Judicature Modernisation Bill

I move, That the Judicature Modernisation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. A well-functioning justice system is an essential part of any healthy democracy. Society and technology are changing rapidly, and it is increasingly clear that we now have a 20th century court system that should be modernised to deliver in the 21st—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can we have some courtesy, please.

—century world. We live in an era when people can shop, bank, and pay bills online, and it is about time we looked at how routine court matters can be handled more efficiently to bring justice up to speed. This bill will help modernise our court system by increasing the transparency of court arrangements and streamlining processes and procedures. This will make the courts more efficient, while maintaining public confidence in our justice system.

The bill implements the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s review of the Judicature Act 1908. It contains six parts, five of which will result in new Acts. Part 1 repeals the Supreme Court Act 2003 and the Judicature Act 1908, and it will replace them with a single Senior Courts Act. This Act will set out the constitution and jurisdiction of the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court in modern and easier to understand language—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I should not have to ask twice. Can I just say to members leaving the Chamber to please show some courtesy to the member who is trying to address the business of the House. It is good conduct and it is being considerate of others. Thank you.

—thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker—than that in the 1908 Act. The bill improves judicial transparency by requiring final written judgments to be published online. It also requires the judiciary to publish information about the delivery of reserved judgments and to publish guidance on judicial recusal from cases, and when it is appropriate for a judge to hold other employment or office. The Attorney-General will also be required to publish the process he or she follows when making judicial appointments.

The High Court will gain more effective powers to deal with meritless court proceedings brought by parties. The High Court will be able to issue three progressively stronger orders, limiting parties from continuing or commencing civil proceedings. Similar powers will be granted to the lower courts to make less restrictive orders. This provides greater flexibility for dealing with problem litigants. I expect this to better target the small group of people who use up valuable court resources to pursue meritless proceedings time and time again.

The bill will allow for the establishment of a specialised judicial panel in the High Court for commercial matters. This will increase the responsiveness of the court system and its focus on court users. A panel judge may be allocated to hear a commercial case if either party wishes this to occur. Judicial independence will be maintained through judicial control of case allocation and judge assignment to the panel.

Part 2 of the bill repeals and replaces the District Courts Act 1947. The District Court will be constituted as a unified body, just like the High Court is, rather than as 59 separate courts as it is today. Having District Courts as separate entities is outdated and reflects an age when towns were physically more difficult to travel between than they are today.

We are also proposing to increase the monetary limit at which civil claims can be brought before the District Court, from $200,000 to $350,000. This has not been updated since 1992, and it will provide more choice for litigants as to whether the District Court or the High Court is the most appropriate forum for their case. The bill amends provisions applying to the District Court so that they are more closely aligned with like arrangements in the senior and other courts, including, for example, appointment panels and age limits for acting judges, and the various requirements on the judiciary to publish information and guidance.

Part 3 of the bill enacts the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 as a stand-alone Act, the Judicial Review Procedure Act. The new Act will continue the existing process and procedure for judicial review applications but expresses this in updated language. Part 4 introduces a single statutory scheme, the Interest on Money Claims Act, for the award of interest on financial claims before the court. I expect the scheme will provide greater certainty and fairness for court users. This, in turn, will improve the efficiency of litigation by encouraging cases to settle more expeditiously.

Part 5 of the bill will greatly assist courts to move into the 21st century by allowing the use of electronic processes. At the moment, many court activities, such as the filing of documents, can be legally performed using paper-based formats only. Legislation has not anticipated more modern ways of working. This change will help remedy that deficiency.

The last part of the bill makes amendments to a number of Acts. It strengthens the presumption for the use of audiovisual links in court so that remand prisoners are more likely to appear before a judge without all the upheaval of travelling to court. This will increase the uptake of audiovisual technology, promoting more efficient use of the courts’ and parties’ resources.

Finally, several small amendments are made to the Arbitration Act 1996. These extend which bodies can appoint an arbitrator when parties fail to agree on an arbitrator. It recognises the use of emergency arbitration procedures to provide interim relief prior to the full arbitration.

The Judicature Modernisation Bill is the culmination of a considerable amount of work. I acknowledge the Law Commission for its work on reviewing the Judicature Act and associated legislation. I would like to thank the judiciary for its valuable input. I would also like to thank the Attorney-General and the Ministry of Justice staff who worked so hard on this. I look forward to the results of the select committee’s examination of the bill. The changes to this bill will play an important part in improving the efficiency, accessibility, and day-to-day functioning of New Zealand’s courts. I commend this bill to the House.

