Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:9081] 
2.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: In light of the poll in today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 that shows 79 percent of New Zealanders want a referendum on whether to abolish appeals to the Privy Council will the Government now agree to let the public decide by holding a referendum; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Attorney-General 
: No. It is the Government’s view that referenda should be used sparingly and this does not present a case for it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: In which case how does the Government claim to have any mandate to change the constitution in that Labour got 41 percent of the vote last election and the Greens who are supporting Labour stated their public position at the last election as being that they would not agree to do away with the Privy Council unless Maori agreed; so how is there any moral basis for the Government’s intention to do away with this important part of our constitution? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Labour Party went to the electorate with a clear policy in this regard. I might contrast that with the 1987 election and the subsequent sale of State enterprises. 
Tim Barnett 
: Were referenda used in Australia Canada Hong Kong or Ireland to determine whether to leave the Privy Council? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No referenda were not used in those circumstances in those countries—[ 
Interruption 
] Legislation in one sense or another is always passed by a majority in this Parliament. That is how it gets passed. 
Richard Worth 
: Does the Attorney-General in the light of her constitutional responsibilities feel proud of the fact that she is flying in the face of public opinion both as evidenced by the poll taken in the  
New Zealand Herald  
and the fact that 75 percent of the submitters who appeared before the select committee were opposed to scrapping the Privy Council; if the emotion is not pride what is it—arrogance perhaps? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No the Attorney-General is proud to assert that New Zealand is an independent nation and perfectly capable of arranging its own final court of jurisdiction. Despite the incompetence of one or two lawyers produced within New Zealand we are confident that there are plenty who are able to fulfil judicial office. 
Dail Jones 
: Why does the Minister persist with the Supreme Court Bill when the Government’s own consultative process has indicated that the vast majority of the sectors of our community oppose the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council and also the haste with which this matter is proceeding; if the Minister believes there are sectors that support this legislation would she tell the House which sectors those are? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government does not accept that assertion about the vast majority of people. We are certainly aware of many members on the opposite side of the House who in the past have supported the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister which sectors supported the legislation and that aspect of the question was not answered. I did not need to know about any other members of this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister did address the question but if the Minister wants to comment about sectors he may. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Unlike the legislature in Hong Kong election to this Parliament is based upon individual votes not sectors. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: When have constitutional issues been subject to a referendum in this country? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Extremely rarely—usually in relation to the Electoral Act or related matters such as a proposed 4-year term of Parliament. Referenda were not used in New Zealand for example with the abolition of the Legislative Council or with similar kinds of constitutional reforms in the past. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Noting the Minister‘s reference to the sparing use of referenda and the fact that referenda were not called to determine whether we should retain the MMP system or to deal with the numbers of members of Parliament—and now will not be called on the Supreme Court Bill—can the Minister indicate the types of constitutional issues that the Government would envisage being subject to a referendum? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the one area where it is clear referenda are sometimes held in New Zealand is in relation to major changes to the Electoral Act. The reason for that of course is that the Parliament and the Government seek support from the public on matters about Parliament itself in terms of its own arrangements. The courts are in the end creatures of Parliament and of statute. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Has the House understood the Minister’s answer correctly to be that because the Irish and some other Commonwealth countries and Hong Kong did not use a referendum New Zealand therefore should not; is that the argument or is it just that this is an issue about which the Government wishes to be nationalistic and does not trust the country to be able to make a decision in a referendum on whether it wants a Privy Council—is that the real reason that the Government does not trust the people? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: This Government certainly trusts the people. At the last election the Labour Party by itself received as many votes as National New Zealand First and ACT combined. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I seek leave of the House to table the results of a poll that show that 80 percent want a say on a new court— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not meaning to be presumptuous but it has become a practice in this House for senior members to try to table papers that clearly are not within the intention of the Standing Orders. Speaker’s ruling 114/1— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could I point out to the member that he is quoting Speaker’s rulings. The Standing Orders are different. They are actually the rules; Speaker’s rulings are the interpretation. It is perfectly in order to seek leave to table a document and anybody has a perfect liberty to say “No”. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member raises quite a good point that probably the tabling of documents has become abused. It occurred to me in this case that the Government was so out of touch that it does not even know what is in the  
New Zealand Herald. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. That is a good try for a Tuesday.