Supreme Court Bill proposes justice shake-up

By VERNON SMALL

The right of appeal to the Privy Council will be scrapped and a new Supreme Court set up in Wellington under a bill introduced to Parliament yesterday.

The Supreme Court Bill , severing a 160-year link with the Law Lords in London, follows closely recommendations of a ministerial advisory group in April.

The proposed final court of appeal would have five judges, including the Chief Justice, and would cost about $5 million a year to run.

One of the judges would be well-versed in tikanga Maori (customs).

The set-up cost of the Supreme Court, which may be housed in a restored historic court building near Parliament, is yet to be finalised. But Act MP Stephen Franks said it would be $10 million.

Prime Minister Helen Clark and Attorney-General Margaret Wilson said the New Zealand-based court would save litigants money and increase their access to appeals.

"Unlike the Privy Council, the Supreme Court will be able to hear appeals of employment, environment and family court matters," Ms Wilson said. "There will also be more access to justice for New Zealanders wishing to appeal criminal matters."

It is rare for the Privy Council to grant leave to appeal in criminal cases.

Ms Wilson said it would perform the traditional roles of the Privy Council - "error correction, clarification and development of the law".

And she rejected suggestions New Zealand did not have the depth of legal talent to staff it.

She said it was becoming increasingly unusual for countries to retain the right of appeal to London.

"People are understanding, but we are looking just a little odd."

By the end of 2003 New Zealand would be one of only six countries allowing appeals to the Privy Council. The others are the Bahamas, Brunei (civil cases only), Kiribati, Mauritius and Tuvalu.

New Zealand "may be ... going before we are pushed", said Helen Clark.

Ms Wilson said she had followed the advice of the ministerial advisory group. "I have followed a conservative, precautionary approach."

The Privy Council hears 11 or 12 appeals from New Zealand each year, but its replacement could hear five times that number.

The Supreme Court Bill will go to a select committee for submissions and, if approved, the new court would begin hearings in 2004.

Many Maori have opposed breaking the link with the Privy Council.

But in what appeared to be an orchestrated move, several prominent Maori yesterday issued statements supporting the new court.

They include former Governor-General Sir Paul Reeves, who - with the Chief Justice and the Solicitor-General - will be on the panel recommending appointments to the court.

Sir Paul said the effect of the new court would "undoubtedly be an increased understanding of local conditions by judges", including the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi. Maori Council chairman Graham Latimer said a Supreme Court would serve Maori better.

Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission chairman Shane Jones, Wellington Tenths Trust trustee Peter Love and Maori Women's Welfare League president Jacqui Te Kani all lent their backing.

But New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said the proposal was a "constitutional outrage" and called for a referendum on it.

He said local judges did not yet have the expertise and wisdom of the Privy Council and the commercial community needed to maintain some international standing in business dealings.

He also held grave fears for the judiciary's independence because the Government would appoint "politically correct judicial activists".

National Party justice spokesman Simon Power also rejected the new court, saying it gave Ms Wilson the power to recommend judges "who could fundamentally influence the Kiwi way of life for the next 20 years".

Ms Wilson said she had sufficient support in Parliament for the bill to become law.

Green Party co-leader Rod Donald said his party would vote for the bill to go to a select committee, but it would listen to the public's view before deciding whether to support it further.

A spokesman for United Future said his party had not reached a final decision on the bill.