Parker David: 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 
Parker David: 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:9642] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I want to start my remarks by referencing the changes in relation to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. The introduction of a deputy commissioner is supported by the Labour Party. Labour of course proposed the measure prior to the election. The move was opposed by National but in a change of heart since then National has realised the wisdom of the moves that were initiated by Labour. National now supports the change and is also making an additional change in respect of the circumstances in which a commissioner can take no further action on a complaint. If I have time I might come back to that a little but that is the essence of that bill and the Labour Party supports it. 
I think the more substantive change that is being made in this legislation is the change in respect of the number of District Court judges because it raises a number of issues. I think that the most powerful reason for increasing the number of District Court judges is that otherwise we are reliant upon too many retired or semi-retired judges acting under temporary warrants. That is problematic for two reasons. The first is that I think there are many people in New Zealand who do not think it is good practice to have some judges retired on superannuation and collecting remuneration as acting judges. That just does not seem right given that judges are pretty well paid in the first place. If that is too prevalent then we could expect to see newspaper criticisms of people in judicial offices. That is something we ought to try to protect the judicial system from through having enough judges so that we are not reliant on retired judges acting under temporary warrants. 
The other constitutional principle that lies under the objection to having too many acting judges who are retired judges is the separation of powers. Retired judges under temporary warrants effectively have their warrants renewed quite regularly through executive action—through the Attorney-General renewing the warrant of a temporary judge. In a theoretical sense that means the accusation can be made that a temporary judge acting under a temporary warrant is reliant on a good relationship with the executive. 
So rather than being seen as independent—as judges normally are and ought to be—from the executive the assertion or aspersion can be made that they are reliant upon that relationship in order to get a renewal of their temporary warrant in a way that undermines their independence and undermines the confidence of participants in the judicial system that the judgement the temporary judge is exercising is separate from the influence of the executive via the Attorney-General. So that is the principle that underlies not having too much of a reliance on temporary District Court judges or judges acting under temporary warrants following their retirement. 
The other issue that is raised every time we look at increases in judge numbers—and here we have an increase not in just District Court judge numbers; in related legislation or companion legislation there is an increase in the number of associate judges as well—is whether this is brought about by inefficiencies in the judicial system. Judicial processes are expensive to the litigant and to the Crown and through the Crown to taxpayers who pay the judges’ salaries pay for their support staff pay for the maintenance of offices and pay for the security arrangements etc. 
I think that some good points were made by Dr Richard Worth during the debate on the original bill. He noted that over the years the number of cases that High Court judges deal with has decreased very dramatically. I know that in the period when I was practising law and since I have been practising regularly the length of judgments has become I think wrong. They are just so long and inordinately complex that we are letting the pursuit of perfection get in the way of the sensible. 
That is most true in the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. But it is also something that we need to keep an eye on in the District Court where in the last 20 years civil processes especially but also criminal processes have become more complex. Life has become more complex—that is true. Expectations as to the quality of decisions have probably increased. Some of those changed expectations were probably good. But I question whether we have now gone a bit far in New Zealand and whether we have the right balance between perfection and practicality. 
The danger is that if we move too far towards perfection we have a system that is perfect for those who access it but is inaccessible to most people because they cannot afford to access it. I think the reality now is that most people cannot afford to go to court to have their disputes resolved and that is the underlying purpose of courts—to resolve disputes in a civil manner so that we do not resolve them through recourse to fisticuffs the Mongrel Mob or whatever our method of settlement of disputes may be. I thought Richard Worth made a good point in that there needs to be a focus on judicial productivity on the rules. Some good changes are being made. During the short period that I was the Attorney-General I was quite supportive of the changes being made to the District Court Rules particularly around civil processes. 
These things take a long time it seems to come through the system but those changes have recently been promulgated. I congratulate those leading the charge on that including Judge Colin Doherty from Christchurch who was instrumental in those changes. I encourage the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson to follow his instincts because I think he is similarly concerned about the decrease in the number of cases that are heard by a judge every year and the increasing complexity of those cases for the judicial officers presiding as well as for the people who are bringing their disputes to the courts for resolution. I for one think that most people would be happy to sacrifice a little bit of the perfection in order to have a process that is still fair but more accessible to them because they can afford to go there. I think that is probably the main point I would make in respect of the increase in judicial numbers. 
I do not want to be seen to be always criticising retired judges who are acting under temporary warrants. Again this is a question where there is a need for balance. Retired judges by dint of their experience before retirement are generally the most experienced judges we have in the system. I think it is good that we have a system in New Zealand that allows that experience to be brought to bear because it can be passed on to new judges. Also when we have a bolus of work or when we have a bit more work on a temporary basis in a particular region then that can be dealt with efficiently without the need to take on a permanent judge because we can take on a temporary judge who is a retired judge. That is a good thing particularly in a country of low population density like New Zealand. A relatively small change in workloads in a lowly populated area can change the workload of a court unexpectedly albeit temporarily. 
Temporary judges have their place but we ought not to become too reliant upon them for two reasons. Firstly some people see it as double-dipping—superannuation income plus being paid as a judge. Secondly there is accountability argument. The judge seeking a temporary warrant might become dependent and therefore influenced by the member of the executive in this case the Attorney-General who appoints him or her and therefore the judge’s independence is undermined. The Labour Party supports the legislation. Thank you.