Worth Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Worth Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:9036] 
1. RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by her statement that the Government was acting in the “wider interests” regarding the Supreme Court Bill; if so what are those wider interests? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes because the bill will benefit not only large corporations and those who can afford to have a second appeal; it will also give that opportunity to all New Zealanders. In addition the Government accepts the reality that if we do not leave the Privy Council it will leave us. 
Richard Worth 
: Does the Minister agree with media reports regarding the Supreme Court Bill that state: “To pass it into law would be an act of breathtaking arrogance. To assume that a wafer-thin majority is sufficient to enact fundamental changes to the legal and constitutional fabric of New Zealand is nothing short of an abuse of power.”? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No. Not to introduce the bill now would actually create enormous injustice to many New Zealanders who would be denied that second right of appeal. 
Tim Barnett 
: Has the Minister received any reports from the United Kingdom on leaving the Privy Council? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. Privy Counsellor Lord Bingham of Cornhill said in May 2002 that the Privy Council can be seen as a body in its death throes. Privy Counsellor Lord Steyn said in September 2002 that the British Government sees the Supreme Court Bill as a crucial affirmation of New Zealand’s self-reliant sovereignty and national identity. Furthermore Sir Thomas Legg former Permanent Secretary in the Lord Chancellor’s Department at a conference on UK judicial reforms at Cambridge University last weekend said that non-UK users of the Privy Council should be politely invited to consider alternative arrangements and that the new Supreme Court judges should not be burdened with Privy Council work. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What percentage of the Privy Council does the number that she has outlined represent or is it in keeping with the way she is ramrodding this through Parliament—a minority Government without mandate at the election time because the total number of votes of the votes that could have been cast was less than 36 percent; is that the reason she finds those minority statements out of the UK so favourable to herself and her colleagues? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I am not entirely sure I understood the question. I would appreciate some help with it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member please restate the question? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes certainly. If she does not understand I do. What percentage of the Privy Counsellors do those comments by those people represent or is that minority view out of the Privy Council in keeping with the minority support that this matter has in the country and in terms of a parliamentary mandate? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I thank the honourable member. I now understand the question. I do not know what percentage and what all the Privy Counsellors’ opinions are if they even have one on this issue. What I do know is that when I met with many senior members of the British judiciary in June they all wondered why we were still going to the Privy Council when we had such excellent judicial officers ourselves in New Zealand. They love seeing us but they could understand perfectly why we would want our own court. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Do the wider interests that the Minister has referred to include the concern that New Zealand does not currently have a fully functioning final court of appeal because the restricted nature of access to the Privy Council means that it deals with too few cases to play that function and because the heavy workload of the Court of Appeal means it cannot deal exhaustively with matters of law in New Zealand; and does she believe that the Supreme Court Bill will rectify that and give us a fully functioning final court of appeal? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. That is a very important reason we need our own Supreme Court. The second level of appeal does in fact enable the court to consider questions that have been refined through the first appeal process. That is what has been lacking for the majority of New Zealanders in this country. It is overdue that they should have the right to have a consideration of their matters at that level. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Do the wider interests she referred to include the fact that this Government needs to remove New Zealanders’ right of appeal to the Privy Council if the Government is going to achieve her ambition to destroy our Westminster parliamentary system and replace it with her vision of a socialist republic of Aotearoa? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No. I think I understand what is behind the member’s question but I can assure the House that I am a dedicated supporter of the democratic process and the system we have. 
Richard Worth 
: Given her particular constitutional responsibility as Attorney-General and chief law officer of the Government why has she abused her office by ramming this legislation through when on 10 October 2001 she said to the media that “maximum agreement” had to come from the business community if there was to be any change and when in fact there is no support from the business community for this change at all? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The matter is not being rammed through. As the member knows the matter has been under discussion here for over 4 years. Also I believe there is real support from the real business community which can be seen in the latest  
Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion 
 which affirms the upward trend in net optimism in the business sector. If in fact there was so much concern about this issue from that sector I am sure we would have heard about it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If she says she is a supporter of the democratic process why does she not put her mouth where her money is by putting it to the people of this country and letting them decide—not some temporary short-term politician such as herself? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I think it is money where mouth is not mouth where money is. I would note that as the member knows referenda in this country are used rarely and are on matters relating to electoral matters—although as the honourable member knows himself when he sponsored a referendum on superannuation it turned out to be a referendum on him and not the issue unfortunately. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There we go. A business confidence survey is interpreted by the Minister as being an indicator of business support or otherwise of the Privy Council—surely drivel. Now she refers to a past referendum where at least the people got to decide and not her. Unlike her I kept my seat—she did not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a matter for debate. 
Richard Worth 
: Why did the Associate Minister of Justice say in answer to one of the supplementary questions that an advantage of the new Supreme Court is that there would be two levels of appeal when it is now the case that there are two levels of appeal and when there would be a further restraint with the new court in that it would be accessible only by leave? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I realise that the member is not a litigator but in many instances there are not two levels of appeal—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister to answer the question. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: On many matters there are not two levels of appeal for many New Zealanders. That fact is known and that is why it is absolutely essential in the interests of justice that we have the Supreme Court to provide that. Of course it would be available only by leave which is the same requirement for every final court of appeal as it is in the Privy Council at the moment. One cannot get there by right. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You pulled the Minister up and asked her to get on with her question but you missed the point. Yesterday the Assistant Speaker spent a lot of time in the House hauling me over the coals for apparently using unparliamentary language in describing the seven Maori MPs as “the seven gnomes in the bottom of Helen’s garden”. That was apparently a derogatory allegation made against them. Margaret Wilson in starting her comments today had a go at Mr Worth who is a litigator has appeared before the Supreme Court and is well respected in the New Zealand legal community. She should be required to withdraw and apologise for her ridiculous comment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No because the member’s comments were not out of order in terms of parliamentary wording but they were irrelevant to the question and that is why I asked her to continue with the answer.