Jones Dail: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8304] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The Judicial Matters Bill was heralded as being the answer to a considerable number of problems including in particular the appointment of High Court judges. We heard from the United Future member of the Justice and Electoral Committee various comments that hinted that this bill would be covering those issues. Obviously he was not able to put any pressure on the Government to make sure that those issues were contained in this bill. I read with interest a comment in the paper indicating that United Future was going to vote against this bill. I will have to congratulate United Future members if they do vote against this bill on maintaining that standard. As far as New Zealand First members are concerned we will support this bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
I do wonder about the bill’s overall worth when I look at Part 1. I can see the overall requirements in Part 2 regarding increasing the number of judges and such like. But really I am a bit sceptical about setting up yet another commission. We are going to have a Judicial Conduct Commissioner who will be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. That person is going to be appointed by the House of Representatives. We do not seem to have the privilege of being able to do this for the new Supreme Court judges but we are going to appoint a Judicial Conduct Commissioner by appointment through the House of Representatives. We manage to appoint the ombudsmen and I think the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who are parliamentary officers through the House of Representatives but we cannot appoint the new lot of Supreme Court judges if the bill ever gets to that stage by some sort of consultation though a select committee of this House or through some general approval by members of the House of Representatives as happens for the ombudsmen. However we can find space to appoint a Judicial Conduct Commissioner—yet another one of these groups—through the House of Representatives. 
What is this person going to do? He or she will receive complaints about judges and will deal with those complaints in the manner required by this bill. It is difficult enough to get really good barristers to take on positions as judges and now they are going to be confronted by some person—and as members of Parliament we have all had these people coming to see us—saying: “That judge got it wrong. Now I am going to take it to various members of Parliament and to the Minister. I am going to write to the editor go to the ombudsman and I’ve got another one now. I can take it to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.” 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Who needs it? 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes—who needs it? One wonders: just where do we go? We appoint people to be judges and we now have to scrutinise everything they do. Do we not trust them in the first place? Are they not the best in the land? Now we are going to have a person scrutinising them. 
One of the things that has been given to the judges—and it is the lower court judges; usually at District Court level—is that they can be the subject of civil proceedings as I recall it if they act in excess of jurisdiction. I see that this bill seems to be covering that immunity in so far as District Court judges are concerned. I guess that is something of a quid pro quo; I get the feeling it is a quid pro quo for this extra examination by this particular type of commissioner. 
What is going to be the subject of the complaint? Clause 11 states that any person may make a complaint about the conduct of a judge. What on earth is that? People can complain about the conduct of a judge. Did he or she arrive late? Did he or she not ask the right questions? Did he not accept the person’s evidence and say the person was guilty of whatever it was—when the person was obviously innocent and the whole world knew it! 
Stephen Franks 
: He dresses funny. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes—does he dress funny? Does he have long hair? That could be the subject of a complaint. The judge might be a Rastafarian. We all know that Rastafarians on cannabis cases will probably be too strict with cannabis smokers! Judges get strange like that. 
 Any person can make a complaint about a judge. The complaint does have to be in writing it must identify the judge who is the subject of the complaint identify the complainant and state the subject matter of the complaint. The bill has not been with us for too long but I presume that the complaint must have been about a case in which the complainant was involved. If we do not have those busybodies who can go along to a court to say: “Oh that case wasn’t handled very well and I’m going to make a complaint about the judge in that case because that judge didn’t do this that or whatever.” what sort of situation will we have? 
The bill states that the commissioner must dismiss complaints that fail to meet a required threshold. What does that mean? Is the complaint frivolous vexatious or not in good faith? The type of people I am speaking about are people who will never accept that their complaint is frivolous vexatious or not in good faith. They believe very very sincerely that their complaint is of the utmost importance and nothing could be of the greatest requirement to ensure the highest standard of the judiciary. 
In the short time I have been back in the House I have had letters complaining about the judiciary. I have heard all sorts of allegations about the judiciary. People do hold those views sincerely but one must ask oneself whether the Government’s answer is to set up a body that will get those people on their way to the commissioner and maybe we will not see them again. I am sure that once they go to the commissioner and the case is rejected they will be back to their MPs once more and we will only have delayed the inevitable. 
As far as membership of the Judicial Conduct Panel is concerned the Attorney-General may at any time appoint a Judicial Conduct Panel to inquire into and report on a complaint about a judge who has been the subject of a recommendation. A Judicial Conduct Commissioner is being appointed now and that will be one nice job for somebody. One can see them all lining up now. 
Judith Collins 
: You can see Margaret’s mates lining up. 
DAIL JONES 
: One can see Margaret Wilson’s mates all lining up for the job of Judicial Conduct Commissioner. However on top of that or below it is the layer of Judicial Conduct Panel. 
Judith Collins 
: Joris de Bres can do that. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes Joris de Bres could do that. Clause 21 refers to membership of panels. A Judicial Conduct Panel consists of the following persons appointed by the Attorney-General—and we know how good all her appointments can be. Two members will be judges or a retired judge etc. and there will also be a lay member. So here we go. We have jobs for the boys and girls. It is amazing how this Labour Party continues to create all those bodies and such like. What is all this trying to achieve? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: How many have they got in Cabinet? 
DAIL JONES 
: They have about 24 in Cabinet. Just about everybody in the Labour Government has a job. If any of their friends do not have a job at this stage then here is a chance for them to get one. Of course if one is not satisfied one can appeal to the Court of Appeal. What are we coming to? Judge Smith wore the wrong sort of shirt and tie. He was wearing his King’s College tie or shirt and did not go to St Paul’s College in Ponsonby. I assume that would be frivolous or vexatious. However one can take it that there will be cases where they will not be satisfied and there will be an appeal to the Court of Appeal. What on earth is New Zealand coming to? We will be spending all this money on that particular body. I just wonder what we are coming to. 
The last point I want to comment on is the part-time judge. When my wife was teaching at one stage she was involved in job-sharing. One of the teachers at the school had just had a child and my wife job-shared with her for a year. I expect that this provision probably relates to job-sharing for judges who have just had children—males or females in this day and age—and there is some merit in it. However one issue that has not been covered by the Minister is the system in the United Kingdom of having part-time recorders. The Minister does not even seem to have touched on this but we could have a similar position of recorder; someone who has a trial run to see how good a judge he or she will be. That is the only reason I can see for having a part-time judge similar to a recorder. Otherwise as Richard Worth said do people want a sick person to be their judge? Do they want some old fogey as old as 67-plus and who is not very well either to be a judge? This bill leaves a lot to be desired.