Franks Stephen: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7326] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I want to make a point that has not been raised except in the last call that I took that this bill effects the disappearance of the Department for Courts. The merger announcement and what I understand to be effectively the only explanation for that was the statement made by the Minister of State Services on 16 May this year. That merger announcement talked about the justice sector review. A paper to Cabinet released at the same time indicated the merger would have a number of beneficial effects. But there has been as I understand it no other explanation of the reason for the provisions in Supplementary Order Paper 107. There has been none of the normal regulatory impact statement that would have been expected had that measure been in the bill when it came in. There has been nothing to indicate the attention that we would expect to be given to a matter of some constitutional significance. 
For example in this bill we do find a number of changes in the schedules—and I am not debating the schedules at this stage—that point up the extent to which the Department for Courts had been given a position of privilege in relation to information. It has been recognised that the administrative role of registrars and other court officials has an important relationship to the independence and impartiality of justice and to the perception of a justice system that is not affected by executive or legislative pressure. My concern is that the only thing we know is that the merger is supposed to do a number of things that look as though they are intended to increase the influence of Cabinet and of the executive over the court system. 
One of the purpose statements the Minister made was: “better align the administration of the justice system with policy advice on the overall development of the New Zealand legal system”. I could spend time deriding the empty-jargon sound of that because there must be better ways of stating what was intended. What does “better align” mean? Does it mean “bring together”? How will we preserve the independence of the courts? There is nothing in this bill that does that. What does “improve connections between research policy and practice” mean? Does the “practice of the courts” mean practice in a timetabling sense or is it “practice” in terms of getting the outcomes that a Government would want in the efficiency of handling appeals or in terms of appointments? There is no detail and this matter is not trivial. 
The Minister’s statement as I have mentioned before stated: “enable better coordination of the relationship between the executive and judiciary”. What sort of relationship is a healthy one in a country with our kind of traditional relationship between the executive and the judiciary? It is very well established by convention that the relationship should be at arm’s length and very carefully handled. But there is nothing in here that says that the Minister has given any attention to those constitutional conventions. 
The statement goes on to state: “reduce fragmentation by combining two agencies in one and be manageable in terms of risk”. I believe that the Minister owes it to the Committee and to the “sector” as it is so often called in the jargon of these kinds of announcements to explain just what needs better alignment and what protections there will be in that alignment against the court system being at least perceived to be and possibly being in reality subordinated to the wishes of an executive that is obviously contemptuous of some of the conventions. 
The Secretary for Justice was not able to help. When asked about just exactly what the “alignment” and “coordination” was to be she said both organisations in question required more staff and the main cultural difference is that the ministry is more policy focused. Of course that is exactly what the Ministry of Justice was supposed to be—that is policy focused—and the Department for Courts was supposed to be justice focused. But the secretary told us the biggest driver behind the merger was to bring the courts closer to policy development. Does that mean the courts will be developing policy that this Government could never get through Parliament? Does that mean that the Minister of State Services wants to see more of the kind of decision that the Court of Appeal has just made whereby a major policy implication of the Treaty of Waitangi a major policy in terms of ownership of and access to beaches and the foreshore is made by the courts in a way that would never have been voted for by this Parliament and is made by judges who are not able to be recalled by the people? Is that what is intended by this change?