District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill

We come first to the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. Members, we come now to clause 1.

Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

Leave is sought for this purpose. Is there objection? There is objection. So first of all, members, we come to clause 1. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to speak on the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. The bill amends the District Court Act 2016 to increase the statutory maximum number of District Court judges by one, from 182 to 183 fulltime-equivalent judges. This increase will help alleviate any pressure on the courts arising from the implementation of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill which is currently being considered by this House. Funding for the additional District Court judge has been secured from Budget 2024.

On behalf of the Minister of Justice, I am committed to improving timeliness and reducing delays in our courts. It is critical that victims, their families, and everyone coming through the courts can access fair and timely justice so they can move on with their lives faster.

While this bill is specifically targeted to supporting sentencing reforms, the Government also has a much wider timeliness programme under way. The Government and the judiciary are working to roll out several initiatives across the courts, such as improvements to the duty lawyer system, bail scheduling, and larger reforms like Te Au Reka. These are designed to create a more efficient system, with progress and impacts on the courts being closely monitored. Once we have a better idea of how the courts are performing under these new initiatives, further resourcing requirements can be considered if needed.

The statutory cap on District Court judges includes Youth Court judges and Family Court judges, as the Youth Court and the Family Court are both divisions of the District Court. The cap was last amended in 2019. Since then, additional judges have been appointed, bringing the total number of fulltime-equivalent judges to at or near the statutory maximum.

We currently have 181.2 fulltime-equivalent judges appointed, bringing us very close to the current statutory cap of 182. The cap on the number of judges is set out in legislation so Parliament can have oversight of public spending on judges while preserving judicial independence. While we are asking the courts to do more in imposing tougher sentences for criminals and implementing stronger law and order policies, the Government is also ensuring they have the resources needed to do so.

In conclusion, notwithstanding, this is a small bill, I consider this an important part of delivering on the Government’s law and order commitments and supporting the courts to deliver timely justice.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re on clause 1, but I just have a quick question for the Minister in the chair, just to pick up on what the Minister was mentioning before. Thank you, Minister, for giving such a comprehensive background and context on this bill and some of the wider projects.

I think one of the things with the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, as indicated in the title, is that when the bill was being debated, it was part of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill as well. Now hearing from the Minister, in terms of some of the broader work that is being done in terms of the judiciary and around capacity, etc., I want to check with the Minister: why, then, did this bill get introduced at this particular moment when other works are already being done? Especially since this bill has been split out from the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill so that it has to go through all of these processes, including the debate and all of the speeches, etc., why do we have to go through all of that when the Minister’s signalling that there is other work being done?

Surely it might be a good idea to see how some of that is being carried out first and then having a better sense of what has been indicated in this bill is actually the best option or the best number of increase. I’m sure that the Minister has also seen in a number of submissions that other people have made comments in terms of the actual number, which I’m sure we’ll debate on to in clause 4. But, I think, in the context of clause 1 and what the Minister has said, I just want to check: based on what you said, why, again, this bill now? Thank you.

Thank you. I thank the Green member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan for his question. I understand why it’s being asked. If I can just relate to the last increase that occurred in 2019, where we actually increased the number of judges from 165 through to 182. That was for a number of reasons at the time, and we quickly went up to, I believe it was, about 172 judges within that appointment. The officials have gone away, looked at what the reforms are that this Government is putting through will require in terms of how many judges will be needed.

Because we are sitting on that 181.2, we just want to be able to relieve some of that pressure should there be an increase required. This will actually lift the cap to 183.5; it’s currently sitting on 182—oh, 181.5; so many numbers! In actual fact, we do think that just one additional judge will be required, should we actually need it. At this stage, having moved in 2019 from 165 judges to 182, we’ve already put a significant increase of judges into the District Court system. This really is a bit of a backfill just in case it’s needed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a very, very brief question, because I want to ask the Minister—and also signalling to you, Madam Chair, that I have—more questions when we get to clause 4 of this bill, in terms of the number itself.

I want to pick up on, with the Minister, what you mentioned before. Can I just check in your expert opinion, also in terms of the information you have from the officials—what you are saying is that the addition of one at this stage is anticipatory in case the capacity increases, but the actual capacity we have now in terms of the court system is actually sufficient, based on the 2019 increase. Would that be a correct assumption?

Can I just remind the member we’re on clause 1, which is around the title.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Labour supports this bill, but certainly doesn’t support the legislation which the Minister says has given rise to it. I don’t intend to have a substantive debate about the provisions of the bill, but there are two kind of general policy matters that I would invite the Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Nicole McKee to comment on. She’s already noted that there was a rise in the number of available District Court judges from 165 to 182 some years ago. It’s against that background, against that increase, we’ve seen a very significant increase in judges’ workloads.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dr Webb, can I just remind you we’re on clause 1.

Yes, well, I understand that clause 1, the “Title” clause, is the appropriate place to have a wider introductory discussion about policy. If I may say, Madam Chair, I don’t intend to go through in detail further in the debate, so I thought I’d get these policy questions out of the way early on, and then we—you know, if Dr Xu-Nan wants to go through in detail, he’s welcome to, but I won’t be. If I’m asking your indulgence, I’ll do that.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): As long as it relates to clause 1.

Well, it’s the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, and the question is around the number of judges.

My first question is really about the number of judges required, because we’ve got not only the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill that this was going to be associated with, but also the young serious offenders legislation and the gang patch and three-strikes laws. My first question is whether the number is even going to be enough.

The Minister in her introductory comments mentioned he work programme in terms of the District Court judges putting some procedures in place, and some work on bail and duty solicitors. My second question is in terms of the number of cases backlogged and the time taken, what progress has been made with those? If there’s no progress, that’s a concern, but if there is progress, why do we need this?

I thank the member for his question, but I don’t see anywhere in the title where it talks about the number of judges. The District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill is about initiating one more judge—from 182 and to 183.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement