Wilson Margaret: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Wilson Margaret: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9004] 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I rise to address the provisions of the bill. I am very much aware— 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I hope that in the course of the night I may get a call from you. I want to give preliminary notice that I would like the comments I make translated into Maori for the benefit particularly of Ngapuhi and Ngai Tahu listeners who I understand are gathered and prepared to listen to comments that are made. I just note that the Maori interpreter is not here and that whilst it may be possible to have Georgina te Heuheu translate in what is probably a departure from the recognised practice of the House I would prefer that there be an opportunity for me to offer those comments in Maori as I really do not think that my facility in the language is up to making a sufficient contribution. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for making that contribution in the manner he has done. If interpretation is required it is done as a matter of course. My second point is that during points of order members may not refer to persons listening outside the House. That is outside the Standing Orders. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As I was about to say there has been a great deal of discussion and debate around this matter over the past 4 years and for some of us probably over the past 30 years. However I understand our task here this evening is to concentrate on the specific provisions of the bill and that is what I intend to do. 
The first matter I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to is the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Government and to the substantive matter in that Supplementary Order Paper which is a new clause 42A. That provision arose out of the necessity to ensure that there is a Chief High Court Judge who will be able to ensure the proper administration of justice of the court at that level and that is why that provision has come in at this time. 
The only other matters I wish to draw attention to include the excellent work done by all the members of the select committee and the amendments that were supported by the majority. In particular there is a vastly improved redrafted purpose clause that more fully sets out the purpose of the legislation and to some extent I think puts the debate in a context. I would be interested to hear honourable members’ comments actually directed to the redrafted purpose clause because I think it greatly improves the bill. 
The other matter of substance in this part of the bill that was addressed by the committee related to the inclusion of the “interests of justice” provision within the grounds for appeal and the reordering of the specific grounds for appeal that are in that particular clause. I refer to the new draft of clause 13 “Criteria for leave to appeal”. I think that is also an improvement. It makes clear of course that in the interests of justice—and if the court so decides on hearing the application—leave may well be granted on other grounds but it does not require leave to be given at every possible opportunity. 
In respect of the provisions relating to the number of members on the court I found the debate and commentary very useful and I think helped by the addition in the legislation of one member. Experience in the District Court and the High Court has shown us that when we have limits it is at times extremely difficult to get the necessary legislation through to ensure the smooth administration of justice by increasing the numbers. So I think that was a very helpful provision. 
Also I think the specific provisions in this part generally enhance a clearer understanding of what in essence is quite a straightforward and simple piece of legislation in terms of its drafting and intention. That is not of course to take away anything from the arguments that surrounded this legislation but the select committee was the place to have those arguments. My understanding of the process is that this House should concentrate on the specific provisions of the bill.