English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8954] 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement regarding the Supreme Court Bill that “It would be nice to have more formal cross-party support in Parliament”; if so can she explain why she wanted to have more cross-party support? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because I believe that members in other parties that now oppose the bill actually support the repeal of appeals to the Privy Council. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does she recall making this statement: “Changes of this kind should not be promoted by one political party in isolation. A consensus should be worked for.”; and can she tell the House anything she has done to work for a consensus? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes I do recall that statement. It is a matter of record that three parties in this House support the bill. I also recall a vote in this House in 1996 when Mr English among other members voted for the introduction of a bill to repeal appeals to the Privy Council. 
Tim Barnett 
: Has the she seen any reports of support for ending New Zealand’s links with the Privy Council? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes rather a lot from a range of commentators over a long period of time. One worth quoting here said: “New Zealanders should feel sufficiently confident to remove appeals to the Privy Council. We should feel confident in our own abilities to administer justice fairly for all New Zealanders.” Those were wise words in December 2000 from the Hon Tony Ryall. 
Dail Jones 
: In view of the fact that only 63 of this House’s 120 members voted for the Supreme Court Bill yesterday and that this minority Labour Government does not have a mandate of 50 percent or more from the New Zealand public as at the last election why does it not take the proper step and have a referendum so that all the views of New Zealanders can be properly canvassed? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am confident that the figure of 63 does not reflect the support in this House for the repeal. I note that apart from Mr English there are four other current National members of Parliament who were in the Cabinet that approved the legislation. They include the Hon Lockwood Smith the Hon Maurice Williamson the Hon Murray McCully and the Hon Peter Dunne and of course there were many other National members of Parliament sitting in the House at that time—Mr Ryall Mr Nick Smith Mr Sowry and Mr Carter among others. I think they are opposing the bill because of politics and I for one do not believe that a change in the courts structure requires a referendum. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister was asked why she will not offer a referendum. She was not asked to try to read the minds of members of Parliament as at October 2003 which is the real issue that she is seeking to canvass now. Will you bring her back to the question asked by my colleague as to why she will not offer a referendum? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the Prime Minister’s answer. She did address the question that was asked by giving her particular reasons for indicating there was more support. That might not satisfy the member but it did address the particular question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. She did make some attempt to answer the question. She said that she did not believe that 63 represented the total number in support of her bill but she did not address at any time the question as to why she would not offer a referendum which is the critical issue that everybody is asking at this point in time. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I was indeed addressing that matter when I was rudely interrupted by the member. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I find myself in support of Mr Peters’ position. We have the Prime Minister claiming as part of Government policy that she knows the minds of Opposition MPs. I find that hard to believe. I cannot credit that that can be part of a ministerial answer. An answer would have been for the Prime Minister to say that she is so confident that there is a parliamentary majority that there will be a free vote and the Maori caucus can vote for it. That would have been credible but to say that National Party MPs would vote for it if there were to be a free vote cannot be part of her ministerial responsibility and has no credibility. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members cannot ask the Speaker to interpret answers or put words into Ministers’ mouths. As the member who raised the point of order said there was an attempt to answer the question. Whether it satisfied the member is another issue. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: When the Prime Minister casts her mind back over the last 7 years of parliamentary debate on this matter and notes that parties that opposed the legislation in 1996 support it in 2003 and vice versa what conclusions does she draw from that scenario? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The conclusion I draw is that there has been a long period of time for consideration of the issue. It is fair to say that when the Rt Hon Doug Graham introduced the legislation it came after the legislation had been floated as an idea by the Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer in the late 1980s. 
In this Government’s last term a public discussion was released on these matters in December 2000. There were meetings with Maori in 2001 and further regional meetings with Maori that year. A ministerial advisory group was set up to look at the Maori issues. The bill was introduced on 17 December 2002 more than 9 months ago. There has been a national hui involving Maori on the court structure a full select committee process a report back and now passage. I am satisfied that it has had lengthy consideration. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that New Zealand has no written constitution; does she further accept that the courts are an important part of our constitution; if so does she not agree that it is fundamentally dangerous for a minority Government with a majority of just three votes to change part of the constitution of New Zealand without having called for a referendum? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are three questions there. The Prime Minister can answer two. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If a constitutional change gives more New Zealanders better access to justice in their own country I think that is well worth pursuing. With regard to whether I agree that New Zealand has an unwritten constitution in the sense that New Zealand does not have a document called the “New Zealand Constitution” the member is correct. But of course there are a great many documents in writing that are the basis of our constitution. They run across the Letters Patent the Magna Carta the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the Electoral Act and many many different written documents. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that although the Privy Council might provide a good service for big business ordinary New Zealanders are in general poorly served by it because they simply cannot get access to it; and what is her view of parties that put the interests of the rich above those of ordinary New Zealanders while pretending to support family values? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have said to members that all members are entitled to ask a question in silence. Having heard the question I rule that it is not in order. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Prime Minister give a straight answer to the simple question: why will she not trust the public with a referendum on the abolition of the Privy Council? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is the Government’s view that referenda should be used sparingly and that this does not present a case for it. I say further that if this country 163 years after formal colonisation is not ready to run its top appellate court when will it ever be ready? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table evidence that the Prime Minister and the Labour Party strongly opposed abolishing the Privy Council when it was proposed by Sir Douglas Graham. 
Document not tabled. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In the interests of fairness I seek leave to table the release from the National Party constitutional task force which recommended the abolition of appeals and Mr Ryall’s own press statement that he wrote 3 years ago fully supporting it. 
Documents not tabled. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a supplementary question of the Prime Minister that addressed the primary question. It may be that the final part of the question was outside of her terms as a Minister but the usual practice in this House is for that last bit to be dropped out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part was outside the original question; the second part was out of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: In order to make sure there is a completeness of the record I wish to table the manifesto statements and repeated statements from ACT showing that we have always been in favour of appeals to the Privy Council and have never been in favour of repealing that right. 
Documents not tabled.