Smith Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4281] 
6.  
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does she consider the proposed Supreme Court will improve the quality of New Zealand’s judicial system? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Yes. 
Murray Smith 
: Given that the proposed Supreme Court is going to comprise five senior New Zealand judges who presumably are or could have become Court of Appeal judges with the Court of Appeal reduced from five to three judges is her proposal not simply a renaming of the Court of Appeal and the creation of a new intermediate appeal court; if so how will that improve the quality of our judicial system? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: There is no proposal to reduce the number of members on the Court of Appeal at this stage. My understanding is that it will remain exactly the same as it is. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the quality of the proposed Supreme Court? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. Senior law lord Lord Steyn in his talk at Victoria University said: “The Privy Council is going to be replaced by a Supreme Court of the highest calibre a court capable of delivering justice in accordance with the law at the highest level.” 
Richard Worth 
: How can the Attorney-General possibly claim that her new local court will improve our judicial system when the legal profession does not agree with her—which is why the Auckland District Law Society recently passed a unanimous motion calling for appeals to the Privy Council to be retained—and when the Privy Council has proved the Court of Appeal wrong in seven out of the last 11 cases? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Auckland District Law Society recently had its annual general meeting which 55 members out of 3600 or 1.5 percent attended; they passed the resolution. So in effect 1.5 percent of those members passed that resolution. 
Opposition Member 
: It was unanimous. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It was unanimous for 1.5 percent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have said that there will now be a lot fewer interjections. The Minister is giving an answer and unless she gets strictly political when of course comments can be made I want the answer to be heard in relative silence. 
Dail Jones 
: In the light of the fact that the Attorney-General is the principal law officer of this Parliament can she tell the House how many years of legal practice in court she has had and what type of cases she undertook in court? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. That question is wide of the mark and does not need to be answered. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely we are talking about the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council which are court-based. This is the principal law officer of Parliament and the House and the country are entitled to know what experience this person has to make this type of decision. It is a very simple question based on the important factors of appeals to the Privy Council and practice in court. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. That is a different question and should be put down as such. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Why does the Minister not let the people of New Zealand decide whether the change will improve or damage our judicial system by a referendum on this vital constitutional matter? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: This matter has been decided in similar jurisdictions. There has never been a referendum. The matter has been one of debate and discussion in New Zealand for over 30 years. Part of the process at the moment was that in December 2000 a discussion paper was put out and since then debate and discussion have been going on as is happening at the moment with the matter being referred to the select committee which I think is the most qualified body to be able to make a recommendation on that. 
Murray Smith 
: How does transferring our judges from the first tier of our appellate structure into the second leaving the Court of Appeal under-resourced for its heavier workload somehow improve the quality of our judicial system? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Court of Appeal will not be left under-resourced. 
Dail Jones 
: In view of her answer that the Justice and Electoral Committee is the group that is qualified to make this decision is she saying that she herself has no qualifications to make it? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No I am merely following correct parliamentary process. As you know as a member of that committee the bill has been referred to that committee for submissions to be heard. I know you will hear them with an open mind and will then debate the matter and report it back here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will hear them with an open mind not me. 
Murray Smith 
: If New Zealand and the Caribbean countries withdraw from the Privy Council removing 60 percent of its workload what consideration has the Minister given to the fate of all the other small Commonwealth countries that continue to be dependent on the Privy Council for the final right of appeal; or does she not care about them? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Of course we care. We are a very caring Government. But they are independent sovereign countries. I think there will be four left. They very rarely use their access to the Privy Council but I am sure they are quite capable of speaking for themselves and addressing that issue with the Lord Chancellor. 
Question time interrupted. 
Business of the House