Supreme Court Bill

Goodness knows how we will get on tonight when we come to the “Gnome Bill”! However, let me just say to those Māori members over there that we hear so often from them about reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Well, one of the key principles of the treaty must be the reference that all of us have to stand before the courts as equals. No doubt, when that treaty was signed and intentions were there, those people who signed understood that one of those principles meant the right to appeal directly to the Crown via the legal committee of the Privy Council. For those members to come into this House and have no view about why that is being changed, to sit mute and not represent the views of the Māori people, who do not want this bill to go through, and to sit mute and not even say why they have decided to vote against those whom they are here to represent is quite unacceptable. It leads to a suggestion that there is a degree of muzzle on that faction within the Labour caucus.

Further, where are the Labour Party lawyers who are experts in this field? Not the law professor, not the various people with legal degrees who have never practised, but where is Russell Fairbrother? Why is he not part of this debate? The Opposition has put forward speakers who are well experienced in the law, people who have been to the Privy Council, and people who understand the value of going to the Privy Council. The Opposition has made a case for this title to fall over. The Government has not adequately said what is so good about it.

I want to ask a final question. If this bill is to stand and appeals to the Privy Council are to go, why does Helen Clark not relinquish her “Rt Hon” title? Why does Helen Clark not say: “I no longer want to be referred to as the Rt Hon Helen Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand, member of the Queen’s Privy Council. I simply want to be Helen Clark, potential leader of the Republic of New Zealand.”? Because that is what we are heading for.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do not think that you put that amendment correctly, and I do not think that it has been appropriately identified. When you identified the amendment, you did not refer, in fact, to what the planned change was. The planned change as I have it is the “Supreme Court and Repeal of Appeals to the Privy Council Act 2003”. You did not put that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): We have three amendments.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 1 be agreed to:

to omit the words “Supreme Court Act 2002” and substitute the words “Supreme Court and Repeal of Appeals to the Privy Council Act 2003”.