Appointments — Electoral Commission Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner 
Appointments — Electoral Commission Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner 
[Volume:673;Page:19703] 
Appointments 
Electoral Commission 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That pursuant to section 4D of the Electoral Act 1993 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Jane Christine Huria as a member and the Deputy Chair of the Electoral Commission for a term of four years. 
 The Electoral (Administration) Amendment Act 2010 passed by this House in May of 2010 established a new Electoral Commission that took on the functions of both the former commission and the Chief Electoral Officer. The Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) currently before this House proposes transferring further functions to the commission namely those of the Chief Registrar of Electors from 2012. This will complete the amalgamation of electoral administration from three separate agencies into but one. The Electoral Commission is an independent Crown entity governed by three members. On 24 August 2010 the Governor-General appointed the Hon Justice Hugh Williams QC as the chair of the commission for 3 years and Mr Robert Peden as the Chief Electoral Officer and the chief executive of the commission for a term of 5 years. The deputy chair position was and has remained vacant while a candidate with the support of the House was being identified. 
Today I am pleased to move the appointment of Jane Christine Huria as the Deputy Chair of the Electoral Commission. I am confident she will be a strong member of the commission and will bring a variety of complementary skills and experiences to the role. Mrs Huria is a professional company director and is a director and shareholder of HSR Governance Ltd a company that specialises in governance strategy and review. Her current board memberships include the Accident Compensation Corporation the outgoing Legal Services Agency the Red Cross 2011 Earthquake Commission Winter Games NZ and the Ngai Tahu - mandated health and social services broker He Oranga Pounamu. She is also chair of the advisory board to trustees of the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust a lay member of the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and a mentor in the New Zealand Olympic Committee women in governance programme. Mrs Huria is Ngai Tahu and affiliates to Ngai Tuahuriri. I am proposing a 4-year term of appointment for Mrs Huria under section 32(1)(b) of the Crown Entities Act 2004. Appointments to the commission may be made for 5 years or any shorter period stated in the notice of appointment. A 4-year term is proposed in order to phase the members’ appointments term so that the review of this appointment does not occur in an election year. I commend this appointment to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The Electoral Commission has been significantly revamped under the amendments to the Electoral Act that have been passed by Parliament during this term. The commission has already undertaken significant work with the Botany by-election under its purview. It now has the carriage of the administrative arrangements for the Te Tai Tokerau by-election and the general election which is to come before the end of the year. Then it will take on further functions including the work that is currently discharged by the Electoral Enrolment Centre when it takes on those functions under the legislation. 
The legislation provides for three commissioners but only two are currently in office: the Hon Hugh Williams and Robert Peden the Chief Electoral Officer. I remember when the Hon Hugh Williams was first appointed to judicial office back in 1989. I was the law clerk to the Chief Justice at the time and I had to write the notes for the speech that the Chief Justice gave at the swearing-in of Mr Williams as a Master of the High Court as Associate Judges of the High Court were then known. It is significant that although it is no longer a requirement of the Act that a judge act as Chair of the Electoral Commission the House has chosen to recommend to the Governor-General that that tradition continue in this transitional period as the new commission establishes itself. 
It is also significant to note because it will relate to a couple of comments that I am going to make in conclusion that the Hon Hugh Williams not only has judicial experience and therefore as we would all hope will bring an impartial approach to the very important position of Chair of the Electoral Commission but also has significant governance experience in his own right. I recall that prior to his appointment as a Master of the High Court he served as president of what was then the Manawatu District Law Society and immediately prior to taking judicial office he also served a term as president of the New Zealand Law Society. After he was appointed as a full judge of the High Court he also served a 6-year term as chancellor of the Massey University Council. So in those roles he learnt at the coalface if you like what it is like to have to govern an organisation. What I hope we are seeing here is a transition from the tradition of having to have judges sitting as the head of the body that runs elections and matters associated with elections to recognising that although we need impartial people on the Electoral Commission it is equally vital to have people with governance experience particularly given the expansion of the role of the commission—the merging of the three electoral agencies—that the House has determined ought to occur. 
The other current commissioner as I mentioned is Robert Peden the Chief Electoral Officer. Mr Peden was formerly the chief legal adviser to the Electoral Commission prior to taking on the role as Chief Electoral Officer. I do not think there would be anybody in the House who would question Mr Peden’s commitment to independence or to fearlessly policing the rigours of the electoral law as it has been enacted. 
