Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill

on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill be now read a first time.

I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. This bill will enhance public confidence in our judicial system by making changes relating to the responsibility to determine the remuneration of some of our statutory and judicial officers. Judicial independence is a core pillar of any democracy, and independent judiciary protects the citizenry from the arbitrary use of power by the executive. Security of remuneration is one of the measures that enable officers to discharge their duties without fear or favour or any undue influence.

There are currently two mechanisms in New Zealand for determining the remuneration of judicial and statutory officers. One is the Cabinet Fees Framework, administered by Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission on behalf of the executive. The other is the Remuneration Authority, an independent statutory body that determines remuneration for judicial statutory officers that need to have, and to be seen to have, independence from Government.

The key differences between these two mechanisms is the degree of independence from the executive. This bill transfers the responsibility for determining the remuneration from some of the judicial statutory officers from the Cabinet Fees Framework to the Remuneration Authority on the basis that they need to have, or be seen to have, greater independence from the Government because of the judicial responsibilities associated with their roles.

Some of the officers that this bill seeks to transfer are officers who are already judicial decision makers but whose remuneration are currently determined under the Cabinet Fees Framework; these include community magistrates of the District Court, and commissioners and deputy commissioners of the Environment Court. Secondly, the bill transfers disputes tribunal referees and Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators from the Cabinet Fees Framework to the Remuneration Authority. Disputes tribunal referees hear the majority of the substantive cases fought before the civil jurisdiction of the District Court. Both disputes tribunal referees and Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators have had significant increases in their jurisdiction over the past couple of years. As crucial members of our legal system, it is important that the officers presiding over these matters are seen as independent of the Government.

I am of the view that this transfer will enhance public confidence in the integrity and independence of these tribunals. This is particularly important as these officers deal with cases that the ordinary New Zealander is greatly affected by, such as: their conditions of living, disputes between individuals, and grievances against a business.

The bill also chairs the deputy chairperson and members of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal from the Cabinet Fees Framework to the purview of the Remuneration Authority, as these officers hear appeals against decisions of the Minister of Immigration. It is important that officers who hear appeals from decisions of Government Ministers are seen to be independent of the executive and unable to be influenced through their remuneration to be partial to a Government decision.

The last of the officers to whom this bill relates are the chairperson and deputy chairpersons of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, who have the authority to declare an Act of Parliament inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Any officers with a significant power, such as this, should be given extra protection to ensure its independence. For this reason, the bill transfers the responsibility for determining the remuneration of the chair and deputy chairs of the tribunal from the Cabinet Fees Framework to the Remuneration Authority. To implement these transfers, the bill creates permanent legislative authorities under the relevant legislation.

I understand and endorse the principles that underpin the Cabinet Fees Framework, but also acknowledge that some officers need to be and need to be seen to be independent of the Government. For this reason, I consider it necessary that the responsibility for determining the remuneration of these judicial and statutory officers be transferred from the Cabinet Fees Framework administered by the executive to the independent Remuneration Authority in order to enforce the independence of these officers from the Government’s influence.

Finally, I consider the select committee process to be very important. I encourage members of the public to have their say on the bill when the committee calls for submissions. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

It has been a long-held, a deeply held, a sincerely held desire of mine over a number of years in this Parliament to speak on a remuneration bill. So tonight is a special night. In that regard, I suppose, I do tick something off my bucket list, and it is really good to do that. I just want to commend the Minister Stuart Nash. I know this is not his bill; it is the Hon Sir Aupito William Sio’s bill. But, clearly, Minister Nash put a lot of time into that speech. He thought a lot about the issues. So I just want to say that we appreciate that on this side of the House, the sort of attention that Ministers like Minister Nash give. I know he has got a lot going on. He is on Hosking tomorrow morning. It is a big time for him. But we appreciate that. I also accept what he says, and I’m sure there will be a lot of submissions on this bill, because there is so much in it.

This is an omnibus bill, and, of course, not all omnibus matters are correct or are appropriate. That is where there are disparate laws that are being changed as a result of one bill. They either are or they aren’t in line with the Standing Orders, in Standing Order 267(1)(a) in particular. But here, of course, for the reasons that Minister Nash has outlined, that is because there is an overarching theme here of transferring responsibility for remuneration determination for these various disparate quasi-judicial roles and statutory officers to the Remuneration Authority—well, then, an omnibus bill is appropriate and is within the Standing Orders.

The reason, of course, that we are able to do that and that National will support this bill is that it is right—in light of the judicial roles, the statutory functions that these various officers and quasi-judicial roles have—that they are removed, that they are independent, and that they are paid, bluntly. That is, their remuneration, their conditions that go with the pay are removed from this place, from Parliament, from the executive, and from anything that might be influenced by this place.

In the list of those offices that are affected by this bill and will be one step, or distanced—appropriately—from this place and the executive, are the chair and deputy chairpersons of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, community magistrates of the District Court, environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners of the Environment Court, members and deputy chairs of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, referees of the disputes tribunal, and tenancy adjudicators of the Tenancy Tribunal. In inflationary times, I might say—and I’m not seeking to be unduly flippant on this bill—but these various offices, I would have thought, might be somewhat glad to be removed from the hurly-burly of this.

MPs are expected to don sack cloth and walk around the streets, yelling, “Unclean, unclean.”, and begging not to be paid more. Whereas here, actually, we’ve got a bill that makes quite clear they may not be paid less—any Remuneration Authority determination that is to happen every year can only be the same or more. That is appropriate.

I would, though, and I do, again, I suppose, not so subtly, note the quite clear contrast to members of Parliament. I well remember in Cabinet and in Government, the situations where Remuneration Authority chairs would come and would be—I shouldn’t say “come”, but by correspondence—making quite clear that they thought, in terms of the context and what others in similar positions were being paid and so on, we should be getting pay rises. Clearly, in political terms, given the environment we are in, that wasn’t deemed appropriate, and we’d be, in no uncertain terms, going back and saying, “No. Don’t put our terms, our conditions, our salaries, and the various other matters that make remuneration, up.” So that is the difference with this place.

