Dalziel Lianne: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8849] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 It is always a pleasure to follow the honourable member Simon Bridges especially when we hear those stories about his youthful appearances in court. 
Hon Member 
: He got off lightly with Anne Gambrill though. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: He obviously got off lightly. It might have been a skill he was well versed in at the time but he has not quite managed to translate it to this environment. He is getting there. 
Of course Labour supports the Judicial Matters Bill; it was a bill that was introduced when we were in Government on 25 June 2008. I think the member who moved it on behalf of the Attorney-General was our Associate Minister of Justice at the time the Hon Clayton Cosgrove—an excellent member. He did a very fine job of presenting the bill and taking the House through its provisions. 
The bill is not extensive. It covers three particular areas. It establishes the office of the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. It allows the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to decide to take no further action in respect of a complaint and it increases the statutory maximum number of Associate Judges of the High Court from six to nine. It is relatively straightforward legislation. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee managed to report this bill back to the House on 18 May last year so the question I have for the next Government speaker is why it has taken the Government so long to deal with the bill given that it makes three relatively small adjustments to the principal legislation. Then the question is why on earth it has taken so long for it to come up on the Order Paper. I think I know the answer. Do members know who the Opposition spokesperson on justice was at the time that this bill was introduced? 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Richard Worth. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was Richard Worth—Dr Richard Worth. He was not Dr Richard Worth when he first became the then Opposition spokesperson on justice. He actually did his PhD while he was here as a member of Parliament. Well he had time on his hands obviously. 
The next point I will make I think says a lot about this individual. Members know that we should play the ball rather than the player. Well after Clayton Cosgrove gave an excellent speech on behalf of Michael Cullen who was the then Attorney-General Richard Worth made the following comment. He said he thought that Clayton Cosgrove was very competent in his field but that certainly that was not his field. What an arrogant thing that was for him to say. He said: “I think it reflects a tragedy in the present Labour-led Government that those who have been put in positions of responsibility in respect of judicial roles do not have any legal training or any sense of what is appropriate or what is not appropriate.” What a funny thing that was for that gentleman to say. He went on to say: “It is not a particular criticism of the member—he has just been put into a position that is unenviable—but sadly it also applies to the Attorney-General. As others may well know we have not had a situation in the history of New Zealand where an Attorney-General without legal qualification has occupied that particular responsibility for so long.” 
Well I just think that that is arrogant nonsense. I think that was actually behind the current Government’s position on this bill. It actually thought that if it left the bill languishing for long enough on the Order Paper after it had come back from the select committee we might forget what the then Opposition spokesperson on justice had said. Of course National opposed the bill. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: National opposed it? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: National opposed the bill when it was introduced. Dr Richard Worth had some interesting things to say about that. Essentially he felt that there was not sufficient evidence that judges’ productivity would be improved by this bill. He said the system did not appear to be robust enough when a Judicial Conduct Commissioner could dismiss 72 complaints against judges without referring them to the bench. 
I just think that sometimes one should be a little cautious about the positions one adopts in Opposition because it may well be that it is not the position that one would want to adopt in Government. As the Opposition spokesperson on justice I have tried to take the line pretty clearly on this side of the House that when the Government is doing something that we agree with—if it makes sense—then I will say so. I will work with the Government to achieve the end that we have in mind if there is mutuality. On issues like domestic violence which we are debating now we did not oppose the bill; we support the bill. It is a part of a bill that in fact we introduced ourselves. I have worked with the Minister of Commerce who is also the Minister of Justice on issues when I was the Minister of Commerce and he was the Opposition spokesperson. There has been a little bit of that coming back the other way but not as much as one would have hoped to see. 
In the justice area—the drivers of crime stuff—again there is disappointment on our side that the expression of our desire to work with the Government on a collaborative basis has been pretty much put on hold. I think that is unfortunate. I think the problem that the Government has had with this bill was that an Opposition spokesperson who had the arrogance to say that one of my very fine colleagues did not have any sense of what is appropriate or not appropriate was leading the Government’s position on this when he was in Opposition. I just sound a little note of caution there to various members of the House. 
Obviously the proposals within this bill are very sensible indeed. The main reason I think that they are sensible is that the work of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner is absolutely fundamental to maintaining confidence in our justice system. With public confidence in the administration of justice comes the capacity for the justice system to respond to the needs of the community that it serves in a much more effective way. If people feel that there is no capacity to make a complaint about judicial conduct issues are then raised in the public arena that undermine confidence. We have seen some examples of those over recent years. I think that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner is doing an excellent job and to have a Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner is an obvious extension of that work and will enable that work to be undertaken more effectively and more efficiently. 
The fact that there are a number of complaints that require no further action is I think a positive—I actually think that that is a positive. It is a very sensible approach to have a provision written into the law to allow the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to decide to take no further action in respect of a complaint. Again the numbers speak for themselves in terms of the complaints that have been received and what is required to be actioned. 
There is an increase in the statutory maximum number of Associate Judges of the High Court from six to nine. I supported the establishment of the position of associate judge—I think they used to be called Masters of the High Court. I was certainly very supportive of the change of title to associate judge because I think that better reflects the role. It probably reflects a better gender balance too than the word “master” might have reflected. I also think that when we look at the ranks of our High Court judges who have been pulled from the ranks of the masters in the past we see the expression “associate judge” suggests the pathway that was not there. I think Sir John Hansen was the first master to be appointed— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Then Venning. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: And then Justice Venning after that. With that changing of the name to associate judge it really does give an indication of progression. One of the reasons for having conflict of interest provisions written into the law was to enable the employment of part-time judges and I think that has been a useful move as well. I commend the bill to the House.