Jones Dail: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9057] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 There were two short points in the previous speech that will not take long to answer. The first point was why there is no leave to appeal in environment or employment cases. It is probably because the previous speaker Miss Kedgley supported legislation that prevented that from happening because of the statutes involved. 
In so far as the question of costs is concerned I would think that 99.9 percent of New Zealanders do not want to go to court. They absolutely do not want to and 99.99 percent of New Zealanders would oppose the Labour Party’s increase in High Court fees that made it even more difficult for them to go to court. Of the 12 cases or so that we have going to the Privy Council I would not be surprised if in many of them lawyers took the case for free. If people think that replacing the Privy Council with a Supreme Court will reduce costs they have another think coming. The costs of legal attendances in the Supreme Court will be much the same as in the Privy Council. The fares the hotel accommodation and the agency fees will not be there but we can be sure that the cost of legal counsel will be the same. We do not know what this Government will charge in the way of the Supreme Court filing and hearing fees. 
 What are daily hearing fees now? Are they $1500 or $2000 a day? The average New Zealander cannot afford to go to the New Zealand High Court let alone to the New Zealand Court of Appeal or any further appeal past that. The argument about costs is absolute nonsense. In fact the Privy Council made the point in the Taito case that it was really the New Zealand Court of Appeal that prevented so many people from going to the Privy Council and having their cases heard rather than the reverse. 
I want to ask the seven Maori members of the Labour Party where they are. What are they doing about this bill with specific reference to the insertion of new section 58A in clause 44 “Further appeal to Court of Appeal from Maori Appellate Court”? They have been very silent on this bill. Is their attitude a “Dopey” one? Are they “Grumpy” about this bill? Is Ms Turia the “Grumpy” party? Their lack of attendance might indicate they are “Sleepy” or perhaps they think this is not to be worried about and they are all “Sneezy”. 
Pita Paraone 
: They are “Bashful”! 
DAIL JONES 
: They could be “Bashful” or perhaps they are “Happy” about this legislation. Finally maybe they have gone for the doctor and “Doc” is in charge. Could we describe the views of the seven Labour Maori members of Parliament as “Dopey” “Grumpy” “Sneezy” “Bashful” “Happy” and “Doc”? Maybe they think this legislation is “Snow White” and they have nothing to worry about. All of them have the view that this legislation is “Snow White” and they have taken a “Dopey” or “Grumpy” attitude. Maybe they are “Sleepy” “Sneezy” “Bashful” or “Happy” and have gone for the doctor. Maybe that is the view of the seven Labour Maori members’ in respect of this legislation. It could be for all this Opposition side of the Committee knows because they have taken no part in this debate. 
John Tamihere is very good on talking about the interests of Maori but what does he have to say about further appeals to the Court of Appeal from the Maori Appellate Court in terms of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act—that famous Act in so far as the foreshore and seabed is concerned? What is he doing to protect the interests of Maori in so far as that is concerned? Where is the Minister of Maori Affairs? Is he “Sleepy” about the whole thing? Is the attitude of Hon Parekura Horomia to this bill a “Sleepy” one? What about Nanaia Mahuta? I presume she is still a Maori member of Parliament but I am confident that with this sort of attitude she will not be a member after the next election. 
Dover Samuels is always a “Happy” chap is he not? But where is he as far as this bill is concerned? He is out there on the marae talking about the foreshore and the seabed while the rights of appeal of Maori to the Privy Council are being taken away from the Maori of New Zealand. Where is he? What about Mr Okeroa? Where does he stand on this legislation with regard to clause 44 and further appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Maori Appellate Court and the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act? The Maori members of Parliament do not have the slightest interest in this legislation. Their views are as absent as they are.