Worth Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Worth Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8880] 
8.  
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Will she have the final recommendation on who the judges appointed to the Supreme Court will be and is it her intention to follow the recommendations of the panel? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
:  
Yes and yes. 
Richard Worth 
: Why has she created a Clayton’s panel to advise her on appointments to the Supreme Court when she has already said and had reported in the media that she is likely to make appointments exclusively from the Court of Appeal; what is it that each member of the panel will contribute to the process? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I am following the same process that the previous Attorney-General has followed with the exception that I have supplemented that panel with an additional member. The reason this process is being followed is that there are seven members on the Court of Appeal. Four recommendations will be made—five if one includes the Chief Justice who is included—so it is not known automatically who will be there. That is why I need advice from the panel and I do not believe that it is a Clayton’s panel. 
Dail Jones 
: How can the Attorney-General say she is following a process that has been followed before when the Privy Council has never been abolished before and this is an entirely new process for the establishment of a Supreme Court; and will she consider the judges’ names that are to be forwarded being notified to say the Justice and Electoral Committee so that the committee can give some consideration to the appointments that are to be made and its meetings to be held in camera? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: All judges who are appointed are High Court judges. In that sense as I have said I am following the process that has been set down but supplementing it in recognition of the fact that this is for the Supreme Court. Why the matter has not been referred of course to the select committee is that to do so would be contrary to what I understood the select committee wanted; it did not want blatant political appointments. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Why is the Minister apparently not prepared to follow constitutional conventions and avoid any suggestion of political bias or interference by simply appointing the most senior judges from the Court of Appeal? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: That is why I am following the constitutional convention that has evolved in this country—that is by having recommendations from a panel. In this instance there seems to be no reason to change that practice. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister agree that the issue of judicial appointments goes well beyond the Supreme Court; and following her discussions with the Green Party what consideration does the Government intend to give the issue of a judicial appointments commission to make judicial appointments in general less political? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I understand that during submissions on the bill the Green Party raised that we should follow the UK example of setting up a discussion paper and inquiry into whether we should establish a commission to recommend judicial appointments. I have already indicated that I am very comfortable with proceeding with that and hopefully a discussion paper will be available in the new year. 
Richard Worth 
: Did the Minister not deal with judicial appointments in the Judicial Matters Bill because she wanted to be able to appoint the Supreme Court effectively by herself in a triumph of social engineering; if not why does the Judicial Matters Bill not deal with judicial appointments as the Justice and Electoral Committee was led to believe that it would? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I am following the normal practice in making judicial appointments. I am following the process that was established prior to this Government by the Attorney-General in the previous National-led Government. I see no reason to change that practice at this time. The Judicial Matters Bill came long after the Supreme Court legislation.