Jones Dail: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9116] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I came into this House on this occasion as a member of an MMP Parliament and I took the view as a member of an MMP Parliament that the spirit of MMP should be invoked by this House and that when we make decisions in this House especially of a constitutional nature we should do it on the basis of a broad-ranging support. Yet here we have a bill where the number of members voting in favour of it is likely to be about 63—that is a majority of three members based on the 120 members of this House. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Donald’s party has failed in making its comments and I suggest he does not breach the Standing Orders by trying to interject over my shoulder. 
When Mr Robson spoke he made a very good point. In 1939 the Labour Government and this Parliament decided to go to war and the decision was made unanimously. That is something that Mr Robson forgot. They made the decision unanimously and they sang “God Save the King”. There is no feeling like that in the House today. Here we have a very very important constitutional issue and there is no unanimity. There is barely a majority in this House in favour. It is like being in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe today. I know what it is like to be in Opposition in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe as I stand here and speak in this House. The New Zealand people should have been consulted on this matter. 
We have the person who supported the Labour Party Lord Cooke trembling at the thought that the average man in the street—the man in Henderson the woman in Kaikohe Winton or wherever—might have the opportunity to give a vote to this issue. We represent those people and they should be entitled on such a major constitutional issue to have a say. This bill should be resolved in either of two ways—either by a 75 percent majority of this House or by a two-thirds majority in a referendum. Instead this bill is being rushed through this House with a majority of three. 
When the bill was introduced into the House last week we had the second reading and the Committee stage—all on consecutive days last week—and today the next consecutive day this bill is being rushed through on the third reading. That is rushing legislation through the House. 
Of course Lord Cooke who talks so much about not supporting appeals to the Privy Council is himself hearing appeals for the Hong Kong court. I did not realise Lord Cooke was Chinese! But that does not stop him from sitting on the Hong Kong Appeal Court—sort of one law for New Zealand one law for Hong Kong and another law for Lord Cooke. 
It is often said that the Opposition is not strong enough or it is asked what the Opposition is doing to try to stop something from happening or what it is going to do about something. Well one of the Opposition parties—United Future—initially started off supporting this bill it had a good look at all the submissions and despite initially supporting the bill it decided that the bill should not go through and it has indicated its opposition to the bill. That is what one of the minor parties has done. We had another party—the Greens—indicating that it was not going to support this bill unless the Maori view came out in favour of the bill. We all in this House know that the Maori view opposes this bill. The only Maori view that supports this bill is the view held by the seven Maori members of this House who represent the Labour Party. That is where the only Maori support comes through and they are doing what they are told so they can continue to receive the big salaries the big cars the houses and the overseas trips which they would otherwise never be able to achieve in all their lives. 
The Privy Council has been of very good value to New Zealand. The Privy Council has helped Patient A in the Bottrill case where the Court of Appeal refused to help. The Privy Council has helped Taito and all those Maoris who were not being given support by the Court of Appeal. Today we set up this Supreme Court. In Australia and in Canada there was a gap of 75 and 84 years before the Privy Council was abolished—from the setting up of their High Court and their Supreme Court. We do not wait 75 years we do not wait 84 years before we abolish appeals to the Privy Council: we do it immediately. What a disgrace this minority Government is.