Dalziel Lianne: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9513] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on the Judicial Matters Bill because I too made some comments in relation to the matters being dealt with in Supplementary Order Paper 108. I am of the view that they should have been referred to a select committee but I appreciate the comments that my colleague the Hon David Parker made and I accept that that occurred. We will stand by those agreements and I think it is important to do so. 
I wish that the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General had referred a little bit to the decision that is being addressed in the other part of the Supplementary Order Paper. I think the number of judges is important but the  
Kane Wikio and Bunny Beckham v the Attorney-General  
decision is an important one. I want to get a sense of why the Minister wants to deal with that in the context of this legislation rather than having it considered in a more in-depth way by a select committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are actually on new Part 1A. You are referring to Part 2 and the Supplementary Order Paper is under Part 2. At the moment we are debating just new Part 1A. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am sorry. It was under the heading of Part 1A in the Supplementary Order Paper. It states: “Amendment to District Courts Act 1947” and it has clauses 15A 15B and then 16A “Salaries and allowances of Judges”. I thought that was precisely the point that was being dealt with. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: My understanding is that the only parts we are looking at at the moment under new Part 1A are clauses 15A and 15B. Those are the only two debatable points. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: So clause 16A is under a different part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is correct. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am sorry. I apologise for that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is Part 2. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The way the Supplementary Order Paper is structured means that it is not clear. Perhaps we should have a conversation about the way Supplementary Order Papers are structured because the way it is set out shows Part 1A “Amendment to District Courts Act 1947” and clauses 15A and 15B and then it moves on to clause 16A; there is no indication in the way the Supplementary Order Paper is published that clause 16A is in another part of the legislation. I apologise. 
I will talk about the number of judges because I think it is important that as a matter of principle—and I am not in any way resiling from the agreement that has been reached—when we are considering issues like this there is an opportunity for others to have input. The way they have input is through the select committee process. The advantage of doing so is that there is a proper consideration of all of the issues involved. 
I understand the point that the Minister in the chair makes in respect of retired judges and I think that is useful. However I have been in this House long enough to have heard the opposite argued by members of the Minister’s party when Labour was in Opposition before—that is how long I have been here—and the point has been made that these sorts of changes should not be made in a way that detracts from outside input into the debate. I think it is important as a general matter of principle that if these things are to be addressed then the proper way to do that—and it could have been done in this particular case rather than seeking this opportunity for them to be dealt with by the way that has ultimately been resolved—is to table a Supplementary Order Paper in the House and have it referred to a select committee. That is a perfectly appropriate methodology for resolving these things. I recommend that process to the Minister and I apologise for not being a little bit more on the ball as far as the actual wording of the Supplementary Order Paper is concerned.