Supreme Court opens with Act case

By AUDREY YOUNG

The Supreme Court will open its doors for business in Wellington today, hearing an appeal that will decide whether Donna Awatere Huata remains a member of Parliament.

The Act party wants to expel its former colleague from Parliament under the so-called party hopping bill, saying she is no longer a member of the party and that its proportionality as determined at the last election is affected.

The court has discretion over which cases it will take.

Former Attorney General and Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer said yesterday the first case before it was "not one of great significance" because the legislation central to it would expire next election day.

"Therefore, the principles that come out of the court case are unlikely to be of enduring significance."

But although there were adequate reasons for the court not to accept the case, he supposed the judges had probably taken it because the courts below it had differed.

The High Court upheld the Act leader's right to pursue the process which would see the MP expelled, while the Court of Appeal disagreed.

Sir Geoffrey described the party-hopping legislation as "deeply unsound" and said it should never have been passed.

Parliament had brought it upon itself.

"This piece of legislation has got a fair bit to answer for already in its short life and so the sooner it is expunged from the statute book by operation of time, the better," he said.

Senior counsel for the Act appellants, Jack Hodder of Chapman Tripp, said there was "not much more important that the composition of Parliament ... and what principles you apply in maintaining it".

He said taking the first case to the Supreme Court was "a slightly bigger deal than business as usual".

It would be rather like the Privy Council: "It's the last chance for the particular case you're running and the issues have been refined down.

"But no matter how many times you look at an issue, there's always something else that could or might be said about it."

Peter Spring of the firm Keegan Alexander, who is acting for Donna Awatere Huata, said it was particularly appropriate that a case involving the composition of Parliament was being heard by the Supreme Court.

"If this had been last year, we'd have been off to No 12 Downing St [the Privy Council]," he said.

"When you are talking about statutes that involve a New Zealand statute, New Zealand parliamentarians, New Zealand constitution, you could make a strong argument saying those cases should be decided in New Zealand."

He was proud to be appearing before the Supreme Court.

"There is quite a sense of history to it," he said.