The Labour Party supports the referral of the Judicature Modernisation Bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee. Can I thank the Minister of Justice for the work that has been done on this bill. It is largely administrative. Before I address some particular provisions in the legislation—and could I also thank the Attorney-General, for he has probably had a pretty significant role in relation to changes to the court rules—can I set out what the Labour Party’s view is as to the problems that we have in some of our civil court processes.

We have courts so as to enable people to resolve disputes without resorting to standover tactics. Essentially, courts exist to resolve disputes that parties cannot resolve between themselves. Sometimes the cause of those disputes is intransigence or unreasonableness on the part of one party, and, indeed, I would think that a good proportion of the cases that come to trial are of that nature. In some cases it is because there is legal uncertainty as to a principle that has to be resolved by the court system. In either case the mechanism that we have set up in civilised countries to resolve these disputes is to have independent arbiters who are free of corruption and undue influence to determine the disputes, and then litigants have the opportunity to put their case before the arbiter. Litigants might not be happy with the outcome that they get, because they all want to win and some of them lose, but 99 out of 100 litigants are satisfied that the process is fair and that they can put up with the solution that is imposed upon them by the courts, because the courts impose solutions, and then they can get on with their lives. So we do not have ongoing rancour, and neither do we have violence or corruption as the means to settle disputes.

The problem that we have got in court systems around the world and in New Zealand is that access to that form of justice, which is so admirable, is largely a function of cost. If the cost of process becomes so high that most ordinary New Zealanders cannot afford to use the court system, then it fails to meet the social purpose that the courts are there to fulfil. It is all very well having a perfect outcome, but if that perfect outcome cannot be accessed because the cost of the process is so high, then we should be looking at what is wrong with the system in order to make the court system more accessible.

In that regard the changes in this bill make some good changes. One in particular will, I think, cause an increase in the speed of decisions and perhaps make them a bit briefer than they sometimes have been. Decisions over the years have become longer and longer and longer, so that some of them read like an academic treatise, rather than a fair summary of the facts and an application of the most central legal principles in order to reach a conclusion. Instead, we have ever-longer judgments, which take ever-longer to prepare, which lead to evermore complex forms of process during the trial and therefore cause cost, delay, and frustration to all those involved.

One of the ways in which this is being pushed against is this requirement on District Courts to have information regarding reserved judgments. The Chief District Court Judge must now—once this legislation is passed, and assuming that it is—in consultation with the Chief Justice, publish information in relation to the process by which parties to proceedings before the court can obtain information about the status of any reserved judgment. It is a good change. Litigants who are facing undue delay ought to be able to raise their concerns and put a bit of pressure upon the decision maker to make a decision.

But I am left with the sense that although these changes are good—and I agree with the standardisation of rules in the superior courts and I agree with a lot of the other changes here—I am still not convinced that we have tackled the nub of the problem, which is the efficiency of, especially, civil court processes, which remain beyond the pale for most people to settle their disputes through. Let us take the example of the Christchurch earthquakes. We have got this unprecedented level of claim and risk for the insurers. Where we have got insurers who have a practice—and I know this from my own practice, and I am sure that the Attorney-General will be able to say what his experience in practice in respect of this was, too—insurers in respect of legal issues that are contested face a class action risk, in that if a decision has precedent value that goes against the insurers, then they might have 100 cases over time that would have financial consequences for them as a consequence of that legal decision.

Because of the enormity of the Christchurch earthquake event, some of those legal principles that are contested would have effects on thousands of other claims that are on their books. The response of the insurance company faced with that possible class action risk, which is what I will call it—I do not mean litigants joining together in a class action, but I mean that a lot of claims of the same class would line up behind those test cases—is that they are very reluctant to get a court decision that is adverse to their interests because of the class action risk that follows.

The best way through that conundrum in the response to the Canterbury earthquakes, in my opinion, has been for some of those court cases to be brought through and have legal determinations made as to what the legal principle is. Whether that goes for or against the insurer, or for or against the insured, we would have more legal certainty for those advising the insured—the people who have suffered losses and who are having claims that are being declined or that they cannot settle. We would have desirable legal certainty, which would enable the parties to that litigation to have their claims resolved, but it would set a precedent for the thousands of others who follow.

