Privy Council on way out - by 6 votes

By HELEN TUNNAH, deputy political editor

The Government will abolish appeals to the Privy Council within days despite gathering only a slender majority of support for the change.

Attorney-General Margaret Wilson said yesterday that a local Supreme Court would be set up to replace the Privy Council in London, even though only 63 of Parliament's 120 MPs back the move. It has also had only limited public support.

"It's time we entered the 21st century and for New Zealanders to take responsibility for their own legal system," she said.

The new law is due to be passed in Parliament next week and the Supreme Court will begin hearing appeals by July.

United Future yesterday said it would join National, New Zealand First and Act in opposing the law, which ends the Privy Council's role as New Zealand's final appeal court.

The party said there was no public or business enthusiasm for change.

But Labour can pass the law with the support of the Progressive Coalition and the Greens.

And it made it clear yesterday that it intended to do so.

Some constitutional changes, including amendments to major electoral laws such as the voting age, require the support of three-quarters of MPs.

But nothing prevents Governments making changes to the court system with only a simple majority.

Opposition parties have argued that cutting ties to the Privy Council is effectively a constitutional matter and should have strong support in Parliament or from the public through a referendum.

Business groups, commercial lawyers, accountants and many Maori are against the change.

More than half the public submissions to the select committee that heard arguments on the Supreme Court Bill opposed the legislation.

Only four of 38 submissions from Maori favoured cutting Privy Council ties and only one territorial authority out of 86 wanted change.

The main worries have been over the independence and expertise of the new court - because of the small pool of local judges - and concerns that the new court would undermine the Treaty of Waitangi.

Ms Wilson said she thought there was enough support to approve the changes.

They could be passed by a simple majority because New Zealand did not have a written constitution.

"That's just the way we do it," she said. "New Zealand has this wonderful, fluid, constitutional arrangement."

The Attorney-General said opponents to the law change seemed "stuck in the 90s somehow".

The new system would give all New Zealanders, rather than only a privileged few, access to a second tier of appeal.

She said Labour had tried to accommodate United Future's concerns, including over the independent appointment of judges.

But she said United Future, which supports Labour on confidence votes, had decided it was critical to its long-term survival not to cross business lobby groups.

United Future leader Peter Dunne said the strength of opposition from business was so strong the law should not proceed.

"Our concern all along has been that a major constitutional change of this type should occur only with significant public support."

United Future had held back from declaring a final position on the law change, and in recent weeks has been intensely lobbied by groups such as the Business Roundtable, Federated Farmers, the Institute of Chartered Accountants and Maori interests.

Mr Dunne said his party was "pro-business", and so had listened to their concerns.

National, New Zealand First and Act yesterday urged the Government not to go ahead with the change, because it did not have sufficient parliamentary support.

Act leader Richard Prebble said Ms Wilson was the most dangerous politician in NZ history and it would be "reckless" and an abuse of power for Labour to go ahead.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters accused Labour's Maori MPs of betraying their constituents.

He said there was no reason to "fix" something that was not broken.

The bill passed its second reading by 63 votes to 53 last night. Four votes were not cast.