Wilson Margaret: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Wilson Margaret: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12794] 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Judicial Matters Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill has been closely examined by the Justice and Electoral Committee over the past 7 months. I congratulate the committee on its careful consideration of both the bill and the detailed submissions. The committee received submissions from the judiciary the legal profession members of the public and community groups. These submissions represented a range of views about the judiciary its role and the requirements of judicial independence and accountability. The chief executive of the Judicial Commission of New South Wales told the committee that the bill was well drafted and incorporates the positive aspects of the New South Wales Judicial Officers Act while avoiding provisions that New South Wales had found problematic. 
This is a significant bill for New Zealand as it forms an integral part of the reform package this Government is committed to achieving. Along with the establishment of the Supreme Court and the continuing work on judicial appointments this bill will make important changes in a number of areas affecting the judiciary and its relationship with the wider New Zealand public. The bill is consistent with the United Nations basic principles on the independence of the judiciary and confirms New Zealand’s commitment to those principles. 
The bill was introduced in 2003 to address a range of judicial administration and resources issues. A number of its proposals relate to judicial conduct and judicial independence. Part 1 establishes a Judicial Conduct Commissioner and a Judicial Conduct Panel. I understand that submissions received by the committee expressed opposing views on how complaints about judges should be dealt with and whether sanctions should be imposed on judges. The Government is committed to the goal of maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the judiciary while adhering to the principle of judicial independence. This bill strikes we believe the correct balance between those goals. It establishes a transparent and an accessible process for people to make complaints against judges and allows for proper investigation of matters that may lead to the removal of a judge. At the same time the bill avoids measures that would have an adverse effect on judicial independence. I support the decision of the majority of the committee that the bill will not provide for sanctions short of removal or burden the heads of bench with statutory functions for discipline. 
I turn now to the amendments to Part 1. Although most of the changes proposed by the committee are minor and serve to clarify the provisions there are some significant amendments. The committee has recommended that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner be given the power to deal with complaints together where appropriate to prevent the commissioner and the panel from having to conduct separate investigations into each complaint received about the same matter. The committee has also recommended with the support of the judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal that the panel’s function be more clearly articulated. The changes clarify that the panel is not inquiring into the complaint but is determining whether there is a serious matter of conduct justifying consideration being given to the removal of a judge. The panel will have the power to extend its inquiry into matters that may come to its attention during the course of its investigation. That change was recommended by the chief executive of the Judicial Commission of New South Wales and we benefit from the Australian experience. The committee has also included a diagram in the bill outlining the judicial conduct process. The diagram is a valuable addition because it will make the process accessible and understandable to all New Zealanders. 
The committee has also recommended minor changes to Part 2. I understand that submitters had differing views on the issue of extending immunity from suit to all judges. Some submitters were of the view that extending immunity would make judges less accountable. Most submissions from the legal profession supported the extension as a necessary protection for judicial independence. I am pleased also to support the committee’s recommendation that there be no change to the clauses extending immunity from suit to all judges. That allows all judges to discharge their duties fearlessly and ensures that New Zealand adheres to the United Nations basic principles on the independence of the judiciary. I also support the committee’s recommendations that the affirmative resolution procedure be removed and the maximum number of judges in the High Court and the District Court be increased. That change will ensure the judiciary has adequate resources to administer justice for all New Zealanders. The affirmative resolution procedure may be reconsidered at a later date once the Regulations Review Committee has completed its review. 
I note that some members of the committee thought the bill would address the appointment of judges. On 29 April I released a consultation paper on the judicial appointments process to see whether there is support for changes to our system for appointing judges. 
The proposed amendments to the bill are important improvements. I thank all members of the Justice and Electoral Committee for their valuable contribution. This bill will enhance public confidence in our judicial system and protect the independence and integrity of our judges. I commend the bill to the House.