District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill

I move, That the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

As I said earlier, this bill will amend the District Court Act so that we can lift the cap, currently set at 160, to 182. We’re not intending to appoint an additional 22 judges at this point, but the Budget provides for additional funding for an additional 10 judges in the District Court and an additional two judges in the Youth Court. The bill is being passed under urgency because the need for those District Court judges is now urgent. The backlog of District Court cases—particularly in the criminal jurisdiction, because of the extra number of events related to each criminal case—is growing. The need for the Chief District Court Judge to have reallocated more judges to the Family Court to deal with that extraordinary backlog has meant that the pressure is really on the court.

The further consequence of that is that those alleged offenders who have been remanded in custody spend longer in custody. It takes longer for them to get a successful bail application through, and that is putting their liberty and freedoms at risk. We know that of those who are remanded in custody, only 40 percent wind up with a custodial sentence following conviction as a result. So there is some unfairness in that if we cannot equip the District Court to be more effective in the administration of justice in that respect. This will allow the District Court to manage cases and dispose of cases more efficiently and more effectively. Not only is that good for the public confidence in the justice system and the judicial system but it’s good for the individuals whose mental and emotional and physical wellbeing are often at risk or at play in these matters.

So passing this bill today means that as soon as we get back into things next week, we can start the recruitment process and, within a matter of months, we’ll have those additional judges administering justice, helping people dispose of their cases, and administer justice for those who are accused of offences, and that’ll be good for all of New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. On this, the second reading of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, I wish to emphasize—but only briefly—a couple of the points that we’ve made previously, just for the sake of the record, but also to respond to a couple of comments that have been made by the Attorney-General. His historical explanation about the history of temporary and permanent judges has been interesting and actually helpful in terms of the debate.

The phrase cosying up to the executive by members of the judicial branch in relation to appointments, I think, some might regard as unfortunate, but it goes equally with an observation that if we’re looking at the relationship between the judiciary and the executive branch, then we need to note that it will be quite something that 12 new judges will be appointed in one hit by him. That’s a large exercise of individual power, discretion, and, I hope, judgment—if you’ll excuse the term in this potentially confusing way in relation to this bill. Let’s hope that his judgment is up to it, and I won’t make any comment about that for fear of making a comment, effectively, on the appointments that he makes. But it’s a large number to be making by one single Attorney-General at one time. So we’ll just see how that goes.

A couple of other points in relation to the way that the additional appointments might be made. The point about the general zeitgeist about decriminalisation in the Parliament at the moment—or at least some parts of it—I think is interesting when you consider whether we will be needing more or fewer judges as a result. If police, for example, in the realm of drugs—looking at reforms or, rather, changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act—are encouraged, indeed, directed, in the sense of the legislation, not in any individual cases, to send fewer cases to court, then, arguably, we would need fewer judges, not more. So we’ll watch with interest the way that that plays out in terms of the number of cases, as well as the number of judges and, of course, the processing times that I referred to earlier.

My final point, actually, is just a bit of a plea for a bench that appropriately reflects New Zealand today. I understand—and I haven’t seen it in any official documents, so with that disclaimer I’ll say—that there are relatively few judges of Asian extraction, and certainly, outside the Indian subcontinent, relatively few—in fact, possibly none. I might be incorrect on that, and, if so, then I shouldn’t place too much emphasis on it. But certainly it is incumbent upon the Attorney-General—any Attorney-General, I hasten to add—to ensure that an appropriate mix of perspectives and philosophies and community representation is achieved in those appointments, of which, as I say, he will be making many in a very short space of time.

💬 Melissa Lee: Hear, hear!

My colleague Melissa Lee says “Hear, hear!”, and I thank her for the guidance that she’s provided me in that matter.

So I will only emphasize, before resuming my seat on this, the second reading, that we do support the bill for the reasons outlined, but also flagging that there are a number of issues related to that and the way that it will play out in future years that we will be watching very closely indeed.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. This bill does a fine job of unpicking nine years of damage under the past National Government by having more judges, because justice delayed is justice denied. Victims before our court system need to make sure they get a fast trial and they get their rights and their abilities to see justice quickly. That has been denied for a long time, as we’ve seen our courts grind to a halt under the past National Government. There are members opposite, as well as I, that saw that first-hand.

So I would like to say good work to the Government on making sure that this gets done quickly to make sure that people who are before our courts get heard promptly and that they get the justice that they deserve. Therefore, I commend this most excellent bill to the House.

I’m very happy to take a call on this—the second reading of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. It doesn’t seem that long ago that we were in the House debating the first reading of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. It seems like only yesterday!

Can I acknowledge the previous speaker, Ginny Andersen. Look, we do support this bill. We think that it will help expedite and clear some of the backlog. We haven’t seen a lot of detail around it. So if I cast my mind back to the first reading debate, the Green member Golriz Ghahraman made a very good point, and she raised the issue around whether there are going to be enough courtrooms available for the extra judges. So it’s just simple things like that that we need some detail on. Where are the judges going to go? How are they going to be prioritised so the pressure actually in the system is relieved? So I’m going to just take a short call to say that we do support the bill but, I guess, in committee stage we can start to actually dig into some of the detail around it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Very briefly, I just want to acknowledge the immense amount of work that the District Court judges do. It is absolutely the workhorse of our justice system and the entry point for most of the justice that goes on. I also recognise the intense work that judges do in the Rangatahi Courts and the Youth Court, and the fact that these judges will be able to address those issues with young people in the way that they do so well and thereby, hopefully, keep our prisons less full, and also clear those remand queues—the people who are on remand, often in custody—and then, again, lower the prison muster. So on all those bases, this increase in the District Court judge numbers is very much appropriate, and I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Part 1 Substantive amendment