Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17949] 
Judicial Matters Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 22 July. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in respect of the Judicial Matters Bill and note that the bill’s explanatory note states that the bill is designed to implement measures that “are aimed at maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the judiciary; and recognise the fundamental importance in a democracy of ensuring an independent judiciary and addressing judicial resources.” I do not think anyone in this House would disagree with these broad objectives. It seems obvious that public confidence and an independent and adequately resourced judiciary is essential to maintaining the rule of law. Let us look closely at how Government has chosen to address these worthy objectives. The Judicial Matters Bill can essentially be broken down into two components. 
Firstly the bill seeks to make changes to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. The bill allows for the appointment of a deputy commissioner to perform the commissioner’s functions when the commissioner has a conflict of interest is absent from office or is incapacitated and during a vacancy in the office of the commissioner. As National members have previously pointed out in the course of this debate it is difficult to see where or how the conflicts that the bill contemplates would arise. Even if a conflict did arise it is likely to be minimal and easily overcome—maybe by the appointment or secondment of another judge to step in and take over. It seems that Part 1 essentially seeks to address a mischief that does not even exist by creating the post of deputy commissioner. It is creating another tier within the judicial system—one that does not need to be there. Given that the office is relatively small conflicts virtually never arise and when they do they are hardly insurmountable. 
The second problem is that the bill seeks to amend the Judicature Act 1908 to increase the number of Associate Judges of the High Court from six to nine. Leaving aside the fact that there are already seven associate judges sitting in the High Court this provision seems to be pretty sensible but this part is more significant in terms of what it does not do. The problem with this provision and the entire bill is that it does not even begin to address the underlying problems affecting the court system—those problems around court delays. The bill is nothing more than window dressing. It ignores the systemic problems that are plaguing the court system and plunging it into what seems to be a state of trying to swim in golden syrup. We know that public confidence in our court system is low and it is little wonder. In my electorate in Wanganui the average waiting time for a High Court jury trial is around 383 days. 
Colin King 
: How many days? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: It is 383 days. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: That’s over a year. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: It is well over a year and Wanganui is not just a one-off. Many other centres around New Zealand also have average High Court waiting times of well over 300 days. 
The bill completely ignores the extent of the criminal and civil bottlenecks that beset our High Court. The Government does not have the imagination or the courage to get to grips with the actual problems that are affecting the courts in New Zealand so instead it brings these feeble piecemeal legislative proposals before the courts. Where are the judges with the force of personality to ensure that court deadlines are actually met? Where are the judges who are ensuring that police meet disclosure timetables or that defence counsel meet their obligations meet their timetables and make themselves available for court? If for instance only a small number of barristers operate at the level of the criminal Bar in the High Court—as is often the case in provincial centres—then there needs to be the personality or the force of personality to ensure that the work is spread around those who can aptly fit in—rather than having delays in the Wanganui High Court of 383 days. 
Trying to fix the problem by slipping associate judges into the system does not go anywhere near sorting out the fact that nobody is making sure that the backlog of cases is actually being dealt with that waiting times are coming down and that more and more parties to cases are sticking with their obligations to their clients and as officers of the court to ensure that things move through the system. This Government has put any substantive reforms in the too-hard basket. The Government is just buying time until it can fob off this problem on to somebody else and I can assure Government members that National is only too happy to take up the challenge should we be privileged to be in Government after the election—God knows when. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou te Whare. I was thinking about how best to open my speech on this bill and I happened to raise the subject with a good friend of mine a Mr Derek Fox the Maori Party candidate for Ikaroa-Rawhiti. He suggested a line used by Te Kooti back in the 1860s. It went something like this: “Ma te ture ano te ture e aki.” Let the law look after the law. I was so impressed with that little comment from Mr Fox that I thought I would see whether I could get a double-up. So I called up another good friend of mine Rahui Katene the Maori Party candidate for Te Tai Tonga who happens to be an excellent lawyer with very good connections right throughout the South Island and Wellington. She told me that Dame Sian Elias when she was appointed Chief Justice said: “One of the reasons I’m so optimistic about the future is because what happened at Waitangi in 1840 is so consciously founded on an expectation that justice will be achieved through law.” So given the quality of the contributions of my good friends Derek Fox and Rahui Katene I am happy to say that it is those thoughts that have helped guide our consideration of this bill about the appointment and conduct of judges. 
