Collins Judith: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Collins Judith: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12877] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to speak against this bill. I have been listening with interest again to the very good speeches that have been made from this side of the Committee. I have to say I am very surprised that the Greens are voting for this bill because I have thought that over the last few years they have shown they are somewhat concerned about what might be happening with a Government that can be out of control. Unfortunately something has happened and they have decided to go in with the Government on this bill. 
I would like to take up the point made by Mr Dail Jones previously and that is that the New Zealand Law Society in an almost unprecedented move—as Mr Jones indicated—has come out against this bill full stop. This is a bill that the society says it opposes. It opposes the bill’s proposals to establish the office of Judicial Conduct Commissioner. It says that the bill will undermine the independence of the judiciary and that there is no need for this legislation. There is no need for it because we have already seen—and it is in the papers with the bill—that hardly any complaints are made against the judges in this country. The number of complaints is minuscule and most of those complaints have very little in them. 
We on this side of the Chamber do not want to see judges reduced to being people who tick boxes make innocuous comments and cannot be straight up with the people who appear before them. We do not want judges emasculated by a politically correct Government that is incapable of understanding that occasionally people need to be told the truth whether or not they like it. But that is what this bill will ensure. 
When we look at the other submissions on the bill from responsible people then goodness gracious we see that the judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal have come out against this bill! That has to be unprecedented. Those judges have come out and said they believe there is an unintentional—and it was very nice of them to say that to the Government—dilution of the protection of judges against removal from office that is provided in section 23 of the Constitution Act 1986. This bill is a change to our constitution and it will pass because unfortunately the Greens I believe have been misinformed. I do not think they would want to vote for it. 
The judges of the court oppose it but not because they cannot be subject to scrutiny. The judges of our courts are subject to tremendous scrutiny. In fact Family Court judges are now seeking to have more public scrutiny. They are subject to the scrutiny of the media of the parties and of this Parliament. They are not frightened of scrutiny. They are concerned that when they are sitting in judgment they will be thinking: “Oh no is this going to end up in a complaint? Because I am going to have to tell this offender the truth.” As the complaint would then go on to this commissioner bureaucracy would take over. The judges have to get their lawyers involved and the cost of the whole thing escalates. In fact I see that the bill calls for judges to have representation and provides that the taxpayer will fund it. The taxpayer will fund the reasonable costs of judges’ representation. 
 None of that would be necessary if only we stuck with the Constitution Act and the ability that Parliament has to end the tenure of a judge who is performing so badly that his or her tenure should be ended. In the past that has not been necessary because the judges know that that power is there and know that it will not be used unless it is absolutely necessary. In fact the Chief Justice has been able to talk to judges who have got to the stage where they should no longer be sitting. That has happened all the way through. But all that is needed for this Parliament to bring to an end the career of a judge is for one MP at the moment to come to Parliament and say that something has to be done about that judge and if that is fair we can do something about it.