Palmer sees little use for Privy Council

By AUDREY YOUNG

Appeal rights to the Privy Council under New Zealand law are "very ramshackle", former Prime Minister and constitutional law specialist Sir Geoffrey Palmer yesterday told the select committee considering the Supreme Court Bill.

The bill abolishes appeal rights to the Privy Council in London and establishes an indigenous Supreme Court as the final appellate court, a move backed by Sir Geoffrey.

Not only did the Privy Council not hear enough cases, he said, but it did not hear the right sort of cases to exercise its proper function, to clarify and develop the law of New Zealand in a coherent and robust way.

The Privy Council had heard only about five criminal cases in its history.

"They don't get Environment Court cases, they can't get commerce cases nor employment cases and yet those matters are just as important and need development from the final appellate court as much as ordinary civil cases, which is the conspicuous part of their diet.

"It's a very ramshackle arrangement that we've got in terms of the cases that can go."

The Court of Appeal is the final appellate court for many of New Zealand's cases at present.

Sir Geoffrey said he believed the Privy Council was a colonial relic and ill-equipped to remain as New Zealand's final appellate court.

In his written submission, Sir Geoffrey recounted conducting a case before the Privy Council in 2001 "in which the weaknesses of the Privy Council were evident".

He had spent much of his argument explaining Maori concepts in the Resource Management Act 1991 and Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

"I was shocked to find on that occasion that a full set of New Zealand statutes up to date are not held in the Privy Council library," he told the committee.

"Indeed, the quality of the library in terms of New Zealand legal materials is absolutely wanting."

During questioning, he revealed how that view had influenced his response to the landmark SOE case which came to legally define the Treaty of Waitangi relationship as "a partnership".

"When I was the Attorney-General, the most important case of all was decided, the Maori Council case, the great lands case," Sir Geoffrey said.

"And I resisted appealing that to the Privy Council and did not do so because I didn't believe that their lordships were equipped to handle a matter of that complexity in New Zealand."

Sir Geoffrey said New Zealand's link to the Privy Council "is a bit of an embarrassment".

The other part of the world that retained appeal right, the West Indian countries, might soon sever their links, "which will leave us like a shag on a rock - very lonely, conspicuous and exposed".

"New Zealand's status as a sovereign independent country is very hard to defend when we retain this appeal to the Privy Council."

Also giving a submission, the southern tribe of Ngai Tahu opposed the proposal that one of the five judges should have an understanding of tikanga Maori, or Maori custom.

"Ngai Tahu strongly opposes the establishment of such a convention as it considers that this could give rise to an inappropriate appointment," its submission said.

"Judges should only be selected on the basis of their legal skills and acumen, personal integrity and overall merit for the role, and not on some specific area of competency."

The tribe recommended that conventions be developed to require all appointees to the Supreme Court to be sufficiently versed in tikanga Maori to enable them to hear those relevant matters before them.

Ngai Tahu also opposed the abolition of appeal right to the Privy Council.

In another submission, the NZ section of the Commonwealth Press Union asked that the public interest in the court and the right to observe and report on the Supreme Court be enshrined in the law.

The CPU also asked that in the interests of openness written submissions to the Supreme Court should be available to the press.