Wilson Margaret: Supreme Court Bill — Second Reading 
Wilson Margaret: Supreme Court Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:8900] 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That the Supreme Court Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill before us has been closely examined over the past 9 months by the Justice and Electoral Committee and I congratulate that committee on its thorough and careful consideration of the bill. The committee received 315 submissions and held hearings with 106 of those parties. I understand that the committee vigorously debated many of the features of the bill. In addition members of the committee attended a national hui on the New Zealand courts system in Taupo to listen to the views of Maori represented there. I commend the committee for the way in which it has engaged with New Zealanders to consider the bill. 
The committee’s work was preceded by 3 years of consultation and policy development by the Government. It began with the release of a Government discussion paper  
Reshaping New Zealand’s Appeal Structure 
 in December 2000. Public submissions on that paper emphasised the need for an independent two-tier appellate structure above the High Court if New Zealand appeals to the Privy Council were to be ended. In 2002 a ministerial advisory group reported on the key features of the Supreme Court Bill and that report provided the basic features of the bill. 
This is a significant bill for all New Zealanders. It will give all New Zealanders for the first time the opportunity to have their cases heard at the highest level. That has been denied to many New Zealanders up to this point. The bill will also enable the legislation passed in this House to be interpreted at the highest judicial level by a New Zealand court. No longer will the final Court of Appeal be available to a privileged few. At long last New Zealand will be in control of its own legal destiny. 
The bill has provoked vigorous debate. That is healthy and appropriate in a democracy such as ours that values freedom of expression. What has not been appropriate however is the personal denigration of members of the judiciary. Such comments have cast unjustified doubt on the independence integrity and capability of our senior judiciary. Therefore it is important to place on the record that New Zealand is well served by a fine and capable judiciary ably led by the Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias. That fact is attested to and acknowledged both within New Zealand and also internationally. 
What then is the effect of this bill? It ends the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to hear New Zealand appeals and it removes the statutory limits that restrict the final opportunity for appeals to courts other than the Judicial Committee. In essence the bill establishes the Supreme Court of New Zealand as the final Court of Appeal for New Zealand. Before I consider the committee’s report I wish to give notice that I will move a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage that will address minor and technical amendments establish a new position of Chief High Court Judge and clarify the commencement date for the Supreme Court Bill. 
I now turn to the principal amendments recommended by the majority of the committee. The committee recommended the purpose clause explain more fully the reasons for the establishment of the Supreme Court—namely that New Zealand is an independent nation with its own history and traditions; that important legal matters including legal matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi should be resolved with an understanding of New Zealand’s conditions history and traditions; and also that there be improved access to justice for all. The purpose clause also affirms our commitment to the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament. 
The committee further recommends changes to the provisions governing leave to appeal. Clause 13 containing the leave criteria has been restructured to read that the Supreme Court must not give leave to appeal unless it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the court to hear and determine the proposed appeal and that the interests of justice require the hearing of appeals involving a matter of general or public importance including a significant issue relating to the Treaty of Waitangi; or a substantial miscarriage that may have occurred or may occur unless the appeal is heard; or a matter of general commercial significance. The Supreme Court is not limited to these grounds if the interests of justice require an appeal to be heard. The Supreme Court will be required to give reasons for the refusal of a leave application but these reasons may be stated briefly and in general terms. 
The committee also recommends that the Supreme Court should comprise the Chief Justice and four or five other judges. The majority of submissions on this clause thought a court of five was insufficient to cover situations where a member of the court was unavailable. I welcome this amendment to clause 17. This will provide greater flexibility in matching the judicial resources of the court to the workload as it develops. The workload is likely to take some time to build up. For that reason I intend to nominate four judges for appointment to join the Chief Justice in the initial Supreme Court. 
Changes have also been made to enable the appointment of technical advisers in any case before the Supreme Court. Members of the committee believe that it is important the Supreme Court should have the ability to appoint a technical adviser when the need arises. However it is expected that this provision will be rarely used. 
The committee further recommends the transitional provisions be extended so that the Privy Council may determine an appeal arising out of a successful application for leave or special leave to appeal to it against the decision of a New Zealand court made before the commencement of the Act or a decision of the Court of Appeal made after the commencement of the Act in a proceeding whose hearing was completed before that commencement. 
The committee also recommends a number of minor and technical changes for the purpose of clarifying the bill as well as a number of consequential amendments. These amendments are set out in detail in the commentary on the bill. 
The committee considered whether overseas judges should be available to sit as acting judges on the Supreme Court from time to time and decided against so recommending. The ministerial advisory group had also recommended against the use of overseas judges after consideration. 
The committee received submissions on a number of other matters that could not be considered within the scope of the legislation. There were two significant issues that did not directly affect the provisions of the bill but merit further consideration. The first relates to the judicial appointments process. Since I announced the Government’s decision to end appeals to the Privy Council and establish a Supreme Court I have consistently acknowledged the importance of appointments to this court. For that reason a panel comprising the Chief Justice the Solicitor-General and a lay representative Sir Paul Reeves will advise me in making recommendations to the Governor-General for the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court. I note some members of the committee are interested in establishing an independent body to appoint judges. I have recently announced my intention to prepare and release a public consultation document next year with the possibility of establishing a judicial appointments commission. The United Kingdom is undertaking a similar process. It is important that such a proposal is considered carefully. 
The second issue outside the bill’s scope relates to New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. A number of submissions raised concerns about those arrangements. The committee is considering conducting an inquiry into New Zealand’s constitutional matters. 
The proposed amendments to the bill are important improvements and I would like to thank all the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee for their valuable contribution to the development of this bill and all those submitters who gave of their time to contribute to this important development. It is important to note that since I introduced the bill in December last year the United Kingdom has announced its own plans to establish a Supreme Court. It is proposed that the domestic jurisdiction of the Privy Council to hear appeals on devolution matters from Scotland Northern Ireland and Wales be transferred to that Supreme Court. On 1 April 2003 the Privy Council’s appellate jurisdiction in UK medical disciplinary matters was also removed. The Caribbean community is establishing its own regional final appellate court and 10 countries will soon withdraw from that jurisdiction. This leaves New Zealand the Bahamas Brunei and Mauritius as the only independent Commonwealth countries using the Privy Council. 
In conclusion the Privy Council has provided a valuable service to New Zealand on a limited range of legal matters. The need for a more accessible system for New Zealand’s final appeals on a full range of our law has haunted successive Governments. It is time we entered the 21st century and time for New Zealanders to take responsibility for their own legal system. This bill enables us to do so and therefore I commend it to the House.