Robson Matt: Supreme Court Bill — Second Reading 
Robson Matt: Supreme Court Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:8915] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 In the view of the Progressives this is a day to celebrate in the New Zealand Parliament. It is an important step forward towards the independence of this country and it is a very proud day for me that there are three parties of the left—Labour the Progressives and the Greens—supporting this position. 
I count today as being as important as New Zealand taking its steps away from dependence on British colonialism by giving itself a Citizenship Act. I count it as being as important as ending the cringing that occurred during the First World War when we allowed British courts to execute our soldiers. I count it as a step away from the cringing of the Second World War when we kept our soldiers in the Middle East at the behest of Winston Churchill to protect British oil interests when the Australians brought their soldiers home to protect Australian soil. It has taken a long time for us to take the steps to be a sovereign nation. 
Our laws are not passed by British Parliaments; our courts should not enforce laws through a British court system. It has taken a long time to reach this position. The New Zealand public have actually moved to be New Zealanders a long time before many of the conservative parties in this Parliament. I am not sure what underlies their appeal to the populace because the populace is actually asking for a New Zealand that holds its head up high. That is very clear. 
I find it strange too that those conservative parties in this Parliament who say this bill is a constitutional outrage have not assembled their forces here to fight it. How many times in this Parliament have I and others heard that the sky will fall in if a certain measure occurs? Are those members who are frightened that the sky will fall in busy digging shelters somewhere? I do not think so. I do not think there is sincerity behind their position. 
 If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel then I think the constitutional argument often is as well because terrible things have been done in this Parliament in terms of New Zealand’s independence. One of them which the ACT leader took part in was to sell the public assets that are our birthright. In opinion polls 97 percent of the population were against the sale of our assets yet that member pushed ahead with the sale of New Zealand’s vital assets in that period and set National up for the sale of many more. To me that is an outrage—constitutional or otherwise—and it was done in the face of what the New Zealand population wanted. If there were any doubt about that members should look at the election results of 1990 and through the 1990s. That will show them what an outrage the public considered the sale of assets to be. 
This step does not abolish an appeal right; it replaces an appeal right. We join so many other countries inside the British Commonwealth that have taken this step long before us. There is an argument running that this legislation is a step towards republicanism. I wish it were so for I am a republican but I do not pin my hopes on it. The historical evidence simply does not point that way. I believe that Australia abolished the appeal right in 1986 and Canada did it many years before but both are still a part of a system that has a monarch as Head of State. Is it a step towards those changes? It might be part of the debate on how we should become an independent country but it does not follow that republicanism follows from it. As I have said we just have to look at those other countries. 
What does it do in terms of giving the people of New Zealand access to justice? For a start it broadens the number of courts that can take an issue to a level of appeal that is now reserved for a very small number of people in New Zealand. I note that the National Party has said through its spokesperson Mr Worth that the Privy Council delivers a Rolls Royce service. Not many of us aspire or have the means to have a Rolls Royce service. As ordinary citizens we are happy to have just a good service but I think the term points to what the National Party ACT and United Future are talking about. The Privy Council is mainly at the disposal of large business interests. Of course others get there from time to time but in the main it seems to me that big business likes to use it as a weapon to bludgeon others: “We’ll take you to the Privy Council. You can’t afford to go there.” That is what “Rolls Royce service” actually means. That is why United Future has changed its opinion. United Future members have seen that the Business Roundtable wants to keep the Privy Council. They look to organisations like that to give them support politically financially or whatever—I am not sure. That is why they have changed their position because it is easier to appease and please that group than to advocate for the interest of ordinary New Zealanders. 
This new appeal level will reflect New Zealand’s talent. There has been an argument—apparently only in the British courts—that the best brains and legal talent are on the Privy Council. It must only be male talent because there is not one woman on the Privy Council. Presumably the conservative parties in this Parliament are saying that even in Britain with its large population women are not good enough to get on to the Privy Council. I do not think so. If they take the trouble to go through the list of the schools those judges are drawn from they will see that they are drawn from the elite public schools of Great Britain. Surely in a country that is founded on getting away from a class-ridden society and that has tried to develop a democracy where the poorest child can go through to hold the highest position in the land we are not going to bow our knee to that. 
I look forward to many changes in this country but those of us who harbour the wish that we become as much of a socialist country as possible—in the sense that we have a country that is equal that is as democratic as possible—are not using this bill to smuggle those things through. If that were so I doubt whether John Howard would be a supporter of the Privy Council being abolished in Australia which I believe he was. I do not believe that those in Canada who voted for the abolition of the link to the Privy Council were secret socialists. If they were then their plan was not a very good one for history does not bear them out. We have here a day of celebration for anybody who wants to make sure that the institutions we set up reflect New Zealand’s traditions values and the needs of the New Zealand people.