Wilson Margaret: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
Wilson Margaret: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8299] 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Judicial Matters Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b). 
The bill is an important piece of constitutional legislation. The measures in it are aimed at maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the judiciary and recognise the fundamental importance in a democracy of ensuring an independent judiciary in addressing judicial resources. The bill also responds to this Government’s commitment to revisit update and consolidate the laws and procedures that delineate the relationship between the judiciary and other branches of Government. 
The bill is divided into two parts. The first part will become a stand-alone Act and the second part amends various existing statutes and will be split into the relevant amendment Acts. Part 1 establishes new processes for dealing with complaints about the conduct of judges and those rare situations when it may be necessary to consider removal of a judge. A new office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner will be established. The commissioner’s role will be to receive and process complaints about judges to identify those requiring a full investigation because they raise a question of removal of a judge. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner will have the power to dismiss complaints that are frivolous vexatious and trivial and may refer complaints to the relevant head of bench. If the Judicial Conduct Commissioner is of the opinion following an initial examination that an inquiry into the complaint is necessary and that the complaint if substantiated may warrant removal of the judge he or she will report to the Attorney-General and recommend appointment of a Judicial Conduct Panel. 
The Judicial Conduct Commissioner will be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House. Before a recommendation is offered the Governor-General and the Attorney-General must consult with the Chief Justice and advise the House that consultation has taken place. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner must be a person whose impartiality and integrity is beyond question and in whom the public and the judiciary may have confidence. A retired judge or other senior figure may be able to fulfil the role. The commissioner is a statutory appointee. The office of the commissioner will be located for administrative convenience only within the Ministry of Justice. The commissioner will be under a duty to act independently and will not be accountable to the Secretary for Justice in carrying out the functions of the office. Every year the commissioner will provide a report which will be laid before this House and contain information about the complaints process. 
The Judicial Conduct Panel will play a crucial role in maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. It will inquire into a serious complaint that has been referred to it by the Attorney-General. The panel may determine whether the conduct complained of occurred and if so whether the conduct amounts to incapacity or misbehaviour that demonstrates a judge is unfit for office. The removal of a judge has never been necessary in this country so the exact process leading to the dismissal has not been established. It is desirable for this process to be set out before it is required as a hastily devised process may damage public confidence and impose risks to judicial independence. 
The Judicial Conduct Panel will be made up of three people. There will be one lay member who will be neither a judge nor a lawyer. The other two members will be a judge or a retired judge and may include a senior member of the legal profession. The panel will be appointed— 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a requirement in this House that speeches be given in English or Maori. We are being treated to high-speed gabble. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No that is not a point of order. 
Richard Worth 
: I would invite the Minister to slow down so we can hear what she is saying. She is reading from densely written typescript. It is almost impossible to hear on this side of the House. I appreciate she wants to get through the material quickly but it would be good if the House could hear. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The issue is a debatable matter. The Minister has heard what has been said. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on your ruling that this is a debatable matter. I totally concur with Mr Worth. It was an absolute bullet-like repetitive gabble. I could not understand what the Minister was saying. She is reading from prepared notes and that is not debatable. The House or certainly the Opposition parties could not understand what the Minister was saying. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. The way in which a Minister delivers his or her speech is not a matter of order. It is entirely up to the Minister concerned. The member is playing with the House. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I apologise if honourable members could not follow me. I assumed they had read the bill which has been tabled. 
The panel will be appointed by the Attorney-General after consultation with the Attorney-General. Judges of the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Employment Court are subject to removal by the Attorney-General on the grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour on an address from this House. Other judges are subject to removal by the Governor-General on the grounds of inability or misbehaviour. In the case of other judges the Governor-General acts by convention on the advice of the Attorney-General. There are no changes proposed to these arrangements. 
Part 2 implements various proposals to strengthen judicial independence or address judicial resources. Amendments will be made to the relevant Acts to enable judges of all benches to work part time. Flexible working arrangements are increasingly possible and desirable in the modern workplace and should be available to judges subject to the needs of the courts in which they sit and the needs of the public. 
 The bill provides an absolute immunity from suit to be extended to all judges. At present judges of the Court of Appeal High Court and Employment Court have absolute immunity from suit in respect of actions taken against them in their role as judges. Judicial immunity promotes judicial independence by allowing the fearless performance of the judicial function. It does not preclude other remedies for persons aggrieved by the actions of a judge. Appeal to a higher court is and should be the primary remedy for a litigant who is dissatisfied with the judge’s decision. Judicial immunity does not exclude compensation from the Crown in cases of miscarriage of justice and in cases of misbehaviour or incapacity that indicates a judge is unfit for the office he or she may be removed. Criminal prosecution for corruption remains available and there are formal complaints processes that are strengthened by the proposals for a judicial conduct commissioner and a judicial conduct panel. 
The bill contains proposals that will strengthen the office of Master of the High Court by providing the masters with the same rights of permanent tenure as other judges. Masters will also have a new title—Associate Judge of the High Court—that more accurately reflects their role. 
Two proposals in the bill directly address issues of judicial resources. Firstly the bill provides a new mechanism for setting a maximum number of judges in the High Court and the District Court. Currently when the number of judges is at a maximum separate legislative amendments to the District Courts Act and the Judicature Act are required each time an additional judge is needed in the District Court or High Court respectively to deal with increased workloads. Under the new proposal the maximum number of judges in those courts will be raised by Order in Council. The order will come into effect once it has been converted by resolution in this House. 
The changes to the tenure and role of the Principal Family Court Judge and the Principal Youth Court Judge included in the bill are intended to provide a regular turnover in the administrative leadership of those functions by introducing a fixed 8-year non-renewable term. The changes are made in a manner that recognises the principle of judicial independence and therefore will not affect the present Principal Youth Court Judge or Principal Family Court Judge. 
The bill enables community magistrates to be appointed on a temporary warrant after they have reached the mandatory retirement age and also consistent with provision of District Court judges. It also provides for future Environment Court judges and commissioners to be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Attorney-General after consultation with the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Maori Affairs. The effect is that all judges with the exception of the Chief Justice and the judges of the Maori Land Court will be appointed on the recommendation of the Attorney-General. This proposal will help in promoting coherence consistency and professionalism in the appointments process and is the appropriate match with the Attorney-General’s role as the Government’s senior law officer. 
I commend this bill to the House.