Mapp Wayne: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2469] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to include the comments I made earlier today about the importance of the Government getting to grips with the structure of our appellate system. It is clear as my colleague indicated that we have had Judicature Amendment bills Nos 1 and 2 and this particular one is No. 3. Not one of them is substantive. Each of them does valuable things and National will be supporting them but when the Government made such a significant reform as establishing the Supreme Court which my colleague Kate Wilkinson has just referred to one would think there would have been an obligation upon it to take a broader view and to fix up—as I would put it—the overall appellate structure of the New Zealand judicial system. 
 I am also aware that my colleague Mr Chris Finlayson who is a highly experienced advocate both in the High Court and in the appellate jurisdiction has said that what is really needed and what Parliament should be debating is a courts restructuring bill that would really deal with those issues in depth. It would properly establish for instance the relationship between the Maori Appellate Court and other courts and the relationship generally between courts of specific jurisdiction—such as the Environment Court the Employment Court and the Maori Land Court—and courts of general jurisdiction. That sort of work has not been done. I admit that that is a very big project and I suspect that it would take some significant time after proper consultation with the Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice. 
But a more narrowly focused project would concern the appellate courts themselves. Frankly the country deserved that at the time when the Supreme Court was established. I am one of those who recognise that the establishment of the Supreme Court has been a development in the New Zealand legal system from which there is no turning back and I acknowledge that the court has jurists of international repute on it. The fact that Sir Kenneth Keith was appointed to the International Court of Justice in a highly competitive international vote at the United Nations demonstrates the respect and regard that he was held in as a jurist of international quality. I can think of other judges in New Zealand who in the past or indeed in the present meet those tests so I am not one of those who say that the shift to the Supreme Court means that we get some sort of inferior justice. In any event that argument is long passed. 
The matter at the moment that the Minister should be turning his mind to is how we reorganise the balance of the appellate system to ensure we get a fundamentally more coherent approach. I mentioned in my first speech the fact that it has become a practice—although not established by legislation—that the Appellate Court sits in Auckland on essentially an ad hoc basis and always as a court of three. I personally think—but others will have different views of course—that given that Auckland has one-third of New Zealand’s population and that it certainly generates at least one-third of appellate cases there is a very substantial case for there to be two or maybe even three appellate courts in New Zealand. There should certainly be one in Auckland and one in Wellington and there is possibly a case for one in Christchurch—I remain to be convinced about that however. But it can be seen that we have not even considered those kinds of issues and it does not appear that the ministry has properly considered them. Certainly some years ago the Law Commission did some work on them but it was rather overtaken by the events around the Supreme Court. So it seems to me that the Government is missing opportunities. 
I say to the Minister that this 2005-08 Parliament in terms of its legislative agenda—but not in terms of the politics of the place—is likely to be somewhat quiet if I can put it like that. The reasons are obvious. In a finely balanced Parliament it is difficult for any Government to construct majorities for legislation. Indeed as we have seen and as Barbara Stewart and I can both testify it is not only the Government that can construct majorities for legislation—certainly at first readings. In an MMP Parliament it is actually possible for parties across the Parliament to construct majorities for legislation on policies they think are important to the nation. 
One would think that that would give the Government pause for thought so I ask why it does not use this opportunity to do some repair to what I have referred to in other speeches as the “legal toolkit of New Zealand”. If we look at our legislation going back many years we see that that is exactly what the Parliament of 1908 did. It did a superb piece of work in passing a whole lot of legislation principally commercial but not only that and lawyers business people and citizens benefited enormously from the work of that Parliament. The Sale of Goods Act is its most notable highlight. 
The point I am making to Minister Barker is that he is faced with a circumstance in this Parliament when he can also repair the legal toolkit. I see this legislation as legislation that fundamentally reflects a lost opportunity—we can tell that can we not—and I am disappointed to see a bill of this size. As is noted in the appendix the hearing of evidence took the grand total of 15 minutes and the consideration which took 2 hours and 15 minutes was heard some time ago. I say to the Minister that he should use his ministerial authority his warrant and his directive powers vis-à-vis the Law Commission—he has after all one of New Zealand’s most highly trained jurists and a former Prime Minister as head of the Law Commission—to repair the legal toolkit for the benefit of New Zealand. Then maybe this Minister will still be referred to a hundred years from now as the man who did the important repair job on New Zealand’s legal toolkit. That is the opportunity he has; the question I ask of him is whether he will take that opportunity. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 not agreed to.