And, I think, again, perhaps not so subtly, what that means is that with our accountability in this place to the people, with election cycles and so on, we have the right to play politics, to do politics, and to speak politically in a way that those who are also, in the broader sense, part of the Government, but in judicial and quasi-judicial positions, don’t. And they get that distanced, independent Remuneration Authority process in terms of the ongoing surety and ratcheting up of their remuneration.

We do support this bill. It is right that these are independent. I’m sure it will be an interesting select committee process that Mr Nash and I can both watch with that great interest.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill. When Simon Bridges gets up to start a speech, you think, “Is he actually going to do 10 minutes on this?”, and he nearly made it, I was impressed. I wasn’t quite sure what the position was, but it’s a pleasure to hear that National will be supporting this bill and it will be going through to the Justice Committee. I look forward to hearing those submissions. I can see from the speech before that the other member is also very excited.

So, in a nutshell, what does this do? Well, there’s two ways you can get paid in terms of some of these key roles that have been discussed. The first one is the Cabinet Fees Framework and the second is the Remuneration Authority. Essentially, what this bill does is it makes a swap for a number of key entities. You may well ask, “How did that come about?” Well, there was a review. An independent principles-based review was undertaken by a chap called Martin Jenkins in 2018, and it was established that there were some key roles that—the principal difference between the Remuneration Authority and the Cabinet Fees Framework is the degree of independence from the Government on those remuneration decisions.

So on the basis of that review, there are six entities, there are six areas that will be transferring in order to have greater transparency and for the members of the New Zealand general public to have a greater level of understanding that it’s an arm’s length from Government. So those six entities are: disputes tribunal referees, community magistrates of the District Court, the chairperson and deputy of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, the deputy and the members Immigration and Protection Tribunal, the environment commissioners and deputy of the Environment Court, and, finally, Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators.

So, in a nutshell, what this does is it transfers over to those entities and it basically enhances public confidence in our judicial system by making those changes. I look forward to it coming to the Justice Committee and hearing the numerous submissions that we’ll receive on this.

Thank you. The Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill—so for the benefit of members of the public interested in watching, viewing, this evening’s debate, remuneration, of course is—it’s known—money paid for work or service, and this bill is specific to the judicial or quasi-judicial services provided here in Aotearoa New Zealand

The bill is a simple change which will give an added layer of political neutrality to the setting of fees for judicial officers, and that’s been canvassed by previous speakers in the House this evening. The Remuneration Authority is seen as the fair, the independent body who should be tasked with determining remuneration for the judicial officers. So the Remuneration Authority already sets the various rates or remuneration for judges, including justices of the Supreme Court; so the judicial independence from Government is important as it enhances public confidence in the operation of the law and the importance of the separations of the powers of State, which is the executive, the Government; the legislature, we as parliamentary members forming Parliament to make and pass laws; and, of course, the judiciary, the judges, who are affected, and quasi-judicial officers affected in this setting of their remuneration.

This bill is to pass into law with amendments, and it’s referred to and known as an omnibus bill to deal with six other Acts. Now, it may seem that I’m stating the obvious to members of Parliament who are here this evening but I’m always mindful that we are addressing members of the public who are listening in. So this omnibus bill is looking at amending six other pieces of law to transfer the responsibility for determining the remuneration of the following judicial officers—and it’s been addressed in part by members this evening. Those are judicial officers of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, namely the chairperson and deputy chairperson; community magistrates of the District Court, who have already had their remuneration addressed under the District Courts Act; the commissioners and deputy commissioners of the Environment Court; members and deputy chairs of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal; referees of the disputes tribunal; and tenancy adjudicators of the Tenancy Tribunal.

So, as I said, the bill is a simple change but it’s an important one for the very reason of ensuring that separation of the powers which form or are known as the branches of powers of the Crown, of the State. The background to this bill is that an independent principles-based review was undertaken to determine whether the Cabinet Fees Framework or the Remuneration Authority is the more appropriate mechanism. It’s on the recommendation of that review that this bill is now before the House. It’s before the House, as I’ve said, addressing the remuneration, the rates, and the apportionment of that to the appointment of judges and quasi-judicial officers.

As I’ve said in the House before, when I rise to speak on a matter that I am conversant with, I will always attempt to relate or co-relate that back to persons who give service. I wish to acknowledge the recent appointment of now Justice Layne Harvey, who has presided as a Māori Land Court judge for the last 19 years and, of course, knows full well the impact of the Remuneration Authority and the setting of the pay scale and rates. But it’s appropriate that I acknowledge him for his ascension to the High Court to join Justice Christian Whata, and I mention both of them specifically as they were former student peers when we were at Auckland Law School.

I also acknowledge, appropriately, Judge Frances Eivers, who has been appointed as the new Children’s Commissioner, to take office as of 1 November. So Judge Eivers, again like Judge Harvey, is conversant with the powers of the State and the Remuneration Authority, and Judge Eivers brings a depth and breadth of experience to the bench in her service, as Justice Harvey does, with their tenure of service as judges on the bench. I also acknowledge the recent appointment of three Māori Land Court judges who will soon become familiar with the Remuneration Authority, and they are judges Te Kani Williams, again a former Auckland Law School student peer, graduate, and servant of the law; Judge Aidan Warren; and Judge Rachel Mullins. And it’s appropriate that I seize that opportunity, because it does have bearing on the relevance of this bill soon to be passed into law, which is supported as being appropriate from the National Party.

The Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill will come before the select committee, which is the Justice Committee, and I don’t have the privilege of presiding there. However, it will be interesting to see the extent of any submissions that are made to this. I’m cognisant of the time when I served as a District Court lawyer, the service that was given by the magistrates in the court. They are known as quasi-judicial officers because they do not have a law degree, but they have a depth and level of experience of service in the law through their respective community engagements. I’ve outlined the other areas in terms of the tribunals and the commissions and the courts which will be affected, appropriately, by the transfer of the decision-making authority from Government, under the Cabinet Fees Framework, to the independent Remuneration Authority.