Because the cost of processes is so high because the insurance companies know that they can elongate these processes, and because they face class action risk, there are legal impediments put in front of those who are trying to resolve those disputes, and when they get close to court, I bet that so many of those cases are settling on terms that are confidential and that do not result in a legal precedent that would be useful to resolve all of the other thousands of insurance disputes that there are in Christchurch.

My problem with this legislation is that I do not think it fixes that problem. There are two ways that that problem could have been fixed. First, I believe that the Crown should, in the public interest, be selecting 100 or 200 cases that the Crown will fund—not funded by the insured—because of the public interest in legal certainty in respect of the hundreds of thousands of claims that we have in Christchurch. The Crown should have funded some test cases, which it could have established through a panel of wise advisers, as to what the legal principles and legal disputes were that needed to be resolved. The Crown should have funded it in the case of Christchurch, but in the absence of the Crown funding them, those legal processes should be affordable—and they are not in New Zealand. This legislation does not fix that.

I am a lawyer. I know that the propensity of lawyers is to strive forever towards perfection. This striving towards perfection in respect of civil processes has gone so far that it has become the enemy of the good, and the courts are not meeting their function, which is to provide an accessible means for the resolution of disputes.

In closing, this is good legislation. It does make progress in that regard. But the fundamental problems, I think, are not going to be resolved until we have what judges—or some judges and some lawyers—would see as pretty Draconian rules. This applies particularly in the District Court, where a proportion of cases have to be set down for a hearing within—I do not know—say, 60 days of the filing of a statement of defence, where there are limits on the number of interlocutory proceedings, where judges take control of their courts, where there are quotas on the number of judgments that have to be delivered orally, and where there are restrictions on the number of trials that are allowed to extend beyond a certain time period. This is necessary so that we drive responsibility on the part of lawyers and on the part of judges to control their own courts and provide access to justice.

I agree with the previous speaker, David Parker, that the mercantilisation of the civil justice system is something that we should be very concerned about. Many of the problems that he correctly identified are, with respect, matters that I think can be dealt with by rules of court or judges actually taking control of a proceeding at an early stage. I do not know that statutory reform is necessarily going to deal with those issues. Having said that, however, there are a number of matters set out in this legislation, the Judicature Modernisation Bill, that I believe will go some way to addressing that dreadful problem of mercantalisation, and the Minister of Justice has already referred to them.

I want to begin by acknowledging the outstanding contribution of the Minister of Justice in this monumental reform. That is no hyperbole. This is the most important review of our court statutes in over 60 years. Indeed, the Judicature Act has not been reviewed comprehensively since 1908. So she deserves the praise of every member in this House for what is a truly outstanding piece of work. I want to also acknowledge the Law Commission and the Minister’s excellent officials in the Ministry of Justice. Frankly, it should have happened in 2003, after the Supreme Court was created, but I regret to say that the previous Government was not up to it. But we have now a real Minister of Justice who understands these things and the importance of this work, hence this reform. Much of this reform deals with the issue of judges. I just want to say a thing or two about our judges. As Lord Bingham, a now deceased but great former law lord in England, once said: “the public entertain a range of views [about judges], not all consistent (one minute they are senile and out of touch, the next the very people to conduct a detailed and searching inquiry; one minute port-gorged dinosaurs imposing savage sentences on hapless miscreants, the next wishy-washy liberals unwilling to punish anyone properly for anything), although often unfavorable.” I want to put on record that this country is very lucky to have a world-class judiciary, although sometimes it is subjected to unwarranted criticism. Some criticism, most recently in one of the Sunday papers, attaches to judges’ remuneration, which is particularly unfair given that it is set independently. One can criticise judgments, but we have always got to be very careful to avoid personal attacks on judges, which are unacceptable.

I also want to say that year after year the vast majority of complaints to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner are found to be groundless. I want, at this moment, to acknowledge Sir David Gascoigne and Alan Ritchie for the tremendous work they do as the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. Many of the complaints to those two gentlemen are indeed malignant and vexatious; still more are ill conceived. Lately, we have seen vexatious litigants attempting to draw the courts in as parties to their own litigation, making targets of the judges. I want to say something about vexatious litigants in a minute, because that is a very serious problem this country faces.

