Privy Council petition gains legal nudge

By AUDREY YOUNG, political editor

The Auckland lawyer who is attempting to get a citizens-initiated referendum on abolishing appeal rights to the Privy Council was Winston Peters' instructing solicitor in the Winebox case.

Dennis Gates has a suburban law practice in Whangaparaoa and has also made regular appearances on Fair Go over buy-back housing schemes.

Two of his clients, including Mr Peters, the New Zealand First leader, have taken cases to the Privy Council. Mr Peters won on an issue of the commission of inquiry's jurisdiction, and the other client on a case about a patent licence lost.

"I'm fairly politically neutral," Mr Gates said yesterday.

"To a large extent I don't have any Old Boy networks or old law school ties and that was one of the reasons Winston asked me to be instructing solicitor, because I'm independent.

"Nobody knows me. Nobody cares about me," says the 50-year-old, who also has a degree in politics.

His decision to seek a citizens-initiated referendum follows calls by another MP, Act's Stephen Franks, for a lawyer to head the bid.

Mr Franks put the call out on his database of 3000 lawyers.

Mr Gates said other lawyers were concerned about taking a public position on the issue because it could affect their career.

"But I am quite happy to be a suburban solicitor. I have got no pretensions about going to the bench or becoming a QC."

Mr Franks' first preference is to secure a referendum himself, seeking an amendment to the bill setting up a new Supreme Court to replace Privy Council appeals.

If adopted, it would mean the bill would take effect only if it was subject to 66 per cent approval in a referendum.

Mr Peters is also trying to take the initiative by calling a cross-party meeting at Parliament next week to co-ordinate support for the referendum.

New Zealand First, Act and National oppose the bill. The Green Party and United Future have not committed themselves to final positions and Mr Peters has asked parties not to indulge in party politics over the issue.

"The success of a petition to allow New Zealanders an opportunity to debate and give their views on such an important constitutional issue cannot be sabotaged by party political controversies or undermined by separate efforts on different questions," the letter says.

He invites representatives of other parties to a meeting in New Zealand First's offices next Thursday.

Mr Gates has taken the first steps towards a referendum by applying to the Clerk of Parliament to have the wording of his question approved: "Should our long-standing right of final appeal to the Privy Council in London be abolished?"

Mr Gates said he believed National, Act and New Zealand First would get in behind him to help collect the signatures, but no one was yet playing a co-ordinating role. The clerk, David McGee, has issued a public notice of the question and asked for responses to the wording by May 23.

He has until July 8 to further consult and determine the final wording.

Mr Franks said that a citizens-initiated referendum would be "second best".

"We're really hoping that the prospect of a multi-party push on this will actually persuade the Government to do the decent thing and stick the requirement [for a binding referendum] into the bill."

He said that it was quite wrong for Parliament to establish the country's top court without a substantial majority.

Referendum steps

* Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 allows a petition of 10 per cent of enrolled electors - about 267,000 - to trigger a non-binding referendum.

* The proposed question is submitted to Parliament's Clerk who has up to three months for consultation and final approval.

* The promoter has 12 months to gather the required signatures.

* No more than $50,000 may be spent by any organisation on advertising the case for the petition.

* If the petition meets the criteria, a referendum must be held within 12 months unless 75 per cent of all MPs defer it to coincide with an election.

* There have been three referendums under the act: on the reduction in the number of firefighters; on cutting the number of MPs; and on harsher penalties for violent offenders.