I want to say one or two other things about the legislation as it now stands. It is instructive to compare section 8 of the Electoral Act 1993 with section 4D. Section 8 was the old appointments section now repealed. Section 4D is the new one. Section 8 required as I said that there be a judge appointed to the Electoral Commission. It could be a judge at various levels of the system but it was almost invariably a High Court judge. The appointment had to occur from—if a High Court judge—three candidates offered by the head of bench the Chief Justice for that purpose. So Parliament was very restricted in its choices as to who might head the commission. The Secretary for Justice sat as of right on the commission; so did a judge of the Maori Land Court. All those requirements have been swept aside and now there is just the requirement that there be the three commissioners. I think that is an important step forward as I say given the expansion of the role of the electoral agency and given not only the independence but also the governance expertise that we now expect of it. 
The other significant matter in the legislation is the enhancement of the independence of the commission by the very words of the Act. I noted the careful words that were in the Minister’s speech. He correctly pointed out that no one other than the Governor-General appoints the members of the commission. It is also important to point out that these appointments are not made in the usual way on the recommendation or advice of a Minister; they are made on the recommendation of this House. In that regard it is of concern to see the Government House website describing the Chair of the Electoral Commission as having been nominated by the Minister of Justice. Of course that is not the procedure. The procedure is that the Minister circulates names around the House to various parties and the names that win unanimous approval are the ones that go forward under a communication from the Minister but on behalf of this House. That is a very important point I think just to reiterate. 
We come to the business of the motion: the proposal to finally appoint a third member of the Electoral Commission and to bring it to full strength which is not something that could happen too soon given the workload that I have mentioned and given the functions and tasks that the agency will have to fulfil over the coming months. 
I am aware that there was another candidate who met the approval of parties around the House and who might have been appointed to fill the deputy chair’s position and thereby bring the commission to full strength but that person although eminently qualified has elected to perform paid work for the commission in its education campaign on the referendum which is to occur at the end of the year. So that person’s skills are being utilised by the commission but not in a governance role. 
It is clear from Ms Huria’s curriculum vitae that she has significant governance skills so to that extent her appointment as deputy chair is to be welcomed. The only note of caution that I would sound on behalf of the Opposition is that although Ms Huria has a very impressive CV with respect to her the danger as often occurs with people who are busy directors is that she may have too much on. Given the recitation of the appointments she holds that we heard from the Minister and also given the busy workload that the commission will have over the next year or so it will be very important that she and the other commissioners ensure that they have appropriate time to devote to the important work of the commission. 
Having said that I am glad to see that the commission is now at full strength. It is appropriate given the tasks that lie ahead. I wish Ms Huria and the other members of the commission well in the tasks that lie ahead of them and I am delighted to confirm that the Labour Opposition will support this appointment. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I likewise state that the Green Party very much welcomes the appointment of Ms Huria as a member and the Deputy Chair of the Electoral Commission. As the previous speaker Charles Chauvel has indicated there is a huge task for the Electoral Commission over the next few years overseeing the referendum and a second referendum. We too are relieved that we now have full membership on the Electoral Commission. 
We are impressed by the curriculum vitae of Ms Huria. We agree that it looks as though she is extremely productive. We hope that she is not stretched in too many directions because the Electoral Commission will need a great deal of focus effort and attention to steer successfully through the next period of referendums on MMP etc. We affirm our support for this appointment. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to have a say about the appointment of Jane Huria as deputy chair of the Electoral Commission. The Maori Party stands to support Jane’s appointment to that position. In doing so we firstly mihi to Ngai Tahu and Ngai Tuahuriri on the honour of this appointment—an appointment that we believe is absolutely warranted. 
It is a particularly interesting day for this appointment to come before the House. Jane is a member of the Red Cross 2011 Earthquake Commission which has been set up to provide charitable relief to the Christchurch community from the effects of the recent earthquakes and aftershocks. As Christchurch is no doubt still reeling from the announcements made earlier this afternoon about properties and houses no longer able to be lived in we are pleased that there is something special at least for Ngai Tahu to consider in terms of the appointment of this very strong nominee. 
As I understand it and as has been expressed in this House Jane comes to this position with a wealth of experience in governance and organisation. She has broad-based commercial experience including in law insurance market research and financial markets. In addition to that experience she has directorships in the electricity technology business development education insurance property development agribusiness seafood marketing and sport and recreation sectors. 
