Jones Dail: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Jones Dail: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9014] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak in particular to clause 3 in Part 1. It sets out the purpose of the bill which according to the minority Labour Government is to improve access to justice. Well that shows how little the minority Labour Party knows about access to justice and about the effect this legislation will have on access to justice for New Zealand companies. One of the things that happens in commercial law is that a clause is included in contracts between New Zealand companies and overseas companies stating: “The law of the contract shall be the law of ...” and the name of the country is put in. That country’s law governs the way that the contract is administered in legal situations if things go wrong. Until now it has been easy for that country to be New Zealand because people from countries such as France Brazil or outer Mongolia knew that our law would ultimately if necessary be determined by the Privy Council—a well-known body that is based on British principles of common law and clearly established principles of statutory interpretation. 
When this bill is passed the country’s law stated in a contract will no longer be the law of New Zealand for the vast majority of existing contracts that refer to the law of New Zealand; it will in fact be the law of the other country. That country may be the Netherlands. If one is dealing with Philips then Philips will make sure that the law will be the law of the Netherlands and if necessary of the European Union. If one is dealing with Australia say in mining cases the law will be as determined by the High Court of Australia. If one is dealing with any other country such as Russia or the United States—and in the United States it will inevitably be the state of New York—that country or state will govern the law of the contract. So New Zealanders will cease to have the access to justice that they currently have. 
This bill will reduce access to justice for New Zealand companies. It is acknowledged that commercial organisations are one of the groups that use the Privy Council. I would think that roughly 50 percent of the appeals to the Privy Council have been made by commercial bodies. Those cases will no longer go to the Privy Council obviously. They will not go to the Supreme Court either. Our business dealings will be determined by states such as New York by the High Court of Australia and funnily enough by the House of Lords. They will determine New Zealand contracts— 
Stephen Franks 
: Supreme Court of Singapore. 
DAIL JONES 
: —and the Supreme Court of Singapore—for that type of case. We will lose access to justice. Our lawyers of course will be out of work unless they start working on trans-Tasman ways of doing things. We will be giving away work to overseas companies and if we think those cases will still be determined by the Supreme Court of New Zealand we have another think coming. 
This bill represents the dumbing-down of the New Zealand judiciary. As one of the submissions stated this legislation will create a backwater for the New Zealand judicial system in the South Pacific. No one will take any notice of our decisions and we will be given the respect we deserve for having a court that is totally untried—a court whose track record has been one of being constantly overturned in the Privy Council on some fairly obvious decisions. [ 
Interruption 
] Ms Chadwick can make as much noise as she likes. She is obviously ignorant of the situation and does not give two hoots about New Zealand becoming a backwater in the South Pacific. 
When Australia and Canada did away with the Privy Council they already had a two-tier system. They had the equivalent of our Court of Appeal and they had a higher court which became their final court of appeal. We do not have that system in New Zealand. That is the difference between us and Australia with its High Court of Australia and between us and Canada with its Supreme Court. We do not have that situation in New Zealand; we have only one Court of Appeal. That is the difference between the way Canada and Australia did it and the way New Zealand is doing it. 
I am disappointed that none of the seven Maori Labour members of Parliament has spoken. I wonder whether they are “Bashful” or “Happy” or whether they are “Sneezy” “Sleepy” “Grumpy” “Dopey” or “Doc”.