 1996 was advanced by a man the Leader of the Opposition now calls an aggressive republican.