Barker Rick: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20728] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
 I propose that this bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration. An effective and accessible court system is a fundamental part of any democratic society. It provides citizens with the confidence of knowing that justice is being delivered and that the rule of law is being applied by the courts. In order to achieve public confidence it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the courts remain effective and accessible to the people of New Zealand. 
Achieving a court system that encourages public confidence requires a number of conditions to be present. Those conditions include timely and fair court procedures. The courts need to be responsive to the needs and expectations of the public. However to be responsive and timely the courts need sufficient court resources to deal with the mounting workload they face. This bill is aimed at helping the court system in particular the Court of Appeal to remain responsive and timely by alleviating the increasing workload pressures of the Court of Appeal as well as effective and accessible by increasing access to New Zealand’s final appellate court the Supreme Court. 
This bill is in two parts. The first part deals with issues relating to the Court of Appeal and its workload. The second part covers issues arising from the establishment of the Supreme Court and some technical amendments. The Court of Appeal is and will continue to be New Zealand’s principal appellate court. In practice most appeals are resolved at this intermediate appellate level rather than at the Supreme Court. Its role of error correction and development of the law will continue especially in those cases that do not raise any significant public issue and thus do not warrant a further appeal to the Supreme Court. 
The Court of Appeal is facing heavy workload pressures. These pressures exist in criminal appeals due to recent legislative changes and in civil appeals which are becoming more complex. The result is that a growing number of appeals are waiting to be heard. Without additional judges this trend is predicted to continue leading to negative impacts on timeliness and a corresponding erosion of justice. The last increase in the number of permanent Court of Appeal judges occurred in 1987. The bill will provide for up to two additional judges to be appointed to the Court of Appeal increasing the maximum number of permanent Court of Appeal judges from seven to nine including the President of the Court of Appeal. The increase will help ease the escalating workload of the Court of Appeal ensuring continued timely access to justice. This relief will give the Court of Appeal sufficient time and opportunity to give adequate consideration to the complex issues before it. 
The bill also provides for a more efficient use of judicial resources to further aid the Court of Appeal in facing its demanding workload. Some flexibility will be introduced into the way in which the Court of Appeal judgments can be delivered. The relevant provision in the Act is currently interpreted by the courts as requiring judgments to be delivered by any two judges of the Court of Appeal in an open court. This requirement takes up the valuable time of the judges especially when a judgment is delivered to an empty courtroom. Currently both the Supreme Court and the High Court are able to deliver their judgments in open court or through the registrar. The Court of Appeal does not have this flexibility. The bill will bring the practice of the Court of Appeal into line with the Supreme Court and the High Court enabling the manner in which judgments can be delivered to be determined by the court rules. 
Increased access to the Supreme Court is achieved under Part 2. The path to the Supreme Court from decisions of inferior courts has been limited by the decision of the High Court being considered final unless leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted. If the Court of Appeal allows an appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision is substituted for the High Court’s decision and is final. This finality means that there is no opportunity for a further appeal beyond the Court of Appeal. The bill will remove this limitation enabling parties to seek leave to appeal a High Court decision on appeal from an inferior court either to the Court of Appeal or in exceptional circumstances to the Supreme Court directly—and I am sure that Mr Worth will see this as a very very worthy amendment. 
Part 2 also contains two amendments of a technical nature. A reference to the Privy Council in section 65 is removed and section 68 which refers to “inferior courts of extended jurisdiction” is repealed as such courts have not existed in New Zealand since 1913—which is about the time Mr Worth entered law school. The amendments in the bill will help to ensure that the New Zealand court system remains effective and accessible to all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.