Bennett David: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Bennett David: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2248] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I think that today we are missing two vital points. Firstly this bill is a result of legislation regarding a Supreme Court that was passed in 6 weeks. The public of New Zealand had no idea what was happening until it actually happened. The Privy Council was gone. Getting rid of it was an ambush on the public of New Zealand. Labour members sit there now and want to go through the fine details of legislation that it passed against the wishes of the New Zealand public when nobody knew what was going on. It was the ambush of the century. Labour members have come here today to tell us about how great and wonderful they have been in solving all the legal problems. New Zealand First members have been backing them up and saying that they knew everything first. But the reality is that we would not be passing this legislation if there had been a genuine decision by the New Zealand public to move to a Supreme Court. 
I think the Maori Party has an axe to grind as well. The major thing for the Maori Party was its ability to take its case in respect of the foreshore and seabed legislation to court. This bill is just another attempt to do things such as take away the Privy Council which would have assisted the Maori Party with the opportunity it desired. Labour took away the right of ordinary New Zealanders to a judicial process that had been built up over a number of years. 
Labour members now talk about the judicial system that they want to create for all New Zealanders. Let us look at what Labour has achieved in the last 6 years for all New Zealanders. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Achieved? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes exactly. The growth rate has just collapsed. They cannot blame anyone but themselves for that. They have been in charge and what have they done? They have taken growth to zero and below. 
About 14 percent of cases heard at the Court of Appeal have gone to the Supreme Court. That shows that the Court of Appeal has had a large body of work to deal with over the last year or so. The Court of Appeal has always been held in high esteem in New Zealand and around the world. We have a history of producing some of the finest judges in the world. Lord Cooke is probably our best known judge and he is the equal of the US greats such as Justice Cardozo and the British great Lord Denning. The Court of Appeal has a proud and colourful history. Often the law made at the Court of Appeal is more in tune with our geographic and historical position in the world than that which was made at the Privy Council. 
An increase in the number of permanent judges at the Court of Appeal is welcomed considering its high workload but we need to take it with caution. We must be careful not to lose the integrity and strength of our Court of Appeal that have been built up over many years. I am sure that the great law schools of this country such as that at the University of Waikato will ensure this standard is maintained. However we also need to take caution in the approach. As Stephen Franks pointed out in the first reading debate a greater number of judges can expose a legal system in that the chief judge could select appropriate judges for particular cases which could potentially influence the nature of ultimate decisions. He also pointed out that the legal community may need to take responsibility for concerns about greater workloads. Perhaps we need to see the right signals from the courts about cases that should be going to the Court of Appeal rather than let frivolous appeals go forward to do with changes in sentencing. The Court of Appeal is there for a reason—to talk about principles and policy not just to look at sentencing arrangements. 
The increase in the number of judges in the Court of Appeal is to be welcomed in our legal system but let us not lose sight of the history of the Court of Appeal and the culture it has brought to New Zealanders and the world legal community. We need to be engaged in that and support it. 
The bill looks at a number of issues. Clauses 4 and 5 relate to the manner in which High Court Rules and Supreme Court Rules will be applied. They will allow judgments to be made under the rules of the High Court and the Supreme Court which will give some flexibility to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The New Zealand Law Society submitted to the Government Administration Committee that a similar process to that at the High Court would be appropriate so that judges can deliver judgments through the registrar. The aim of that is to give greater flexibility and efficiency.