Also, what I didn’t hear addressed in the House this evening is that this bill will affect the making of five new permanent legislative authorities. They are to be established to authorise the payments made from public money without a specific appropriation from Parliament, and these permanent legislative authorities are required because the remuneration for these officers is to be determined independently of the Government. I stress, importantly, that separation of the branches of power. This bill will ensure that. And, with that, I commend the bill to the House.

Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise with great enthusiasm, possibly even equal to the enthusiasm of my colleague Mr Bridges, to speak on this bill tonight, because this is a really important piece of legislation. There is nothing more important than the separation of powers and the fact that there are people out there in the world holding the people in this room to account and the people in the executive to account. There is nothing more important than the independence of the judiciary in the operation of our democracy, or at least it’s at least as important as the other things that hold our democracy together.

I remember nearly a year ago sitting over there in the very, very backbenches when Black Rod banged on the door. It took me straight back to my years in Tikipunga High School in Whangārei and the teachings of the now Dr Brent Mawson, when he described the beginnings of the code of judicial independence in the years leading up to the English Civil War and the brave, brave work of judges like Sir Edward Coke, who took on King James, a despot and a tyrant if there ever was one, and refused to cede him absolute power. It was in those moments that we began to become a democracy that endures to this day and will be considerably strengthened and protected again by what might seem a small matter, but is never a small matter when it comes to the protection of our democracy. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on behalf of the Green Party, also, surprisingly, in support of the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill, controversial as it seems to be. Though, actually I’m going to change tack and actually have my words mean what I say, unlike Simon Bridges’ speech, which mostly seemed to be kind of sliding under the radar.

So this is a pretty simple and technical bill, actually. It’s following through on a review by MartinJenkins from 2018 looking at whether the setting for judicial and statutory officers’ pay should be—was it being appropriately managed through the Cabinet fund process? They concluded that community magistrates, disputes tribunal referees, environment commissioners, deputy environment commissioners are judicial decision makers and their remuneration should be determined independently of Government by the Remuneration Authority, and that there were some grey areas in coverage from the Cabinet processes, which was, effectively, set by the executive that gave, while not super close—but the ability for executive to influence the work of the judiciary by setting pay rates and influencing those pay rates.

So this bill amends the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 and six other Acts to transfer responsibility for determining the remuneration for the fees following judicial officers: the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, community magistrates of the District Court, environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners of the Environment Court, members and deputy chairs of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, referees of the disputes tribunal, and tenancy adjudicators of the Tenancy Tribunal.

So this is important, and I think the last speech gave us the history of some of the times of where the judicial independence really protected the people from governing arrangements that had gone awry. It is something that is really important for us to protect. It is central to public trust and ensuring that shifting this to the Remuneration Authority, I think, also increases a sense of fairness and transparency when it comes the pay scale of judiciary and judicial officers, and, in particular, for those decision makers whose work impacts on the rights and welfare of the public. The Greens would say it’s also important that pay scales remain reflective of the important and difficult work being done by the group covered by this bill. They, respectively, make decisions affecting people’s liberty in fair processing criminal proceedings, access to our human rights and non-discrimination laws, environment protections, and the rights of renters to secure adequate housing, among other things; so playing a pretty critical role in our society. We want to make sure that that work is not undermined by any potential undercutting of their pay that could unintentionally or intentionally force people out of doing that work.

So I guess the next steps beyond this bill are for there to be fairness and transparency measures right across our public sector and our society, indeed, where all of the really critical roles in our society are fairly paid and relative to each other. So the Greens are happy to support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand in support of the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill and would like to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Aupito William Sio, for bringing this bill to the House. The purpose of this bill is to transfer the determination of fees from the Cabinet Fees Framework to the Remuneration Authority, and that was done off the back of a review, which has already been discussed at length by several members. The review has, of course, found that there are sets of judiciary personnel, I guess is what we’ll call them, that are actually currently being paid by the Government’s fee regime. And I think it’s really important that we do ensure that there is independence between the judiciary and the Government, especially when it comes to public trust, because that public trust and confidence has been wavering quite a lot recently, especially when we look at—I don’t know; it’s not judiciary—Government payments to media. And then we have the public thinking, of course, that the media are doing the Government’s work for them and not giving them the full story.

So I think it’s really important that we have that balance where, when we are working within the judiciary, we do have that independence and there cannot be a claim that Government is buying off the justice system. Because, with some of the things that have been happening within our justice system more recently, especially with being soft on crime as an example, you would think that there is some payment possibly going on there, although it’s not. And the review itself found that, in order to make sure that we have a clear line, we should actually remove that framework away from the Government and give it to the Remuneration Authority. And ACT does support that.

Several members here tonight have talked about the members of the judiciary who this will affect, and, while they have named them, I thought I would just go a little bit further and name actually what they do, because that puts a bit of context behind why we need to separate them. So, for example, the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Human Rights Review Tribunal come under this regime, and it’s important that they do, because each case that they hear, they chair—or the deputy will chair it—and they have two panel members there. And I note also that those panel members don’t come under this review; it’s just the chairperson and the deputy chairperson. And the review actually found that their jurisdiction is comparable to that of a judge. So, with that high importance, you would expect that they should be moved into the new regime.

Community magistrates at the District Court—they’re, effectively, hearing the cases that a District Court judge would be hearing. So, again, it makes sense that they would be moved into the new regime. Environment commissioners—they’re deputies of the Environment Court. Again, it’s another court, and they hear a lot of appeals. They are skilled workers with lots of qualifications that make decisions that affect the environment and also their local councils as well. So it does make sense that they are also moved into the new regime. Members and deputy chairs of Immigration and the Protection Tribunal—now, it’s really important that they, when hearing appeals, hear them as being independent from Government, especially when a lot of those appeals actually involve the Minister of Immigration. So pulling those two apart and having a separate regime will stop any accusations, especially when there are people who have been given residency or access to come into New Zealand and then create terror while they’re here.

