Jones Dail: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Jones Dail: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12888] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The next issue that I wished to discuss was the question of part-time judges which are referred to in clauses 42 47 52 55 60 and 73. I refrain from endorsing the previous speaker Stephen Franks because I am told that endorsements are out of order in the present circumstances but as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee he makes some very good points. 
I am in support of the concept of part-time work for the judicial officers—and I gained the impression that generally speaking Mr Franks would be—but there needs to be more safeguards than currently appear in the legislation. There are any number of women—and part-timers are usually women—who have very good experience in the law who have considerable ability who are very clever people who go on to even greater duties as mothers. Later they decide they want to go back into the workforce and have to consider how they will do that. Some of them today decide they will not leave the workforce and will try to stay in the workforce on a part-time basis and bring up their children at the same time. Such people are a wonderful resource that is available to New Zealand and New Zealand First supports the possibility of women—part-timers are usually women—being able to continue their legal careers. My own wife was able to come back into the teaching profession on a part-time basis job-sharing with another person so I have first-hand experience of the matter. 
The Law Society supports the provision that will enable judges to be authorised to act for a defined period on a part-time basis. I am encouraged that the Law Society is moving well and truly into the 21st century on that basis. Other forms of part-time judicial work are mentioned by the Law Society and its submission refers to the office of recorder in England and Wales. I am sure I mentioned in my speech on the first reading that the office of recorder is available part-time in England and Wales. recorders being barristers as a rule get the chance to work out whether they want to be judges or whether being barristers is a more acceptable form of profession. 
I think the concept of part-time judges is a good one. I have criticised the Government very severely on what is really a constitutional outrage in this bill generally speaking; it is regrettable that the bill was not introduced solely from the point of view of part-time judicial work being made available to qualified people. So I will give credit where credit is due. However I take the point that perhaps there needs to be more clarity and I suspect there may be amendments in the Committee stage on just what is available in the way of part-time work for the District Court. I see there is provision for up to six associate judges in the High Court but when I went through the bill I could not find any sort of limitation on the number of part-time judges in the District Court and wonder whether it is possible to set that out. 
There are problems with part-time judges male or female. As Richard Worth properly pointed out one often starts out on a case that should last a day but it goes into 2 days or on a 2-day case that ends up as a 4-day case. I am sure that the people who manage the courts in the present system can provide that a 1-day case means a 1-day case and that such a case if it does go into 2 days has the same judge—it could only be the same judge—deciding it on the second day. There is nothing worse even today—and I have experienced it—than the judge saying at around about 4.20 in a midweek afternoon: “Look I’ve got to go now. I’ve got a meeting.” Being a humble lawyer one cannot ask the judge what the meeting is but one does suspect that it has something to do with uplifting someone from somewhere because the other partner cannot do it. That happens today. I would have thought that in a part-time situation there would be greater safeguards to make sure that cases are not abruptly left partly heard. 
This is very important legislation. The next area I am concerned about is the situation of the other judges. I am concerned about clause 72 “Appointment of Judges” and the following clauses which relate to the Maori Land Court. I would have thought that any member of this House who represented a Maori constituency—the seven Labour Party Maori members of Parliament—would give us his or her view on the amendment to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act which I was discussing before the break. Those members are indeed strangely silent. What is their view on Maori Land Court judges being appointed on a full-time basis but being authorised to act part-time? What would they say about some Maori Land Court judges being appointed part-time? How part-time is part-time? When does the time begin and when does the time end and how do the people involved in a case know whether the judge is part-time or full-time? That same query applies to every other judge as well but just before the break a significant number of members who represent Maori seats were taking an interest in the issue and I would have thought that on behalf of their constituents they would be here in the Chamber taking calls. I would have thought that there would be Labour members in the Chamber taking calls on this very important issue and trying to answer the questions that have been raised by members of the Opposition parties. But strangely enough despite the fact that we have a constitutional outrage and an amendment to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act there seems to be no Labour Maori member of Parliament taking any interest in this matter. Of course I include Tariana Turia who I would have thought might take an interest in the issue seeing that there is an amendment to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 205 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to Part 2 be agreed to.