District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill

Members, we are up to clause 4, “Section 12 amended (Maximum number Judges)”. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of questions around clause 4 regarding the increase to the amendment numbers from 182 to 183 or when we’re looking at potentially part-time equivalent full-time staff (EFTS) from 181.5 to 182.5.

I guess my first question is when we’re looking at section 12 of the District Court Act, we can’t read section 12 independently—we must read it in conjunction, and I think particularly in conjunction, with section 11 of the District Court Act 2016. Although the Minister mentioned before that this is sort of anticipatory in terms of the court system then being able to start identifying and working on all of those, I want to check if the Minister has considered, first and foremost, how that process is going to take place, and particularly in terms of which areas are most likely we’re looking at where that judge is going to be appointed.

Again, I come back to the purpose of this bill in conjunction with the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, which states that it’s in anticipation of an increase, potentially, in load of the number of people who are going to be attributed to that. Then what I’m not sensing or having any clarity on is how, then, we’re going to take that conjunction bill that is going to be looked at later and then find a solution to know where that extra one EFTS or potentially multiple—0.2 or 0.5 dotted—is going to actually be appointed throughout the country. If we see a sudden increase in, let’s say, Tāmaki-makau-rau, we’re not going to be able to know that if we appoint a 0.5 EFTS judge in Ōtautahi. I just want to get a sense of how you’re planning on that on the data that you’re going to be using to know where to appoint that extra one judge.

The purpose of this bill is to allow for the appointment of an extra judge and raising the cap. The detail that the member is looking for is not actually relevant to the bill that’s here, and it’s not the Minister in charge of the bill—the Minister of Justice—that makes the appointments. Appointments are made with the help of the judiciary, who will help inform officials as to where that extra additional help may be needed. For the purposes of this bill, it’s allowing them the opportunity to be able to make those additional appointments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will have another go, because I didn’t get a very satisfactory answer last time. I’ll reframe it to be a question about the number of judges rather than a general policy question. There were two parts to my question, but I’ll ask them separately.

In terms of having one judge, there has been an ongoing problem of a backlog of work and significant delays in a number of courts, but especially in the District Court. The Associate Minister of Justice alluded to a number of initiatives, and in determining that one judge is enough, it seems to presuppose that those initiatives are being effective. Could she assure the committee, preferably by reference to some substantive evidence, that the initiatives that she referred to—and I recall bail, District Court judges’ initiatives, and duty solicitor initiatives—are having tangible results on a reduction in backlogs?

I took my seat because I thought the Minister would respond directly, but if she needs to take some advice on that, that’s fine as well. My other question in terms of whether the number of one is the right number relates to the advice she received. She alluded to receiving advice about the Sentencing Act, but the Sentencing Act is only one part of the programme that the Government has, and so I would like to hear from her whether she is confident that, in respect of the Sentencing Act, just one judge is enough, because looking at the complexity of that Act, it’s a lot of work and there’s certainly going to be a lot more sentencing done and a lot more imprisonment, but also in terms of the other reforms in the justice sector that will create more work for District Court judges, including three strikes, gang patches, and young serious offenders, and whether she’s taken into account that legislation and the additional judicial workload flowing from those pieces of legislation as well.

Thank you to the member Duncan Webb for his questions. The advice that we have received is that one judge, at this stage, should be enough. Part of the reason why we are not looking to do a massive increase like we did previously, from 165 to 182, is because of the financial implications that are there, which could be based on, actually, allowing this, because it’s ongoing, right? We want to ensure that we have what is required, and what we have been told is required is one judge.

When it comes to the other initiatives of this Government to restore law and order back into our communities and make criminals accountable for their crimes, then we have other initiatives that we have in place for court timeliness, and this will help free up some of the judges’ times as well. At the moment, what we are looking at is the implementation of legislation to allow the consideration of increasing what is required in the courts by the judges, and we think that we are being proactive in this. I’m being asked what the numbers are. Well, the other laws haven’t actually gone through yet, nor have any sentences gone through yet. What we are doing is being proactive and preparing for what is to come, because we will be making criminals accountable for their actions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, coming back to clause 4, I want to pick up on what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said, but the thing is, what I want to check as well from the Minister—again, I hear Minister’s passionate speech. That is fine, but I want to check with the Minister if she has received advice in terms of the number of judges specifically, and if she or her officials have taken into consideration the 2022 report Improving Access to Civil Justice, and particularly when it comes to the fact that in that report it does specify that despite the fact that there is an increase in the number of District Court judges, like the Minister has said, from 160 to 182, we are still seeing a decline of District Court’s civil jurisdiction and that we’re still catching up to it. Has the Minister, in making the decision on just increasing one in this case, taken into consideration the recommendations of this particular report, being the first question?

The second question for the Minister is: if there are other things that the Minister said that they are considering, are we hearing from the Minister that she is also not ruling out the possibility that we might be seeing a further piece of legislation down the track that would increase the number of maybe not even District Court judges but other forms of judges as well?

The last thing I want to ask is: does she have any idea, because she said that District Court judges not only include the District Court but other courts as well in terms of the Youth Court and the Family Court, where this extra one judge would be coming from and whether this one extra judge would be going into the Youth Court, would be going into the District Court, would be going into the Family Court—whether there’s evidence for that?

Three questions to the Minister. The first one is: has the Improving Access to Civil Justice report been taken into consideration as part of this decision making? Number two, in terms of the increase of just one, are we seeing future legislation based on what the Minister has said that potentially increases the number of judges further? And number three is: does she have any idea or any sort of clarification around which court would this judge likely go to—whether it’s district, youth, or family?

I’m going to say it again: the decision to increase one judge is based on the advice and the research that’s been done, the information that’s been received from the judiciary as well as the officials, as to what we could proactively implement should there be an increase. I did not make mention of any further legislation coming. What I made mention of is other court timeliness aspects that this Government is producing to help the judges.

As for the clarification as to where they will go, I’ll just repeat again: the legislation that we are preparing for has not gone through the House yet, has not impacted the courts yet, and the whole purpose of allowing an extra District Court judge is to be able to implement one should we need it, and wherever it is needed.

Just very quickly, I totally understand where the Minister in the chair is coming from, but by locking us into one additional judge, surely the Minister is anticipating this, because this was the advice the Minister has given. I do ask the Minister where she thinks this is going. I understand that we are looking at a level of judicial independence and how they’re able to do that, but surely by knowing that potentially only one is needed, is there other advice or suggestions or clarifications that she has received regarding where it’s going?

Maybe I can reword it another way. In 2019, we increased from 165 to 182, based on the projections that the officials on the judiciary told us that they needed. That was six years ago. We are now at a point where they are suggesting there is a possibility that we may need one more, so we are introducing one more just in case they need that.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

I will report this bill without amendment.

Point of order, Madam Chair. I don’t mean to be rude, but didn’t we need to vote on the final clause itself? You just had a vote on whether the debate now close.

Thank you, Dr Webb. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.