Then, of course, there are the tenancy adjudicators and the Tenancy Tribunal. These are already chaired by a District Court judge, but it puts the remuneration determinations for the other tribunal members in the hands of the Remuneration Authority, just as it does for those judges that are chairing over the Tenancy Tribunal. And then there’s the disputes tribunal referees, which, of course, come under a division of the District Court, and referees also need to be qualified. So, again, it makes sense.

So, as we went through this bill and we listed all of those different areas that needed to be moved over to the Remuneration Authority and away from the fees framework, we agreed wholeheartedly that it was really important that they are moved away, because it’s important—they are important roles and we want to make sure that there is no conflict. We want to make sure that these people that are administering the Government’s legislation can do so independently, because this will help ensure that we have trust and confidence between the public and the judiciary. We think this will go a long way towards mending some of that trust and confidence that has already been lost. It just goes to show the Government will not be paying for the outcomes that these courts determine. So the importance of the work that they do, the qualifications of these people that are in these jobs, and the relevance of the work that they do, we wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be some independence in those determinations, for the reasons I outlined just through this speech.

So we’re quite happy to support this bill. We think that it’s a good job well done, and we look forward to it coming to the Justice Committee, where we can hear some of the other ideas from submitters and look to put this bill forward. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the call on the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill. A year into this role—this vocation, is it?—as a member of Parliament for New Plymouth, an honour is also a word that comes to mind, there’s many, many things you learn and many things you have to learn quickly. Understanding remuneration, understanding the courts, understanding things that I never knew or even cared a lot about, to be honest, because I knew it just worked and operated. But this piece of legislation is around ensuring integrity in our democracy—that it gives the public confidence in our system. There’s often words we hear thrown around around transparency, impartiality, integrity, and this piece of legislation is around that.

This bill was initiated after an independent, principles-based review concluded that the Remuneration Authority, rather than the Cabinet Fees Framework, is the most appropriate mechanism for setting the remuneration of statutory and judicial officers administered by the Minister of Justice. Some pretty big words that I’m learning a year in! Let’s be honest, the Plain Language Bill last week was significant for me, as we go on, and I want lots of plain language and lots of—I was going to say four letter words, but that’s probably unhelpful—shorter words around this. Anyway, the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill is around the remuneration for some roles that can be defined as judicial in nature and are under the authority of the Cabinet Fees Framework, which is led and determined by the executive.

Now, this bill requires more than two minutes of conversation. It’s important stuff. As I said, it’s around transparency; it’s around digging deep into what is important. In 1977, actually, I was two years old, and I do vaguely remember when this was actually brought into this House and passed—I don’t, actually, but I was two years old. I know you think I probably wasn’t born for another 10 or 20 years but I had been. And, of course, someone talked around the omnibus. This is around six other Acts in terms of legislation, and it’s around the Cabinet Fees Framework and the authority. I know a Green MP and colleague mentioned it earlier, but it’s around the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, it’s around the community magistrates of the District Court, it’s around environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners of the Environment Court, it’s also around members and deputy chairs of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, it’s also around referees of the disputes tribunals, tenancy adjudicators of the Tenancy Tribunal, so it covers a lot. And like I said before, the fact that it’s bringing it into the Remuneration Authority—I’ve almost got that word right—rather than the Cabinet Fees Framework.

Now, the remuneration of these officers that I just mentioned earlier will remain the same until the Remuneration Authority makes its first determination. Now, Madam Speaker, I would like you to know that I don’t drink when I’m on precinct, so just in case you’re wondering—I shouldn’t even say that. But I come back to the Plain Language Bill from last week. Thank you very much, Rachel Boyack, who is actually in the Chamber at the moment. That was a mighty piece of legislation that I support, as you can tell, wholeheartedly right now.

So I am grateful to stand here for something that, again, as I said, I’ve often dealt with and worked in spaces where I’m negotiating and working when it comes to—whether it be lawyers, whether it be judges, whether it be in other parts of the judicial system. So for me it is really around that transparency, that impartiality that is important. So as I said—as I began my speech—and I think it sort of feels appropriate to end it that way—

💬 Hon Member: More!

If I can get my tongue around the words correctly. This piece of legislation is ensuring integrity in our democracy, which gives the public confidence in our system, and for that reason, the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill is something I support and I commend to the House.

Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to hear, as I’m sure other members in the House were, from the previous speaker, Glen Bennett, that he doesn’t imbibe when he’s on the parliamentary precinct, but I couldn’t help but wonder whether he maybe consumed some of the more famous herbal products from the beautiful Coromandel electorate, maybe. To give a speech of that sort is truly remarkable.

I want to give a chocolate fish—a virtual chocolate fish award—to my ACT Party colleague Nicole McKee, who gave, probably by a hair’s breadth, the longest contribution to this debate tonight. That’s actually saying something, because this is a bill that, whilst short in nature, actually doesn’t have an awful lot of detail to go around it in terms of filling out a debate slot. So Nicole McKee gets the virtual chocolate fish award for her contribution tonight.

But other members have spoken widely and extensively about the judicial officers who will be covered by this piece of legislation and the changes that it makes. But many of them have not spoken about the fact that this is actually an omnibus bill, and not only does it seek to provide a formalisation of a very important concept within our constitutional framework in New Zealand—that is the separation of powers and the absolute independence of our judiciary—but what this bill also does is it amends several other statutes, including amongst them the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988. The amendments are also made to the District Courts Act 2016, to the Human Rights Act 1993, to the Immigration Act 2009, to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and to the much maligned and already many times amended Resource Management Act 1991.

So not only are these judicial officers now going to have their remuneration and pay rates established with a degree of separation from the Cabinet process—and I think that’s right and proper. In some ways, I’m relatively surprised that maybe this action hasn’t been taken some time before, but now that it’s here, I guess that better late than never is probably a good thing.