There are a number of matters that the Justice and Electoral Committee will need to look at very carefully—for example, clause 93, which says that the Attorney-General is to publish information concerning the judicial appointments process. In fact, I have done that in relation to High Court procedure. It is transparent but it is not well known, but now, as a result of the work that the Chief Justice and I have done, it will hopefully be much better known. The select committee is going to have to have a very good look at clause 161, which deals with contempt of court. Contempt of court is set out in clause 161 and there is a cross-reference to the other courts—for example, the District Court and the Employment Court and so on. It deals with a particular subclass of contempt, contempt in the face of the court. That is a very serious issue. Other work on contempt needs to be undertaken. The Law Commission is looking at that issue now. There is also existing law—for example, on the breach of suppression orders, something Mr Goff knows a lot about because he was recently warned by the police about breaching suppression orders.

I also want to say something very important on the issue of vexatious litigants. There are so many more now than there were. Once upon a time in Wellington, there was one person who was sort of the Albert Haddock of the Wellington District Court—

💬 Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: A former National member of Parliament.

The New Zealand First member will remember that programme from the late 1960s A. P. Herbert’s Misleading Cases. What we now have is almost an epidemic of vexatious litigants, which is why clauses 162 to 165 are so very important because they will replace the existing rule for vexatious litigant and insert these rules, which deal with restrictions on either the commencement to a limited extent of a proceeding, an extended effect, or a general effect. I hope that the select committee takes a good look at this, because vexatious litigants are a problem and we really do need to do our homework on this particular issue.

Mrs Collins has also referred to clause 166, dealing with reserved judgments. That is in the context of the senior courts. It will also apply in other courts. That is designed to ensure that the judges of all courts are able to ensure that judgments are given as quickly as possible, because sometimes the delays can be rather lengthy. The other part that I certainly hope that the select committee takes a good look at is the rules relating to recusal of judges. Many of these provisions set out in what will be the Senior Courts Act are replicated in Part 2, which is dealing with the District Court.

I do want to refer simply to clause 214 in Part 2, which deals with the appointment of acting judges. Again, this is an area where the Chief District Court Judge and I have recently agreed on a protocol. When I came to office, there were quite a number of acting judges. What I have tried to do, in conjunction with the Chief District Court Judge, is narrow that number down, because there have been a number of attacks on the appointment of acting judges. The allegation is basically that in order to get a further acting warrant, they have to do what the executive wants, so it is inherently what one Scottish judge once called a cheap and nasty form of justice. So I believe we should have acting judges only in very special circumstances. That protocol on acting judges has now been approved.

There are a number of consequential amendments to the Employment Relations Act and the Resource Management Act. The honourable Minister has also referred to the recasting of the Judicature Amendment Act, one of the most critical pieces of legislation passed by this Parliament in many years, which sets out the rules for judicial review. We have rewritten it in modern English, and it too requires a good, hard look on the part of the select committee.

There is a lot in the bill. I would not simply characterise it as mere administrative reform; it raises a number of very important constitutional issues. But I do end by saying that the Minister has done a fantastic job. We can be really proud of this effort, and I do hope that the select committee will turn this legislation round, because the package will be very good for the administration of justice in our land.

It is a great pleasure to take a call following the Attorney-General. I would regard it as a privilege to take a call on the Judicature Modernisation Bill. This is the second-largest bill I have ever dealt with. The first-largest bill I have dealt with was in 2009, which was a taxation bill nicknamed the “Telephone Book Bill”. This bill, I think, has just broken the record, and is more than 1,000 pages long. I rise to support this bill. Labour will support this bill being referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee because it makes a number of necessary updates to the court system. However, the provisions will need to be robustly tested to ensure that there are no issues with these reforms.

Labour’s vision is of a just society and safe communities. We must strike the right balance between civil and human rights, and justice and precautionary principles, for instance. We must ensure equal and full access to justice, and achieve justice and real public safety. Access to justice empowers citizens and resolves disputes fairly and finally. We must modernise our courts and the court structure in a principled manner with the aim of making them more effective, efficient, and responsive.

It has now been 10 years since Labour disestablished the Privy Council and set up the New Zealand Supreme Court—following the UK approach, I should add. It is timely to update our legislation to apply the experiences and lessons we have learnt since then. The Judicature Act is over 100 years old and is seriously out of date. The Law Commission’s recommendation to consolidate it into a single, modern, clear courts Act with the Supreme Court Act is a long-overdue change.

