Goff Phil: Judicature Modernisation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Judicature Modernisation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 18 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1743. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Labour supports the Judicature Modernisation Bill. I have got to say that it is a little hard to do justice to this bill here tonight in a 5-minute speech. I have got 50 seconds per 200 pages so I will have to rush it a little. [Interruption] My colleague Kris Faafoi will move an extension of time I am sure and it will be endorsed by everybody in the House.This is a good piece of legislation. It is very worthy which is sometimes another word for dull. It is based on the Law Commission report the Review of the Judicature Act 1908: Towards a New Courts Act. I think you would have to say that after 107 years’ time it is about time that we rewrote it. The current Act is outdated it is inconsistent and it is quite difficult to follow. We have modernised it but it is fair to say that the terms of reference for the drafters did not include the words “concise” or “succinct”. In fact I think at 1226 pages long this is longer than the concise English dictionary. When they called it an omnibus bill I was not sure whether it was because it covered a whole lot of bills or because it was the size of a bus; I think probably a little bit of both. What it does however does make sense. Part 1 brings all of the senior courts together into one Act. Part 2 makes a unitary District Court so that the other courts become specialist divisions of that court—the Family Court the Youth Court and the disputes tribunal. Part 3 deals with a quite modern piece of legislation only 43 years old—the Judicature Amendment Act 1972—and it updates that. Part 4 is the Government response to a specific Law Commission report which is Aspects of Damages: The Award of Interests on Money Claims. And Part 5 is quite important because it enables the use of electronic technology in court proceedings.But I want to associate myself with David Parker’s comments on this bill. When I read the commentary it says that the bill is intended to “make the justice system more people-centred modern and accessible”. By accessible I guess the drafters meant it is easy to find where the legislation is because if they were saying accessible in terms of people’s access to justice that would be quite wrong. Obviously access to justice is a lot more important. If you really believed that the justice system was equal and we were all equal under the law you would have to argue that the person who can afford to employ a Queen’s Counsel has the same standing as the person on legal aid or worse still the person who is not eligible for legal aid. The changes made in this House in the last 5 years to legal aid say that if you are on the minimum wage—the minimum wage—you are not eligible for legal aid for God’s sake. You have to be on a benefit in order to get legal aid. Who in this House could say that that is justice? And I have to say that last year when we passed the Family Courts Act—with our opposition—that made the law less accessible to those who are most vulnerable particularly our children. So accessibility is not what this bill actually achieves.I want to in my last couple of minutes refer to the minority report of the Labour Party and its particular reference to the Speaker in the Chair Trevor Mallard. It says that there is a retirement age of 72. Well that is actually against the Human Rights Act in terms of the Human Rights Act saying that we should not discriminate on the basis of age. I am sure that there are judges aged 72 who are just as capable as you Mr Assistant Speaker despite their advanced age and it should not be based on the nominal age; it should be based on ability to do the job.The second and most important point is that this bill explicitly excludes what is in the Supreme Court Act which talks about the independence of the judiciary. The independence of the judiciary in a country that does not have a formal written constitution should be written into the law. Jack Hodder and other people who are eminent in the law have said that this is a mistake and not one National member of Parliament has stood up to justify why we have taken out reference to judicial independence which is a fundamental foundation stone of the democratic system.