As other speakers have said she serves on a number of boards and she is a lay member of the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and a member of the management advisory group for the Secretary to the Treasury. If all of that is not enough she is also patron of the University of Canterbury Foundation a supporter of the Christchurch Arts Festival and a board member of the Court Theatre. Not only does she sit on many of those boards but also she develops and teaches public and in-house governance courses for the Institute of Directors in New Zealand for the Tertiary Education Commission for university polytechnic and wananga councils and for Sport and Recreation New Zealand. All of these qualifications make her an ideal applicant for the position. 
There is one more reason that I think it is particularly pleasing that tangata whenua has been appointed to this particular role. In the recent process of broadcasting allocations we believe that decisions were made that in effect devalue the role of the Treaty and of te reo Maori as the official language of Aotearoa. The Maori Party allocation was dramatically reduced between 2008 and 2011 to the effect of a loss of some $90000. We could not help but wonder whether confusion has arisen over the differing legislative responsibilities that govern the broadcasting allocation process—namely between the Broadcasting Act 1989 and the Electoral Act 1993. Although the Broadcasting Act has clear requirements on promoting Maori language and Maori culture the Electoral Act refers only to Maori representation. We were astounded that the only party that exclusively represents the Maori electorates was allocated less than 5 percent of the funding for a population that represents 17 percent of the New Zealand population. 
We hope therefore that this appointment will give special capacity to speak to tangata whenua as the Treaty partner to focus on voting constituencies that have been historically under-represented with low turn-out particularly of young Maori and to our unique capacity to express our message through te reo rangatira te reo Maori. We strongly support the appointment of Jane Huria. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the appointment of the third Electoral Commissioner. The reason this comes to this House is that we in New Zealand have a long tradition of well-run elections. I think we can be very very proud of the fact that we run non-corrupt elections in New Zealand. We have public confidence in our election processes which is one of the reasons why New Zealand has relatively high rates of voter participation in our democratic elections. People know that if they cast their vote it will be counted properly and that there will not have been corrupt practices in the electoral process that political parties do their utmost to comply with the laws and that we have independent bodies like the Electoral Commission overseeing elections to make sure that the laws that this country has built up over the years are adhered to. 
One of the ways we maintain the confidence of political parties across the political divide in the process is that when we make appointments to the Electoral Commission which oversees elections we make sure that that process is not politicised. We do not see the former president of the Labour Party being appointed to the Electoral Commission and we do not see the former president of the National Party being appointed to the Electoral Commission; we see independent people who are of standing in the community who political parties across the House can agree are appropriate people to oversee elections and maintain our confidence in those processes and also more important maintain broader public confidence in those processes so that we maintain confidence in our democratic institutions. 
There is a saying that the only thing worse than democracy is the alternative. That is a backhanded way of saying that democracy is very very important. We in this House all understand that democracy—for all its flaws for all its frustrations at times and for all its niggles and our sometimes immature behaviour in this House—overall delivers better outcomes than Saddam Hussein managed to in Iraq despite a wealth of oil money. Despite various other despots in other parts of the world democracy delivers good outcomes. 
In New Zealand we have one of the longest unbroken democracies in the world and we can be very proud of that. We have strong traditions and those traditions are in my opinion almost more important than the written rules of law. But those traditions are reinforced and upheld through good rules of law. We in New Zealand have good electoral law and we try across this Parliament to agree on the structure of it. We do not always agree. There is always disagreement at the margins. The Labour Party does not think we do as well as we could on the transparency of donations which can be made in a way that undermines public confidence in our electoral processes but we have some pretty strict rules around what is spent on elections and where the funding for that spending comes from even if in some situations we do not have clarity as to who donated the money. 
The people we rely upon to oversee our rules around elections are at the Electoral Commission. That is the body that we have formed in recent years to take over the functions that were previously split between two bodies. The Electoral Commission is already quite busy; it has had a by-election recently—the Botany by-election—since its formation and of course we have another this weekend in Te Tai Tokerau. I wish the candidates well in that election and I thank them for their efforts. We rely upon the Electoral Commission to oversee the rules to make sure that we are all playing by the same ground rules so that we do not descend into the sort of nonsense—and I think it is nonsense—that we have in places like the United States of America. Enormous amounts of money are spent on elections enormous amounts of money are spent on lobbyists and the outcomes are no more just or good for their country. In fact I would suggest that they are less just than the outcomes we generally achieve in New Zealand. 
