Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9031] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I thank the Chair for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Part 2 on behalf of the National Party. I start by observing with a degree of sadness that the contribution Labour members have made to the debate at the very highest would have to be described as minimal and ungenerous. Indeed it is my recollection that only one Labour member of Parliament has spoken apart from those members who moved closure motions and that was the Attorney-General who has nominal charge of the bill. That is a pity in the context of Part 2. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I bring your attention to Speaker’s ruling 51/5 which relates to continuous interjections by members. Two members—the senior and junior Government whips—have in the last minute made a constant barrage of interjections against my colleague Richard Worth and I ask that you rule on this matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There is no need for me to rule. Interjections are usually always going on in the Chamber. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I referred to 51/5. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes interjections need to be rare and reasonable. The interjections were perhaps a little unreasonable and too constant. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I am not concerned by a barrage of interjections from people like the senior Government whip. That is to be expected from a person who does not have the wit or the intellect to make a substantive contribution to a debate. 
I want to talk about Part 2 and not be further distracted. I want to talk about the lack of contribution that Government members have made to Part 2. The last significant piece of constitutional law passed was the Constitution Act which was passed in 1986. On that occasion every member of the House voted in favour of it. The voting on Part 2 of this bill which is a significant constitutional part will have a margin of maybe three votes. It will be the slenderest of margins. 
In the calls that I hope to be given on Part 2 I want to focus primarily on clause 43 which amends section 57 of the Judicature Act and in particular provisions relating to the composition of the Court of Appeal. Clause 43 proposes a new subsection for section 57 and deals with the constitution of that court. I would like to deal with the topic in the context of the announcement by the Attorney-General and to some extent pre-empted by the Prime Minister as to what the grand plan is for the composition of the new Supreme Court. The proposal that the Prime Minister first advanced and that her faithful follower the Attorney-General seems determined to implement despite the involvement of a Clayton’s advisory panel is that the judges of the Court of Appeal will simply be transmogrified into Supreme Court judges. 
The Court of Appeal is probably the court of record in our hierarchy that has the greatest pressure in the context of doing intellectually challenging work. If it is the plan to move those judges from the Court of Appeal to the new Supreme Court and leave one remaining the Court of Appeal will be gutted yet it will be the Court of Appeal that remains as the body that is destined to resolve the most significant pieces in terms of the hurly-burly of court cases that require appellate review. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Absolute doom merchant. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: The member opposite talks about doom merchants. I think in response to her interjection that it is a huge sadness that the new Supreme Court takes life under a significant cloud. It is a cloud because there is no real support from so many members of the Committee for these changes. It will be—or should be—one of our great constitutional structures; our final appellate court. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Why didn’t you support it? 
RICHARD WORTH 
: The member asks why National did not support it. If she had been present as she most likely was and more important if she had listened she would have heard a series of what I suggest are compelling arguments in favour of the retention of the current structure.