Chauvel Charles: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8846] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I wonder Mr Assistant Speaker whether I could follow the habit adopted by the previous speaker Chris Finlayson and briefly make a reference to you in your previous role. I was standing outside the entrance to Bowen House yesterday looking across at our magnificent new Supreme Court and to see your name emblazoned there as the Minister of Courts responsible for laying the foundation stone was something to be very proud of. 
The aim of the Judicial Matters Bill is to amend the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 chiefly to achieve two things: first to provide for the Office of the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner; and secondly to provide that the commissioner in addition to the existing remedies that he can grant under the legislation may decide to take no further action on a complaint received by him. As we have heard there is another purpose to the legislation. It will amend the Judicature Act to raise the maximum number of associate judges who may hold office at any particular time from six to nine. 
As with much recent legislation in this sector including the Child and Family Protection Bill that the House has just read a first time the Judicial Matters Bill originated under the previous Labour-led Government. The history of the legislation is this. It was introduced on 25 June 2008 read a first time referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee on 22 July 2008 and as the bill was carried forward into the current Parliament the committee reported on 18 May last year. Today the bill comes back to the House. Mr Finlayson adverted to what I might call the irony in the fact that the bill is now sponsored by him as a National member because  
Hansard 
 shows that National opposed the bill on its first reading. 
It is interesting to read National’s objection set out in his customary learned fashion by National’s then shadow Minister of Justice Dr Richard Worth. Dr Worth thought that the bill would do nothing to improve judicial productivity and because in his view it would not improve productivity it was undesirable. Of course the reason that a Judicial Conduct Commissioner is constituted is not to speed the throughput by judges of their reasons for judgment; it is to maintain and if possible enhance public confidence in one of the three pillars of Government—the judicial branch. Accordingly it is something to strengthen confidence in the administration of justice. I have to say that there is every reason to suppose that under the able stewardship of David Gascoigne the present holder of the commissioner’s warrant the office will fulfil its purpose. 
The Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act established an office called the Judicial Conduct Commissioner appointed by the Governor-General after consultation with the Chief Justice on the recommendation of the House. The principal Act sets out a process for the receipt and processing of all complaints against judges to be managed by the commissioner. When the Judicial Conduct Commissioner receives a complaint about a judge he can dismiss it if it is outside his jurisdiction or if it is vexatious he can pass the complaint to a judge superior in office to the one about whom the complaint was made or he may appoint a Judicial Conduct Panel. The last course of action would obviously occur in only serious cases where there is a possibility of the dismissal of the judge. The membership of a conduct panel determined by the Attorney-General after consultation with the Chief Justice can consist of the following persons: two judges or a judge and a retired judge or a sitting or retired judge and a practising lawyer and a lay member. 
The bill now before us would establish the new office of Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House after the Governor-General has received advice that the Attorney-General has consulted the Chief Justice on the recommendation. Generally the function of the deputy commissioner is to carry out the functions of the commissioner in relation to complaints during the commissioner’s absence from office or the incapacity of the commissioner or in a vacancy in the office of the commissioner. It is probably sufficient for present purposes to say that the operation of the legislation to date has demonstrated the need for the deputy’s position and the manner of appointment set out by the amendment seems entirely appropriate. 
The bill also gives the commissioner the power to take no further action in respect of a complaint if the commissioner is satisfied that further consideration of the complaint would in all the circumstances be unjustified. This is in addition to the three current powers held by the commissioner which I listed earlier. Again experience with the legislation to date indicates that the amendment is highly desirable. It makes no sense for the commissioner not to have this power and it was an omission in the original bill. 
Section 26C of the Judicature Act 1908 provides that the Governor-General may from time to time by warrant appoint fit and proper persons to be Associate Judges of the High Court. Associate judges have a specialist and only civil jurisdiction and they undertake a range of company and insolvency work. They have extensive jurisdiction in interlocutory matters including summary judgment applications and they have jurisdiction to assess damages. Some lawyers present in the House will remember as part of their training going up to the Masters of the High Court for bankruptcy or call-overs. Others perhaps of a newer vintage will remember only appearing before an associate judge. I am not deliberately not looking at Kate Wilkinson when I make that reference. But associate judges were of course formerly known as Masters of the High Court and in those days they were appointed for fixed terms. I believe it was a 5-year term. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: I thought your practice was only Privy Council. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: As the Attorney-General has pointed out they did not have a role on the judicial committee where he and I both had the privilege of appearing. From 20 May 2004 Masters of the High Court were renamed Associate Judges of the High Court and began to serve on the basis of permanent tenure. The maximum number of associate judges is six although part-time associate judges may be appointed. Clause 17 increases the maximum permissible number of associate judges from six to nine. 
As we have heard in the speech from the Attorney-General the Justice and Electoral Committee received only one submission on this legislation. That submission was from the Chief Justice and it was generally supportive of the bill. As is customary her submission was made following consultation with the heads of bench of the other superior courts: the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief High Court Judge. In the end only one amendment was recommended by the select committee. As the select committee notes in its report new section 15A inserted by clause 11 would allow the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to take no further action in respect of a complaint on the grounds that further consideration of it would be unjustified. The select committee recommended inserting a new clause to clarify that where the commissioner has exercised his or her power to take no further action on a complaint the commissioner is not required to refer the complaint to a head of bench. Because the Judicial Conduct Commissioner is not entitled to dismiss a complaint on the grounds that further consideration of it would be unjustified without this amendment the commissioner would arguably be required to refer such complaints to the relevant head of bench. That clearly is a nonsensical situation. 
In summary Labour continues to support the amendment including the change recommended by the select committee. We do not know why it has taken the Attorney-General since May last year when the committee reported to prevail on his Cabinet colleagues to allow him to bring the bill back to the House. Whatever the reasons for that delay we are pleased to see its return and we look forward to its speedy enactment.