Worth Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Worth Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9173. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7.  
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Will she change the appointment process of judges for the Supreme Court to allow some form of cross-party consultation; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I intend to follow the practice of my predecessors and not politicise the appointment process. 
Richard Worth 
: Would not a wise Attorney-General conscious of her constitutional responsibilities and tasked with recommending the appointment of a bench of judges to the new Supreme Court and substantially a bench of judges to the existing Court of Appeal see it as appropriate to secure a level of parliamentary buy-in for what are very significant appointments and possibly for potentially long terms? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: This Attorney-General does not think appointments should be made to satisfy members of this House. What she will be doing will be following the advice she will be given by an independent body. The Attorney-General will follow the advice she will be given. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is the Minister answering on behalf of the Attorney-General or as the Attorney-General? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister changed her expression halfway through. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Parliamentary question time is not just for our benefit but for the benefit of the public as well. How is the public to know what is going on when someone gets up and in a lofty tone refers to herself in the third person as if she were Little Richard or something? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Tim Barnett 
: Has the Attorney-General seen any reports on support for the proposed appointment process of judges to the Supreme Court? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. Recently members of the public were asked whether they supported the process I intend to follow—namely that the new court be chosen by the Attorney-General on the advice of the Chief Justice the Solicitor-General and Sir Paul Reeves. The number who agreed with that was 41.6 percent while 35.4 percent disagreed. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does the Attorney-General’s advertisement last month for new High Court judges which required them to have “knowledge of cultural and gender issues” mean they must be cunning enough to at least pretend to share her politically correct agenda and how will New Zealanders be assured that a failure to show the right kind of knowledge of gender issues will not disqualify applicants who think that equality before the law without regard to race religion gender or status is more than an outmoded shackle of our colonial past? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Solicitor-General was responsible for advertising for expressions of interest. The procedure he follows and the criteria are those that have been used in the past and I understand that all people will be considered and appointed on merit. 
Richard Worth 
: When the Attorney-General said in answer to a supplementary question that she would be “following the advice” of the advisory panel does that mean she will feel herself free to reject that advice if it does not suit her interests or judgment? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No. 
Stephen Franks 
: I seek leave to table the advertisement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that advertisement. Is there any objection? There is.