New Zealand's government's decision to replace "Her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council", commonly known as the Privy Council with a Supreme Court of New Zealand (NZ) in 2003 was a controversial but an expected constitutional change. The bill passed its third reading in Parliament with a majority of 10, with strong opposition against, and was not all motivated by interparty politics.
             This change ended more than 160 years of appeals to the Privy Council. The decision was controversial because the Government pushed through the Supreme Court Act with a large amount of opposition, especially from the legal and business professions. There were serious concerns this was being forced upon a reluctant public and a referendum was required for such a major constitutional change. Other arguments included: would a Supreme court increase New Zealander's access to justice, is there any evidence a change was necessary, who and how would Judges be selected and how they would remain politically neutral, creating a Supreme court would be a great expense to NZ and there were fears Maori would be disadvantage by the change. However, the change was inevitable as all major Commonwealth countries had already abolished the Privy Council and there were suggestions that the United Kingdom (UK) may replace the Privacy Council with a United Kingdom Supreme Court. The details of this change are unknown, and it was uncertain when or how this change would affect NZ. This essay will outline the concerns and effects of abolishing the right to appeal to the Privy Council and replacing it with the Supreme Court; it will also give a brief outline of the significance the Privy Council has in NZ today.
             First of all, the Privy Council still holds a significance role in our society today as if proceedings have already begun to be heard by the Privy Council judged they remain eligible for a Privy Council even thought NZ has a fully operational Supreme Court, rulings ...