Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9008] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 The first point I would like to make Mr Chairperson—and you will know these provisions well—is that on page 94 of the current Standing Orders it is made wholly clear that in debates of this type each member seeking a call has the possibility of making not more than four speeches. I am referring to the third box on page 94. That is why I was so disappointed in someone whom I admire greatly the Hon Taito Phillip Field moving a closure motion after only three speeches had been given on this part. He may well have been directed to do that by his senior whip but the follow-through from Georgina Beyer was similarly to seek to close down the debate. I think it is a matter of considerable sadness in the context of Part 1 that a member whom I understand may well be a Maori member—Georgina Beyer—is not prepared to have the issues that arise in this part fully debated. 
In the context of Part 1 we are being treated to an outrage. Why do I say that? It is because this morning we had a Supplementary Order Paper from the Attorney-General that as others have commented runs to eight pages and there are also multiple amendments from other members. In addition I would like to flag and have the opportunity to speak to several of the amendments I have put up in connection with Part 1. Two of the amendments are of particular significance. The first relates to clause 17 and the second similarly related adds a subclause to that clause. I hope there will be the opportunity to talk on those issues because in this call I would like to concentrate just on the merits of this part—[ 
Interruption 
]—without I say to Mr Hide his necessary and I am sure ever helpful interjection. 
First if we think that the record of the Court of Appeal in recent times has been flash then we should rapidly disabuse ourselves of that notion because in a sequential review of 10 appeals that went from the Court of Appeal to the Privy Council in a period of about 14 months no fewer than seven—70 percent—of those cases were reversed. 
That is not a good record. If we look at some of those Court of Appeal decisions we will see that one of the standout decisions of the Privy Council related to the Taito case. As others have commented the first of 1500 convicted criminals denied a right to appeal by systemic failure in the Court of Appeal will have his case heard later this month. 
The key provision in Part 1 establishes the Supreme Court. In the short time available and against the background of seeking—and I hope securing—further calls on this important legislation I would like to summarise very briefly what National’s position is in respect of Part 1. With the establishment of this court we are seeing the abandonment of a court of excellence. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which is recognised as a court of excellence throughout the Commonwealth and has heard thousands of appeals—in the context of New Zealand the first appeals are from about 1851—is to be with us no longer. All the intellect at that court and all the sustained knowledge built up over years of litigants appearing before that court and arguing cases in a New Zealand context and with a New Zealand flavour will be lost—for what reason?