Finlayson Christopher: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2471] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 This is a very simple bill and I do not think too much time needs to be spent on it. It deals with an amendment to the functions section of the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Act. The National Party says it makes perfect sense and indeed it is necessary for section 12 of the Act to be amended so that the decisions of the Supreme Court can be published in the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
 by the Council of Law Reporting. 
I wish to make only two observations. The first deals with proposed new subsection (6) which provides that the Chief Justice may authorise any person firm or company to publish reports of decisions of the Supreme Court. That is a rather odd provision and I would have thought that it was both inappropriate and unnecessary. The Council of Law Reporting should be responsible for publishing law reports and it seems anomalous that a judge even one as senior and as important as the Chief Justice should be able to authorise other persons to publish decisions of her court if she thinks it appropriate. 
 The next point I make relates to the proposed typescript amendments in my name dated 31 March. These amendments try to raise matters that were dealt with by Mr Harawira from the Maori Party and Mr Paraone from New Zealand First about the apparent gap in the legislation dealing with decisions of the Maori Land Court and the Maori Appellate Court. I confess that when one thinks about it on the face of it the reports of both those very important courts do appear to have been overlooked. 
I want to say something about the Maori Appellate Court which performs a very important role in our justice system. Indeed as set out in the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 it is the equivalent of the High Court. Under section 58A of that legislation an appeal from the Maori Appellate Court goes to the Court of Appeal and in exceptional cases it goes to the Supreme Court. So we are dealing with a major court in the system. Its decisions are of great importance and they need to be recorded somewhere. They are not recorded anywhere at the present time. 
Let me tell members about one of the most interesting decisions that has been through our court system in recent years. In 1990 pursuant to a jurisdiction conferred on it by section 7A of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the Maori Appellate Court was required to determine the boundaries of Ngai Tahu. A judgment dated early 1990 established that the boundaries of Ngai Tahu ran from Kahurangi Point on the West Coast to Parinui o Whiti on the east coast. That decision spawned a great deal of litigation. Immediately after that decision a disgruntled party petitioned the Privy Council for special leave. When the Ngai Tahu settlement legislation was introduced in the late 1990s an action was commenced in the High Court to set aside the decision of the Maori Appellate Court. That decision has been the subject of two petitions for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The substantive appeal to the Privy Council will be heard in July this year. 
Therefore there have been a number of major cases in the High Court Court of Appeal and Privy Council on the Maori Appellate Court decision of 1990. Most of them have been reported in the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
 but the decision that spawned all the litigation—the very important Maori Appellate Court decision of 1990—is reported nowhere. It is found in a minute book. I say that is insulting to the Maori Appellate Court and it is insulting to Maori. That is why my amendments provide for the inclusion of Maori Appellate Court decisions in the Act.