Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9063] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 It is often said that there is not a great deal of interest in the schedules to substantive legislation. This case perhaps proves the validity of that point by being the exception. Within the schedules there is substantial material structured in an infinite variety of ways and in many circumstances calculated to confuse. 
I start by dealing with schedule 1. I note that it amends approximately 30 pieces of legislation. When the Attorney-General would have us believe that the schedules are of little consequence she could not be more wrong. Schedule 1 makes amendments to a raft of New Zealand statutory provisions. I note changes to the Child Support Act the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act the Courts Martial Appeals Act the Guardianship Act the Harassment Act the Human Rights Act the Summary Proceedings Act and the Animal Products Act—and the list goes on and on and on—and that is only the first schedule. This bill is characterised by the fact that it has a number of schedules. Schedule 1 is what I have been reading from but in fact beyond that there are other schedules. Schedule 2 deals with consequential repeals and there follows again a long list of statutory provisions. 
Also and quite unusually schedule 3 contains as its heading states provisions containing references to the former Supreme Court. That touches a raft of what are probably private Acts—the Auckland Baptist Tabernacle Act the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Trust Board Empowering Act and so on. But what I need to flag for the attention of members of the Committee is that National has made a commitment when it comes to power in 2005 to abolish the Supreme Court and to repeal this legislation. That will have significant consequences of course for those judges who are foolish enough to seek and take tenure in the new Supreme Court. They should be under no illusion at all that that path will be extraordinarily rocky for them because this major constitutional change starts with no support from many members of the House. 
I recall in the context of statutory history—and relevant to these schedules—that when the Constitution Act was passed which was a major constitutional change every member of the House voted in favour of that legislation. No votes of dissent were recorded. Now in respect of this legislation there is massive dissent. I refer to the position of the judges because I believe that it should be flagged that their tenure will be wholly uncertain. Whether it appears just as a note in the schedule rather than as a substantive enacting provision reference should be made to the possibility of insecurity of tenure so that the warning is loud and crystal clear. The issue arises in constitutional terms because of the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution Act which deals with two things. Section 23 deals with “Protection of Judges against removal from office.” National would in effect with the support of the other centre-right parties be seeking to cut across that provision. Because it is an issue of substantial constitutional significance it is appropriate that the warning be clearly expressed and where better than in the schedules to this legislation. The other section of Part IV section 24 relates to the salaries of judges and the fact that those salaries should not be reduced. Well of course when judges lose their positions they lose not only their tenure but also their salaries and allowances. That should also be made clear.