O'Connor Simon: Judicature Modernisation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Judicature Modernisation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 18 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1739. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to speak in the second reading of the Judicature Modernisation Bill. As I begin I need to give a shout-out if you will to Ethan up in my electorate. I like to think of myself as a responsive MP and although I do not want everyone starting to message and tweet me for a shout-out to young Ethan who I know is a very keen follower of Parliament—hello to him.Metiria Turei: Hi Ethan.SIMON O’CONNOR: Indeed look we have got cross-party support going on here Ethan even from the Greens.So I am very pleased to hear of New Zealand First’s support for the bill. I note that from a number of speakers from other Opposition parties there are elements of concern and I think that it is right proper and appropriate that they are being voiced here in the second reading and of course through this rather weighty document in front of me.I must admit that I have not sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is something that I have been interested in following though. This bill is quite a tome and a number of people have spoken about it in different ways. I think what it does at least symbolically by its sheer size and weight—other than removing the need to go to the gym by just lifting it—is show how serious our judiciary and the systems within it are. What is being discussed here today is serious and has some rather profound impacts on how we as a country move forward.The bill is reviewing a previous Act from 1908—107 years ago. I do not think that anyone from this House can claim to have been around then but 1908 was when the Act first came about and this omnibus bill seeks to review it. Out of interest I note that in 1908 I believe Shackleton headed to the Antarctic. I think either it was called the Nimrod Expedition or his ship was called Nimrod but that is something that happened in 1908. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were killed in 1908. For the feminists amongst us Simone de Beauvoir was born in that year and for some reason that I still have not worked out the King of Portugal was killed in that year. I do not know why I have that in my head but it just begins to show you the context of why this bill was needed and has reached us here today.This sits within a Government commitment to modernise the Act. A previous Minister for Courts began a lot of work in this space updating and modernising—particularly through the use of audiovisual technology—and this bill plays into that. In some ways it could be inspired by that. I know that then Minister Collins was a big proponent of bringing this bill before the House and it now sits within the very capable hands of Amy Adams.The bill itself has gone through several iterations in terms of the select committee. Scott Simpson the very fine member for Coromandel was the chair when he started to bring this bill through the House in his capacity as chair and more recently it has moved on to Jacqui Dean. I was very pleased to hear her speak soon after the first speech from the Opposition earlier.The bill as I was saying is about modernising our courts. This is not something we should rush into quickly or in fact even often. Some of us myself included have noted that it is 107 years since the Act that we are looking to amend and modernise first came about. In some ways I think that illustrates how the structure of law in the realm of New Zealand has worked and worked rather well. It has served us well but Parliament has rightly decided that now is the time to look and to modernise. But as I just said a bit earlier this is not something we need to race or rush into. I think we move excuse the pun judiciously.Hon Louise Upston: Oh very good.SIMON O’CONNOR: I have been waiting for that all night.This is an omnibus bill. It was noted earlier but I think it is helpful that we are going to break down this rather large tome into a series of parts and individual bills. Part 1 is going to be the Senior Courts Bill and is going to include schedule 1 I see here which is about the High Court Rules.Part 2 is about the District Courts and will be called the District Court Bill which is rather self-explanatory. Part 3 of this bill will become the Judicial Review Procedure Bill. Part 4—again as you can understand this is a substantial bill; an omnibus bill—becomes the Interest on Money Claims Bill. We heard from the previous speaker from New Zealand First some thoughts and concerns. I think about $5000 has been the de minimus that has been set. Obviously the committee has widely discussed this and batted it back and forth but it is still obviously an issue that has been raised here in the House on the second reading.Part 5 will be called the Electronic Courts and Tribunals Bill with Part 6 basically becoming on top of this 17 separate bills because they are amending those 17 respective Acts. Three statutes are to be repealed: the more recent Supreme Court Act 2003; obviously the Judicature Act 1908; the unconsolidated Judicature Amendment Act 1972; and finally the District Courts Act 1947.This is an enormous piece of work and I think it is right to commend not only the MPs who have worked on this in the select committee but the Ministers and their officials. This is a lengthy and substantial piece of work and kudos to whoever has read from page 1 through I think to page 1200- and -something. It is a substantial piece of work.Several members particularly from the Labour Party have raised the issue of the purpose clause and this has been articulated quite well and succinctly in Labour’s minority report. If I can just go to page 7 the Labour Party was very concerned that concepts that it believes comprise the fundamental values of the New Zealand justice system such as the rule of law judicial independence the Treaty of Waitangi and parliamentary sovereignty were not put in the purpose clause. I must say I agree that they are not in the purpose clause for a number of reasons. I think the Minister in her opening address noted that this is an application if you will of those principles all of them incredibly important. I do not think—well I hope that no one in the House would disagree that elements such as parliamentary sovereignty the rule of law the Treaty of Waitangi and judicial independence are important but the bill itself is not there to express those purposes by defining them; it is there to do it through its actions.The other side if I was to put on a philosophical hat is that you cannot really have a purpose “to commit”. I do not think it makes very much sense. In the minority report the first omission that the Labour Opposition sees is that the purpose clause clause 3 should have a reference to a commitment to parliamentary sovereignty. Again you cannot quite have a purpose “to commit”. You can have a purpose to bring about a purpose to express a duty but I think we do a disservice actually to the elements of the Treaty and principles of the rule of law by just simply throwing them in as a purpose.The other element that comes in is always around clarity with these things. They are wonderful notions and many of us depending on what we have studied through law or philosophy or whatever—some of them can be rather well-debated elements. People’s perceptions of some of these purposes or intended purposes are still open to debate and I think that we as a House do ourselves a disservice if we try to almost poetically throw them in because it sounds good and has high moral tones without fully understanding what they mean and being able to clearly articulate them. Ultimately when you are dealing with a bill such as this one it is vitally important that we get the minutiae right and the best way to start getting things right is to be precise with one’s language and precise with one’s understanding. So I just want to I suppose push back on that notion. I can understand I think where it might come from but it is not right appropriate or even good lawmaking that we would insert those four elements into this bill. In fact this bill when it becomes an Act and is rightly and justly applied will bring about those purposes coincidently but it does not need an explicit note.I am conscious that the bell has been rung which means there is only a short time to go. I do want to just draw attention to the whole use of the audiovisual links. Again a former Minister for Courts in particular championed a lot of this work as well as the whole use of electronic paperwork. This bill draws that right across the judicial system. I think it is fantastic that those other courts will be able to submit electronically. We heard today from the Minister of Corrections Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga about I think a $10.6 million spend that the Government has put out across 12 prisons to increase the audiovisual capacity. Again if memory serves me right something like 40000 remand hearings have been heard. I think it is important for us to understand that certain hearings will always require I think that a citizen who has been accused can stand face to face in actuality with their accuser but things like bail hearings and remand hearings can easily be done audiovisually. So that is my not so short contribution but do commend the bill to the House.