Chauvel Charles: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9345] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I would like the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General to amplify the comments he has just made about the Judicial Matters Bill. One of the issues that Labour has with regard to this legislation is that although Labour is supportive of the substantive provisions—as we originally advised during the first reading and as was our position at the Justice and Electoral Committee—it is of concern that the changes proposed on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Chris Finlayson are significant. Perhaps that is not so much the case in respect of the amendments to clauses10(1) 11 12 and 12A. I can see that the Minister would want to characterise those amendments as being machinery changes. I imagine that he will tell the Committee that those amendments are improvements that have been made on reflection and on the advice of officials following the select committee process. But I think it would be helpful if we were to have a little more explanation of why these changes are being introduced by means of a Supplementary Order Paper rather than through the normal process even if they are relatively minor. Indeed the changes may well be improvements. If they are and if the Attorney-General can enlighten us as to why that is it may well be that we will support those parts of them. 
I do though foreshadow a concern about the other matters that are proposed to be dealt with on that Supplementary Order Paper. They are more substantive matters but they do not relate to this part so I will not speak to them substantively. I do foreshadow to the Attorney-General that we have a concern about bringing them in in particular at this late stage without the scrutiny of a select committee or debate. That is a matter to which I will return. 
The other thing that would I think be useful to the Committee while members have the benefit of the presence of the Attorney-General as the Minister in the chair would be for the Attorney-General go back over the general philosophy of his party relating to the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. It is the case that as he acknowledged in his first reading speech initially the National Party opposed this office. I think in Chris Finlayson’s second reading speech on this bill we heard from him that that position had changed but we did not really hear why it had changed. Given the vehemence of the comments that came from him and his colleagues when the original measure came to the House it would be helpful if we were to get that sort of explanation. I remind the Attorney-General that at the time of the original proposal for the creation of the office he said: “This bill will not be supported by the National Party. The material dealing with the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner is as misconceived as the contents of the substantive legislation.” Not only the amendment but also the whole notion of this process—this backstop measure; this measure of confidence—was something that National stood against. 
I think it would be helpful for the Committee to be given an explanation of National’s change of position given the relatively scant recantation that shall we say occurred at the second reading debate and given the substantive policy reversal that we now see. We are pleased about that. We do support the primary legislation as I have said. We think this is a useful measure to encourage confidence in the judiciary and we are delighted that the National Party has changed its mind and the Minister is now progressing with this legislation which began its life as a Labour measure. But given the vehemence with which National originally opposed the legislation given that we have not had a real explanation for its change of heart and also given that we have not really had the new provisions proposed in this part explained to us in any way or described in terms of how they are a correct and proper improvement it would be good to hear substantively from the Minister on those points.