1.30pm
Legislation to scrap ties with the Privy Council and set up a new final court of appeal in New Zealand has completed another hurdle in Parliament.
A select committee looking at the Supreme Court Bill has recommended it proceed with amendments with the support of Labour, Green and United Future MPs.
The
committee rejected attempts by ACT, National and New Zealand First to have the law only passed if supported by a referendum.
Committee chairman Tim Barnett said the committee had decided to make a number of changes, but the controversial issue of how judges would be initially appointed was to be dealt with by the Government.
Changes included an increase in the potential number of judges from five to six, allowing technical advisers to be appointed in all types of cases and transitional arrangements so those awaiting judgment from the Court of Appeal at the time of abolition can still appeal to the Privy Council.
Mr Barnett said after receiving 316 submissions and hearing 106 of them over nine months most committee members were persuaded by the power of the arguments to scrap the traditional ties with a London-based final court of appeal.
"Certain truths kept ringing through. Most countries smaller than New Zealand have their own court of final appeal. Our lawyers are sought worldwide for their quality and insight," Mr Barnett said.
"The Privy Council is a shrinking body increasingly remote from the realities of New Zealand and disinclined to create our law for us. Maori have nothing to fear from New Zealand courts. The future may well be one of internationalised courts but, first, New Zealand needs to have its own legal identity."
The committee had also unanimously agreed to hold an inquiry into New Zealand's constitutional arrangements.
Mr Barnett said the inquiry would be a "historic moment in the development of New Zealand's constitution".
Mr Barnett said after receiving 316 submissions and hearing 106 of them over nine months most committee members were persuaded by the power of the arguments to scrap the traditional ties with a London-based final court of appeal.
"Certain truths kept ringing through. Most countries smaller than New Zealand have their own court of final appeal. Our lawyers are sought worldwide for their quality and insight," Mr Barnett said.
"The Privy Council is a shrinking body increasingly remote from the realities of New Zealand and disinclined to create our law for us. Maori have nothing to fear from New Zealand courts. The future may well be one of internationalised courts but, first, New Zealand needs to have its own legal identity."
The committee had also unanimously agreed to hold an inquiry into New Zealand's constitutional arrangements.
Mr Barnett said the inquiry would be a "historic moment in the development of New Zealand's constitution".
The bill has been controversial with many arguing against it in principle and in its details.
Those against included Sir Tipene O'Regan, who said proposals to have a judge versed in Maori culture sit on it was "ethnic politicisation of judges".
Sir Tipene said he opposed the move away from the Privy Council but, if it did go ahead, judges should be selected on merit -- not race or gender.
Those sentiments were echoed by the New Zealand Bar Association, which condemned as "dangerous" the possibility of appointing a member on the basis of race.
Among those supporting the bill was former chief justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, who said having New Zealand's most important legal issues decided by judges on the other side of the world was "little short of absurd".
Opposition MPs have been particularly concerned that the Government may stack the new court with judges sympathetic to its political views.
Under the bill as drafted, a panel would be appointed to recommend to Attorney General Margaret Wilson who should become Supreme Court judges.
Ms Wilson has raised the possibility of those judges coming from the Appeal Court bench, but has also said that all appointments would be on merit.
The bill would see the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice, at present Dame Sian Elias.
The appointment recommendation team for the other positions would comprise Dame Sian, Solicitor-General Terence Arnold and former Governor-General Sir Paul Reeves.
National, ACT and New Zealand First still hope to force a referendum on the issue and have launched a campaign to gather 310,000 signatures on a petition to force that.
They have until July 2, 2004, to collect the signatures but will have to move quickly because the bill could become law before they achieve the target. If they do, it would still take several months to organise a referendum.
The parties are trying to hold up the bill by having a provision inserted preventing it taking effect until a referendum is held, but that will require the Government's support.
But even if they achieve their signature target on the petition, and a referendum is held, the result will not be binding on the Government.
- NZPA
Herald Feature: Supreme Court proposal
Related links
1.30pm
Legislation to scrap ties with the Privy Council and set up a new final court of appeal in New Zealand has completed another hurdle in Parliament.
A select committee looking at the Supreme Court Bill has recommended it proceed with amendments with the support of Labour, Green and United Future MPs.
The
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.