Ryall Tony: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8990] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I would like to take a call to alert members of the Committee to the fact that there should be an amendment to the title of this legislation. The titles of bills should in fact convey to the reader and the public the essence and substance of what is proposed by the legislation. This bill goes far beyond setting up a Supreme Court in New Zealand and I say to members that the title should be amended to reflect that. 
First of all this bill is not about ending the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is about denying New Zealanders the right of appeal to the Privy Council. That should be reflected in the title of this legislation. It is a denial because the vast majority of New Zealanders have not had the opportunity to have a say on the major constitutional change that is incorporated in this bill. That is why the title should alert the people of New Zealand to the fact that their right of appeal to one of the most esteemed judicial authorities is being denied by the Government. There are many people in this Parliament who think that eventually that right of appeal should be denied but I do not think the Attorney-General deserves the trust of this House or of the people in promoting that sort of denial of an appeal right. That is why I have moved a couple of amendments to this bill. 
I will certainly support the amendment moved by the former senior partner in one of New Zealand’s leading law firms Richard Worth the National Party member for Epsom who also wants to move changes to the title of this bill. When we have one of the senior commercial lawyers in New Zealand standing up in this Chamber—this is not a university professor who has talked to 21-year-olds; this is a man who has been at the leading edge of commercial law in this country—and saying that this title does not reflect the will of the Parliament let alone that of the people I think he should be listened to. Mr Worth with his years of experience in practical law as it affects real businesses and real people is saying that this bill is not just about a Supreme Court in New Zealand but about denying the right of New Zealanders to go to the Privy Council. That right is being denied by an Attorney-General who has absolutely no right to foist that sort of change on New Zealand because she has not earned the respect of the New Zealand public or of this Parliament that would entitle her to make those sorts of changes. 
This legislation is all about this Government’s hell-bent desire to wreak constitutional change on this country by means of a majority of three votes. There is no moral authority to support any constitutional change by means of three votes—by one party that does not have one elected constituency member giving them those votes. Not one electorate has endorsed the Green Party. So what authority does that party have to vote with this left-leaning rabble to pass a constitutional change that the title of this bill does not fairly reflect? There is absolutely no authority for the Government to make a change by three votes and this change is being promoted by an Attorney-General who has not earned the right to lead any constitutional change in this country. That is why we have amendments. 
As I said when we have Richard Worth the MP for Epsom standing up and saying on the basis of his years of experience of dealing with commercial litigation and contracting in this country that this change is bad for New Zealand and that this title does not reflect what is in this bill then the Attorney-General should listen to what he has to say. I say to the Labour Party that this constitutional change should not be brought about without the overwhelming endorsement of the people of New Zealand and not without the overwhelming endorsement of at least three-quarters of this House. There is no support in this House for this change. The majority of constituency-based parties in this Parliament are not in favour of this legislation. This Government is relying on a list party to support it. That is not moral when making a constitutional change. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters.