O'Rourke Denis: Judicature Modernisation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Judicature Modernisation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 05 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15308. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First supports this huge 1238-page Judicature Modernisation Bill to the select committee stage for scrutiny.Hon Phil Goff: 1182.DENIS O’ROURKE: Sorry?Hon Phil Goff: 1182.DENIS O’ROURKE: I think it is 1238 but we can debate that at another time. Until then anyway as you can see it should make a good doorstop. I would have to disagree with the Attorney-General by the way about the old television programme featuring Mr Haddock withAlastairSim as the judge. Haddock may have been anexpert vexatious litigant but I got a lot of my legal education from him. A damn sight more—[Interruption]Hon Members: It shows.DENIS O’ROURKE: If it shows then it shows that it was a good television programme because it was good quality stuff and better than some of the incompetent law lecturers that I had to endure in those days. Anyway the bill has a lot of merit. It implements the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s reportReview of the Judicature Act 1908: Towards a New Courts Act and accepts 71 of the 89 Law Commission recommendations. They fall into four areas: firstly the court structure and legislation; secondly judges’ appointment and how they operate; thirdly court administration; and fourthly non-party participants and of course vexatious litigants. These revisions are generally welcome and will be welcomed by the profession. They are needed to update the courts using 21st century technology to allow better use of resources and to improve administration. There is a need to make the courts more people-friendly more accessible more understandable and especially more transparent.Part 1 of the bill repeals and replaces the Supreme Court Act 2003 and more particularly the Judicature Act 1908. It is high time for that. The old legislation was outdated and rather Dickensian. The new court is intended to be more people-centred modern and accessible by improving transparency flexibility and relevance of senior courts. Those are very good objectives.Some of the main features of Part 1 are the creation of a single statute for the senior courts and it will also streamline the current arrangements as to who can be appointed as non-permanent judges including limiting appointment to former or current judges rather than directly from the bar and generally setting more consistent appointment periods and age limits across the courts. Those changes will be very welcome. Existing ways of appointing judges otherwise remain but published guidelines and protocols are sorely needed and I see that these are now proposed.Similarly the bill codifies restrictions on judges’ other appointments employment and issues relating to potential pecuniary conflicts of interest. There is quite a lot of public pressure for that as well. The bill establishes a judicial panel in the High Court from which judges can be allocated to hear specified types of commercial cases. That will match recognised judicial expertise to cases where parties wish to have a panel judge assigned. That is going to ensure better use of judges’ expertise and again is a very welcome new provision.The bill will also work towards more transparency and that is particularly welcome. The judiciary is to publish information relating to the delivery of reserve judgmentsrecusal from cases the suitability of judges holding employment or other office and all final written judgments unless there is good reason not to do so. The Attorney-General is to publish the process that he or she follows when making judicial appointments. The public will welcome that.Part 2 deals with and replaces the District Courts Act 1947 and establishes a unitary District Court. That is also to be more people-centred modern and accessible. The bill reconstitutes the District Courts as a single court with divisions for a Family Court a Youth Court and a disputes tribunal. It increases the monetary limit of the court’s civil jurisdiction from $200000 to $350000 and I might say that is well overdue. It also provides the District Court with the power to stop vexatious civil litigation and there are to be the same transparency requirements as I have already mentioned for the senior courts.Part 4 of the bill implements the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s report on aspects of damages the award of interest on money claims and that is very long overdue and will be particularly welcomed by the profession. It produces a singlestatutory system for the award of interest. It will provide a greater degree of certainty for the court in awarding interest on money claims; it will promote clarity simplicity and consistency; and it is again likely to deter vexatious litigation. These are very good provisions and ought to be supported by us all.Part 5 is also important. It provides for the legislation to enable and govern the use of electronic technology in court and tribunal proceedings while protecting access to justice for all people. This is very important. People expect these days for the courts to be up to date in terms of modern technology. I only regret the recenteBench failure at stage three after the expenditure I understand of something like $18 million. That is quite unacceptable and it is an area in which the Government must do much better.Part 6 amends 17 other statutes. There are amendments to the specialist courts legislation covering the Employment Court the Environment Court and the Māori Land Court by applying a number of provisions contained in Parts 1 and 2 as mentioned to the specialist courts. There is to be an amendment of the Arbitration Act 1996 as well to replace the definition of an arbitral tribunal and to permit the Minister of Justice to appoint a body to resolve certain matters relating to an arbitration. I think these are very welcome changes as well.Overall New Zealand First welcomes the bill and will vote for it to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee where we will all need to spend a great deal of time ploughing through that huge statute. I think that people who are not on that select committee will be glad that they are not.Hon Phil Goff: We’ll be competing to sub on to it.DENIS O’ROURKE: Well of course you will Mr Goff. We look forward in any event to scrutinising the bill at that stage in detail and to the report back to the House but I am sure in the end this will be pretty much of a very important leap forward for the court and justice system in New Zealand.