This bill broadly reforms the court system and implements two reports of the Law Commission, namely the Review of the Judicature Act 1908: Towards a New Courts Act and Aspects of Damages: The Award of Interest on Money Claims. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Law Commission for its thorough analysis and comprehensive reports. The first report—the Review of the Judicature Act 1908: Towards a New Courts Act—is divided into four parts, dealing, respectively, with issues relating to (a) the structure of new courts legislature, (b) judges, (c) courts, and (d) miscellaneous matters.

The primary purpose of the review was to clarify and modernise the laws under which New Zealand’s primary trial and appellate courts are constituted. These laws determine how the courts are set up, how judges are appointed, their jurisdiction, their rule-making powers, and the procedures by which they administer justice.

The bill introduces certain measures with regard to judicial appointments. It is important that there is a clear and publicly known process for judicial appointments. Although there are currently clear and transparent processes for the appointment of District Court judges, the same cannot be said of the higher courts. The proposals under this bill will enhance transparency in that regard. Certain provisions are designed to address the issues concerning judicial conflicts of interest.

What are particularly worth noting are the provisions dealing with the issues around the commercial list. The High Court commercial list is less relevant than it was, because of the general improvements in case management. Many practitioners consider that there is still a need to improve the way in which commercial cases are managed and disposed of. Consideration of what should be done with the commercial list raises the issue of whether there is a need for greater specialisation in the High Court. Allowing judicial panels for specific commercial cases is a welcome change to the justice system, allowing real expertise to be developed by judges in what can be thorny and complicated areas of legislation.

The court system is still too paper based, and allowing a much greater proportion of material to be electronic is a welcome change, bringing the court system into modern times and cutting down on waste—and it probably will help save more trees. It is somewhat with a sense of oxymoron that this comes in a bill that is 1,182 pages long. Conveniently, the bill introduces a presumption that all written judgments will be published online unless there is a good reason not to. The bill enables the use of electronic technology in courts and tribunals, allowing court documents to be filed, held, and issued electronically. This bill introduces a presumption that audiovisual links will be used in criminal procedural matters where statutory criteria are met, and removes unnecessary geographic restrictions on its use.

The Northern Island court service has recently introduced some electronic changes, and its experience is valuable to us. Its courtroom technology programme, for example, will be helpful in enhancing efficacy by using technology such as the electronic presentation of evidence. It will help improve both the quality and speed of information for those involved in complex court cases where documentary evidence can amount to many thousands of pages, just like this bill. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. We begin the rather significant task of working our way through this document, the Judicature Modernisation Bill—a mammoth document, I think. In fact, my Labour colleague Raymond Huo is somewhat mistaken in his count. If one actually looks at the total number of pages, they number 1,238 including the preamble. So it is a little bit of homework for us over the holiday break, I suspect.

This significant document—significant not only in size but in scope, and, indeed, in what it sets out to do—began its journey, and is an output of a process that began, around 3 years ago. The Law Commission was given the task of looking at our court system and reviewing that system, and out of that came an excellent document in November 2012, which was the review of the Judicature Act. That has clearly provided the basis, to a large extent, for the development of this bill that we are looking at today. The task, essentially, that the Law Commission was given was to consider the consolidation, amendment, and modernisation of the various pieces of legislation and processes that have found their way into this bill. Clearly, there was a need for that. The point has been made that the Judicature Act itself is well over 100 years old. That almost pre-dates radio and definitely pre-dates television. The world has moved on, and, of course, the legislation needs to catch up.

It is interesting that in the terms of reference the task that was given to the commission specifically directed it not to consider major matters of policy and the structure and character of existing trial and appellant courts. I think that is interesting. I do not suggest that it ought to have had that included in this task. I think it had a sufficient task. But, to me, that is shorthand for suggesting that it was not required—in fact, were required not—to consider, for example, whether our courts should move from an adversarial basis through to a more inquisitorial model, recognising that you seldom get pure models of either. But I think it is a conversation that is happening abroad. Increasingly, we are starting to hear the discussion evolve—that perhaps it is time to consider whether we ought to make a transition from what is predominantly adversarial through to a more inquisitorial structure or process for our courts. Putting that aside, there is some comfort, I think, in the fact that this bill is clearly focused, and all of the documents have contributed to its preparation.