One of the judicial officers that is to have their remuneration established under the new regime will be the community magistrates of the District Court. I want to—in the time that’s available to me tonight—put on record my grateful thanks for a group of New Zealanders who perform judicial duties and hold judicial office but receive no remuneration. That’s, of course, our hard-working volunteer justices of the peace, of whom there are about 10,000, I think, around the countryside. I have the privilege of being one of them. But I also had the privilege, recently, of attending the annual general meeting of the Hauraki Justices of the Peace Association. They were in good heart doing good work, but for no remuneration at all—entirely voluntary, unlike the judicial officers in this piece of legislation.

So I want to give them a shout-out, because I think that justices of the peace actually provide a remarkable foundation stone—the framework upon which our entire judicial and legal system is actually formed, because if it was not for the work that they do, our judicial and legal system would come to a grinding halt. Much of the work that they used to do, sitting in District Courts, is now being done in a paid and remunerated way by these community magistrates who sit in the District Courts. I’m not 100 percent convinced that the old system of having volunteer justices of the peace who did not want to be remunerated at all—maybe they were given a small allowance for lunch and sometimes reimbursed for their parking expenses, but that was about the only cost. They did it voluntarily and they did it with keenness and vigour and huge attention to detail.

I think our judicial system has lost something from having so few volunteer justices of the peace actually filling roles that are now being filled by people who are commanding pretty good levels of remuneration in this legislation. So look, maybe we’ll get a chance to tease that out at select committee. National will support this to first reading. We do want to hear what people have to say. On balance, we think it’s probably a good piece of legislation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I encourage that previous member to actually dip into his pocket and pull out money for an actual chocolate fish for the ACT member of Parliament Nicole McKee. Virtual chocolate fishes—people that give those are called cheapskates where we come from. However, this is about the bill, and I’m very excited to be speaking about this bill tonight. Let’s get the name of it right, because my colleague over here to my left was a little bit [Hums] about it, but it is the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill, and it is going to the Justice Committee. I wish them all the best as they traverse through this one.

We’ve heard, debate after debate, people talk about the checks and the balances, the belts and the braces, the trust and the confidence that we need to uphold at every level in this Parliament to ensure that the public of New Zealand have complete faith and confidence in what’s going on here. It’s pretty technical, though, and for those people that are sitting at home, all they really need to know and understand is that what we’re putting in here is an ability to create some independence from the way that remuneration is currently set. So that is an important measure.

Currently, the Cabinet Fees Framework sets a lot of that. A lot of that is going to be transferred over, as you’ve heard in previous speeches, to the Remuneration Authority. Namely, I just wanted to talk out just this little bit in the detail of this bill here, which talks about the different Acts that are going to be affected as that responsibility is transferred from the Cabinet Fees Framework to the authority. So we’re talking about the chairperson and the deputy chairperson of the Human Rights Review Tribunal. You’re talking about the community magistrates of the District Courts. We’re talking about environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners of the Environment Court—also, members and deputy chairs of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, referees of the disputes tribunal, and tenancy adjudicators of the Tenancy Tribunal.

Again, the bureaucracy here is what you’d expect from a bill that sets pay rates for some of our senior officials and those members that have statutory and judicial obligations to our country. The people at home should know that this is a good piece of legislation. It’s getting support from around the House. It is one way that we can ensure that we have trust and faith, belts and braces, checks and balances—however you want to put it—that arm’s length of responsibility from the work that Government does as the executive, the work that they do, compared to outside of that. Creating that independence is incredibly important for ensuring that we have independence in our system.

So for that reason, this is a good piece of legislation. It is going to make sure that we’ve got trust and confidence in our system. It is one of the core pillars of any democracy, that whole idea of the independent judiciary protecting citizens from the arbitrary use of unbridled power that the executive have—

💬 Hon Member: Tell us more!

TĀMATI COFFEY: I will—I will! I’ll give you about a minute 37 more. We’ve got to make sure that that is protected, so making sure that we’ve got security of remuneration as one of the measures that enable officers to be able to discharge their duties without fear or favour or even undue influence as well.

This is a very good piece of legislation. It is going to no doubt get submissions from people that are heavily involved in this, which I’d guess aren’t the majority of New Zealanders out there. But there will be people that do have a point of view on this, and I think that they should feel free to make sure that their submission is heard, which will be open very shortly. They can be heard on any part of the bill that they like. They can go to the Parliament website. They can download it. They can have a look at the different pieces of submissions and advice that have come in around this. But this is a good piece of legislation.

I want to tell you a story, actually. This is a story that has everything to do with remuneration—my first job, actually. I was packing bags at The Warehouse. My first job was actually around making sure that there were people at the checkouts packing stuff into bags at The Warehouse in Lower Hutt at the grand age of 15. I got paid $5.25 for the pleasure of packing other people’s bags. But, actually, it just goes to show that remuneration is incredibly important, and, for that reason, I commend this to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. How good is it to be in the House, yet again, where the House comes together on a piece of legislation like this, and it’s nights like this, as we debate the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill, that I refer to. Whenever I go around the Wairarapa electorate, be it in the Wairarapa or the Tararua district or Central Hawke’s Bay, and speak to groups like Probus or Grey Power, where they don’t want a political statement, and, frankly, I don’t really want to give one, either, they just want to hear about the job—the job of being an MP and the job of representing their region—and I talk about moments like this. It might seem at the time to be a bit dreary and all of that sort of stuff, and we hear jokes about offering other members virtual chocolate fishes because they spoke the longest. But, actually, I think these moments are quite important, because what they demonstrate is that more often than people realise, the House can come together and put politics to the side and say to something, as is proposed by this bill, “This makes sense—this makes sense.”

I thought we were going to be there on the previous bill, where I thought it made sense and the vast majority of the members of the House thought it made sense, but this one—the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill—does. It’s a very straightforward and simple bill, but it makes sense. You may have noticed, Madam Speaker and colleagues in the House here, that just like my good friend and colleague Glen Bennett, I struggle to say “remuneration”. It’s just one of those words, but I always say “renumeration”, and Dr Deborah Russell always points out, much to my embarrassment, that I have said it wrong. But this bill, the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill, introduced earlier this month, does a pretty simple thing: it transfers responsibility for determining the remuneration of certain judicial and statutory officers to the Remuneration Authority to recognise the judicial nature of those positions, and that makes sense to me.

