Franks Stephen: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7323] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 This amendment and in particular the Supplementary Order Paper that introduces all the provisions to exclude the State sector from the consequences of deemed redundancy on reorganisation should be an automatic benefit for everyone in the community. But that is obscuring another problem in this part and that is the constitutional implications of resuming the Department for Courts into the Ministry of Justice. I say there are constitutional implications because the Department for Courts is shortly expected to have the administrative control of a new Supreme Court. If there is one thing about Supreme Courts around the world it is that they are intended to have a degree of administrative and budgetary autonomy. That is certainly not expected to be available to the new Supreme Court under the bill that is before the Parliament or under the pattern that has been established in New Zealand in our Department for Courts model. 
Yesterday the Justice and Electoral Committee heard from a person who is regarded as probably the academic expert on top courts in the British system. He is a New Zealander in London. He told us: “Ideally and in fact commonly a top court will appoint its own registrar who will then manage the court’s other administrative personnel appointments.” He had a lot more to say on that but he said: “It’s a significant detraction from the court’s institutional autonomy and not consistent with international best practice in the design of top courts if administrative personnel are treated as ordinary public service employees. The bill should be amended to allow the court to appoint its most senior officers who should themselves have the responsibility of employing the court’s other administrative staff.” 
And there is more in the same vein about budgetary independence and about parliamentary supervision of the budget of such a court. He tells us that in the United States two justices of the Supreme Court and in other countries senior administrative officers go before a committee of the Parliament to report on operation. In other words there is a review process. He says: “In a system as relatively small as New Zealand’s it may be even more important that the court enjoy much greater autonomy in such areas.” 
I say to you Mr Chairman and to the Minister in the chair that that is important because this bill is effecting a merger that has never been explained. Nor has there been any significant report on the effects. Indeed the Justice and Electoral Committee felt compelled unanimously—Labour members members of the Green Party and other members—to express strong concern about the absence of any explanation of this merger. I quote from our report last month: “We have found it difficult to assess the impact on Vote Justice and Vote Courts since the merger appears to have been decided upon after the preparation of the 2003/04 estimates.” 
We quoted various advice and then indicated that we did not consider there was an adequate level of discussion for a decision of this importance. We referred to the Auditor-General’s article on organisational change. We have cited the article. We said: “We consider that—as a first step—the purpose of the change and the results sought should be clearly articulated if Parliament is to be assured that the change is in the public interest and the effects of the change are to be measured.” This has not happened. There has been no real explanation of why the Department for Courts is being subsumed. The only statements we have had are indeed very worrying when we put them in the context of a Supreme Court that is to have the powers to develop the kinds of laws the Attorney-General Margaret Wilson wants it to have. 
The purpose according to what the Minister of State Services said the merger would achieve is to “enable better coordination of the relationship between the Executive and Judiciary in respect of both policy and administration”. I say to the Minister that we need to know just what is meant by this proposal that it is not just the executive and the Department for Courts or the administrators. It says “the judiciary” in respect of policy and administration. Is this an attempt by the executive to bring the judges to heel in policy terms?