Dalziel Lianne: Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Dalziel Lianne: Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:661;Page:9635] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to address the three bills that now take the place of the Judicial Matters Bill that we have been debating over the last wee while. I think it is worth reflecting on some of the comments that were made by the National Party in Opposition when this bill was introduced originally by a Labour-led Government. 
I know that people change their minds. One can understand that after considering all of the facts and taking into account a consideration of advice both from officials and perhaps from submissions that have been made a party may change its position and that is something to be encouraged. Listening to people hearing the evidence considering expert advice—all of those things ought to lead a Minister of a Government of any colour to be willing to take into account those matters and to adjust the position so that it is reflective of a sensible policy position rather than one that is not substantiated by evidence. National standards would be a really good example of where that has not happened. On this occasion it has happened but the Government has gone completely to the opposite extreme and at no stage has it given us a clear exposition as to why it shifted from one position to the other. 
There was a point which I will just follow on from Simon Bridges who was addressing this issue just before when he talked about judges and having to increase their numbers. I will simply quote back the statement made by Chris Finlayson before he became the Attorney-General. He said in respect of associate judges: “Although National has great respect for associate judges and the work they do simply increasing their number is not the answer. Reforming the civil justice system is the answer.” I would support that; I agree that we need a substantive reform of our civil justice system and it is something that I am working on from the Labour Party perspective. 
It is a shame that we have not really had the in-depth debate on this legislation that we should have. We have not really engaged with the Minister about the change in approach that has been adopted. For example when National started with this particular legislation from the position of being in Opposition it completely opposed it. Its members spoke against the bill and voted against it but more so they were actually quite derisory of the type of legislation that it represents. Let me read this quote from again the Hon Chris Finlayson at the time that he was the Opposition spokesperson: “The Labour Party approach is illustrated by this foolish legislation: set up an office create procedures appoint a commissioner and then bring on the inevitable amendment bill that seeks to appoint a deputy commissioner.” which is what this bill does. “The next thing we will have is a registrar a council of worthies hundreds of bureaucrats and lo and behold a culture of complaint being encouraged and nurtured. There are plenty of litigants out there who having lost their cases will personalise them against judges. They are encouraged by this ridiculous regime to make complaints. Of course judges can be rude grumpy or discourteous. In many cases one can hardly blame them given the quality of submissions they have to hear from lawyers. But are we such a weak-kneed sissy society that if a judge barks at us we have to run off to some judicial complaints body? I do not think so.” 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Who said that? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That was said by Chris Finlayson when he was the Opposition spokesperson; he is now the Minister in charge of the legislation that is appointing a deputy to the position he was completely opposed to setting up in the first place. 
If one listens to the evidence and is prepared to seriously take those matters into account then that is fine. But I never once during the Committee stage of this legislation heard the Attorney-General respond to the issues that that position raises. I raised this issue in the Committee stage and I want to put it on the record again because I would like a National MP to respond to this. I made the comment that Chris Finlayson’s comments were the comments of a true list MP because as a constituency MP nobody could possibly say that having no complaints procedure for judges would be completely inappropriate and would lead to more problems as it used to than previously was the case. Let me give the example of men’s groups picketing outside judges’ houses. Is that really what National would have liked to see continue? People who are treated by a judge in a manner that is inappropriate ought to have a place where their complaint can be heard. The fact that the complaints largely have not been upheld is a robust measure of the system rather than anything other than that. 
I made the point in the Committee stage that the judicial complaints process could really be seen as a steam valve on what would otherwise be a purely pressure cooker environment. The risk of not having a judicial complaints process is that that lack of a steam valve means that things can literally blow up. I mean that seriously. If members look internationally at some of the threats that are made to judges outside their court environment it is a very very serious matter indeed and we have seen things happen in this country that I would not want to see recur. 
The fundamental problem that I will come back to is the concept of civil justice system reform that is required. One can think of all of the constituents who have come into our offices over the last few years who have used the example of what they have lost in court. They have argued over the result or how they were treated or any manner of things arising out of the case. I do not think there would be anyone in this House who would not have asked at some stage why their constituent’s case ended up in court. Why on earth does a neighbourhood dispute end up in court? Why does a family dispute end up in court? Why do any of these issues that involve human relationships end up in our civil jurisdiction in court? This says to me that we need to be doing something a little bit more reflective around the idea of community mediation and maybe even around the idea of a community judge or community courts—ideas that were mooted I think in the 2004 Law Commission report on access to justice for all. 
I am raising this issue because although the Attorney-General has not responded as to what has brought about National’s change of heart I agree with one element of what he said at the time when he opposed the legislation. We need to revisit our civil justice system and we need to look at whether we can do better for New Zealanders as a whole by extending the principles of community mediation and community justice in a holistic way. On that note I am pleased to see the legislation pass through its final stages today and I am pleased that Labour is in a position to support its passage. I am also very pleased that the Government of the day has changed its position from the one originally expressed.