I was a little bit worried. I did ponder as to what we were discussing earlier. Glen Bennett—again, I’ll mention him. He was accused by the Hon Scott Simpson of using the purple products from the Coromandel.

💬 Hon Member: Disgusting—awful.

Well, I didn’t know—was it awful, or was it disgusting? I didn’t know. What on earth is a purple product? I don’t know. I thought perhaps he was talking about cannabis, but perhaps it was one of those old man’s sayings. It was like when you’re talking to your grandfather and he tells you about the time you could get a gallon of gas for a threepence. You know, I just thought it was one of these old-fashioned sayings.

So I googled it. I googled “purple products”, and I couldn’t find anything except the Green Elephant lavender shop in Coromandel. So perhaps that’s what Scott Simpson was referring to. I imagine—just referring to the comments of previous speakers—and I would like to say that he is a well-kempt man, is our Glen Bennett, and it would not surprise me if he went to the Green Elephant lavender shop in the Coromandel.

This bill will enhance public confidence, because, ultimately, we are in a unique position in that New Zealand stands at the top of the world, ranked at No. 1, in the corruption index. That is because we have structures in place to avoid situations where there might be some form of gerrymandering of such public and judicial systems, and, ultimately, it shouldn’t be up to those that set the law to set the pay for those that administer it. That is a very simple principle, and it’s actually quite surprising—and that’s not a dig. It’s not a political statement, but it’s quite surprising that it’s not until now that we’re considering this, and I imagine that it’s probably just one of those things that hasn’t really been brought up. It’s worked OK because of the nature of New Zealanders and the way that we operate. We are, on the whole, a trustworthy bunch.

But it’s been picked up, it’s been identified, and, as a result of a review, it was recommended by the reviewer MartinJenkins back in 2018 that an independent, principles-based review should take place. The question was pretty simple: should it be determined by the Cabinet Fees Framework or by the Remuneration Authority? Ultimately, it was deemed that the mechanisms for setting the Remuneration Authority for these positions should be set by the Remuneration Authority. That makes sense. They’re the organisation that sets the pay of members of Parliament and Ministers, and that’s as it should be.

We’ve all heard the stories, haven’t we—particularly overseas—of members of Parliament voting for a salary increase for themselves whilst also doing things like voting down the minimum wage and feathering their own nest, if you like. As a result of those sorts of things, we’ve seen a lack of trust develop amongst elected officials in countries, including New Zealand.

We’ve all heard it, I’m sure—that old myth that if you serve three terms of Parliament, you get a pension for life. I hear it all the time. I hear it all the time, and that may have been the case—I don’t know for sure, actually. That may have been the case back in 1977, when my good friend Glen Bennett was two, apparently. That may have been the case then—I don’t know—but it 100 percent certainly is not the case now, and nor should it be.

Why should serving nine years in a job get you a pension for life? My old man has served 44 years in his job. He’s not going to get a pension for life—well, actually, he is, because he was on the old Government superannuation scheme. But, yeah, that’s good, and it should never have been scrapped, actually—while I’m on the subject. He’s only been able to use that because he’s stayed in the same job that he had all those years ago for all this time. He’s approaching his retirement, and I wish him well in that–and they’ve bought a caravan, God help the South Island!

So the review noted that “Community Magistrates, Disputes Tribunal Referees, Environment Commissioners, and Deputy Environment Commissioners are judicial decision makers”—now, I just wanted to read that one little bit because there are quite big words in there—“and their remuneration should be determined independently of Government by the Remuneration Authority.” The Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill “amends the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 and 6 other Acts to transfer responsibility for determining the remuneration for the following judicial officers”, and there’s three in particular—because they’ve all been named already tonight, but there are three I want to point out. They are the disputes tribunal referees and the Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators.

It’s unglamorous work, but it is such vital work for our justice system, and the fact that those two in particular have no lawyers. No lawyers are involved, no fancy words; just people that have a dispute over a particular topic coming together, and they hear the case of the both of them and they make a decision. It’s not something I’ve thought about much at all, but I was once involved in a Tenancy Tribunal process, and I didn’t realise that the person that was the adjudicator there was actually doing so in a way that relieved the justice system of the strain of these relatively smaller—not insignificant, but smaller—cases. Of course, I wouldn’t have thought that at the time. I was only a young man, only a student—unfairly charged. I got away with it because I had a strong case. But I thank those that do these sorts of jobs, because they are so important. The other one too is the community magistrates of the District Court—those members of the public that are performing such a crucial public role.

Much like the previous National speaker, the Hon Scott Simpson, I too would like to acknowledge the role that justices of the peace play in our electorates. Of course, as members of Parliament, it is on us to put forward recommendations for new justices of the peace in our areas, and I would put a call out there to people that are interested in doing this. It is a crucial role, and I’m sure that all of us at various points in time have needed a justice of the peace at some point. But in some areas in the country, their numbers are considerably lower than is desired and, unfortunately, many of them are towards the autumn years of their career, and it would be good to have people of strong standing in diverse communities across our districts and regions in this country to put themselves forward.

So, on behalf of everyone here, I think it’s fair to say that if you’re listening and you’re interested, contact your local MP, have a yarn about it, and then we can go through that process of putting your name forward, because those that I have spoken to get a lot out of it. They aren’t included in this bill. They do it voluntarily, and I think we all come from regions and communities that are reliant on the generosity of others. I think it’s only appropriate to acknowledge them tonight, given that I think they fall into this category.

Ultimately, this bill is based on a very simple principle, and I think that whilst it might seem insignificant, it will only increase New Zealand’s standing when compared to overseas countries and other countries that we compare ourselves to, particularly in the OECD. But, ultimately, we are bringing in a very simple provision that will maintain the integrity of the system. I’d like to just finish by reiterating the point that I started on, which is that I think tonight will be something that, when I go and visit these groups in my electorate, I will refer to, because, yet again, it’s actually all 120 members of this House coming together to support something. It could have come from any previous Government of any previous colour. It was identified, it was fixed, and good on everybody for getting behind it.