The one word that consistently jumps out is “accessibility”. I think everybody sees value in increasing the accessibility of our courts and accessibility to the law and to legal processes. That has got to be a primary objective and a driver of all that we do from here on in. The point is also made that clarity is a necessary precursor to achieving that level of accessibility—clarity about such things as jurisdiction, the operating characteristics of the court, and the processes. Clarity is an important subset of accessibility, and, to the extent that that is also addressed, I think it will help deliver a very good outcome and a better overall model for us to operate within.

To speak briefly to a number of the specifics of the bill, it of course creates a single statute that will cover arrangements to all senior courts, and, similarly, a single statute to look after the District Courts, and within that the tribunals. One of the interesting things it proposes to do is that it will impose a duty on judges—a requirement—to do things such as publish information relating to the delivery of reserved judgments and recusal from cases and the suitability of judges holding employment or other office while operating as judges, and that all final written judgments, unless there is good reason not to, will be published. That is a point I will return to.

There is also a requirement for the Attorney-General to publish the processes followed when making judicial appointments, and I think that is a very healthy contribution to transparency. The extra obligations placed on the judiciary do inevitably raise the perennial question of where the line is between requiring accountability from our judges but also protecting the independence of the judiciary. We know there is a very bright line between the role of this Parliament and the role of the judiciary, and we need to preserve and maintain that bright line. I am aware that in the review document there was a proposition that perhaps judges should present annual reports, in a sense, of their various actions, and the push-back from the judges—I think quite fairly—was to suggest that given that those reports would be to Parliament, that might be perhaps compromising the bright line between the relative jurisdictions of the courts and Parliament. So I do foresee some rather interesting conversations. In fact, the Law and Order Committee has recently had some useful dialogue around the issue of judicial independence compared with parliamentary jurisdictions, and I think that will contribute to that, indeed.

We are particularly interested in the move towards enabling the use of technology—the proposition of electronic courts and tribunals. I made the point earlier that, yes, 1908 is a very long time ago, and it is time that we caught up with the 21st century. Like all technologies, we agree, in principle, obviously, with moving to an electronic-based—e-based—system. It is simply inconceivable that one would not make some moves in that direction. But the adoption of any technology, or making any technology more pervasive, always carries with it a level of risk—the risk of unintended outcomes, unintended consequences, some of which could be negative. I think we do have to be aware of that, and I have no doubt that the Justice and Electoral Committee will think that one through very carefully.

It is interesting that in the bill itself it suggests that the following principles need to apply in terms of the use of electronic technology generally. It states: “(a) all persons should be able to deal with courts and tribunals in a technology-neutral way:”. I think that is quite an interesting phrase, and one that we will no doubt unpick at the select committee. The principle is that “(b) electronic technology should be used”—and “should” is quite a strong word, clearly—“where it—(i) reduces costs: (ii) speeds up the delivery of services: (iii) makes information more accessible:”. Those are all good things, but I would also say that I think reducing costs at any cost would not be desirable. The final point made in that part of the bill goes on to say that “(c) access to justice should be preserved for all persons, including those without access to electronic technology.” I think that is a necessary protection to put in there, because all of us on a day-to-day basis probably have more electronic toys and tools than we can comfortably use on some days, but that is not necessarily the norm. As we shift to enabling more use of technology, the electronic filing of documents, and all the rest of it—I think those are positive things—we do need to be aware that they could come with some fish-hooks.

One of the potential fish-hooks that the Greens will be particularly interested in, given that we will be requiring judges to post all judgments online, is that we just wonder how that will rest with the provisions of the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act, which was one of the legacies of former Green MP Nandor Tanczos, who is, unfortunately, often best remembered for his appearance, but who made some significant contributions to this place. The Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act is legislation that enables people to leave their pasts behind them. If people make a mistake and fall foul of the justice system but then go on to lead good and positive lives, it is appropriate that they should be able to leave that past in the past, and that they should be able to just let it sit there. As soon as one puts anything online, of course, you know there will be serious difficulties about erasing that electronic trace. So we will be looking very hard at requiring that the legislation ensures that posting judicial decisions online does not compromise the intent or the letter of the clean slate legislation as it now stands.

I would like to say that I look forward to the select committee wholeheartedly working on this bill. Perhaps it is because of this time of year, when we are all feeling rather tired, that the task is looking larger than it will be. But it will be interesting, it is necessary, it is a good time for it to happen, and we look forward to that ongoing work. We will be supporting this legislation. Kia ora.

I wish to take a short call in support of the Judicature Modernisation Bill. I want to endorse the comments of my cousin Chris Finlayson in endorsing the work of the Minister of Justice in respect of the hard work that she has done on pulling this bill together, but also acknowledge the work that he himself has done.

