Worth Richard: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2467] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I take up the challenge that the previous speaker Dr Wayne Mapp has thrown down and respond to the question he asked with regard to why in this legislation the Government has not dealt more broadly with issues of significant concern. This is the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) and I start by asking what happened to the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 2). Where has the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 1) gone? I suspect the answer is that those bills just vanished into the ether. 
The reason the Government has not dealt in a more broad-brush way with these issues of real concern relating to the efficiency and effectiveness of the court is twofold. First the Government simply does not know what to do. Instead it is following this piecemeal ad hoc approach with no conspicuous success. Second the Government decides that the very best thing to do with bills that touch on critical aspects relating to the legal system is to send them off to select committees that have no subject responsibility for the work in hand. 
So it was that on 21 June 2005 the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) was sent to the Government Administration Committee. I do not doubt that the members on that committee are fine souls. Indeed the membership of this committee comprised none other than Shane Ardern H V Ross Robertson Brian Connell Russell Fairbrother Sandra Goudie and the Hon Dover Samuels. There was no legal skill at all—no background legal knowledge—on the committee to undertake the task entrusted of it. So it was not in a position to propose any wide-ranging far-reaching provisions. That is to be seen by the very minor amendments that were made to this legislation as it has come back to Parliament. 
This legislation is substantially about three things but the primary one—the one that Dr Mapp has attached importance to—is an issue relating to the constitution of the Court of Appeal and increasing the maximum number of permanent Court of Appeal judges from seven to nine including the president. But there are a raft of issues that could have been dealt with at the same time. 
A hot issue at the moment as some on the Government side will know concerns the retiring age for judges. That current age is 68. It has been suggested that the age be increased to 72. In the Supreme Court acting judges can be appointed up to the age of 75. Quite clearly it would be appropriate to use the resource associated with judges serving longer periods—provided that they were fit and of sound mind and a large number of people at the ages running up to 75 assuredly are. That is just one issue that could have been dealt with. 
Another issue that is a significant issue and of concern to the public at large concerns the actual process of appointment. For a very short time—a few months—David Parker held the post of Attorney-General in the present Labour Government. But he was not permitted to continue to serve in that role and stood down. We now have in the shape of the Deputy Prime Minister the Hon Dr Michael Cullen again responsible for senior judicial appointments. He does not have any skill or knowledge in that area at all; his background is an economic historian. He is not in a position to make sound judgments as to who should or should not be a judge. So he just becomes a cipher of the Ministry of Justice blindly accepting the recommendations offered up to him and not prepared at all to consult with other parties. 
I think that is a tragedy. Whilst perhaps it does not matter in respect of positions that are less senior it does matter in respect of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. For the transparency of the appointments process for selecting people of undoubted merit and so as not to cause challenge one would have thought that a Government that prides itself on consultation in some areas would take the bold step of consultation in that particular area.