I rise in support of the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill on behalf of the National Party. Fundamentally, this bill is a simple change which will give an added layer of political neutrality to the setting of fees for judicial officers. The Remuneration Authority is seen as the fair and independent body who should be tasked with determining remuneration for these judicial officers. Judicial independence from the Government is important as it enhances public confidence in the operation of the law. If a Government could negatively influence the salaries of judges, it could potentially use this to influence the decisions of judges in its own favour, so this bill is a good one.

It is also an omnibus bill, as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier. That means that it amends more than one Act, and in this case it amends those Acts so that the Remuneration Authority can recognise the judicial nature of a number of positions and set their fees. Previously, those fees were set by the Cabinet Fees Framework, and they will now, under this bill, be set by the Remuneration Authority. Those positions which will now come under this Act will be the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, community magistrates of the District Court, environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners of the Environment Court, members and deputy chairs of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, referees of the disputes tribunal, and tenancy adjudicators of the Tenancy Tribunal.

“The Remuneration Authority is an independent statutory body that determines the remuneration for judicial and statutory officers who need to have, and be seen to have, independence from the Government. For example, the Remuneration Authority determines the remuneration for Judges because Judges need to be, and to be seen to be, impartial, independent from Government, and free from political influence or interference in their decision making.” This is crucial for our structure of governance and contributes to public trust and confidence in the judicial system. “The Remuneration Authority Act … prescribes the criteria the Remuneration Authority must consider in determining officers’ remuneration. The criteria include the requirements of the position, relativity to the market, and fairness to those whose remuneration is being set and to the taxpayer. Determinations are made and reviewed on an annual basis. The Government has to implement the Remuneration Authority’s determinations.”

By way of context, “The Cabinet Fees Framework classifies judicial statutory officers into 4 broad categories for fee-setting purposes and prescribes a range of fees for each category that reflects the nature of [the] work, including the expertise required, the extent of their decision-making powers, and the impact of their decisions. The Minister or the fee sitting authority responsible for the officers makes the final decision on the fee to be paid to each type of officer within that fee range.”

To speak to one of these authorities which I am quite familiar with, the community magistrates—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: What’d you do?

—community magistrates sit in the District Court—and the member opposite asked what did I do? Well, let me tell you what I did! Ha, ha! “Community Magistrates sit in the District Court and hear matters that would otherwise come before a District Court Judge. Community Magistrates are required to have the personal qualities, experience, and skills needed to deal with lower-level criminal matters.” Now, I cut my teeth as a lawyer in the Manukau District Court, spending about two years there—the busiest court in the country—and a lot of that I cut my teeth on, so to speak, was as a duty lawyer. When you have a huge volume of work coming through the court, a lot of it needs to go in front of the community magistrate because, frankly, the judges just don’t have the capacity to deal with it. So you’d actually have one lawyer who was on duty; they’d have to sit in the court, and all the other duty lawyers would take instructions from the defendants, get the information from the police, information from the court, get instructions on what the defendant was going to do, and then give it to the person sitting in court. The job of the duty lawyer giving the information to the duty lawyer sitting in court was to make sure they had clear instructions and to write them out. Having said that, I spent many a long day in the Manukau District Court sitting in the chair and being given instructions, and sometimes instructions were better than others.

But, look, the crucial work that the community magistrates did was seen on a daily basis. They would have to sentence people. They could sentence people to anything up to community detention; they could not sentence them to prison. However, they could and they did have to decide regularly on bail applications. It is and was a key part of the operation of the court. I also did a similar thing in the Auckland District Court, spending quite some time there as well, and the community magistrate also performed a key function in the operation of that court. I also saw and appeared in front of community magistrates representing defendants in the Tauranga District Court and, more recently, in the Invercargill and Queenstown District Courts. They perform an absolutely crucial function, and they cover work that the District Courts could not otherwise do because they just don’t have the capacity in the number of judges available to do that work. I’m very pleased to see them recognised in this bill before the House tonight.

The other bodies that we see recognised here—also the disputes tribunal, which is a division of the District Court. “It considers disputes based on contract, quasi-contract, or tort involving destruction or loss of, or damage or injury to, property, and the recovery of property of up to $30,000. Referees are required to have appropriate qualifications, such as legal, mediation, or arbitration qualifications or training, as well as the personal attributes, knowledge, and experience needed for the role. Referees are required to try to mediate a settlement first. Where [that’s] not possible, the Referee makes an order that is binding on the parties.”

The Environment Court is also included in this bill and “largely deals with appeals about the contents of regional and district plans and appeals arising out of applications for resource consents. Commissioners are appointed for their knowledge and experience in matters coming before the court, such as planning, resource management, and heritage protection. Environment Commissioners and Deputy Environment Commissioners sit in the Environment Court, hearing matters and making decisions either as a panel (with an Environment Court judge) or alone.”

The Immigration and Protection Tribunal, which also comes under this bill, “hears appeals against decisions of the Minister of Immigration or Immigration New Zealand on residence class visas; deportation (including appeals on humanitarian grounds), and claims to be recognised as a refugee or protected person. The Minister of Immigration or Immigration New Zealand is a party to these appeals. The tribunal [must] be chaired by a District Court judge and the members are required to be legally qualified. As the tribunal chair is a District Court Judge, their remuneration is already set by the Remuneration Authority. [This] Bill transfers responsibility for determining the remuneration of the other tribunal members to the Remuneration Authority.” I feel like I’m saying “remuneration” a lot tonight, testing one’s ability to keep saying that word. It’s a bit of a tongue twister.

💬 Hon Member: Say it again.

Remuneration—there you go.

