Fairbrother Russell: Supreme Court Bill — Second Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Supreme Court Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:8921] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 The Maori vote spoken about by the previous member is represented by rhetoric and bullying and that member knows very well that most submitters on that issue at the hui at Rotorua had not read the bill. That included former Judge Heta Hingston of the Maori Land Court who spoke loudly in opposition to the bill but who when I asked admitted that he had not read the bill. That was the substance of the submissions. The submitters were wound up by that member for the benefit of that member’s vote as he tried to curry favour with and mislead the submitters. 
Yet what has the Privy Council done for Maori? The Privy Council has done for Maori precisely what it has done for the rest of New Zealanders: very very little. In 2001 President Gault of the Court of Appeal said that 95 percent of the cases in New Zealand never go to the Privy Council and that the Court of Appeal is virtually the final court of appeal for most cases in New Zealand. That is because the jurisdiction to get a case to London is so narrow. And when people do get to London with their cases they often find it is a New Zealand judge who will preside. 
Let me take the case of Chris Wingate who paid $3.5 million in New Zealand to have his case defended. After the High Court had twice found in his favour he went to the Privy Council paying $1 million for English counsel. There his case was rejected in a judgment written by a New Zealand judge. That is not English justice; that is New Zealand justice delivered 12000 miles away. Those who have spoken against this proposal and most submitters have never been to the Privy Council. They have no concept of what it is like. They have the belief that the Privy Council is much better than our courts because it is a long way away in England and because it is free it must be far better still. Well Winston Peters is free to most people in this country but he is not admired by many of them. 
This bill will bring to all New Zealanders a right of final appeal before a court that is made up of people who understand and represent New Zealand. Recently in my electorate of Napier one of the country’s most profitable freezing works companies the Richmond freezing company was subject to an underhand takeover by a South Island freezing works PPCS Ltd. The High Court found that its efforts were dishonest. Recently the Court of Appeal released a judgment upholding the PPCS appeal and overturning the High Court judgment in favour of the Richmond freezing company. And what did that major freezing works say? It said it could not afford the cost of going to the Privy Council. So even in the commercial sector the most recent instance of a matter that should be taken to a higher court languishes undecided because London is too far away and too inaccessible. 
It is not just commercial cases that are affected by that. What has the track record of the Privy Council been in respect of Maori in recent times? It has been nothing at all; the cases are sent back to New Zealand for decision. Litigants who have no money whatsoever have to rely on a lawyer who is prepared to do the work for nothing and to go to London to argue the case because the cost of getting legal aid is too prohibitive. Many people are languishing in our jails right now who have taken good cases to the Court of Appeal and have been concerned about its judgments solely because that court handles nine times the amount of work of any other final appellate court in a Commonwealth jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal turns out 450-odd judgments a year whereas a final appellate court should address just 50 cases or fewer—as will the Supreme Court. 
When we get a final court of appeal—the Supreme Court of New Zealand—that handles a reasonable number of cases we will get considered decisions that reflect the major movements in our law in this country. It will give service to the people of New Zealand and give judgments that people will be satisfied with. We have the intellectual capability here because our judges are welcome to sit on the Privy Council. We have the training here and we will develop a Bar that will be able to argue at the final level of appeal. At present we have a Bar that is not experienced in arguing at the second level of appeal because so few of its members go to London. We will develop a jurisprudence that reflects New Zealand we will develop an expertise with our legal profession that will develop New Zealand and we will develop a respect in the Commonwealth for our judicial system—a respect that we engender in all activities in this country. 
I endorse this bill thoroughly because it brings New Zealand justice home to this country—justice by New Zealanders. It will be justice of a standard we all desire and we will get top-shelf decisions from our top judicial leaders. They will deliver judgments that will lead us into the rest of this century. I support this bill.