Fairbrother Russell: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1761] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 What Dr Worth failed to discuss concerning this important legislation is that it enhances the appeal process to the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court Bill finally was passed into law—a great day for New Zealand—it was envisaged that there would be a right of appellate passage to the Supreme Court from all tribunals. It clearly was an oversight of the Justice and Electoral Committee I have to say that it did not foresee the blockage on appeals from the High Court on a determination to the Court of Appeal. This bill opens the way back to the Supreme Court. It is amendments such as this that are ideal for a Judicature Amendment Bill and ideal for a committee such as the Government Administration Committee. 
I have to say that the National members on that committee were done a disservice by Dr Worth. Clearly there are some troubles in the National Party caucus if he criticises the great Shane Ardern “Chairman Mao” of the Government Administration Committee. He runs that committee like a martinet. We get through the work and we come to a consensus on what is right. The chairperson of that committee of course felt that this Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) was one worth supporting. Then no less an identity is the man who is starting from way behind the starting block Brian Connell. He never wants to put a foot wrong as he heads on to the main straight—long after the horse has bolted of course—chasing his party. He would not want to put a foot wrong. Brian Connell on that committee joined in to say that the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) is important legislation and it had his support. Then of course there is Sandra Goudie—“Miss Mangrove Chopper” herself who would take an axe to any stray bit of growth. She is a woman who will gobble up that which stands before her. Did she have a criticism of this bill? Not on your life! So the National members on the Government Administration Committee were delighted to be able to nurse this bill through the committee and support the committee in the recommendations that effectively tidy up the Supreme Court appellate process increase the number of Court of Appeal judges from seven to nine and most important—and a matter not touched on by Dr Worth—bring some regularity to the way in which the judgments of the Court of Appeal are delivered. 
This appears to be a minor provision but it has quite serious implications. It was raised before the select committee by Tony Ellis and other civil liberties lawyers who were concerned at some of the trouble we have had in the last 10 years with anonymous decisions from the Court of Appeal which led to the fiasco of the Taito case which eventually had to go to the Privy Council. On the way there were several review hearings of judges being asked to stand aside because of conflict of interests because of notes they had been a party to signing but had not needed to declare their involvement. The select committee was assured that the Rules Committee would look at a process whereby the judges would be identified every time they made a decision—whether it be by way of minutes by way of notes or by way of more formal judgments. 
This bill touches on three important aspects which are really housekeeping matters. First is increasing the number of Court of Appeal judges so the workload is more manageable. A nine-member Court of Appeal is not an overstaffed Court of Appeal. There is still a considerable workload for those judges. We will have an improved number of judges we can expect better decisions and more thoughtful decisions and that should decrease the workload of the Supreme Court. Then of course there is the delivery of judgments. This is an important change which is more important in reality than on the face of it. Finally there is the tidying up of the right of appeal to the Supreme Court. 
This is a simple little bill. The people on the Government Administration Committee are perhaps more used to handling complex matters that come before it and they delighted in tidying up the bill. It is a straightforward bill. It is a service to the legal profession. It recognises the important work of the judiciary and I certainly endorse its passing.