We take it for granted that the public should have confidence in the honesty and integrity of the judiciary and in the impartiality consistency and fairness of their decisions. Yet in the first year of the operation of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner I note that about 100 complaints were made against judges. Those complaints were of bias sexism rudeness delays incompetence inappropriate remarks and a failure to listen. Most were dismissed and none was referred to the Attorney-General for action. 
I also note the comment that although Ministers of the Crown are supposed to be accountable to Parliament judges are accountable only to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and judicial panels for misconduct which means that it is really important that those appeal authorities are functional efficient and open to public scrutiny. So although the Maori Party supports the appointment of a Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner to cover absences and possible conflicts of interest for the commissioner I decided to get another view on the whole issue. While we were out door-knocking for the Maori Party in Hamilton last week—and I am happy to report to the House that the analysis of the door-knocking suggests that the Maori Party will be a shoo-in at the election—I decided to ask another good friend of mine Angeline Greensill Maori Party candidate for Hauraki-Waikato what she thought about the appointment of a Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. 
She suggested that we should recommend people who have demonstrated an ability to uphold kaupapa and tikanga Maori in the justice system. She also suggested that we note Moana Jackson’s analysis in  
The 
Maori and the Criminal Justice System: a new perspective—he whaipainga hou 
 where he states: “The background and experience of judges is confined by the ethno-centrism of their own heritage and the social attitudes which they address are determined by the values of the dominant culture.” 
That report was written in 1988 so we thought we would see how things have changed over the last two decades if at all. What we found was that in 1980 Maori were being convicted twice as often as Pakeha for crimes that receive a custodial sentence and in 2006 Maori were still one-third more likely to receive a custodial sentence than Pakeha. We also found that although the total number of sentences handed down to Pakeha has remained basically unchanged since 1980 the number of sentences handed down to Maori has more than doubled from 20000 in 1980 to 42000 in 2006. 
I take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt thanks to Derek Fox Rahui Katene and Angeline Greensill for the excellent quality of their contributions to this debate and I look forward to their being able to offer that knowledge and analysis to other legislation when they join us here in this House on a more permanent basis after the election. 
Of course other factors that influence sentencing by judges are a critical variable in the judicial process hence the need for scrupulous conduct on their part. Among the issues we want to raise is the need to identify judges whose sentences are so consistently harsh that they may be seen as criminalising youngsters without sufficient consideration for their rehabilitation or judges who treat the underclass much more severely than they treat offenders from the upper class. Sometimes a judge’s conduct might not look too bad in a particular case but shows a distinct pattern and bias when considered over a longer period. I will be asking the select committee to look into whether there should be room for complaints about conduct based upon a judge’s overall record and not just on specific decisions. 
This legislation also proposes to allow the commissioner to take no further action if he or she feels it might be unjustified. Although we accept that proposal in the interests of honesty and integrity we would also expect the commissioner to ensure equality and fairness to all parties involved in a complaint. The main issue for the Maori Party is that in whatever stage of the justice system our people may be involved they get a fair efficient independent and impartial hearing and we know from the 2004 Law Commission report they are not currently getting that. Maori and Pasifika consistently tell us how hard it is to get basic information how hard it is to get a decent lawyer and how if they get one the lawyer costs too much how some judges are to be avoided like the Black Plague and how monocultural unfriendly and alienating the whole judicial system is. 
Like everybody else the Maori Party wants to see a decrease in the number of Maori arrested convicted and imprisoned through the criminal justice system. But we are also passionate about the pursuit of justice and the need for respect from the judiciary to Maori people and Maori issues. Someone once told me that if peace is not merely the absence of war but also the presence of justice then we have no peace in Aotearoa because we sure ain’t got no frickin’ justice. We do not get justice by fiddling with existing laws we get justice by reconsidering the very principles on which we base our laws the way in which we make them the way in which we enforce them and the way in which we repeal them when we realise how stupid some of them are. It is in that spirit that we will be supporting this bill at its first reading. Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Judicial Matters Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.