Worth Richard: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20729] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I am grateful for the flattering comments that the previous speaker made about me but I would just like to say in a measured quiet way that this bill is a gross abuse of parliamentary process. Why do I say that? The reason is that this bill is to be referred to the Government Administration Committee. As you know Mr Assistant Speaker as other members of Parliament know and as the people in the crowded public gallery know Parliament has subject select committees. 
Bills are referred to these so-called subject select committees based on the knowledge they have. We have as one of those committees the Justice and Electoral Committee which deals with issues relating to the very questions in this bill. But what is the Government going to do? The Government is to refer this bill to the Government Administration Committee. I do not know who outside this House knows what the Government Administration Committee does. But let me just say what it does do. The green book I am holding up at the moment the  
Standing Orders of the House of Representatives 
 states under Standing Order 188 that the Government Administration Committee is responsible for “civil defence cultural affairs fitness sport and leisure internal affairs Pacific Island Affairs Prime Minister and Cabinet racing services to Parliament State services statistics tourism women’s affairs and youth affairs”. 
So how come this bill which is all about judges and judicial administration is being referred to a committee that knows nothing about this area—a committee that has no skill and is not interested in the very issues this bill is about? 
Behind me is Lindsay Tisch who is a hard-working and very conscientious member of Parliament. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: But not a lawyer. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: As he said sadly he is not a lawyer. Yet he is to be burdened with looking at the merits of this legislation—legislation that I would say is completely without merit. 
Do members know why all of this has come about? The reason is that at the moment in this most curious set-up that characterises the Labour Government three people are responsible for the delivery of the justice portfolio. The first obviously is Rick Barker a trade unionist from the East Coast. He knows nothing about justice. We have Philip Goff who is a political scientist and we have Michael Cullen who is an economic history teacher. In a way that says it all. Something that is really important that is all about judicial administration and access to justice is to go to a select committee that knows absolutely nothing about those issues. 
So what is the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) about? Why does National oppose this bill so strongly? It is not a big bill. 
It is only a few pages long—in fact it has only eight sections—yet it is seen as somehow really important. Is that not bizarre when there is a whole lot of material that is really important for Parliament to get through before this sick and dying Government is finally disposed of? Why are we bothering with this at the moment? 
This bill is about three things. First it is about increasing the number of judges in the Court of Appeal. I have said and I have been oft quoted on this issue that the judges of the Court of Appeal are workhorses. I am in no doubt at all that they are under incredible pressure. I have said that the workhorses of the Court of Appeal can be contrasted with the show ponies of the Supreme Court. Those in the Supreme Court sit indolently waiting for cases to come to them. Those in the Court of Appeal work determinedly in a setting of confraternity. The first thing this bill does is increase the number of judges in the Court of Appeal. I suppose one would say that the second thing is a minor point if one did not really reflect on what justice is all about. 
The second thing is that the requirement for Court of Appeal decisions to be given in open court has been removed. At the moment the judges of the Court of Appeal give a short summary of their reasons in open court. They do not want to do that. I find that a bit odd. These are full-time justice employees. There is no reason where their place of business is the Court of Appeal that they cannot front up when they have worked hard and determinedly on their decisions to give their decisions in summary form in the Court of Appeal. The Government has decided that privilege should be taken away from them. That is a sadness. I have always believed as Justice Brandeis said many years ago in the United States Supreme Court that sunlight is the best disinfectant that there is an overwhelming need in matters relating to justice that issues should be openly decided and decisions given in an open way. This Government is running away from that. It is unnecessary. It is wrong in principle. 
The third issue relates to allowing District Court decisions to be appealed to the Supreme Court. That is a bit of a change. We have a hierarchy of courts in New Zealand. We have the District Court the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. This plan is to allow decisions of the District Court to go through all of those tiers. The received wisdom around the world in Western democracies is that there should be two rights of appeal only. Yet this Government for no good reason and with the significant added burden of cost is planning that these additional rights of appeal be given. Why would it do that? What does Russell Fairbrother think? He is a competent criminal lawyer who has been overlooked in the present Parliament—a man who has something to offer but has been muzzled in an utterly unfair way and who has been made the lackey of the Attorney-General; an Attorney-General who has no legal qualifications at all. 
Only once in our whole history have we ever had an Attorney-General who was not legally qualified. That was from 1932 to 1933. The then Prime Minister temporarily assumed that particular position. Dr Cullen has apparently decided that he wants to be the Attorney-General. Without any legal training at all he wants to be the chief legal officer. I have a real problem with that stance. [ 
Interruption 
] We are about to lose a Minister from the House and we are about to lose a quorum. No we are not. The Minister has glided from one position to another to be with his close friends in United Future. 
I say to the Minister and I hope he listens that the Government’s response to issues of court administration and problems with court administration has been simply to appoint new judges. We should resist that because judges are there to try to decide cases. They are not there to be sucked into the minutiae of court administration. Mr Barker does not know that. Why would he? Why would a trade union official from the East Coast have any sense of these issues at all? I am watching the Minister as I address these words to him. I see the glint in his eyes as he tries to respond to what I am saying. Why would the Minister not see the inherent truth in this argument? What has happened over the years over a period of successive Governments is that the civil service career of court administration in the ministry has been made unattractive. The answer I say to Mr Barker the East Coast trade union official is not to create more judges. Instead it is to improve the system; to create pathways and a career for court officials that is worthwhile. 
Debate interrupted.