PM wants Appeal Court judges for new court

By AUDREY YOUNG

The Government has given its strongest signal yet that the proposed Supreme Court will not be able to be politically stacked.

Prime Minister Helen Clark said yesterday that she wished the five judges to be appointed directly from the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court Bill abolishes final appeals to the Privy Council and establishes a New Zealand court of five judges as the most powerful.

If passed, the court will be headed by the Chief Justice, at present Dame Sian Elias - appointed under a National-led Government.

But critics have raised fears that appointing an entire Supreme Court in one go gives a single Government too much influence.

In response, Attorney-General Margaret Wilson recently suggested that the new judges could come directly from the Court of Appeal. Those appointments have been staggered over various Governments since 1991.

Helen Clark has now added her authority to the appointments proposal, leaving the group responsible for selecting the five new judges in no doubt as to what the Government expects from it.

Helen Clark said she sincerely hoped that "most if not all" would be appointed from the Court of Appeal.

The appointment team will comprise Dame Sian, Solicitor-General Terence Arnold and former Governor-General Sir Paul Reeves - an appointment made by Margaret Wilson after consultation with Maori.

The group advising her on the new court said one of the five judges should have a knowledge of tikanga Maori (Maori custom) and be of Maori ancestry.

Margaret Wilson has said all appointments will be on merit.

The select committee considering the bill has heard from several submitters that Dame Sian, with a wide experience of Treaty of Waitangi law, could fulfil the tikanga Maori requirement.

If the appointments were made on seniority, that would mean jobs in the top court for the present Appeal Court president, Justice Thomas Gault; as well as Justice Kenneth Keith, Justice Peter Blanchard and Justice Andrew Tipping.

National justice spokesman Richard Worth said his party's starting point was that the Privy Council stayed.

But if the Supreme Court went ahead, there should be "an utterly transparent appointment which would see the best judges appointed".

People would need to know who the candidates were.

He also believed that simply transferring judges from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court would shut out able High Court judges.

Mr Worth said in his view National would abolish the Supreme Court and seek to re-establish links with the Privy Council, but the position was not that of the caucus.

"It is quite true to say that the caucus hasn't debated that issue but the caucus has allowed me to run that argument without significant dissent."