Judicial Matters Bill

I am glad that in respect of the preceding part the Minister noted the importance of the quality of a member’s contribution to a debate, because day in and day out members see that the contribution of the junior Government whip is limited to moving closure motions. What a sadness it would be if he were to reflect on his political career and realise it had been simply the moving of interminable closure motions, without any comments of substance in the context of parliamentary business. But, so it seems, he will be judged.

Judicial immunity, number of Judges, principal Judges, part-time Judges, and other matters relating to judicial officers”, which is, as a previous speaker has said, a significant part, because it deals not only with judicial immunity and alters the law there, but also with the number of judges, the number of part-time judges, and a raft of other matters relating to judicial officers. If one reviews the contents of the bill, one finds there are amendments being made to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, the Coroners Act, the Courts Martial Appeals Act, the District Courts Act, the Employment Relations Act, and so on. Part 2 is an incredibly significant part of the bill. Members have been saying that there are aspects of constitutional significance in Part 1 regarding the removal of members’ rights from that part, but the constitutional significance of Part 2 is even more profound.

I would like to talk about Part 2, “

I would just like to pick up a couple of points in this first call relating to the part, and I shall start by dealing with the issue of part-time judges. That is an issue that divided the Justice and Electoral Committee and is able to produce strongly competing views, but it is fair to say it is an issue on which the Government’s mind was utterly closed. A really good starting point to look at that issue is to reflect on whether it is right that judging should be a full-time business, and I would say it should be. Those who commit to a life and a career at the Bar in order to argue cases before judges, and those who go on from that position to become judges, know very well how significant the burden of judging is. The pay is not flash, the stress is high, and the hours are long. There are some activities that may well lend themselves to part-time work. Knitting may be an example of such activities; judging is assuredly not. In the way that the courts are structured—with the fixed hours that the courts generally sit—the part-timer not only has a hard row to hoe but also creates significant problems for the administration of the system.

I gave two examples the other day, both of which I think bear repeating because they reflect the reality of life in the courts. The reality of life in the courts is that because there is a requirement to schedule cases, counsel are asked to make estimates of how long a case will last. Now, if we are to deal with what the Government apparently contemplates, which is a part-time judge or judges, we will find there will be occasions when such a part-time judge is simply unable to sit on all days of the week. So a 4-day case is ruled out for the part-time judge, and a 3-day case may also be ruled out. Those who have knowledge of the criminal and civil courts, in particular, will know that many cases run for those sorts of periods. What is the outcome? It is that the burden will be transferred on to the full-time judges in a way that is neither fair nor equitable. But that comment applies in the circumstance of scheduling where an accurate estimate is made of how long a case will last. It is often the case—and I instanced this to members the other day—that a case trickles on. It not only runs a day over the estimated time, but it may run 2 days over. In fact, there have been instances in recent times where the hearing duration of significant commercial cases has been hugely underestimated. So there will be the situation where a case runs on, and the part-time judge says he or she cannot continue to sit on the case.