Tanczos Nandor: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9100] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are proud to support this bill. We believe that it accords with the Green Party charter and our principles. We also believe that the idea of the final court of appeal in New Zealand being situated on the other side of the world in London is just bizarre and not credible for an independent nation such as ourselves. We are pleased that this country will finally get a fully functioning final court of appeal. The point has been made in this debate previously that we do not have a fully functioning final court of appeal in this country. The access to the Privy Council is so restricted and the number of cases that can get there are so few that the Privy Council is just not able to fulfil the traditional functions of a final court of appeal. On the other hand our own Court of Appeal gets so many cases that it is unable to fulfil that function. It does not have the time to deal exhaustively with matters of law in order to play that function. 
It is no surprise that we see the right-wing parties of the House line up together to support a final court of appeal that serves the rich well but does not serve the ordinary New Zealander. The question that the Green Party had to address in dealing with this bill was whether we support justice for all New Zealanders or justice just for the rich. We unashamedly support justice for all New Zealanders. We believe that this bill is a step towards the decolonisation of this country and the development of the forging of a national identity. Some people have claimed that this is a move towards republicanism. Those claims are exaggerated. Lord Cooke said very clearly in the select committee that although he is an ardent monarchist he supports this bill. We have only to look at the example of other countries—Canada Australia and the like—which have ended their appeals to the Privy Council but remain part of the Commonwealth with the Queen as their head of State. 
However I personally have to say that I hope we will see constitutional change in the not too distant future. I believe that we do need to move towards a republic. We do need treaty-based constitutional change and a written constitution to constrain the ability of this House to act particularly within the context of a unicameral system. We need to end the fallacious doctrine of the indivisibility of sovereignty which is just incorrect in the context of Aotearoa. 
The Attorney-General has outlined the process by which this policy was developed and by which the bill arising out of the policy was developed. This bill has highlighted a more general concern that the processes by which the Crown engages with Maori in general have not been well developed by any Government whether Labour or National. The select committee has asked for more work to be done by the Government on how processes of negotiation can be better managed. However it is simply not true to say as some do that this bill has been rushed that it has been introduced by stealth or that the public has not had the chance to have input. The Attorney-General has outlined the lengthy process that the bill has gone through and that process included an extended select committee process to try to ensure that the public had ample opportunity to have a say on the bill in addition to the discussions prior to it being introduced into this House. 
There have been accusations by some including the Hon Georgina te Heuheu among others that the Greens are supporting this bill because we have done some kind of a deal. One has to ask: “A deal on what?”. I cannot even begin to imagine. Perhaps a deal on GE? Well we have yet to see the Government budge one millimetre on the GE issue in response to the Green Party representations and in response to the many thousands of people who marched in the streets this last weekend. Did we do a deal on the Clean Slate Bill perhaps? I do not think so. Perhaps we will see tomorrow if my Clean Slate Bill comes up during members’ day but I am certainly not holding my breath to see the Government support my Clean Slate Bill because I would probably expire if I did. Those people simply find it difficult to understand that there is a party in this House that does not operate like that—that does not trade between issues and that acts with integrity on such matters. They fail to understand that the Green Party has a consistent position that we will support legislation when we think it is good legislation and we will oppose legislation when we think it is bad legislation. It is just that simple. 
I have to distinguish the members of that member’s own party National whose leader Bill English said on National Radio last Friday that he supported the National bill in 1996 but is opposing this bill now because of who has put it up—because Margaret Wilson has put it up and because the Prime Minister is Helen Clark. If that is the reason the National Party is opposing the bill I have to say that is the kind of first-past-the-post politics that this country rejected when we moved to MMP. The Green Party has not done a deal and in fact the position of the Green Party to support this bill was a democratic decision of the entire party not just of the caucus—and I believe that the Green Party policy development process is the most democratic of any party in this Parliament. It was the position of the party and it was reaffirmed by the caucus to support this bill. 
I have to acknowledge that there are members of the Green Party who do not support the position that the party has taken. In particular some of the Maori members have expressed grave concern about the bill and would prefer to see the Green Party oppose the Supreme Court at this stage. They want to see a written constitution developed and the status of Te Tiriti o Waitangi clarified before the bill is passed. That is a perfectly legitimate point of view. But it was a decision of the whole party democratically arrived at through our policy development process and affirmed by the caucus through a separate process to support this bill. That is the will of the Green Party and that is what the Green Party caucus will continue to uphold. 
The concerns expressed by those members have been acknowledged by the party and are the subject of ongoing discussion with the Government in terms of providing impetus to a proposal for a constitutional inquiry through the Justice and Electoral Committee. I certainly do not think it is the place of the select committee to say what our constitution should be. But I think the select committee could play a very useful role in saying what our constitution is now because there is a lot of confusion about that and in saying what the appropriate process is by which this Parliament can engage with the public to have a public discussion about our constitution. 
I would like in the last stages of my speech to refer to the question of referenda. I talked about this during the Committee stage so I will not go over the many good arguments against referenda on this particular bill in general except to say that although some media have jumped on the bandwagon in the last few days and whipped up fear through in one case at least a good deal of misinformation and outright lies there is no evidence in fact of a widespread call for a referendum. A poll published in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today shows support for a referendum but any poll would show support for a referendum on just about any piece of legislation. If one phones people up and asks them whether they want to have a say through a referendum they are bound to say “Yes”. But I think it is highly significant that the campaign to get a petition to force a citizens initiated referendum had to be relaunched a few days ago because it had flopped so badly the first time it was launched. So I think this House has to conclude that there is no evidence of a significant call from the public for a referendum. 
This bill is good legislation and it was clearly signalled by Labour before the election. Finally this country will have a fully functioning final court of appeal that is open to all kinds of cases and wide open to all New Zealanders not just the elite friends of some of the parties of this Parliament. The Green Party will support this bill.