Jones Dail: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12797] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will oppose this legislation. It is very rare for the New Zealand Law Society to disagree with legislation that is brought before Parliament. Usually the society takes the view that it will be critical of legislation and make suggestions to make it better and not make any comment on policy. In fact even on the Supreme Court Bill which abolished appeals to the Privy Council the Law Society was very circumspect. However on this issue the society was very clear. Its primary submission stated that the society opposed the proposals in Part 1 to establish the office of Judicial Conduct Commissioner. Its essential reasons were that the proposals are constitutionally unacceptable because they undermine the independence of the judiciary and that there is no evidence of a problem that requires legislation of this nature. That goes entirely against the comment made by the Associate Minister of Justice when introducing this bill for the second reading. She said that the judiciary would retain its independence and integrity. Clearly the Minister did not read the Law Society’s submission because that totally contradicts the Minister’s viewpoint. 
The Law Society was not the only group to oppose the legislation. David A R Williams QC opposed considering a complaints process without at the same time introducing a similar statutory process for the appointment of judges and recommended the incorporation of enabling legislation for a recommendatory-type Judicial Appointments Commission. He expressed concern about the bill’s approach to part-time judicial appointments. Another submission from the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties opposed Part 1 regarding the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and the Judicial Conduct Panel terming it “an unnecessary complication to Parliament’s current right to impeach a judge”. That should be enough for any Government to think twice about continuing with legislation. 
New Zealand First supported the bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I made the point during the first reading that that was as far as we would support it and I indicated my concern about even the appointment of a Judicial Conduct Commissioner. It is yet another example of where the Labour Party Government would have the opportunity to provide jobs for the boys—or for the girls as the case might be. It is very good at providing jobs for the boys and the girls—perhaps even for a girl who might be leaving her present form of employment; this might be a very interesting job for that person to take up. It would be interesting to know whether one can pass legislation in this House to ensure one’s future career after one leaves it within a short time. 
Clearly this bill does not have any support. The Law Society said: “Judicial independence is not something that has evolved out of judicial self-interest. It is a cornerstone of democratic constitutional government. It exists as an essential safeguard of the rights of every person in New Zealand.” This bill is another example of how this Government is willing to turn New Zealand upside down to suit its own purposes. We saw that with the Supreme Court Bill where the Government abolished appeal rights to the Privy Council. It must be regretting deeply that it did not continue those appeal rights in so far as lodging an appeal on the foreshore and seabed case and the NgatiApa case is concerned. How would that have possibly changed things as they stand today—especially the results of the opinion polls? But that is another story. 
I make just one point in passing at this stage. I actually do support the provision in the bill regarding part-time work and I disagree with the National Party member in this respect. I indicated in the first reading of the bill that I thought that was one of the better aspects of it. The National Party may not be interested in the many intelligent women with great skills and such like who could make a contribution on a part-time basis to our society. I gave the instance in the first reading of my own wife who job-shared with another teacher at a school which helped her to return to the teaching profession after having ensured the continuation of the Jones-Miller line. Every opportunity should be given to women to go back into the workforce on a gradual basis especially those who have had tremendous training in the law and the like and who after having worked even harder as mothers and housewives go back to the teaching judicial or medical professions as the case might be. Their contribution by way of part-time work is to be commended. Again as I understand it in England a Recorder does work on a part-time basis. Judges in England often start as part-time Recorders so that they can make up their own minds whether they would like a judicial job in the future. But that is another story. 
I am frightened of what the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in this particular case might have to do. What sorts of complaints would come before him or her? I was reading the submission of David Williams QC in which he talks about outspoken judges judicial activism and some of the things that modern judges get up to. I asked myself whether those sorts of things would end up before the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. In his submission he said: “Mr Justice Meagher of the New South Wales Court of Appeal complained about [various] judges in a famous after-dinner speech given some years ago to the Sydney bar. He said:”—and members should think of what people might say about these judges—“Nor do judges leave their professional sentiments on the bench.”—speaking about Australian judges—“They will address any meeting seminar eisteddfod jamboree or corroboree on land rights the evils of fluoride the dangers of the New Right the assimilation of ethnics penal reform the trial of Lindy Chamberlain or any other subject of uplifting importance. Mr Justice Kirby has written an article in  
The 
Australian Law Journal 
 to prove the proposition that soap-and-water is a powerful antidote to AIDS; (without telling us how or when it is to be applied or even where); the same judge writes in  
Vogue 
 to tell us how he discovered the music of Mahler when he was aged 40; soon who knows Mr Justice Enderby will write in the  
Women’s Weekly 
 on how he has discovered Shakespeare. Mr Justice ‘Gumnut’ Cripps”— 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is an issue of relevance. This is a debate on the Judicial Matters Bill. It is not a recitation of after-dinner speeches given by judges on wide-ranging topics wholly unrelated to the law. 
DAIL JONES 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that under this bill the public is entitled to complain about judges and their behaviour. So I think there will be many people who complain— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will come to the point. 
DAIL JONES 
: I think there will be many people who complain about Justice Kirby Justice “Gumnut” Cripps and the like making speeches in this way so I believe I am relevant to the point contained in this bill especially as we are referring to the report back of the select committee and this quote is in a submission on the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: OK the member will continue. 
DAIL JONES 
: I am only too pleased to help the National Party yet again. As I was saying: “Mr Justice ‘Gumnut’ Cripps from the Parks and Gardens Court tells us we must all become tree-huggers and prairie fairies … Mr Justice O’Brien will soon emerge from his well deserved obscurity to tell us that the death penalty should be reintroduced for people who plead not guilty …”. Those are some of the things that Justice Meagher points out might be raised in the future. 
People would of course be entitled to complain about judges who behave in that way as a result of the passing of this bill. Obviously one cannot do that today—at least not to the same extent. In New Zealand there is the discreet way of writing to the Attorney-General or the Chief Justice and saying: “Judge so-and-so did such-and-such and would someone please have a look into it.” The present system we have is perfectly satisfactory. 
When the Law Society comes out and openly opposes Government legislation we should all take note because it is a very very conservative body that rarely comes out in the open and expresses a point of view. It submitted that the bill will undermine the independence of the jury and stated that there is no need for legislation of this nature except in instances where a judge may be removed from office. We already have a process for removal of a judge from office. The society suggests that the bill seems to be “based on impressionistic opinion not hard evidence”. 
This bill is just another example of Labour Party Government politically correct nonsense. It is politically correct nonsense from Labour which is trying to give every little moaner groaner and complainer something to write to somebody about and moan and groan. And most important from the Labour viewpoint it is trying to set up another job for the boys or for the girls to keep them happy—to shell out more public money to someone who really would not know how to be a lawyer in the first place and ends up in a nice safe government job.