Finlayson Christopher: 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 
Finlayson Christopher: 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:9630] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That 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 be now read a third time 
. These three bills emerge from the division of the Judicial Matters Bill and I will deal with them one by one. 
The first is the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill. It amends the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. The Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner provides a public and transparent judicial complaints process while upholding the principle of judicial independence. The bill makes three changes. Firstly it creates the position of Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner who will be appointed in the same manner as the Judicial Conduct Commissioner—that is by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House. The Attorney-General is required to consult the Chief Justice on the proposed nomination prior to the debate in the House. The deputy commissioner will be able to conduct a preliminary examination of a complaint when the commissioner has a conflict of interest regarding the complaint or is otherwise unavailable. 
Secondly the bill allows the commissioner to dispose of a complaint if in all the circumstances further consideration of the complaint is not justified. This is appropriate where the complainant is satisfied following an explanation or apology from the judge. However even though the complainant may be satisfied by the judge’s explanation or apology the commissioner may still decide that further consideration of the complaint is required. In making the changes on the disposal of complaints the opportunity has been taken to do a number of other things to clarify some reasons why the commissioner may take particular actions to set out the actions available to the commissioner in the sequence of the Act as amended by this legislation and to update schedule 1 which provides a diagrammatic overview of the complaints process. 
Finally the bill states that the amendments do not apply to complaints lodged prior to the commencement of this legislation. Consequential amendments are also made to the Coroners Act 2006 and the Official Information Act 1982. The amendments strengthen the Act’s primary objective of the prompt handling of judicial complaints. They are based on the previous commissioner’s recommendations in his annual report to Parliament and are endorsed by the present commissioner. 
The second bill is the District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill which amends the District Courts Act 1947 to increase the statutory limit on the number of judges who may be appointed from 140 to 156. This limit includes all judges holding a District Court judicial warrant. These are judges of the District Court in its specialist divisions—the Family Court and the Youth Court—as well as judges of the Environment Court and the chairperson of the proposed new Immigration and Protection Tribunal. Currently two judges of the Employment Court hold warrants as District Court judges as do the chief coroner and the outgoing Principal Disputes Referee. 
Since coming into office this Government has progressed and continues to progress significant legislative and policy initiatives that are aimed at making New Zealand a fairer and safer society. The effective implementation of these initiatives particularly those arising from the Government’s 100-day action plan will require increased judicial resources and this need is primarily in the District Courts. The legislation amends the District Courts Act to increase the statutory limit and it is the first increase since 2004. While meeting the judicial resource requirement flowing on from the Government’s initiatives the increase will also allow some scope for future appointments. 
The final bill is the Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill which makes three amendments to the Judicature Act 1908. First it confirms that High Court judges serving as acting judges of the Court of Appeal should receive the same remuneration for that period of service as the permanent judges of the Court of Appeal. The bill also validates past payments made in these circumstances. High Court judges provide a valuable supply of additional judicial resource to the Court of Appeal especially for hearings in both the criminal appeals division and the civil appeals division. In addition to ensuring the Court of Appeal can get through its heavy workload High Court judges are able to share their current experience in conducting trials while gaining insights into the appellate process. 
While serving in the Court of Appeal High Court judges receive a higher duties allowance which is calculated on a per diem basis on the difference between the salaries of judges of the two courts as determined by the Remuneration Authority. Although the payment practice is consistent with the principles of judicial independence in 2008 the High Court in  
Wikio v Attorney-General 
 expressed the view that the payment of an allowance to a High Court judge sitting in the Court of Appeal should rest on a more secure constitutional foundation than was apparent from the available evidence. The amendment addresses this concern. I note that there was a very helpful discussion in the Committee where members of all sides raised a number of points and the concerns expressed by the Labour Opposition about the placing of judicial salaries on a more sound constitutional footing were certainly noted. 
Secondly the bill increases the current statutory limit on the number of Associate Judges of the High Court who may be appointed; this limit increases from six to nine. It is the first increase for many years. The office was created in 1989 and associate judges have made a valuable contribution to civil proceedings in the High Court. As I noted in my speech on the second reading of the Judicial Matters Bill the increase in the cap together with the recently announced court-assisted mediation pilot and the recent improvements to the High Court Rules will ensure adequate judicial resources are available to meet the increasing demands of the High Court’s workload. 
Lastly the bill amends the statutory limit on the number of Court of Appeal judges so that the maximum number including the President is increased from nine to 10. This amendment is intended to meet the increasing workload of the Court of Appeal. The statutory limit was last increased in 2006. 
In conclusion the amendments set out in these bills are important improvements to enhance public confidence in the judicial complaints process and they will ensure that our courts are adequately resourced. I thank members once again for their collaborative spirit in discussing some of the important constitutional issues addressed by this legislation. I commend these bills to the House.