Graham Kennedy: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8851] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to express the support of the Green Party for the Judicial Matters Bill. The principal objectives of the bill have already been spelt out and there is no need for me to reiterate them. I simply say that we are prepared to support them. In doing so I would like to advance two comments. The first is that try as I might I have to confess that I am struggling in my own way—and it has been picked up by colleagues in the House—to comprehend the thread of logic and consistency on the part of the present Government in its approach to this issue. 
When I look back to the first reading I see that it is not so much the thought processes of the departed Dr Worth that leap out at me; it is the thought processes of the current Attorney-General for whom I have a very high regard indeed. I look forward to having it explained by him or his colleagues. I will quote from him. Back in July 2008 he said: “Of course judges can be rude grumpy or discourteous.” and indeed he gave some very colourful examples thereof. He then continued: “In many cases one can hardly blame them given the quality of submissions they have to hear from lawyers. But are we” he asks “such a weak-kneed sissy society that if a judge barks at us we have to run off to some judicial complaints body? I do not think so.” Well today it is clear that he does think so. He continued: “We do not see any need for a deputy commissioner. In fact we do not see any need for a commissioner.” But that is enough on that point. 
He later said the following: “This bill will not be supported by the National Party. The material dealing with the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner is as misconceived as the contents of the substantive legislation. Secondly although National has great respect for associate judges and the work they do simply increasing their number is not the answer. … Of course ” he says “this Government” meaning the previous Government “not only does not know the answers; it is so hopeless that it does not even know which questions to ask.” Well with great respect it is clear that the Attorney-General now believes that the previous Government was asking the correct questions and providing the correct answers which are now being adopted by this Government. I congratulate it on doing so. All it has to do now is to acknowledge the inconsistency of its previous position. 
The second point I wanted to explore pertains to the proposed Supplementary Order Paper. It intends to provide three amendments and the Attorney-General identified them briefly. It is not my purpose to explore that paper in detail today because I understand that it will come before us in the Committee stage but I would like to raise one aspect for advance consideration by my colleagues. It pertains to the proposed second amendment which would authorise the payment of higher duties allowances to High Court judges serving in the Court of Appeal and authorise allowances paid previously. 
The explanatory note states that this administrative practice—that is High Court judges serving in the Court of Appeal and receiving higher allowances as a result—was agreed in 1998 by the then Chief Justice and the then Acting Secretary for Justice. In a 2007 judgment the High Court considered that the arrangement needed to “rest on a more secure constitutional foundation.” which is a large hammer with which to be approaching the nut. The explanatory note states that “The proposed amendment will provide that foundation by establishing in legislation the formulation for that higher duties allowance. The amendment also confirms that all allowances paid previously were authorised and valid.” I have raised this matter I have been assured that there will be a more detailed explanation forthcoming and I look forward to that happening in a constructive spirit; it is not my intent to create problems where none exist. But I do look forward to the “more secure constitutional foundation” that will authorise and validate previously paid allowances. Thank you.