Robson Matt: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
Robson Matt: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9112] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 On 28 August 1939 Great Britain declared war on Germany. On 3 September the New Zealand Cabinet did the same. That decision was taken by Cabinet—not by Parliament; not by the people—as was the constitutional convention of the time. Michael Savage the Prime Minister went on radio and his famous words were: “with gratitude for the past and with confidence in the future we range ourselves without fear beside Britain. Where she goes we go. Where she stands we stand”. He spoke within the terms of a constitutional convention of the time that the Prime Minister could declare war. We have moved away from that constitutional convention and recently when an illegal war was declared against the people of Iraq New Zealand refused to take part. Moreover the Government took soundings with the Parliament and the people of New Zealand. It had moved away from the constitutional convention whereby wrapped up in that constitutional convention we would allow our decisions to be taken by a foreign power. Thank goodness in the context of Iraq—where mendacity has been proven on the reason for the war and where there has been an absolute breach of international law—we have moved away from the basis of the constitutional convention that led to the view that where Britain goes we go. 
In the history of this country there has long been a move—and it has been the parties of the left that have led that move—to make sure that decisions affecting our people are made in New Zealand. In 1937 the New Zealand representative at the League of Nations was to make a speech on behalf of the people of New Zealand calling for the invocation of clauses of the League of Nations covenant that would give support to the embattled democratic republic of Spain against the attack of General Franco who was supported by the fascist powers of Italy and Germany. When he rose to give his speech he found there were blue lines through the parts that were critical of Great Britain. The British foreign secretary Anthony Eden—later to be Sir Anthony Eden who led the world in the infamous episode of the attack on the Suez Canal which was the property of the Egyptian people and the attack on which was also supported by the National Government at the time although it was illegal—had put blue pencil lines through the speech of the New Zealand representative. Who would dare to do that today? The only people in Parliament who would like us to be in such a subservient position in our foreign policy are in the National Party which wants the American Ambassador to make our decisions on whether we are nuclear free or not and in the ACT party which believes that if we go to war that decision must be made by Britain and the United States—and I say we could put the inappropriately named in this case New Zealand First Party in that camp as well. 
This legislation is a step to expand the rights of New Zealanders. Therefore I do not understand how it is a constitutional outrage. It would be an outrage if a right was being taken away—certainly. But here we have an expansion of the right of access to justice for New Zealanders. I am a barrister and solicitor and have appeared a number of times in front of the Court of Appeal in New Zealand. But I have never had the funds myself to travel to the Privy Council. I have never had clients who could fund a case to the Privy Council. I now know that my fellow brothers and sisters the lawyers of New Zealand will be in a position to practise in front of the highest court of our country. 
Some people know that I have Australian birth. I am always reminded that one of the heroes of Australia Ned Kelly—he certainly was a hero in my family—would probably not have been hanged if we had not in Australia hung on to some of the constitutional proprieties of the British justice system. I am certain that an Australian court with Australian-born judges would not have hanged Ned Kelly. I am not arguing that we set up a court that would perhaps allow people like Ned Kelly just to be dealt with through restorative justice and released into home detention. But the point I am making is that all countries including Australia New Zealand and other countries that were colonies began the process of moving away from dependence in all areas of their affairs a long long time ago. 
It should be remembered that New Zealand took a long time to move to the position where it would accept the Statute of Westminster. It was passed in 1931 and it was not until 1947 that we let go of our Dominion status. We are a cautious people. In this case as well we are cautious. Canada and Australia ended appeals to the Privy Council a long time ago and the Caribbean countries beat us to the punch. When we pass this bill today we will be ahead of the Caribbean countries in establishing our judicial independence. Our Court of Appeal has a good reputation in terms of its jurisprudence and the ability of the judges on it. But it should be remembered that it came into being as a constitutional change simply by a vote in this Parliament with regard to the Judicature Act 1908. It added a level of appeal that we did not have in New Zealand. Until that time appellants could go only to what was then called the Supreme Court the equivalent of our current High Court. The Court of Appeal inside New Zealand added a tier of appeal in New Zealand and on top of that was the Privy Council. 
Those levels of appeal are important. What is happening in New Zealand is not that a level of appeal is being taken away. No we are replacing the level that was formerly in Great Britain—and was off-limits to those New Zealanders who did not have the funds to take a case there. As well we are expanding the legal areas for cases to be heard. We will give rights to people who never before were able to take a case to a level of appeal such as that of the Privy Council. What is wrong with that if one is a fan of access to justice? I say nothing. 
We should focus on the fact that we have already abolished many of the links to the Privy Council. It is a rare step to be given leave to go to the Privy Council. Most areas of law have long been scrapped where people could go to the Privy Council. This bill restores many of those. The one written constitutional document that most New Zealanders know about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act at section 25(h) states that there is the right if convicted of an offence to appeal according to the law to a higher court against the conviction or the sentence or against both. In criminal cases in New Zealand it is rare to have leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and now this legislation enshrines that fundamental right if people are fighting for the belief that they are innocent to go to our highest court of appeal. 
To the argument of the Opposition the conservative parties that we do not have the legal talent to staff this court I say it has been a long time since people believed that they needed just 50 or 100 classically educated English men—not women—from Eton to go out into the world and rule the savages. It was the belief that those men could rule the Hindus the Chinese—using the terminology of the 19th century—and the people of Africa and that it needed a small number of them. What is the difference between them and those who now say that they should be our legal elite? Where does the Privy Council draw its judges from? It draws them from a very very narrow pool—not the millions who live in Britain—of people mainly educated in the elite colleges. What will we do? We have 4 million vibrant people. We do not put barriers in front of people—men women and people of different cultures and religions—becoming judges in our country. We have a long way to go; there have been barriers there. But we are breaking those barriers down and were breaking them down for a long time before the English system began to do so. So within New Zealand there is an adequate pool of people who can provide the highest judicial officers in our country. When we set up the Court of Appeal we had a population of 3 million; we now have a population of 4 million to draw from. 
On every front—independence for New Zealand judicial advancement and the rights of New Zealand—this bill is a constitutional advance and the parties with the majority in this Parliament have the courage to vote for it. I am sad that United Future which was for the bill has suddenly decided that the blessing of the Business Roundtable is more important than taking the right step to advance the judicial independence of New Zealand. I expected the same thing from the other conservative parties I am afraid.