“The Tenancy Tribunal hears disputes between landlords (including Kāinga Ora) and tenants of residential properties, and disputes relating to unit title developments such as apartment buildings. Tenancy Tribunal Adjudicators are required to either be legally qualified or [to] have the knowledge or experience needed for the role. The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020 and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 have significantly expanded the tribunal’s role and responsibilities. For example, the monetary threshold of the Tenancy Tribunal for residential tenancy disputes has been doubled from $50,000 to $100,000. The tribunal can now impose pecuniary penalties of up to $50,000 on non-compliant landlords and can issue works orders to compel landlords comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment can initiate proceedings against non-compliant landlords.”

“The Human Rights Review Tribunal hears claims relating to breaches of the Human Rights Act 1993, the Privacy Act 2020 and the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994. Each case is heard by the Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson and 2 panel members. The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson [is] required to be legally qualified. Panel members are expected to have [the] knowledge or experience of matters likely to come before the tribunal, including economic, employment, cultural, or social issues. The Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson chairs the panel that considers each case and also writes the tribunal decision.”

This is a good bill, and I am pleased to speak in support of it tonight.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, and thank you. I rise to take what I understand is the final call on this particular reading. You know, we’ve heard a lot about remuneration over the course of the evening and so I’ll add to that chorus by indicating that I am delighted to support the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill.

Can I acknowledge the member who’s just resumed his seat, Joseph Mooney. He has shared with us his experience in a judicial sense, and I always think that when the House is considering legislation, it’s important to reflect on one’s own interactions and experience over time. So it was a very thoughtful and welcome contribution from the member who has just resumed his seat.

This bill, as I understand it, is an omnibus bill. That’s another word that we seem to hear a lot of around the House, particularly in the last couple of weeks where there are pieces of legislation where we’re trying to pick up a whole range of little bits and put them together. For those perhaps listening at home who don’t know what an omnibus bill is, that’s essentially what that is.

The interesting thing to me is that when we look at the three branches of government, which are fundamental to our constitutional arrangements here in Aotearoa New Zealand, this bill actually targets a really important one, and that’s the judicial branch of government. Because we have the other two, the legislative and the executive, and the importance is trying to ensure that there are checks and balances on each. This particular bill goes to the heart of that in assisting that there is that check and balance moving forward, because this bill does seek to recognise the judicial nature of the positions that many members in the House tonight have effectively touched on.

When I look at this bill, what’s really important is the sense of independence but also fundamentally the significance of integrity, because when we look at other judicial systems around the world, a lynch pin largely is around the integrity of the judicial system.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: That’s right.

It is right, Mr McAnulty. And that’s why it’s really important that while we have independence in terms of the individuals who are appointed to these roles, there is also integrity within the system that they are operating within.

It’s really important that not only independence but integrity assist in ensuring that the decisions that these individuals make certainly do have an impact on the ordinary lives of everyone in our community. And it’s important that the way in which they are remunerated is independently assessed and that they are effectively remunerated for the services that they render largely on behalf of the community and the state in many particular circumstances as well.

When we look at the background to this bill, we know that this fell out of a review that was undertaken by MartinJenkins back in 2018. I have to say that I have actually read the MartinJenkins review report from 2017. I did it two years ago when I was a visiting Justice, and the fees that were set for visiting Justices in New Zealand was part of the MartinJenkins review. So I have some confidence in that review process, because it wasn’t just a review that was undertaken and that’s it; there was an opportunity for all of those statutory roles and office holders to feed into that process. So knowing that this was certainly a piece of work that was undertaken by MartinJenkins—you know, it was 2018, but it has laid the foundation for this piece of legislation before the House this evening.

What I would say is that the report itself was fairly lengthy, because it didn’t just look at the positions that we are looking at tonight, but it had actually quite a broad range of statutory roles that the report looked into. And what we see in this bill are some of those where the report actually identified that there was justification for the shift away from the Cabinet Fees Framework to, effectively, placing those decisions around remuneration with the Remuneration Authority.

The review itself was one that was conducted on a principles basis, I guess, and that, I think, fundamentally is a good starting point—that when you’re looking at something that’s meant to be independent, that has a sense of integrity, that it’s aligned to one of the three branches of Government, and that at the same time the way in which that is approached is from a principled level. And so it’s important that that not only lends itself to starting out in the right place, but actually the perception and appearance of things that would follow also drive home the importance and significance of that as well.

I want to turn now to the various positions that are captured or covered by this bill. Colleagues have referred to community magistrates, and I want to also support the fantastic job community magistrates do in districts and communities all around the country. In my own community of Palmerston North, we don’t have any community magistrates.

💬 Hon Member: Don’t you?

No we don’t, and I’ll tell you why we do not have those particular individuals. That is because we have hard-working judicial justices of the peace. Mr Simpson previously talked about 10,000 or so justices of the peace, there are about 320 of them who are judicial justices of the peace who are authorised by the Chief District Court Judge on an annual basis. They go through a process of appraisal and ensure that they, effectively, are tickety-boo and that’s the basis on which they are able to discharge their duties.

The difference between a judicial justice of the peace and a community magistrate is, essentially, as Mr Mooney has said, the level of cases that community magistrates can deal with. They can sit on their own, whereas judicial justices of the peace, they can sit on their own when considering bail applications, but they can only sit in pairs when considering most category 1 level of offences. So it’s important that we do acknowledge the good work of community magistrates all around the country.

There is one point that I also think is worth acknowledging in the bill tonight and that is that even though there would be an assessment of the level of remuneration undertaken by the Remuneration Authority, if that independent assessment turned out to indicate that, actually, the level was lower than the level that those individuals would attract at the moment, then there is provision for the level of remuneration to remain at the same level. So even though we have these hard-working judicial members, statutory officers, in these roles up and down the country, by virtue of the fact that their pay or remuneration is assessed in a different way by a different entity and they would get less than that, by no means should that mean they should receive the pay cut. So that’s an important part of the legislation to see.

I think this is a wonderful piece of legislation. I reflect on the contribution from all members of the House and I’m happy to commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question is, That the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening.

The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.