Borrows Chester: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
Borrows Chester: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17949] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in respect of the Judicial Matters Bill and note that the bill’s explanatory note states that the bill is designed to implement measures that “are aimed at maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the judiciary; and recognise the fundamental importance in a democracy of ensuring an independent judiciary and addressing judicial resources.” I do not think anyone in this House would disagree with these broad objectives. It seems obvious that public confidence and an independent and adequately resourced judiciary is essential to maintaining the rule of law. Let us look closely at how Government has chosen to address these worthy objectives. The Judicial Matters Bill can essentially be broken down into two components. 
Firstly the bill seeks to make changes to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. The bill allows for the appointment of a deputy commissioner to perform the commissioner’s functions when the commissioner has a conflict of interest is absent from office or is incapacitated and during a vacancy in the office of the commissioner. As National members have previously pointed out in the course of this debate it is difficult to see where or how the conflicts that the bill contemplates would arise. Even if a conflict did arise it is likely to be minimal and easily overcome—maybe by the appointment or secondment of another judge to step in and take over. It seems that Part 1 essentially seeks to address a mischief that does not even exist by creating the post of deputy commissioner. It is creating another tier within the judicial system—one that does not need to be there. Given that the office is relatively small conflicts virtually never arise and when they do they are hardly insurmountable. 
The second problem is that the bill seeks to amend the Judicature Act 1908 to increase the number of Associate Judges of the High Court from six to nine. Leaving aside the fact that there are already seven associate judges sitting in the High Court this provision seems to be pretty sensible but this part is more significant in terms of what it does not do. The problem with this provision and the entire bill is that it does not even begin to address the underlying problems affecting the court system—those problems around court delays. The bill is nothing more than window dressing. It ignores the systemic problems that are plaguing the court system and plunging it into what seems to be a state of trying to swim in golden syrup. We know that public confidence in our court system is low and it is little wonder. In my electorate in Wanganui the average waiting time for a High Court jury trial is around 383 days. 
Colin King 
: How many days? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: It is 383 days. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: That’s over a year. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: It is well over a year and Wanganui is not just a one-off. Many other centres around New Zealand also have average High Court waiting times of well over 300 days. 
The bill completely ignores the extent of the criminal and civil bottlenecks that beset our High Court. The Government does not have the imagination or the courage to get to grips with the actual problems that are affecting the courts in New Zealand so instead it brings these feeble piecemeal legislative proposals before the courts. Where are the judges with the force of personality to ensure that court deadlines are actually met? Where are the judges who are ensuring that police meet disclosure timetables or that defence counsel meet their obligations meet their timetables and make themselves available for court? If for instance only a small number of barristers operate at the level of the criminal Bar in the High Court—as is often the case in provincial centres—then there needs to be the personality or the force of personality to ensure that the work is spread around those who can aptly fit in—rather than having delays in the Wanganui High Court of 383 days. 
Trying to fix the problem by slipping associate judges into the system does not go anywhere near sorting out the fact that nobody is making sure that the backlog of cases is actually being dealt with that waiting times are coming down and that more and more parties to cases are sticking with their obligations to their clients and as officers of the court to ensure that things move through the system. This Government has put any substantive reforms in the too-hard basket. The Government is just buying time until it can fob off this problem on to somebody else and I can assure Government members that National is only too happy to take up the challenge should we be privileged to be in Government after the election—God knows when.