Judicial Matters Bill

We come now to a new Part 1A. As required by Standing Order 299, I seek leave of the Committee to move the amendment to the District Courts Act 1947, which is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108. Leave is required because the amendment is a substantive one to an Act not amended by the bill as introduced.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for this course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

I thank honourable members for their cooperation on this matter. This is a relatively short amendment to the District Courts Act, to increase the number of District Court judges from 140, which is the current statutory cap, to 156. It will be the first increase since 2004, and it will apply to judges of the District Court holding jury warrants, as well as to those acting in their criminal and civil jurisdictions. It will also include the specialist divisions: the Family Court, the Youth Court, and the Environment Court.

In a couple of months the Immigration Act 2009 will come into force, and the chairperson of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal will be a District Court judge. Furthermore, at the present time two judges of the Employment Court also hold warrants as part-time judges of the District Court. The chief coroner and the outgoing Principal Disputes Referee also hold warrants as District Court judges. Given the increase in the workload, particularly in Auckland and Manukau City, and the desirability of appointing further judges in those courts and in other courts in the north of the North Island, it is necessary to increase the cap.

I will begin by putting on record a mistake that I made when this debate was last called. It was during urgency—I think it was the third day in urgency. I had been delayed at a select committee meeting that had overlapped with the start of the day, and I had not briefed my colleague Charles Chauvel on the agreement that I had made on behalf of the Labour Party to support leave being granted for including this matter in the Judicial Matters Bill by way of Supplementary Order Paper 108. I think that I caused some understandable consternation on the part of the Attorney-General. I would like to put on record that that was my responsibility, and no reflection should be made upon other members of the Opposition, including Mr Chauvel.

The Labour Party will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 108. We support the increase in the number of judges. On reflection, having agreed to it—and we are honouring our agreement—Charles Chauvel made a good point as to whether I should have made that agreement and whether we should have sent this sort of proposal to the select committee to have it discussed. My judgment at the time was that it did not need to go to the select committee. We stand by that decision, but perhaps if I was asked again, I would think again about that.

I agree with the reasons that the Attorney-General has outlined; there is a need to increase the number of District Court judges. In reality I know that if the number of District Court judges was not increased, then the Attorney-General would be increasingly reliant on retired judges—I do not know whether we call them retired—or semi-retired judges to come back under temporary warrants and act as judges. It is undesirable to be reliant on too many temporary warranted judges. It is better to have a greater number of permanent judges. Apart from anything else, I think that the public looks somewhat askance at having too many judges drawing superannuation and also being paid as current judges. For those reasons, I am happy on behalf of the Labour Party to express our support for the changes.

I will make two comments in response. The first point is to thank the honourable member David Parker for his very generous remarks. I had not intended to deal with that matter; I though it was water under the bridge, but I am very grateful for his comments.

The second point is I think he hit the nail on the head when he talked about the undesirability of too many retired judges having temporary warrants. In fact, at one stage the number was up to about 45 to 50. I became very concerned about that. An important concomitant of the changes that we are talking about tonight is that they will mean that judges holding temporary warrants will not receive any further warrants once they reach the age of 72. That will enable this potentially unconstitutional and troubling practice to slowly diminish.

I will take a brief call on the Judicial Matters Bill because I, too, made some comments in relation to the matters being dealt with in Supplementary Order Paper 108. I am of the view that they should have been referred to a select committee, but I appreciate the comments that my colleague the Hon David Parker made and I accept that that occurred. We will stand by those agreements, and I think it is important to do so.

I wish that the Minister in the chair, the Attorney-General, had referred a little bit to the decision that is being addressed in the other part of the Supplementary Order Paper. I think the number of judges is important but the Kane Wikio and Bunny Beckham v the Attorney-General decision is an important one. I want to get a sense of why the Minister wants to deal with that in the context of this legislation, rather than having it considered in a more in-depth way by a select committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are actually on new Part 1A. You are referring to Part 2 and the Supplementary Order Paper is under Part 2. At the moment we are debating just new Part 1A.

I am sorry. It was under the heading of Part 1A in the Supplementary Order Paper. It states: “Amendment to District Courts Act 1947” and it has clauses 15A, 15B, and then 16A, “Salaries and allowances of Judges”. I thought that was precisely the point that was being dealt with.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My understanding is that the only parts we are looking at at the moment, under new Part 1A, are clauses 15A and 15B. Those are the only two debatable points.

So clause 16A is under a different part.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is correct.

I am sorry. I apologise for that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is Part 2.

The way the Supplementary Order Paper is structured means that it is not clear. Perhaps we should have a conversation about the way Supplementary Order Papers are structured because the way it is set out shows Part 1A “Amendment to District Courts Act 1947”, and clauses 15A and 15B, and then it moves on to clause 16A; there is no indication in the way the Supplementary Order Paper is published that clause 16A is in another part of the legislation. I apologise.

