Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8986] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 National is opposed to the Supreme Court Bill and that fact is widely known. In looking at the name of the bill we would be wise to reflect on what is implicit in those three words. We are talking about the abolition of the Privy Council a court of excellence that has served New Zealand well for many many years. We are also talking about ground-breaking constitutional legislation. We are talking about legislation that has been passed on the narrowest of margins. Indeed it seems that the margin may be as low as three votes. It may be less because there is some suggestion that some members of the Green Party are not wholly on the Government’s side in respect of this issue. They are not wholly on the Government’s side because they assert they are caring and committed on Maori issues and it is the strong voice of Maori that this legislation not be enacted. 
We are also talking as we look at this title about an asserted claim that the objective of the bill is to improve the accessibility of New Zealanders to justice. I was interested in an earlier interjection that the Privy Council was a court available only to the wealthy. That is the most foolish observation and unfortunately I cannot identify which speaker made that comment. However I would say that whilst assuredly the court is open to those who have wealth it is also available for those who can access it through legal aid and also those who are of moderate means. When this Government talks about access to justice that is one of the most hollow calls to arms we have yet seen from it. The Government has embarked on a range of initiatives that exactly counter that worthy proposition. Whether it is something like this whether it is a planned restructure of the courts which is the subject of work by the Law Commission or whether it is swingeing fees hikes in respect of court fees that is one thing this Government is not about—access to justice. 
I spoke in the context of the title of this bill being ground-breaking constitutional legislation. It is interesting to reflect that the last piece of significant constitutional legislation was in 1986 when the Constitution Act was passed. Can members guess how many members of this Parliament voted for that legislation? The answer is that every single member of Parliament voted for it which is a pretty amazing outcome one might think. That is why many have said that for legislation of this type it is not unreasonable that there be a substantial mandate—a substantial mandate in the order of 75 percent. In this case we are talking about a margin of three votes or lower. Indeed in 2001 the Attorney-General stated in an article published in the  
Independent 
 that it was absolutely critical there be maximum support from the business community. And what support is there from the business community for this bill? There is absolutely no support. In fact 75 percent of the people who fronted up to the Justice and Electoral Committee did not want this bill to pass. That is why I say that this is no day of pride for the New Zealand Parliament. This is a sad day. This is a day when the Government has broken with clear constitutional principle and has determined it will push this bill through in time frames that are not consistent with normal parliamentary process. Yesterday we had the second reading today we are in the Committee stage and it would not surprise me if tomorrow we are at the third reading stage.