Wilkinson Kate: Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17961] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 Like my National colleagues I rise to speak in support of the first reading of the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill. Throughout the debate we have heard that the purpose of the bill is to repeal and then substitute schedule 2 of the Judicature Act; schedule 2 contains the High Court Rules. The rules govern practice and procedure of the High Court and their purpose is to ensure the just speedy and inexpensive determination of proceedings. 
The explanatory note of the bill clarifies that the High Court Rules apply to civil proceedings and that they facilitate expeditious inexpensive and just dispatch of the High Court business and otherwise assist the due administration of justice by regulating the practice and procedure of the High Court. Although these rules could have been made by way of secondary legislation or Order in Council there are certain provisions that should be made by way of primary legislation—hence this bill. 
New rules are introduced by this bill—for example the right to make urgent applications orally; the ability of unrepresented litigants when approaching the courts without notice to the other side to do so without legal help in appropriate cases; or the ability of the High Court to correspond with foreign courts under procedural safeguards. However if the Minister believes that this is the panacea to all court delay problems and issues then he is sadly misguided. More can certainly be done to improve the quality of civil justice in the High Court. 
We need to have confidence in our New Zealand legal system not just in the criminal jurisdiction but also in the civil jurisdiction. Unfortunately as a recent poll has shown 62 percent of those surveyed do not have full trust and confidence in the justice system. Is that surprising? Well probably not considering the lack of understanding of the current regime. 
When we lodge a question to the Minister asking for the court waiting-times the delay is almost as bad as the delays in the courts themselves. For example it took over 3 months to receive a response to our written questions despite the requirement for a response in 6 days. Then in February this year we asked for an update of the court waiting-times as at 31 December 2007. The answer we received from the Minister was: “Due to the significant amount of manual collation required to produce the information to respond to your question it has been decided”—and this has nothing to do with Speakers’ rulings or anything and nothing to do with the 6-day requirement for an answer—“that the ministry shall produce a report on this information on a 6-monthly basis.” The reports he said will be run for 30 June and 31 December each year and the information would be available 6 weeks after that date. 
Well it is now 26 August. The next report was supposed to be for 30 June 2008 and we are still waiting. So the latest data that we can obtain from this Minister in relation to the court waiting-times is as at 30 November 2007—information that we received 4½ months after requesting it. That is 4½ months of delay. So we are expected to believe or trust that this bill will be the panacea to all civil waiting-times. It is a start but it is certainly no panacea. What is the evidence? The figures as at 30 November 2007 show that in the civil jurisdiction in Auckland High Court in defended civil cases the median waiting-time was 348 days. Before that as at 30 June 2007 it was 258 days. It has got worse. 
Nationally the median waiting-times in the High Court for defended cases have increased from 249 days in June 2007 to 315 days in November 2007. That has got worse. Christchurch High Court median waiting-times have increased from 252 days to 288 days in the same period. It has got worse. In the Dunedin High Court those times have increased from 155 days to 239 days in the same period. It has got worse. In the Wellington High Court they have increased from 257 days to 261 days in that same period. That has got worse. In the Hamilton High Court they have increased from 211 days to 219 days in that same period. That court has got worse. In the Rotorua High Court those times have increased from 160 days to 197 days for that same period. That court has got worse. In the Invercargill High Court those times have increased from 47 days to 83 days in the same period. That court has got worse. That is only in the civil jurisdiction. I have not even mentioned the criminal jurisdiction which believe it or not is even worse. 
I could go on. The picture is certainly not great and it will take more than a tweaking of the High Court Rules to fix what is really an endemic problem within our court system. It is a problem not helped by the tardiness of the Minister in actually giving us the details. Mind you it is probably no wonder he is tardy because the details are not pretty. It is no wonder we still cannot obtain an update of the accurate situation as at 30 June 2008—2 months later—and we can only assume that this Government is trying to hide the real picture. The real picture is that the Government has run out of ideas on how to address the problem of court delays. This bill—and it is no small bill—may help but it will take a lot more than this to restore trust and confidence in our justice system. National supports the bill. It is one measure of many that is needed but at least it is one measure and it deals with only the civil side of justice. We also need to deal with the delays in the criminal jurisdiction and the increasing number of stays of prosecution in the criminal jurisdiction. 
However this bill and the High Court Rules do not relate just to court waiting-times court procedure and court delays. The speaker from New Zealand First quite rightly mentioned the rules in relation to applications for grants of probate in relation to wills. It is interesting to note the minutia that these rules go into. There are rules for the margins on the applications; there are rules for the quality of paper that has to be used—it has to be a certain weight—and there are rules for the cover sheets. In the old days we used to have rules for staple holes in wills because often if one wanted to photocopy a will there was a tendency to take the staple apart photocopy the will then re-staple it and if there were extra staple holes in the will one had to swear an affidavit explaining to the High Court why there were an extra couple of staples holes in that will. No matter what the size of this bill there does not seem to be any mention of staples. So certainly some of these rules relate to form rather than substance. 
National is supportive of this bill. It is a step in the right direction. It is certainly not a panacea in relation to the situation of court waiting-times in the civil jurisdiction or in the criminal jurisdiction for that matter. Those times as I have said are getting worse. This bill may help. We hope it will help. It is a step in the right direction and National certainly supports its expeditious progress through the House. 
Bill read a first time.