Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora Mr Chair. I have two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that I would like to speak to. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of my colleague Denis O'Rourke and thank him for his support of one of my SOPs which I will start with. It is SOP 216 which replaces SOP 202.I would like to just read from that Supplementary Order Paper which amends clause 568 of the Judicature Modernisation Bill which amends section 7 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. Section 7 relates to the appointment of Judges of the Māori Land Court. It enshrines in statute the long-established practice of Judges of the Māori Land Court being appointed on the advice or recommendation of the Minister for Māori Development. In replicating the generic provisions contained in clause 192(3) for appointment of Judges the Bill would result in a failure to recognise the distinctive nature of the relationship between Māori land Māori land owners the Māori Land Court and the Minister for Māori Development. Of note is that Cabinet is merely advised once the decision about the appointment of Judges is made and that we have an opportunity through this legislation to ensure practice and statute are consistent."I would like to reference a document that I found through the Crown Law Office website dated 13 September 2016 and it is titled "Judicial Appointments". The fourth paragraph says: "The convention is that the Attorney-General mentions appointments at Cabinet after they have been determined. The appointments are not discussed or approved by Cabinet." I wanted to make the point that this provision of the Minister for Māori Development appointing the Māori Land Court judges is not actually a Cabinet rule or convention. It has become a practice but there is nowhere in statute or in the Cabinet manual that actually reinforces that practice. I also want to read something else from this communiqué from the Crown Law Office and it says: "The appointment process followed by the Attorney-General is not prescribed by any statute or regulation."In fact what this Judicature Modernisation Bill does is completely change that. It is going to ensure that the appointment process followed by the Attorney-General is contained in statute because it will be contained in this piece of legislation. My contention is that if you are going to amend section 7 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act which enshrines in statute the process for appointment this is the reason and rationale why we should be really explicit as my Supplementary Order Paper has been in saying that the Attorney-General must seek advice or recommendation from the Minister for Māori Development for the appointment of Māori Land Court judges.I am not sure what level of support I have across the Committee other than from my colleagues New Zealand First and also the Green Party. I am hoping that there is enough support for this to go through because it certainly has support from the Māori Land Court judges themselves and in fact the Māori community. Inherent to the appointment I think is the mana of the position of the Minister for Māori Development the mana of those Māori Land Court judges and the mana of our whenua. So I am hoping that the Government sees this as a reasonable request and amendment to this piece of legislation and that it will therefore support this Supplementary Order Paper.The next SOP SOP 217 that I would like to speak to is the one that Denis O'Rourke has advised that New Zealand First will not be supporting which is to ensure that the judiciary reflects gender cultural and ethnic diversity in appointments. This particular SOP came from the review that the Law Commission did. There is a document called Review of the Judicature Act 1908: Towards a New Courts Act and it was recommendation 16 from the Law Commission that inspired me to put this Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee. Recommendation 16(b)—I have replicated the words there: "regard must be given to the desirability of the judiciary reflecting gender cultural and ethnic diversity."There are other components of that particular recommendation that I would like to bring to the attention of the Committee—and I chose not to include those in a Supplementary Order Paper because I spoke to judges who have been appointed and those particular issues are addressed—and they are social awareness of and sensitivity to tikanga Māori. All judges on appointment now receive social awareness and sensitivity to tikanga Māori training. They also receive social awareness of and sensitivities to other diverse communities in New Zealand. So I am reassured that the current process of educating our judges to those particular sensitivities is taken care of but what we cannot move away from—I asked the library to do some statistics about the judiciary regarding their gender cultural and ethnic diversity and I would like to read some of those statistics.On average—total men and women—29.9 percent of our judiciary are women and if we look at the international comparison Canada has 35.4 percent Australia 33.4 percent and the US 33 percent. The interesting thing for me however is that women actually comprise 47.5 percent of lawyers holding practising certificates. So nearly 50 percent of our lawyers holding practising certificates in New Zealand are women but we are only 29.9 percent of the judiciary. The interesting thing if you look at the meta-analysis of those statistics is that there is a requirement—and this piece of legislation reinforces that—that you have to hold a practising certificate for 7 years or more. Of that 47.5 percent of lawyers holding practising certificates who are women only 43 percent of them are actually eligible to become judges.So what we see in the profession is I guess the historical professionalisation of men in the profession because 80.8 percent of men have been in the profession and have held practising certificates for more than 7 years—that is 5091 eligible men as opposed to 3844 women. I can understand why there is a little bit of an issue; because of that qualification women are not being reflected in the numbers that we would expect as reflective of the number of women in the profession. If you look at it we would have expected that 47.5 percent of judges were women but that is not what we are currently seeing.The other interesting point is that of the 243 judges only 29—or 12 percent—are Māori and I think that if we were to reflect New Zealand society then 16 percent of judges would be Māori. In essence what this particular Supplementary Order Paper is trying to do is to have the judiciary reflect New Zealand society.The State Sector Act does not do it in fact. I looked through the State Sector Act and the functions of the State Services Commissioner—in section 6(d)—is to "appoint leaders of the Public Service" but there is no regard to gender cultural or ethnic diversity. I think that we have an opportune time with this Judicature Modernisation Bill to actually put into this piece of legislation some minimum levels of acceptability about what we want the judiciary to look like. We want the judiciary to reflect New Zealand society in terms of both the representation of women and the representation of Māori but also in terms of the representation of other New Zealanders.What I did not get from the library—and it is obviously because the statistics are not regularly kept—is the number of ethnic judges that we have in our system. So I did a little google and I know that we have got two Samoan judges—we have Judge Epati and Judge Malosi. Judge Sanjay Patel was sworn in on only 22 June this year and we also have the first Tongan judge Mina Wharepouri but other than me googling we do not regularly collect ethnicity statistics in terms of the demography of our judges.So I have put this Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee because I think like everything there is a time and a place to make a stand. Our police force has made it this year—it has committed to 50/50 women and men in the police force and 50 percent women reflected in all the positions across the police force. I actually think that it is about time that any piece of legislation and a piece of legislation like this that is trying to modernise our judiciary actually reflects those sentiments. We want a judiciary that reflects New Zealand society so I implore this Committee to support that particular Supplementary Order Paper. Kia ora."