We rely upon the members of the Electoral Commission to oversee those rules. We already have two of those officers. The first is the Hon Hugh Williams a former High Court judge who is in charge of this body; I understand he is the chair. Is that right Mr Chauvel? He is the chair. We also have had Robert Peden the Chief Electoral Officer appointed to a role on the Electoral Commission. Today’s appointment of Ms Huria is the third of the three appointees that are provided for under the law. 
We are of course coming up to an election within 6 months. The Electoral Commission already has the workload in respect of those by-elections I have referred to. We are dealing with a new law so the Electoral Commission will be required to make a few rulings that will be slightly different from earlier rulings because the rules have changed. There are some issues that relate to the dual sign-off that we will now need between the Parliamentary Service and the Electoral Commission in respect of some spending that is of proper parliamentary purpose but also falls within the definition of an election advertisement. In respect of those perfectly legal transactions we as parliamentarians will have to negotiate both the rules relating to the Parliamentary Service and the rules relating to the Electoral Commission. We look forward to some sensible rulings from both of those bodies as we parliamentarians try our best to adhere to the rules of the law. 
The attributes of Ms Huria have been well canvassed by other speakers and I do not propose to repeat them. Suffice it to say that her experience is wide ranging and has included public roles as well as roles for private companies. We on the Labour Party side of the House have confidence that she is a suitable appointee to this role. I will not say anything more than that. The Labour Party supports the appointment of Ms Huria as the third member of the Electoral Commission. 
Motion agreed to. 
Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
on behalf of the  
Attorney-General 
: I move  
That pursuant to section 8A(2) of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Mr Alan Deans Ritchie of Wellington as the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner for a term of five years from the date of appointment having noted that the Attorney-General advises this House in accordance with section 8A(3) of the Act that the Chief Justice has been consulted about the proposed appointment. 
 The Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 came into effect on 1 August 2005. The role of deputy commissioner was established by section 8A of the Act as recently amended. The Act provides for the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and sets out a statutory regime for dealing with complaints about judges’ conduct. If appropriate the commissioner or the deputy commissioner may recommend the appointment of a judicial conduct panel to inquire into any matter about the conduct of a judge. 
The Act established processes that recognise and protect the requirement of judicial independence and natural justice. The deputy commissioner will perform the commissioner’s functions when the commissioner has a conflict of interest or is otherwise unavailable to address a complaint. In performing these functions the deputy commissioner will be required to act independently. 
The Attorney-General has received support from all parties for the appointment of Mr Alan Ritchie as the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. Mr Ritchie was admitted as a barrister and solicitor in 1971. He practised with Spencer and Ritchie in Ashburton and Chapman Tripp in Wellington for some 12 years. He has been a consultant to the New Zealand Law Society since 2008 and was the chief executive officer and executive director from 1985 to 2008. He is also a member of the New Zealand Parole Board. In 2008 Mr Ritchie spent 3 to 4 months deputising for the previous Judicial Conduct Commissioner. The term of appointment must be for not less than 2 years and not more than 5. It is proposed that Mr Ritchie be appointed for 5 years. The deputy commissioner is remunerated at a rate set by the Remuneration Authority and the current commissioner is Sir David Gascoigne. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Although it is always a pleasure to hear from Mr Joyce it is a shame that the Attorney-General was not able to move the motion we have just heard because it would have been too difficult to resist the temptation to remind the Attorney-General of what he said when it was first proposed by the Labour Government that the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner be created. He said: “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.” Well he was quite right except of course that an amendment bill came in under the National Government last year. “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.” I suppose it is different being in Government as we saw with the flip-flop over the therapeutic goods administration earlier in the week. 
Turning to the merits of the motion I tell members that new sections 8A and 8B of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 now provide for an office called the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner and I remember the debates we had in the House on this last year. The reality is that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner has become an important office. It is a place where people feel that they can go when they have a concern about the way they have been treated in our court system that they do not like. As a result the number of people seeking to use the office has increased greatly. 
I looked at the annual report of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner from last year where Sir David Gascoigne takes great care to recount the level and volume of complaints that have been made to his office. It is instructive to consider that report because it indicates that not only have people found the office to be a useful place to take concerns and complaints but also the number of complaints that have been found to have any substance is very very small. So I think we can take double comfort from this. First people are using the office—hence the need for a deputy to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. But secondly many of the complaints are not being upheld. So people have a safety valve. They have somewhere they can go if they do not feel well treated and they get a decent process. The complaint is investigated and no doubt they feel they have had a fair hearing as a result of the process. But in the end it is confirmed that generally speaking we have a judiciary that is working well because most of the complaints are not upheld. So there are two reasons to be pleased about the way this office is working and the fact that it has been introduced. 
