Connell Brian: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2252] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have to comment on the contribution from Russell Fairbrother. If he had made that contribution in the Government Administration Committee rather than having his head in his laptop all the time we would not have been any wiser but we certainly would have been much more amused. 
I want to take the opportunity to summarise some of the points that have been made by going through some of the key issues. The maximum number of Court of Appeal judges will be increased from seven to nine including the President and National accepts that as sensible. But underneath that is an inherently deeper problem and the issue of workload with the pressures that are causing the number of judges to be increased in my view still has not been adequately addressed. We are in danger of treating the symptom but not addressing the problem. 
The flexibility and delivery of judgments we accept as sensible but my concern regarding the authoring of decisions is something about which I still leave the Committee on notice. It is not just my view. In fact I think that it is one of the contributions Mr Fairbrother made when he confirmed to the select committee that that was happening and happening all too often. So it is a real issue that I hope we now have covered off. Relaxing the restriction on appeals to the Supreme Court is something that should have been done sooner but because of the great work that National members did on the select committee that issue has now been addressed. 
Removal of the redundant reference to the Privy Council—well it should not have been necessary in the first place. We should never have given up our right to appeal to the Privy Council. The argument has been made and made very well this evening that if we want quality decisions then we want quality brains making them and the reference to the Privy Council is right there in the bill. If we want quality decisions made then we need the best brains available and the abolition of that right was just an example of the tall-poppy syndrome in action. We should never have lost that right. The reason behind it was that this Government thought that if it could abolish going to the Privy Council it could influence the judiciary in this country—as is the wont of the Prime Minister. It is happening regularly; we are seeing lots of examples of it—and Mr Benson-Pope should get that smile off his face because he is one of the prime examples. 
And it is happening again is it not? It is happening again now with the Parker “Pimpernel”—with David Parker right at the moment—and we are seeing the long reach of the Prime Minister influencing the judiciary once again. This bill should not have been addressing that particular issue. If we had not lost appeal rights to the Privy Council in the first place we would not need to make reference to that council in this bill. What is happening of course—the real agenda here—is that the Prime Minister wants to turn this country into a republic. That is what is really happening and any linkage with the Privy Council would have been a flaw in that strategy. Any links with the monarchy is something that is anathema to this Prime Minister. 
This bill on balance is something that National supports. The contribution that has been made by National members in the select committee has been simply stunning. Russell Fairbrother in a weak moment took me aside and said: “Brian thank goodness we have you and your other National colleagues on this because I don’t turn up very often and I don’t concentrate very often. So thank God someone is making sensible decisions on behalf not only of the Government but of other members of this House as well.” 
I see I have a bit of time to make another couple of comments regarding access to the Court of Appeal. Access to that court is sensible and it is something the National Party supports as well.