Court likened to unbridled power

By HELEN TUNNAH and NZPA

Act leader Richard Prebble has warned that Governments have "unbridled power" and should not be left to influence the new Supreme Court by selecting its judges.

Mr Prebble said the process of the Attorney-General appointing the first full Bench of the planned court should not be allowed to happen.

"Margaret Wilson wants to appoint a new court, and wants the right for her Government to appoint it.

"That is something no Government in New Zealand ever had - the ability to appoint the whole bench of a final court from which you can't appeal.

"That is extraordinary power, and it isn't one that any minority Government ought to have."

Mr Prebble was speaking at a press conference held by the three leaders of the major centre-right parties.

The new court will comprise five or six judges, who will be appointed by the Attorney-General on the recommendation of a panel comprising the Solicitor-General, Chief Justice and a lay person - former Governor-General Sir Paul Reeves.

Margaret Wilson has said she will accept the panel's recommendations and will not politicise the court.

Prime Minister Helen Clark yesterday suggested more than 63 MPs supported the bill, but would not be drawn on how she knew this.

By her count, up to 11 opposition MPs had voted for a similar law change when National first proposed it in the mid-1990s.

Labour voted against that bill.

"A lot of the opposition is just plain politics," Helen Clark said.

National Party leader Bill English said it had been a very different party that suggested the law change a decade ago, and that had been defeated because of a lack of support from other political parties.

National in the 1990s had been led by Jim Bolger, who was "an out and out aggressive republican".

Mr English said he had supported the bill then because of Cabinet collective responsibility.

"None of that is actually relevant. This is a major constitutional change.

"It'll have, as Helen Clark has said herself, vast implications, particularly with respect of the Treaty [of Waitangi], and it should go to the people."

The previous bill promoted by National did not include the introduction of a domestic Supreme Court.

The final tier of appeal would have been built into New Zealand's Court of Appeal.

He and the other leaders indicated that they would hold a referendum to restore links with the Privy Council if re-elected to government.

"The constitutional arrangements in New Zealand belong to the people, they do not belong to Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson and Lord Cooke. All of whom believe the people aren't clever enough to understand the issues."

Mr Peters zeroed in on Labour's Maori MPs, who he said were not representing their constituents' views. "Given a free vote, many in the Labour caucus would not support this change. Those MPs representing the Maori electorates cannot, in any conscience, vote for the Supreme Court Bill."

A Herald-DigiPoll survey yesterday found most New Zealanders were comfortable with the appointments process including a panel, but did not necessarily want any Government input.

Forty-six per cent of those questioned supported the appointments process, and 35.4 per cent were opposed. Asked if any of the appointments should be made by the Attorney-General, 46.4 per cent said no and 40 per cent yes.

The poll of 800 people was conducted nationally over the last four days, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 per cent.