Fairbrother Russell: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9120] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 Up and down this country there are people whose most important life is their family life yet they cannot take their disputes to a level of appeal equivalent to that able to be reached by the commercial companies the Opposition seems to support. There are people up and down this country whose most important asset is their house yet they cannot take environmental court disputes to the final level of appeal that the companies this Opposition seems to favour can. Up and down this country there are people who rely every day upon the security of their employment yet they cannot take any employment disputes to the level of appeal that the companies the Opposition seems to support can. Unlike my friend Mr Franks from ACT I do not deny those people a final level of appeal at the top court. 
The top court in this country is and will be the Supreme Court. However it is not a major constitutional change. When Stephen Franks wrote to me on 10 April asking whether I would support his call for a referendum because the court was a major constitutional change I wrote back and said that I did not agree with that for two reasons: firstly because it denied not access to anybody but increased access; and secondly because the court sat within our present framework of courts. I got no response. He fought it out in the newspapers rather than justifying his unfounded allegation of a major constitutional change. 
What is the major constitutional court in this country? It is described in section 18 of the Constitution Act of 1986 as the court of High Court judges the High Court. Incidentally that Act was passed without a referendum; it is described by all academic writers and leading lawyers as our premier constitutional legislation. The Constitution Act is carried forward to the present bill. Section 4B—in clause 42A—which nobody has bothered to refer to states: “The Chief High Court Judge is responsible to the Chief Justice for ensuring the orderly and prompt conduct of the High Court’s business.”—that is under this bill the Chief Justice heads the superior judiciary which is our High Court. Our High Court is the only court in this land with inherent jurisdiction. Any matter that needs to be argued in the interests of justice can be argued in the High Court. All other courts including our Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court are defined by statute. Our High Court inherits its powers from the common law so it must remain our major constitutional court. 
That is why those people arguing shibboleths arguing for referendums are defeating their own argument because the strength of the argument we have heard today is exactly why we should not have a referendum. People advance untruths shades of truth and downright misunderstandings of the law. That will be the effect on people who rely upon newspapers such as the  
New Zealand Herald 
 to make their decisions. They will be misled they will not be helped and the decision they make will be uninformed as was predicted by the former Chief Justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum in June of this year when he spoke to the select committee. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is unclear to me whether the member is suggesting that untruths have been propounded by members of this House or solely by people outside the House. I ask whether you could clarify that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have listened very carefully. At this stage the member has not gone out of order but if he does suggest that any member in this House tells an untruth he will be withdrawing and apologising. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Sir Thomas Eichelbaum pointed out to the select committee and I must say he was unchallenged by any member opposite that a referendum was an inappropriate way to handle a change such as this because the people making the decision would not be properly informed and those with money would have their view advanced in the press better than that of people affected by this measure but without money support. 
This is a bill that brings justice back to New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] The irony is that the judges that that man who is yelling chooses to criticise as not being competent are invited to sit on our Privy Council and the judgments from the Court of Appeal that he criticises the judgments from the Privy Council that he favours are often written by our own New Zealand judges who sit on the Privy Council. Is that a consistent argument? No. Is the opposition to this bill consistent? No because there is no logical foundation to argue against our Constitution Act to argue against section 4B in clause 42A of this bill. We must bring justice back to New Zealand. 
My friend Georgina te Heuheu complained about the loss of status of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty of Waitangi is not embodied in any legislation that affects the Privy Council but if she goes to the purpose clause she will see that it is embodied there. That same member ignores the 1964 Privy Council decision that countries that go to the Privy Council have no direct right of access to the monarch. The Privy Council is solely a judicial forum. This myth that Maori are being deprived of access to the monarch which is being perpetuated in this Chamber today is a myth not based on fact. Lawyers who perpetuate it are failing to read their own common law—the 1964 decision from Ceylon that has been unchallenged ever since. And people have advanced denial of access to the monarch as a reason for Maori opposing this measure! 
Ladies and gentleman the time has come for this court. As the only practising appellate lawyer in this Chamber—the only lawyer in this Chamber who has appeared before the Privy Council—I say that the Privy Council should have been long gone and I welcome the Supreme Court. This is a great day for New Zealand a great day for the man in the street and a great day for justice. I support the bill.