The other comment that is useful to note in the report of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner is that the judiciary itself has been very cooperative with the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. Judges are independent: they have tenure they are not public servants and they are under no duty to cooperate with any statutory officer whom we may appoint. The fact that they have almost universally adopted an approach that is cooperative indicates that they too have come to welcome this move as one that enhances confidence in the judicial process and in our judiciary—a very important pillar one of the three in our constitution. They are things that I think are appropriate to put on record particularly given certain events over the last year. 
Mr Ritchie is somebody who is known to any lawyer who practised during the period that he was executive director of the New Zealand Law Society. I was admitted to the Bar in 1989; he began working at the New Zealand Law Society in 1985. All communications from the society were signed by him and he was a figure who I think was regarded as somebody who worked diligently as an administrator in the society. As the motion from the Attorney-General on the Order Paper records as is required by the Act this is an appointment that the Chief Justice concurred with so we can fully expect that the cooperation that has been extended to Sir David Gascoigne in his role as Chief Judicial Conduct Commissioner will be extended also to Alan Ritchie as his deputy. We can fully expect that the confidence that has been enhanced in the judiciary by the existence of this office and its fair and full processing of complaints will also continue. 
There are other things that this House needs to look forward to. One member has already foreshadowed a proposal to bring forward a register of judicial pecuniary interests and members on this side of the House have indicated that we approve of that general approach and would support it. It is necessary in this day and age that every public official appointed or elected acts with appropriate transparency and it is inevitable that that is the direction in which we are moving. It is something that rather than running from all actors in the constitutional drama should actually embrace. But as I say the appointment of Alan Ritchie is supported by members on this side and we hope that his work as the inaugural Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner will continue to bolster the important work that the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner conducts in terms of assuring people that the judiciary is somewhere they can go for a fair and full disposal of the litigation they may wish to engage in. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party also supports and welcomes the appointment of Mr Alan Ritchie as Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. He has had a very distinguished—indeed exemplary—legal career and I think he is very well suited to this new role. 
I agree with the previous speaker Charles Chauvel that although the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner is reasonably new it has established itself as an important place of last resort that people can go to when they feel aggrieved by the court process. It is important that we have these checks and safety valves. We are very pleased that this body exists and that people as I said have a place of last resort where they can go. 
I agree also with the previous speaker that we look forward to having a judicial register of pecuniary interests. Kennedy Graham a Green MP has a member’s bill on this issue awaiting consideration by this House and we hope that it will be considered soon or taken up by the Government. 
I repeat that we very much welcome Mr Ritchie’s appointment and we believe he will bring great strengths to the important role of the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call also in support of this appointment. Alan Ritchie is well-known to most members of the legal community in New Zealand who have held practising certificates for a while. Indeed he has a lot of experience already when it comes to running disciplinary proceedings and trying to winnow out whether there is an issue to be dealt with in response to somebody’s complaint. Of course in his role as Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner what he will be trying to do is ascertain whether a complaint made is founded on any basis. If it not founded on any sound basis it will be rejected pretty pre-emptorily and if it is in his view then the complaint will go a bit further and he will look into it further or create a process that properly considers it. 
Mr Ritchie had a similar role to that when he was at the New Zealand Law Society for many years and was secretary of the New Zealand Law Society I think— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Executive director. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —executive director—for more than a decade I think from memory. During the period of his tenure there were some problems in various nominee companies in the legal fraternity which resulted in a loss initially to contributors but which was repaid by the Lawyers Fidelity Fund thus forcing good lawyers—well not forcing but having them do what good lawyers then had to do as a consequence of their professional duties—to top up the fidelity fund to meet what were very significant frauds. That of course then led to the Law Society taking action against those errant lawyers who had misused the money of their clients although that money had been reimbursed by other lawyers. The particular lawyers who had caused the problem were effectively brought to heel and kicked out of the Law Society and that assessment of those complaints against lawyers in that case would have been something that Mr Ritchie had a role in. 
This new role in the judicial conduct arena is probably more important and there is no doubt in my mind that Mr Ritchie is a suitable appointment to the role. I do see slight irony in the fact that the amending legislation has been promoted by Mr Finlayson who spoke so stridently against it when in Opposition. But that matter has already been covered properly by Mr Chauvel and I have nothing further to add. 
Motion agreed to.