Collins Judith: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
Collins Judith: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
[Volume:608;Page:5707] 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 There was one part of the contribution from the previous speaker from Labour that was sensible and that is when she said that the people should decide about Maori seats and general seats. She said that the people should decide did she not? We should have a referendum. Not only should we have a referendum on that particularly important constitutional issue but we should have a referendum on the other constitutional issue facing this country and that is the abolition of the Privy Council and its replacement with a politically correct little group appointed by the Hon Margaret Wilson the Attorney-General. 
The rule of law is absolutely the most important feature of our cultural identity of our country of our way of life and of our constitution. The rule of law is under extreme threat from this Government and I shall give members the facts. In 1990 5276 commercial filings in the High Courts of New Zealand took place. Last year there were 1300. That is about a quarter and there is a reason for that. Lawyers and people who use the courts have completely lost faith in that Attorney-General in that party and in its court system. What has she got for it? She is going to give us some little patsy group that she wants to put together. She has come up with all sorts of little arguments about it. 
I am happy to quote from Alan Galbraith QC one of the top commercial lawyers in this country who has spoken about his concern about the erosion of the rule of law. He said that in practice much of the real law is now put into arbitrations and the reason is that they have lost faith in our court system that that Attorney-General has been administering for the last 4 years. It was that Attorney-General whom the Hon Justice Dyson Heydon a High Court judge of Australia referred to when he talked about the threat to the rule of law where judicial activism has created the present state which they said at least is not as bad in Australia as it is in New Zealand. That is what the Australian judiciary thinks about us: it is not as bad as it is in New Zealand because we have an appalling situation. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr Galbraith went on to say—for that “Minister” from Wanganui who should occasionally take a call instead of screaming like some banshee. One thing I will say about that particular member from Wanganui is that she could get a job stripping the paint off the walls of Parliament should we ever wish to change the colour. Honestly what an appalling sound that cackle is. 
Mr Galbraith went on to say that it is important that the New Zealand court system maintains the integrity and confidence of the commercial community in its processes and outcomes. I know that that member might not want to hear the facts. I know that she does not want to hear any sensible argument. I see David Cunliffe the would-be Cabinet Minister who should be in his own seat because No. 1 he is interjecting out of order and he is not in Cabinet and never will be. Oh dear what a shame too bad! That Attorney-General says that we should have our own Supreme Court. Canada which has its own Supreme Court has 136 permanent appeal judges from which they select their final Court of Appeal. Australia has 37 permanent appeal court judges. 
 Do members know how many we have? We have five. That is all we have and we are trying to compete with Canada which has 136. Both of those countries Canada and Australia have federal systems. Both of them have a system where there is a constitution to protect their people. They have a constitution and a federal system. In this particular Parliament we have only one House. We have no other protection constitutionally and the Supreme Court will not be able to protect us.