As someone who has come to the law fairly late, I do not get my buttons pushed by the weird and strange things that those addicted to the law and judicature do. But what I am pleased to talk about are some changes that have been made more recently, where we have made the most significant changes to criminal procedure in 50 years. These took effect in July, and they were well supported across the House. It is expected that they will remove 30,000 unnecessary court events each year and save about 10,000 sitting hours. A number of new experiences are involved here, with the filing online of a number of actions before the courts. Police will now file their 200,000-plus criminal charges a year electronically instead of using paper files.

I want to just quickly focus on two particular aspects of this bill and how they enhance our modernisation programme. The Government has moved to take advantage of the huge benefits of video links—audiovisual links—and a number of appearances before the courts now occur by audiovisual link, saving the Department of Corrections, the police, and the courts time and money, and it improves safety. Even the prisoners themselves enjoy the prospect of being able to stay involved in the programme in the place where they are imprisoned, rather than having to travel in a prison van, sometimes for several hours, and sit in a cell in somewhere they are scared of or just do not like, for a 10-minute appearance, before repeating the whole process in going back to prison later on. Earlier this year the Minister of Corrections, Anne Tolley, and I announced a $27.8 million expansion to audiovisual links in 14 more courts and nine more prisons. The first of the new courts is due to come online next week.

The second change I want to focus on is moving to a single, unified District Court. Previously, our District Courts were 59 individual registries. Each operated in its own little world, in its own little fiefdom. In a modern New Zealand, where you can wake up in Invercargill, make it to Wellington for afternoon tea, and then get to Kaitāia by dinner time, it all seems nuts not to have one court that covers the whole registry of New Zealand. Making good use of our court resources is an essential challenge for our court system. No one benefits when a courtroom sits empty.

I want to finish by saying that the changes and provisions within the Judicature Modernisation Bill will make the use of our courts easier for those who are engaged in them, as professionals, as members of the judiciary, or as members of the public who have to appear—probably not by choice—as a witness or as a defendant. An open, free, and transparent justice system is what we are all aiming for. This bill will make it an awful lot simpler and easier to achieve. Thank you.

New Zealand First supports this huge, 1,238-page Judicature Modernisation Bill to the select committee stage for scrutiny.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: 1,182.

Sorry?

💬 Hon Phil Goff: 1,182.

I think it is 1,238, but we can debate that at another time. Until then, anyway, as you can see, it should make a good doorstop. I would have to disagree with the Attorney-General, by the way, about the old television programme featuring Mr Haddock, with Alastair Sim as the judge. Haddock may have been an expert vexatious litigant, but I got a lot of my legal education from him. A damn sight more—[Interruption]

💬 Hon Members: It shows.

If it shows, then it shows that it was a good television programme, because it was good quality stuff, and better than some of the incompetent law lecturers that I had to endure in those days. Anyway, the bill has a lot of merit. It implements the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s report Review of the Judicature Act 1908: Towards a New Courts Act and accepts 71 of the 89 Law Commission recommendations. They fall into four areas: firstly, the court structure and legislation; secondly, judges’ appointment and how they operate; thirdly, court administration; and, fourthly, non-party participants and, of course, vexatious litigants. These revisions are generally welcome and will be welcomed by the profession. They are needed to update the courts using 21st century technology, to allow better use of resources, and to improve administration. There is a need to make the courts more people-friendly, more accessible, more understandable, and especially more transparent.

Part 1 of the bill repeals and replaces the Supreme Court Act 2003 and, more particularly, the Judicature Act 1908. It is high time for that. The old legislation was outdated and rather Dickensian. The new court is intended to be more people-centred, modern, and accessible, by improving transparency, flexibility, and relevance of senior courts. Those are very good objectives.

Some of the main features of Part 1 are the creation of a single statute for the senior courts, and it will also streamline the current arrangements as to who can be appointed as non-permanent judges, including limiting appointment to former or current judges, rather than directly from the bar, and generally setting more consistent appointment periods and age limits across the courts. Those changes will be very welcome. Existing ways of appointing judges otherwise remain, but published guidelines and protocols are sorely needed and I see that these are now proposed.

