Finlayson Christopher: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2254] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I do not propose to say very much at all about clauses 7 and 8 in Part 2 but I do want to say something about clause 6. In my second reading speech I said that it was a splendid example of sloppy drafting. It is something that should not have happened and it is totally unacceptable that the New Zealand Parliament should pass legislation abolishing leave to appeal to the Privy Council and then have to come back almost 3 years later to tidy up something that had been missed. So a little bit of background is required. 
Section 64 of the Judicature Act provides for the transfer of civil proceedings from the High Court to the Court of Appeal in exceptional circumstances. An example in our history of an exceptional circumstance was the decision in 1987 by the late Justice Heron to remove into the Court of Appeal the famous  
New Zealand Maori Council 
 v  
Attorney-General 
 case. His Honour thought that the circumstances of the case justified it being dealt with at the Court of Appeal level rather than at the High Court then inevitably going on appeal to the Court of Appeal. So that is what section 64 of the Judicature Act is about. Section 65 which this bill repeals states: “Decision of Court of Appeal final as regards tribunals of New Zealand …”. But then there is a proviso: “Provided that the Court of Appeal may give leave to either party to appeal to the Privy Council.” 
At the second reading I referred the House to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case  
Henry John Esdaile Nation 
 v  
Nicola Mary Nation 
 and to what the Supreme Court referred to as “this curious proviso”. But the reality of the matter is that the proviso should have been repealed 3 years ago. What I find extraordinary—and I invite the Minister to comment on how these things happen—is that schedule 1 of the Supreme Court Act contains a number of amendments to legislation. Part 1 deals with substantive amendments and there is numerous legislation where the words “Privy Council” were removed and “Supreme Court” inserted. Part 2 deals with certain consequential amendments and again a similar process whereby lists of statutes were referred to including the Judicature Act 1908. If there were consequential amendments to the Judicature Act that were picked up in Part 2 of the first schedule one wonders why this could not also have been a consequential amendment. There were then certain consequential repeals and various other changes that were made as a result of the appeals to the Privy Council being abandoned and the substitution of the Supreme Court. 
It is unsatisfactory that these sorts of things need to be revisited 3 years later. It behoves the New Zealand Parliament to do it right the first time. I express my disappointment that this is all too common. In the very short time that I have been here numerous bills have been introduced that have required this kind of minor consequential amendment because the job was not done properly in the first place. The proviso to section 65 should go. Section 65 should go. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) with amendment the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into nine bills progress on the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) and no progress on the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill. 
Report adopted.