Worth Richard: Budget Debate 
Worth Richard: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:5885] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 It was good to hear a number of the comments made by the previous speaker in connection with advancing the cause of Maori. I am glad he did that because too often Government members are quick to criticise Maori for underachievement. We all know how important it is that positive signals are given by Parliament to all sectors of the community to advance all people regardless of their ethnicity. 
The issue I would like to speak about tonight in the context of this bill is the funding that is being provided for the establishment of the new Supreme Court. I start by saying that even for those who have a fair knowledge of numbers the Budget is not a particularly comprehensible document. Just to take an example the executive summary document issued in relation to the Budget provides some detail about the funding required for this new court. When one looks at the narrative explanation of that funding one sees it is not particularly meaningful. The executive summary at page 14 has a list under the heading “maintaining a fair justice system for all”. It begins: “$17 million operating and $22 million capital to establish the Supreme Court of New Zealand”. When one looks at those numbers more closely it is apparent that the $17 million operating money is a payment to be spread over 4 years of varying amounts in each year. That $17 million of 4-year appropriations has in year 1 a $3.9 million operating cost. 
The reason for speaking about this aspect of the Budget is that we are looking at an area of identified profligate waste. There is no need at all to spend this amount or any part of it in seeking to establish a new Supreme Court. The original cost estimates contained in the Cabinet policy committee material had estimated annual operating costs of the new court at $5.2 million and the estimated capital cost of constructing new premises excluding land at $10 million to $11 million. Why are we spending that money? Could that money not be better put to other initiatives that would bring greater benefits to New Zealand? I suggest that the answer to that is self-evident. Instead we are confronted with legislation that seeks to establish a new appellate court—a domestic court—as the final court in New Zealand and to do away with long-established links with the Privy Council. It is an ideologically driven position. There is no move for that change from the major user groups. 
Who are the major user groups? Quite clearly they include Maori. We have had submissions from the Federation of Maori Authorities from individual Maori and from iwi groups all to say there is no case for this change. Mita Ririnui is attempting to interject to ask a question. Let me explain to him because although I have already stated the point he may not have understood it. The point is simply that the Budget has a significant appropriation to establish the Supreme Court when there is no valid reason for the expenditure of those reasonably significant sums of money. 
In the Justice and Electoral Committee we have listened and Mr Ririnui has listened albeit with exhausting and tiring patience to a raft of arguments that have touched on the future of this new court and the plans for the removal of the Privy Council. We have heard arguments on issues relating to access to jurisdiction. It is the Attorney-General’s proud boast that this Government is strong on access to justice issues. That is absolute nonsense. I say that because there have been swingeing fee hikes that have denied to civil litigants on a number of occasions the opportunity of accessing the courts and now under the guise of cost saving or nationalism there is a proposal to do away with the Privy Council. 
There has been no rational argument presented to the select committee sitting in judgment on the Supreme Court Bill for the abolition of that court. In fact the arguments run as Mr Ririnui would know the other way completely. We have heard an argument—in fact Mr Ririnui propounds it—that as a matter of national identity we should no longer defer to an overseas jurisdiction. The reality is that many overseas jurisdictions themselves defer to those jurisdictions. We ourselves have lines to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations. The United Kingdom has lines of access from its highest courts into the European Court of Justice and into the European Court of Human Rights. 
When we look at the justification for this budgeted expenditure we see it is also the case that there have been startling reversals by our highest court the Privy Council of decisions made by the Court of Appeal. In fact in a period of 2002 when there were 10 cases decided seven of them were reversed. Some of the criticism made by the law lords sitting in the Privy Council has been nothing short of alarming. In one such case  
Taito v the Queen 
 the Court of Appeal was criticised for applying a procedure of no legal validity “contrary to fundamental conceptions of fairness and justice” so as to dispose of appeals from poor people in that their appeals were dismissed without a hearing while wealthy people were granted a chance to argue in open court. 
In another decision  
Dymocks  
v  
Todd 
 the New Zealand courts were chided for “leaving out of account factual matters of great importance” and the Court of Appeal was encouraged to keep an open mind on the important issue of whether the common law would imply an obligation of good faith into a contract as the civil law of Europe often does. 
Finally in a case  
Harley 
 v  
McDonald 
 the Privy Council set aside an award of costs against a barrister who had vigorously represented a difficult client for the reason that she had not been given a fair hearing. It said that the Court of Appeal showed a “fundamental defect in its reasoning”. 
If it is right that this Government prides itself on prudential financial management then I ask why this money is being wasted in setting up a new court against the wishes of Maori and against the wishes of the other major user groups. It probably comes down to a wish by the Attorney-General to advance a cause that she fervently believes in—that is the cause of republicanism. In the decision to make these changes many of us see one of the steps along the way to that outcome. Why is it that the taxpayers of New Zealand should pay an indulgence fee to meet aspirations that the Attorney-General has? I suggest we should not do that. From National’s perspective we would seek that that link be retained; we would seek that the Privy Council become a leave court; we would seek that its jurisdiction be extended; and finally we would seek that this money not be spent.