The highest court in the land is too big for its boots.  

That’s what the guy who runs the New Zealand Initiative think tank is saying today. Roger Partridge is his name - he’s also a lawyer and King’s Counsel.  

And he says the Supreme Court needs to be reined-in because he thinks it’s trying to re-write the laws made by Parliament.   

One of the examples he’s giving to support his argument is the Court ruling two years ago that the voting age of 18 discriminates against younger people. That’s not the Supreme Court’s job, he says.  

But I disagree. Because I think the Supreme Court should be free to decide for itself whether it’s going to consider a particular case, and the judges at the Supreme Court should be free to decide and say what they like after they’ve considered those cases.  

The alternative is the Supreme Court being given restrictions and barriers and not having the freedom the highest court in the land should have. And when I describe it as the highest court in the land - that’s exactly what it is.  

It is the court of last resort, for want of a better term. And it has been since 2004, when it was formed to replace the option of New Zealanders taking their cases to the Privy Council in London.  

One of the reasons given for setting-up our own Supreme Court 20 years ago was that having something based here in New Zealand would be fairer than expecting people who wanted to go to a court of last resort to have to go to London and the Privy Council.  

So, the argument was that it would be fairer for people who couldn’t even entertain the idea of appealing something through the Privy Council because of the expense. And let’s face it, running back to the mother country because you weren’t happy with how your case was handled here in the colonies is pretty old hat.  

But where Roger Partridge from the New Zealand Initiative is coming from today is that he thinks the Supreme Court has gone beyond the job it was given 20 years ago.  

He’s saying that the court is over-reaching and seems to have given itself the power to re-write legislation it does not like. And he wants Parliament to tell the court to get back into its box. Or to get back into its lane and to make decisions based on the law, without criticising the law.  

If you want to think about it this way, it seems to me that what Roger Partridge is concerned about is the Supreme Court here ending up like the Supreme Court in the United States, which does seem to have quite a bit of sway over federal and state laws.  

There was the case two years ago of the Supreme Court in America overruling the decision back in 1973 that abortion is a fundamental human right – the Roe v Wade case. It has had a lot of people there talking about whether the Supreme Court is having way too much influence, and I see there are people in the States right now calling for it to be reined in. 

Like Roger Partridge from the New Zealand Initiative is doing today in relation to our Supreme Court. 

So let’s take one of the cases that he says shows how the Court has got too big for its boots and why he thinks it shows that the court needs to be reined in: the Supreme Court’s ruling on whether the voting age should be 18.  

Roger Partridge says that what the court did there was it looked at the argument from the outfit that wants to lower the voting age —this is the “Make It 16” crew— and he’s saying that it didn’t just consider the argument from a lawful perspective - but it also considered how social values might have changed since the passing of the Electoral Act in 1993, which sets the voting age at 18. And since the passing of the Local Electoral Act in 2001, which does the same. It says the voting age is 18.  

And he says that’s not the Supreme Court’s job. It is the politicians —or it is Parliament— who should decide whether this particular law —or any law for that matter— is still consistent with society’s values.  

Now, if you agree with him, then let me ask you this. Does that mean you also think judges in our other courts shouldn’t pay attention to society’s views on ram raids —for example— and shouldn’t consider how much we’ve had a gutsful of ram raids when a ram raider fronts up in court?  

Answer me that.