Ardern Jacinda: 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 
Ardern Jacinda: 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:9639] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand and speak on the third readings of 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. I have been lucky enough to have had the opportunity to contribute several times through the passage of this legislation. It has changed a little since it was first introduced to this House; however Labour still supports the bills in their totality. 
It is important to point out that the Government has not always supported the legislation it is now ushering through the House. I note that my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel raised some concerns about the comments made in the first reading debate by the Attorney-General who is in charge of this legislation. I do not believe that this House’s queries as to his initial feelings about the legislation have been satisfied through its passage. I want to reflect on some of those comments to point out how I believe that we may have a case where legislation has been taken through the House by a Minister who does not entirely believe in it. However it may not be the first time; I think that Simon Power is another example of a Minister who has taken through bills that he does not entirely believe in. 
During the first reading of this legislation Christopher Finlayson stated: “That is the National Party approach—do it subtly but do it effectively. The Labour Party approach is illustrated by this foolish legislation: set up an office create procedures appoint a commissioner and then bring on the inevitable amendment bill that seeks to appoint a deputy commissioner.” 
Moana Mackey 
: Who said that? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: That is a good question. That was a statement made by Christopher Finlayson the Minister who is now taking this very legislation through the House. I found it somewhat ironic that in the process of taking the Judicial Matters Bill through he split it into these three bills and added in a couple of layers along the way—just for good measure and just to add an extra layer of contradiction to his words. 
He also stated: “In 2004 National opposed the substantive legislation”—so he not only opposed the amendment but also opposed the primary legislation. “We said that it was an unwarranted attack on judicial independence and that it would encourage ineffective and stupid complaints—in fact that it would encourage a culture of complaints.” I find those words not only interesting but also concerning. They are concerning firstly because essentially the Minister is claiming that to have a complaints procedure sit around our judiciary may impact upon their independence when I feel that it adds weight to the trust that the public can have in the judiciary having a complaints procedure attached to them; secondly the idea that having a mechanism for complaints attached to the judiciary may encourage complaints is one that I find quite puzzling and worrying. If that logic held why would we have for instance the Ombudsman attached to the House of Parliament or the Police Complaints Authority? 
Moana Mackey 
: It is part of the title. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: It is in the title. I am not sure that its existence in of itself encourages complaints. I think there are legitimate complaints that go to that authority and it is important that it exists and likewise with this body too. 
My colleague noted that she thought they were the comments of a true list MP. Personally I think they are just the comments of a cynical MP. Being a list MP myself I would like to think that I can see the need for that particular body. 
Moana Mackey 
: Don’t tar us with that brush. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Indeed. Mr Finlayson said: “Of course judges can be rude grumpy or discourteous. In many cases one can hardly blame them given the quality of submissions”. He goes on to say: “if a judge barks at us [do] we have to run off to some judicial complaints body?”. I think we have seen enough complaints coming through this body to justify its existence. Granted there are some frivolous claims in there but I would not want to see those frivolous claims become the reason for not having the body altogether. As I have already pointed out the body gives the New Zealand public an extra layer of comfort that they have an independent and a very professional judicial system in New Zealand. Having again highlighted some of those issues I tell any National members who wish to air on behalf of the Minister the reasons why he no longer holds those views that I would appreciate hearing from them. 
I will touch on some key elements of the legislation and a couple of the key changes that have been made during the Committee stage and final stages in this legislation’s passage. Two provisions in particular come under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill. This part of the legislation establishes the new office of the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. The function of the deputy commissioner is to carry out the functions of the commission itself in relation to complaints during the absence from the office of the incapacity of or a vacancy in the office of the commissioner. Again we have had a situation which has already been raised during the debate in this House where it has been necessary for a deputy commissioner to be used in a case of a perceived conflict of interest. I think we have already had an illustration of the work this role could play. 
Secondly—and I think this is more to do with the expediency of complaints going through the system—the bill gives to the commissioner a power to take no further action in respect of a complaint if the commissioner is satisfied that further consideration of the complaint would in all circumstances be unjustified. I think that the numbers the House has been presented with demonstrate that there probably are ways we can move through some of those complaints that are based on a judge’s ruling as opposed to a judge’s conduct. We have found the balance here in giving that enabling power to a commissioner to speed through those complaints that may be deemed inappropriate. 
We also have a new element to the bill. It gives the commissioner an added option after the preliminary examination to refer the complaint if substantiated to the head of bench. That provision comes under section 17 and a number of consequential amendments have arisen from that provision. It is my belief that that was inserted by Christopher Finlayson during the Committee stage and I want to highlight that it would have been our preference for that element of the legislation to have been able to be discussed in the select committee. That would have been ideal; it would have been helpful. We recognise that it is in keeping with the expediency element of the legislation; therefore we will support that provision. 
As I have already stated we believe that this bill one of three after the split is necessary to enhance public confidence and we also believe that it strengthens the Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s primary objective of ensuring the prompt handling of complaints. It is probably also worthwhile to point out that these provisions are based on the recommendations of the commissioner himself in his 2005 and 2006 annual reports to Parliament so it is good to see that we are acting on those recommendations. 
I will touch on the second bill which is the District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. It was the subject of some discussion during the Committee stage because it increases the maximum number of District Court judges from 140 to 156 which is an amendment to section 5(2) of the District Courts Act 1947. I can see why Mr Finlayson put this amendment forward. In his first reading speech he talked about the need to bring greater efficiencies and improve the general judicial system in New Zealand. I can only assume that this bill is part of his plan in that regard. Although we do not have a problem with increasing the number of District Court judges it would have been our preference if this constitutional matter had gone to the select committee. I do say that an increase in judges will not necessarily lead to an increase in productivity if that is the ultimate aim. 
I have a wider point that I think should be made here: a District Court judge gets paid about $280000 per year and I find it ironic that at a time when the Government finds it necessary to make significant cuts to the State sector in a recession we are standing here and almost unannounced are shuffling through additional numbers of District Court judges at such a weighty cost. If the Government is so sure that these cuts to the State sector will enable the front line to improve so why are nurses so concerned about the Government’s cuts? Why are teachers so concerned about the Government’s cuts? They are not the ones being cut. They have no special interest; they are worried because nurses cannot do their jobs if they do not have support to do their jobs. Teachers cannot do their jobs without the support to do their jobs. To date the Government has not demonstrated to me what the front line is.