Worth Richard: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17303] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I have listened with interest to the comments that the previous speaker Mr Cosgrove has made on this legislation. I think he is very competent in his field but certainly this is not his field. I think it reflects a tragedy in the present Labour-led Government that those who have been put in positions of responsibility in respect of judicial roles do not have any legal training or any sense of what is appropriate or what is not appropriate. It is not a particular criticism of the member—he has just been put into a position that is unenviable—but sadly it also applies to the Attorney-General. As others may well know we have not had a situation in the history of New Zealand where an Attorney-General without legal qualification has occupied that particular responsibility for so long. 
National is strongly opposed to this bill for what I suggest are really good reasons. There are two essential elements to the bill. The first relates to changes to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act. That legislation was recently enacted to deal with what was perceived to be a mischief—instances where judicial conduct fell below an acceptable threshold. Under the Act the commissioner’s role was to receive and assess complaints about the conduct of judges. What basically happens is that the commissioner following the receipt of a complaint about the conduct of a judge notifies the judge of the complaint and seeks any comment that the judge may wish to make. He can obtain court documents transcripts of hearings listen to any sound recordings and make whatever inquiries he considers appropriate. Once he has completed his preliminary examination he dismisses the complaint on one or more of nine specified grounds. If the commissioner does not dismiss the complaint then he must either refer the complaint to the head of bench or recommend that a judicial conduct panel be appointed. 
This particular Judicial Conduct Commissioner has made two reports: one for the year ended 31 July 2006 and the more recent one for the year ended 31 July 2007. There would be some who would cynically observe that this process is very much akin to a whitewash. If I look at that second report and the outcomes of the work he carried out in that year which ended 31 July 2007 I see that he dismissed 72 complaints he did not refer any complaints to a head of bench under section 17 of the Act and that a reasonable number of complaints are not finalised. It seems impossible to credit that there can have been in that complaint history not one complaint that was justified. I would say that beggars belief. We have here a system that I strongly believe is not sufficiently robust. Of course the justice system is a man-made system. It suffers from imperfection but I cannot accept that of 72 complaints received 72 should have been dismissed. 
In both these reports as the previous speaker has said the commissioner criticises the structure of the legislation and considers the desirability of having a deputy appointed. I think the argument he advances is interesting. It is presumably an argument that the Parliament is being asked to accept here tonight—that there are circumstances where the commissioner has a conflict of interest. This particular commissioner is associated with a major law firm in the city of Auckland. I find it incredible that conflicts of interest should be of real concern to him. He is not a court lawyer. The background of this man is that he is skilled in commercial law. He is not involved in situations of conflict with the judges. There are no such conflicts. So in this argument we are being asked to accept what Mr Cosgrove has told us which is that there is a situation of real difficulty here to use the commissioner’s words when these conflicts of interest—which I think are completely unreal—arise. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: So you’re opposed to it. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: The Act provides that the commission is to act independently. Mr Cosgrove is calling across the House that National is opposed to this legislation. Well I said that right at the outset and we are. But that is only one part of the legislation that I think is of concern. 
The second part of the legislation proposed by the Government to be enacted in this death rush to the election date of 8 November is a series of changes to the Judicature Act to increase the maximum number of associate judges of the High Court from six to nine. I would like to say something about that in the context of what it is that these associate judges do. As at January 2008 the High Court consisted of 34 judges and seven of those were associate judges. That is an interesting circumstance because the proposition here for the Judicature Act is to increase from six to nine the maximum number of associate judges of the High Court. So an inference is that there is a current breach of that legislation. But members should leave that aside. Associate judges have a specialist civil jurisdiction; they undertake a range of companies and insolvency work; they have extensive jurisdiction in interlocutory matters including summary judgment applications; and they have a jurisdiction to assess damages. 
I would suggest that what this issue seems to be more primarily about is that there needs to be a sharp focus on the productivity of our judges and the processes in the courts today. The reality is that the commercial community is bailing out of civil litigation for two main reasons: the continuing long-running unhappiness with the Chief Justice’s refusal to let judges specialise in either commercial or criminal matters and also the vast amounts of money being spent on the needless discovery of documents. These associate judges are not involved in criminal work; they are simply involved in the civil jurisdiction. So why are we proposing to appoint more associate judges who are confined to the civil jurisdiction when the reality is that the commercial community is bailing out of such litigation? 
There are some very interesting figures on judicial productivity. My understanding of the position is that each High Court judge with support staff costs taxpayers more than $630000 a year plus superannuation. I would say that with that sort of money the public is entitled to expect fast inexpensive fair and just resolution of criminal and civil matters. Maybe the judges work harder than they did 40 years ago. But if we look at the statistics we find that although the population of New Zealand has grown by 73 percent since 1960 the number of High Court judges has risen by 200 percent. In 1960 12 High Court judges dealt with 2610 cases a year which is 218 cases each but in 2005 36 High Court judges handled 2500 cases which is 69 cases each. So to look at the issue of productivity per judge—I accept in a somewhat crude way—the judges of the past were doing 218 cases each a year and now they are doing only 69. What is desperately and urgently needed are solutions that will see less complicated and shorter trials and greater productivity from the judges. That is why National is opposed to this legislation—it makes no sense. 
Debate interrupted.