Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8617] 
11.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Has the Government considered appealing or seeking a rehearing of the seabed and foreshore case in the Court of Appeal on the grounds that gave Pinochet a rehearing in the House of Lords; if so why has no application been made? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 “No” is the answer to the question. The reason is that this Government has every confidence in the Court of Appeal and in the judiciary generally. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why has the Government got that confidence and why has it not considered challenging that decision when the Attorney-General said 5 days after the decision that she would pass a law to overturn it; when it reversed 40 years of settled law; when it made other laws unworkable without regard for parliamentary sovereignty; and when in comparison with the conflicts of Lord Hoffman in the Pinochet case the appeal would be a no-brainer as the leading Court of Appeal judge had an unchallengeable appearance of bias in favour of Maori ownership of the seabed and foreshore whatever her actual state of mind? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question is in order. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Court of Appeal decision was on one point and that was that there was a right to take the matter to the Maori Land Court. There seemed no reason for the Government to appeal that decision. 
Richard Worth 
: What stance will the Crown take on the appeal by the Marlborough District Council to the Privy Council given that the Crown is a party to the appeal and cannot withdraw from it because the Crown has to be bound by the appeal; will the Crown support the appellant—as it has in the past—or will it backtrack and oppose the appeal? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Government decided not to appeal in its own right. It knows there is an appeal and it will stand by whatever decision comes from that. 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is not an answer to the question that I asked. It is quite clear that the Crown is not appealing in its own right but it is a party to the appeal and I asked whether the Crown would support the appeal or oppose the appeal given that it is a party to it. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I apologise; I thought it was obvious that we will take a neutral position. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why should we not conclude that the real reason for the Crown not appealing is that the Attorney-General wants a top court to be free to make politically correct laws that a House elected by the people would not pass; otherwise why would the Supreme Court Bill provide that the Chief Justice must in future sit on every case that goes to final appeal and end our right of appeal to an independent tribunal? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: This Government upholds the rule of law; an essential component of this is the independence of the judiciary. It is demonstrably clear from the member’s question that he does not. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Why did the Government not appeal the Court of Appeal decision? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Government considers that the questions raised by the Court of Appeal as a result of its decision can best be addressed through our working through the issues which is what we are doing in the present consultation process. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does the Minister think the House of Lords was wrong to hold that even a Pinochet had a right to be heard by impartial judges; and why is she ramming through the Supreme Court Bill which will leave New Zealanders at the mercy of a court that thinks it is OK for a judge to sit on issues on which he or she has shown in advance a passionate commitment to one side? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: There is absolutely no evidence of any bias—which is the allegation the member has made—on the part of any judge in the Court of Appeal. I note that there is a convention and a Standing Order in this House that we do not criticise judges personally; we may criticise judgments but not judges personally.