Goodhew Jo: Judicature Modernisation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoodhew Jo: Judicature Modernisation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 18 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1725. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector)on behalf of theMinister of Justice: I move That the Judicature Modernisation Bill be now read a second time. This omnibus bill creates five new Acts. It amends 17 existing Acts. The five new Acts will be the Senior Courts Act which sets out arrangements relating to the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; the District Court Act which does the same in respect of the District Court; the Judicial Review Procedure Act which restates the existing process for seeking judicial review but in contemporary language; the Interest on Money Claims Act which puts the process for courts awarding interest on claims involving monetary amounts on a more defined and comprehensive legislative footing; and finally the Electronic Courts and Tribunals Act which paves the way for the use of electronic documents in New Zealand’s courts and tribunals. Part 6 of the bill sets out amendments to 17 other Acts principally by relocating existing provisions of the Judicature Act or by extending certain provisions applying to the senior courts and the District Court to our specialist courts.The Judicature Act 1908 which this bill repeals is one of New Zealand’s oldest statutes still in force. It is also one of the most important forming the cornerstone of a set of statutes that provide for New Zealand’s courts. In 2010 the Government asked the Law Commission to review that Act. In December 2012 the Law Commission’s report was tabled and 12 months later the Government introduced this bill. We advance this work because society and technology are changing rapidly and it is increasingly clear that our justice system must be modernised to keep up with the demands of the 21st century.The bill modernises the legislation and arrangements relating to New Zealand’s court system and provides scope for a more efficient system. The changes increase transparency certainty and clarity. This will lead to greater public confidence in New Zealand’s court system. Although this is a very large bill many of its provisions are not new. The bill does continue many existing provisions albeit with more modern language and style where necessary.I wish to acknowledge the efforts of the Justice and Electoral Committee for its examination of the bill and commend the committee for its work on this significant piece of legislation. The committee received 25 written submissions on the bill and heard 15 oral submissions. The submissions came from the judiciary professional organisations and interested groups and individuals. The submissions were thorough and I understand they provided the committee with considerable focus in its deliberations.I will highlight a handful of the changes recommended by the committee. Along with other changes made they collectively improve the bill’s clarity and effectiveness. The reported-back bill retains provisions establishing specialist panels in the High Court. It does however clarify that parties may request that a case be heard by a judge from a panel unless the Chief High Court Judge determines otherwise. Also Part 1’s general rule-making power is now relied upon for setting court rules needed for a panel’s operation.The committee amended provisions giving courts the power to make graduated orders which limit people who have initiated previous meritless civil proceedings from continuing or commencing more proceedings. The amended bill allows a court to make an order of its own volition. This will be useful in cases where the court has the best knowledge of a person’s litigation history. The bill also clarifies the definition of meritless proceedings required before an order can be considered by the court. Courts will also have greater flexibility as to how long orders last. The orders may be imposed for any period up to 3 years rather than exactly 3 years. The 5-year time limit remains for cases involving exceptional circumstances.The committee has incorporated a Government proposal to improve information sharing between Government departments and other agencies. This will enable elements of court information such as the existence of protection or restraining orders relating to a person to be shared between these organisations. Sharing will be possible only through approved information-sharing agreements permitted under the Privacy Act. The new provision will help deliver better public services.On a related note the bill also adds certainty to the obligations of court registrars and the court in respect of disclosing certain court information particularly convictions to registration authorities. As a result of the bill registrars must notify registration authorities unless the court specifically orders otherwise. This change will remedy instances where information has not been shared and so has prevented a registration authority from taking appropriate action. The committee has made a number of recommendations specifically relating to the District Court. The bill as reported back confirms the unification of the District Court and the increase in the court’s civil jurisdiction up to $350000.Many other changes are of a minor yet necessary nature. I would emphasise the increase to the financial value of tools of trade and necessary household furniture and effects that may not be seized from a judgment debtor. This increase matches the High Court’s threshold and so better protects debtors from unfair seizure of basic assets. It removes an anomalous difference given that the purpose of the two thresholds is identical in each case.There are several changes made in Part 4 of the bill relating to interest on money claims. Of note is an amendment widening the jurisdiction of the new Act to include amounts under $5000. This reflects that modern technology now enables ready calculation of interest on small amounts. Not so long ago the cost required to confirm this calculation would have very likely offset the value of the interest awarded.Part 5 allows our courts and tribunals to become electronic. The revised Part 5 makes a further nod to modern technology with a new regulation-making power enabling classes of court users designated by regulation to be required to use electronic documents. This change recognises that some categories of court users such as lawyers are and should be able to deal electronically in order to achieve the full benefits of electronic courts and tribunals.As part of wider consultation on the bill questions have arisen about including reference to commitment to the rule of law principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and parliamentary sovereignty in the purpose clause of this bill. After close consideration I do not consider that such statements sit properly in this bill. These are commitments of a constitutional nature that best belong in the Constitution Act rather than in this bill which governs only the architecture of certain courts.I conclude by saying that this bill is notable not only for its considerable length but also for the significant contribution it makes to modernised aspects of New Zealand’s court system. I commend this bill to the House.