te Heuheu Georgina: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8306] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the first reading debate on the Judicial Matters Bill. National will support the bill’s referral to a select committee only because it probably has some reasonable provisions. Like my colleague Richard Worth I note that there are also some worrying aspects to it as well and I shall come to those. 
The underlying aim of the bill is to maintain an enhanced public confidence with regard to the judiciary. That is a laudable aim but it addresses only half the problem. Part of the notion of public confidence depends upon the confidence the public can have in those people who are appointed to the bench in the first place. The other aim of the bill is to adjust other matters within the judicial sphere to improve efficiency and consistency. We look forward to discussion in the select committee to see whether those objectives will be attained in any event. 
The provisions of the bill set up a judicial complaints and removals process to deal with the situation if the removal of a judge is seen to be appropriate. It establishes a new role a Judicial Conduct Commissioner who acts independently to oversee complaints against judges and comes to a view as to whether complaints need to be addressed. It establishes a Judicial Conduct Panel that would oversee any complaints that require an inquiry into a judge’s conduct. That panel will be made up of three people—a lay member and two with legal expertise. National has some reservations about that and we will be looking fairly closely at the submissions made in that regard. Judicial immunity by suit is extended to District Court judges Environment Court judges Masters of the High Court Courts Martial Appeal Court judges and Maori Land Court judges. This seems to be an appropriate provision. 
There is also provision for judges to sit on a part-time basis in “appropriate circumstances”. I am not sure what those circumstances will be. The bill sets out some comment on it but again I would urge the select committee as it considers this bill to see whether that is a reasonable provision. My colleague Richard Worth has already addressed that as well. It may be that the provision for part-time judges suits the personal or domestic circumstances of those who might end up sitting in a part-time manner. But I would query whether that is an appropriate way to man—or woman—a bench. 
Richard Worth 
: Yes an old sick judge covered by a rug trying to dispense justice—ridiculous! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes. That may be so as well but all I am saying is that I would have thought that the coherency and consistency of the bench depends upon judges sitting full time. There are other matters as well. I shall comment on just two other matters that I think need close scrutiny. Principal Family Court judges and Principal Youth Court judges will now be appointed for a fixed 8-year non-renewable term. On the face of it that may be reasonable but I do not see any appropriate rationale for that occurring. 
 Again from my point of view there would be the issue of consistency and continuity on those particular benches. The other matter I raise is the issue of Masters of the High Court being renamed Associate Judges of the High Court and gaining the same rights of permanent tenure as other judges. Although acknowledging the fine work that Masters of the High Court conduct and carry out I question the appropriateness of that. I would have thought that they have different roles and responsibilities. What is the notion of an Associate Judge of the High Court? I do not know. One ought to be either a judge or a master. As I say I raise a reservation about that as well. 
At the beginning of my speech I signalled that I thought there was a major flaw in this legislation in that it deals with only half of the problem and in my view not even the more important half of the problem. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What’s happening to Queen’s Counsel? What are they doing with them? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Exactly. The member asked what is happening to Queen’s Counsel. It is part of the issue of republican creep. I think that is what is happening in that regard. Slowly but surely we will degrade the whole thing. We will bring in part-time judges we will make masters into judges and now we are taking away Queen’s Counsel as well. Those are all things that are occurring in the wider scene under the hand of the Minister Margaret Wilson and one has to question most things that she does particularly her record of appointments. Although I think it is a bit incoherent to deal with removals and complaints and not deal with the issue of appointments at the same time I suppose that if further work is being done in the area of appointments then it may be a good thing because we may be able to find a way to ensure that if this Attorney-General is to be in charge of the legislation that sets up an appointment process it is not subject to political interference. I think that is always the worry with this Government. 
As I say the public has a right to expect a bench of the highest order and the highest quality. This legislation deals with removing judges but does not really address the more critical issue which is the way our judges are appointed to the bench and the way their tenure is characterised. I think that is a major flaw in this legislation. It is a pity that the Minister did not see fit to address both issues at once. After all the work that sits behind this is the report completed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer and I think that he certainly saw both of those responsibilities being addressed at the same time. I want to refer to some comments made by the former Attorney-General Sir Douglas Graham who publicly expressed reservations about possible political interference in the judiciary inherent in this bill with the establishment of the Judicial Conduct Panel. I have already indicated that part of the concern there is probably due to the fact that a lay member will be part of the process and there is not a lot of detail as to the overall make-up of the panel. That is Sir Douglas Graham’s comment—an eminent former Attorney-General. 
Richard Worth 
: Eminent. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Absolutely an eminent former Attorney-General who had no republican agenda in his mind and would never support a downgrading of the judiciary in any way. He played it absolutely straight up and straight to the point and he was very committed to those things that uphold the constitution. Such an important part of that is personnel—those who man and woman our judiciary. We support the bill’s referral to the select committee but we certainly have reservations about it and we will be looking to scrutinise those matters at the committee.