Katene Rahui: Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Katene Rahui: Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:661;Page:9637] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 These three bills—the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill the District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill and the Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill—emerged from two simple issues. The first is the opportunity to look afresh at the role of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and the Judicial Conduct Panel and to understand how to best improve upon their performance. Specifically the bills introduce the means by which a deputy commissioner can be appointed when the commissioner has a conflict of interest is absent from the office or is incapacitated. The second initiative amends the Judicature Act 1908 to increase the maximum number of associate judges of the High Court from six to nine. 
Of course this is about more than bumping up the numbers on the bench or finding substitutes to fill in for the commissioner. The wider purpose behind these initiatives is to enhance public confidence in the judicial system and protect impartiality and integrity in the system. It would seem a most opportune time to be doing so. Just 3 months ago a report was released based on research published during the last 40 years to bring together findings on bias against ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples at key stages of the criminal justice system. That report entitled  
Identifying and Responding to Bias in the Criminal Justice System 
 represents the most comprehensive review on the literature around ethnicity and the criminal justice system undertaken in New Zealand to date. It is clearly of key interest in terms of this bill. 
Probably the most significant finding from the review is the conclusion that further research is required to remedy the gaps in current knowledge about ethnic disparities in the New Zealand criminal justice system. Importantly it also notes that although further research is always useful it is unlikely to provide definitive conclusions about the location nature and extent of bias in the system. The report cautions against placing any policy development on hold pending the outcome of the review. The report does identify however that research undertaken by the Law Commission in New Zealand found substantial variations in practice between different court districts in sentences imposed which were unlikely to be accounted for by offence or offender variables. We need to understand how such significant differences can occur between different court regions and different judges. But as the review itself states we do not have the luxury of time to wait and wonder; we must do what we can to maintain and enhance public confidence in the judiciary now. 
A common response to situations of criminal justice bias has been the introduction of cultural awareness training programmes. Initiatives to raise cultural awareness are found in the United States the United Kingdom Australia Canada and New Zealand. Specific examples here include the cultural awareness training undertaken by police recruits and probation officers as well as cultural awareness programmes for judges. The Maori Party is a strong advocate of cultural competency—that is competence in our beliefs practices expectations and behaviours—to be able to operate in different cultural contexts. Although cultural awareness—by which we mean sensitivity and understanding towards other cultures—is critical the more proactive step is to be able to act in ways that acknowledge respect and build upon ethnic sociocultural and linguistic diversity. 
One would hope that as a result of this review the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and those involved in assisting the Judicial Conduct Panel will be supported by specific professional development in both cultural awareness and cultural competency. For all those who have to ask why I simply point to the outcomes which reveal that when our identities are valued and our cultural integrity is intact the difference in productivity in positivity and in perception is measurable. 
This legislation does a number of things. It sets in place the expectation of a fair investigation process to enable informed decisions to be made about the removal of judges from office. It establishes the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner for the receipt and assessment of complaints about the conduct of judges. It includes provisions that will result in a more transparent process to deal with complaints about the conduct of judges. It introduces greater flexibility in the manner of determining the maximum number of judges. All these initiatives enhance the transparency and accountability of the judiciary through public scrutiny and that in itself is helpful. 
I think that while these developments are in progress it is absolutely appropriate to be looking at the issues associated with bias in the criminal justice system. This is the right time for a comprehensive look at the big picture. We all know that sometimes individual conduct which may not seem overtly serious in a particular case assumes the appearance of bias when it is so consistent as to demonstrate a pattern. Perhaps then there should be room for complaints about conduct based upon a judge’s overall record. I go back to something that Ngati Kahungunu lawyer Moana Jackson once said in his report  
The 
Maori and the Criminal Justice System: a new perspective—he whaipainga hou 
: “The ethnocentric and unquestioning acceptance of the ideas of judicial impartiality essentially means that the possibility of such views affecting sentencing is rarely raised or even less frequently researched.” Thus studies indicating that Maori are more likely than Pakeha to receive custodial sentences are explained purely in terms of more frequent and more serious offending. 
The report produced for the Ministry of Justice last November and this bill’s proceeding through the House today provide us with all the opportunity we need to respond to Jackson’s concerns about judicial impartiality. It would inevitably be useful if we were able to develop a robust process by which complaints against judges’ conduct based on their overall sentencing record could be investigated. We support greater flexibility in the manner of determining the maximum number of judges but most of all we welcome these bills to initiate a more transparent process to deal with any nature of complaints about the conduct of judges. Such initiatives do much to maintain and enhance public confidence in the judiciary and for these reasons the Maori Party will be supporting the bills at their third reading.