I will talk about the number of judges because I think it is important that as a matter of principle—and I am not in any way resiling from the agreement that has been reached—when we are considering issues like this, there is an opportunity for others to have input. The way they have input is through the select committee process. The advantage of doing so is that there is a proper consideration of all of the issues involved.

I understand the point that the Minister in the chair makes in respect of retired judges and I think that is useful. However, I have been in this House long enough to have heard the opposite argued by members of the Minister’s party when Labour was in Opposition before—that is how long I have been here—and the point has been made that these sorts of changes should not be made in a way that detracts from outside input into the debate. I think it is important, as a general matter of principle, that if these things are to be addressed, then the proper way to do that—and it could have been done in this particular case, rather than seeking this opportunity for them to be dealt with by the way that has ultimately been resolved—is to table a Supplementary Order Paper in the House and have it referred to a select committee. That is a perfectly appropriate methodology for resolving these things. I recommend that process to the Minister, and I apologise for not being a little bit more on the ball as far as the actual wording of the Supplementary Order Paper is concerned.

This will be a very brief call to echo the comments that my colleague Lianne Dalziel has just made on the Judicial Matters Bill. As Lianne Dalziel said, we stand by the arrangement that has been made between the Attorney-General and the Labour shadow Minister on this matter, and we will support the incorporation of the Supplementary Order Paper108 at this point. Given that, it would be good for members to hear from the Attorney-General just how the change to be made by this Supplementary Order Paper to new Part 1A will increase judicial throughput in the District Courts.

We have heard that a number of acting warrants have been issued—the number was quoted—and that is somehow thought to be a bad thing. It would be good to hear why that is. One view is that, at least, it might be cheaper to have acting judges on a warrant backfilling in the District Courts, rather than new warrants being made up and having all the costs associated with tenured judges sitting on an indefinite basis. The famous quotation about dukes and dreadnoughts comes to mind.

If we are not to have a select committee process where we can get a properly ventilated argument about the changes proposed, then 16 new judges being paid a significant salary each, being paid significant amounts by way of a charge against the Crown for their support staff, and for all the other accoutrements of office that will be required for them, is a significant thing to commit to. As we are not to have committee scrutiny of whether that will result in better justice in the District Courts, it would be good to hear why the Minister in the chair thinks that will be the case. The alternatives could be, for example, resorting to some variation of the current solution, which is the warranting of acting judges, or perhaps discussing with the judiciary via the appropriate authorities ways in which, at least in the lower courts, we might get more efficient outcomes.

I thank Charles Chauvel for those comments. I begin by expressing my concern on his behalf for the unfortunate flight he had. I must confess that my sympathies actually were with him; I was flying recently and I had some urchin kicking my seat but rather than turn round and upbraid him I was frightened that what happened to the honourable member would happen to me. So there we have it.

But the point the member makes is a fair one. On the question of temporary judges, of course, one is not opposed to them on principle, because the system could not operate unless they were there. The question is really the number. When one becomes utterly dependent on them, then I think of the judgment of a Scottish court where the very issue arose and it was referred to as a very cheap and shabby form of justice. So what I am trying to do is address that as best I can. The other point that needs to be made is that there has been a growth in the work of the Environment Court. Because of the particular circumstances of the Employment Court—and the member is a respected practitioner in that area and knows about that area of the law—we have two temporary judges of the Employment Court and they also hold warrants as District Court judges. So there has been growth in work since the last time the number went up and it is a matter that is going to have to be addressed on a regular basis, I imagine.

The member did not raise it, but one concern if the number gets too much bigger is that we will be dealing with the largest court in Australasia and that is something to be borne in mind before we increase it any further, because the administration involved in running such a large court is an important question.

I have already expressed the Green Party’s support for the Judicial Matters Bill generally, and in this intervention in the Committee I will address one matter only. It relates, of course, to Supplementary Order Paper 108 submitted by the Attorney-General.

I recognise the apparent confusion in the earlier debate, and I say at the outset that the Green Party had independently resolved to oppose Supplementary Order Paper 108, but in light of subsequent explanations we are certainly prepared to support it; I want to allay from the outset any concern on that matter.

That said, I want to explore some specific issues on the matter of Supplementary Order Paper 108 because I understood—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are not on Supplementary Order Paper 108, only the two clauses 15A and 15B.

I think my comments probably pertain to 16—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You are one step ahead. We are on clauses 15A and 15B. You will get the chance, if you wish, to discuss clause 16 and Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the debate on Part 2. I just bring your attention to that.

New Part 1A agreed to.

Part 2 Amendment to Judicature Act 1908