Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9110] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 If one were to summarise that speech one would have to say that it was characterised by a tirade of abuse. This is a very sad day for this Parliament. We are at the stage of the parliamentary process known as the third reading of this bill. That process is almost complete and I was saddened to hear the sycophantic applause that came from the Labour benches when the first speech given by the Attorney-General was read to the House. This is a sad day also for the New Zealand legal system. 
I would like to start if I may by recounting a story to the House that smacks of both treachery and intrigue. At an early stage of the legislative process relating to this bill—which National opposes to a man and a woman—I had a discussion with the Green representative on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I asked him what the position of the Greens would be on this bill. He was quite open quite direct and quite frank. He said that the Greens would follow the position of Maori on the bill. So it was that he continued as I did to listen to submissions made by the submitters who came before the committee. We heard a large number of Maori submitters. Many of those submitters represented iwi interests and many of them represented Maori business. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise if I do not understand the Standing Orders but I wonder whether it is allowed within the Standing Orders for the member to misrepresent the Green position in that way. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is a debating matter. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: What was the view of Maori on this bill? They were strongly opposed to it. The Government has rushed on heedless of that concern and I suggest that the consultation hui that have occurred have been shallow and meaningless events given the commitment of the Government to see this legislation through whatever the consequence. So we have a situation in which there has been poor process and acrimony. That is surely not a good start to a major constitutional change. The court has been politicised and I believe that one of the great institutions of the State—our domestic legal system—has been substantially damaged. 
National has made its position clear: it does not support this legislation. When National comes to office in 2005 with the centre-right parties it will repeal this legislation. Those who have been foolish enough to take tenure as judges will lose that tenure and in conjunction with the British Government National will restore the Privy Council link. 
I would like to talk about one aspect of the legislation and its process that is of real concern. Probably the best starting point is to refer to that great newspaper the  
Independent 
. On 10 October 2001 the present Attorney-General made it very clear to those people who read the the 
Independent 
 that the business community must be confident with the outcome relating to the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. She said: “We need maximum agreement if there is to be any changes.” Her words were “maximum agreement”. A synonym for that is “broad-based consensus” and that is wholly lacking as demonstrated by a large number of indicators. Of the submitters who appeared before the select committee 75 percent of them did not want this change to occur. Has the Government listened to those views? It seems not. Then there was the poll reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning that shows that 79 percent of New Zealanders want a referendum on whether to abolish appeals to the Privy Council. Will the Government listen to that? No. Will the Greens take any account of Maori perspectives? No. Is it too late for Green members to do something about that? It would be hard for them but they could do so. If they stuck to their principles they could do something. But will they? Probably not. 
I would like to summarise very briefly the arguments that have led National and perhaps other parties of the centre-right to the position they have taken. That position simply expressed is that we want appeals to the Privy Council to remain. I think that one of the most telling comments that emerged in the course of the select committee process was that one of the judges a former Chief Justice of New Zealand who had served on the Privy Council told us in a frank and an unadorned fashion that the Privy Council is certainly an extremely high-class polished Rolls-Royce service. He said that there was no gainsaying that. Why are we doing away with that court of acknowledged excellence? Why are we doing away with a court that has given us such great service for so long and that remains committed to that end? Why are we going to gut the Court of Appeal by moving the Court of Appeal judges up to the Supreme Court? How are we going to fill the Court of Appeal one of the hardest-working courts in our legal system with competent judges? None of those questions has been properly addressed by the Government. 
The second point is that the major users of the Privy Council—which include business interests and Maori in the way I have described—are opposed to the abolition of rights of appeal to the Privy Council. Clearly their views must be worth something in this argument but has the Government given them any weight? No none at all. 
The third argument which has been put to the select committee by a number of submitters—not many but a few—is that as a matter of national identity New Zealand should no longer defer to an overseas jurisdiction. It is an argument I guess about sovereignty and about giving sovereignty away. But the reality in the modern world is that many countries including New Zealand have ceded sovereignty in a number of ways. The classic example of that would be the international agreements that New Zealand and other countries have entered into. But the more significant point is that it is a global trend for countries to look outside their territorial boundaries to have disputes determined. What is the highest court in the United Kingdom? It is not the House of Lords. There are now rights of appeal that extend into Europe to the European court of justice and the European Court of Civil Rights. So whereas we have countries looking outside their boundaries for the resolution of disputes the plan for New Zealand is apparently for us to draw ourselves inward. I have argued—and I believe it is correct—that justice transcends nationalism. New Zealand is following a contrary course by abolishing the right of appeal to the Privy Council. 
I would like to talk about investment interests and their impact on New Zealand. There is little doubt—and it may be that some Labour members do not like this—that we are significantly dependent on the free flow of capital into New Zealand reflected in investment in New Zealand business and New Zealand infrastructure. Those offshore investors—the majority of whom I suggest are highly responsible and whose investment capital we want—will look before they enter a country at the stability and strength of any particular legal system. I know in the context of my own experience as a lawyer that it is sufficient for them as they embark on the due diligence process that leads to an investment decision that the Privy Council is our highest court. It is certain that they will have qualms about this new regime in the context of their investment strategies. 
National has said—as other parties of the centre-right have said too—that issues of substantial constitutional substance should be the subject of referenda. But I think there is an equally worrying aspect—and it is an issue that National’s leader the Hon Bill English spoke about—which is that the judges of the new court have the potential to shape the legal and social landscape of New Zealand in a significant way. It is wrong that they should be appointed through a limited political process.