Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:661;Page:9638] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill the District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill and the Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill. The purpose of the Judicial Conduct (Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill is to introduce measures aimed at maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the judicial system. The bill allows for the proper investigation of matters that will lead to the removal of a judge. 
The office of the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner provides the public with a transparent and accessible judicial complaints process. The bill establishes that new office and the deputy commissioner is to be appointed by the Governor-General after consultation with the Chief Justice of New Zealand on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. The deputy commissioner must deal with the complaint in respect of which the Judicial Conduct Commissioner has decided that he or she has a conflict of interest. The bill covers complaints about judges of the Supreme Court the Court of Appeal or the High Court and also associate judges of the High Court and coroners. The bill gives the commissioner the power to take no further action in respect of the complaint if further consideration of the complaint is deemed unjustified. The reason could be as follows: the complaint has been resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction; the complaint although genuine and made in good faith was based on a misunderstanding; or the amount of information about the conduct of the person is not enough to form an opinion. The complaint if substantiated must warrant consideration of the removal of the judge from office or referral to the head of the bench. 
The Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s office receives approximately 100 complaints a year and of those complaints approximately 80 percent are dismissed. The commissioner’s annual report to Parliament noted that the most common reason for dismissing a complaint was that the complaint stemmed from the complainant’s disagreement with the judge’s decision rather than the judge’s conduct. 
The District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill increases the number of District Court judges from 140 to 156 which will help in providing justice to victims at a faster rate. The Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill increases the number of associate judges from six to nine. The bill will also increase the limit on Court of Appeal judges which will in turn improve the judicial system. Those increases deal with the impasse that currently exists in the system and that creates an unacceptable delay for victims. I commend the bills to the House.