Similarly, the bill codifies restrictions on judges’ other appointments, employment, and issues relating to potential pecuniary conflicts of interest. There is quite a lot of public pressure for that as well. The bill establishes a judicial panel in the High Court, from which judges can be allocated to hear specified types of commercial cases. That will match recognised judicial expertise to cases where parties wish to have a panel judge assigned. That is going to ensure better use of judges’ expertise, and, again, is a very welcome new provision.

The bill will also work towards more transparency, and that is particularly welcome. The judiciary is to publish information relating to the delivery of reserve judgments, recusal from cases, the suitability of judges holding employment or other office, and all final written judgments, unless there is good reason not to do so. The Attorney-General is to publish the process that he or she follows when making judicial appointments. The public will welcome that.

Part 2 deals with and replaces the District Courts Act 1947 and establishes a unitary District Court. That is also to be more people-centred, modern, and accessible. The bill reconstitutes the District Courts as a single court with divisions for a Family Court, a Youth Court, and a disputes tribunal. It increases the monetary limit of the court’s civil jurisdiction from $200,000 to $350,000, and I might say that is well overdue. It also provides the District Court with the power to stop vexatious civil litigation, and there are to be the same transparency requirements, as I have already mentioned, for the senior courts.

Part 4 of the bill implements the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s report on aspects of damages, the award of interest on money claims, and that is very long overdue and will be particularly welcomed by the profession. It produces a single statutory system for the award of interest. It will provide a greater degree of certainty for the court in awarding interest on money claims; it will promote clarity, simplicity, and consistency; and it is, again, likely to deter vexatious litigation. These are very good provisions and ought to be supported by us all.

Part 5 is also important. It provides for the legislation to enable and govern the use of electronic technology in court and tribunal proceedings, while protecting access to justice for all people. This is very important. People expect these days for the courts to be up to date in terms of modern technology. I only regret the recent eBench failure at stage three, after the expenditure, I understand, of something like $18 million. That is quite unacceptable, and it is an area in which the Government must do much better.

Part 6 amends 17 other statutes. There are amendments to the specialist courts legislation covering the Employment Court, the Environment Court, and the Māori Land Court, by applying a number of provisions contained in Parts 1 and 2, as mentioned, to the specialist courts. There is to be an amendment of the Arbitration Act 1996 as well to replace the definition of an arbitral tribunal and to permit the Minister of Justice to appoint a body to resolve certain matters relating to an arbitration. I think these are very welcome changes as well.

Overall, New Zealand First welcomes the bill and will vote for it to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee, where we will all need to spend a great deal of time ploughing through that huge statute. I think that people who are not on that select committee will be glad that they are not.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: We’ll be competing to sub on to it.

Well, of course, you will, Mr Goff. We look forward in any event to scrutinising the bill at that stage in detail and to the report back to the House, but I am sure in the end this will be pretty much of a very important leap forward for the court and justice system in New Zealand.

As chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee it is a pleasure to rise to take a brief call on the first reading of the Judicature Modernisation Bill, which by any measure is a weighty piece of legislation. In 1907 New Zealand became a self-governing dominion and that meant that in the following year, 1908, we had passing through Parliament an enormous amount of legislation, much of it forming the very cornerstones and foundations of our civil government. Amongst it was the 1908 Judicature Act and it has served us all those years, for over a century. It has never actually been completely reviewed in the past. It has been tinkered with a few times but never completely reviewed. So it is a great pleasure, I think, to be sitting on the Justice and Electoral Committee when the Minister of Justice brings to the House this piece of legislation, which will modernise our court system and see us through the next 100 years, with the same kind of effectiveness that we have had from the previous legislation.

I took particular note of the Attorney-General’s contribution earlier on in the debate, when he mentioned that the committee would want to focus on several clauses in the bill. Although it is a very weighty piece of legislation, clause 93, which deals with the judicial appointment process and exactly how the Attorney-General explains his process for appointment, will be a matter that the committee wants to pay attention to. The area of vexatious litigants is a matter of increasing concern, as they increase in numbers and clog our court system. Clauses 162 to 165 address the area of concern relating to vexatious litigants and I, for one, will be very keen to spend some time focusing on those clauses. Clause 166 deals with reserve judgments and the timeliness of the delivery of those judgments. That has been a topical matter in recent times. And then there are the recusal rules, which will be another area that the committee will want to look at closely.

I am looking forward to reading the legislation in great detail over the summer adjournment and coming back to the committee with a full and intimate understanding of its minute detail. I commend it to the House.

Debate interrupted.