Finlayson Christopher: Judicature Modernisation Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionFinlayson Christopher: Judicature Modernisation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 05 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15306. Text is subject to correction.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I agree with the previous speaker David Parker that the mercantilisation of the civil justice system is something that we should be very concerned about. Many of the problems that he correctly identified are with respect matters that I think can be dealt with by rules of court or judges actually taking control of a proceeding at an early stage. I do not know that statutory reform is necessarily going to deal with those issues. Having said that however there are a number of matters set out in this legislation the JudicatureModernisation Bill that I believe will go some way to addressing that dreadful problem of mercantalisation and the Minister of Justice has already referred to them.I want to begin by acknowledging the outstanding contribution of the Minister of Justice in this monumental reform. That is no hyperbole. This is the most important review of our court statutes in over 60 years. Indeed the Judicature Act has not been reviewed comprehensively since 1908. So she deserves the praise of every member in this House for what is a truly outstanding piece of work. I want to also acknowledge the Law Commission and the Minister’s excellent officials in the Ministry of Justice. Frankly it should have happened in 2003 after the Supreme Court was created but I regret to say that the previous Government was not up to it. But we have now a real Minister of Justice who understands these things and the importance of this work hence this reform. Much of this reform deals with the issue of judges. I just want to say a thing or two about our judges. As Lord Bingham a now deceased but great former law lord in England once said: “the public entertain a range of views [about judges] not all consistent (one minute they are senile and out of touch the next the very people to conduct a detailed and searching inquiry; one minute port-gorged dinosaurs imposing savage sentences on hapless miscreants the next wishy-washy liberals unwilling to punish anyone properly for anything) although often unfavorable.”I want to put on record that this country is very lucky to have a world-class judiciary although sometimes it is subjected to unwarranted criticism. Some criticism most recently in one of the Sunday papers attaches to judges’ remuneration which is particularly unfair given that it is set independently. One can criticise judgments but we have always got to be very careful to avoid personal attacks on judges which are unacceptable.I also want to say that year after year the vast majority of complaints to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner are found to be groundless. I want at this moment to acknowledge Sir David Gascoigne and Alan Ritchie for the tremendous work they do as the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. Many of the complaints to those two gentlemen are indeed malignant and vexatious; still more are ill conceived. Lately we have seen vexatious litigants attempting to draw the courts in as parties to their own litigation making targets of the judges. I want to say something about vexatious litigants in a minute because that is a very serious problem this country faces.There are a number of matters that the Justice and Electoral Committee will need to look at very carefully—for example clause 93 which says that the Attorney-General is to publish information concerning the judicial appointments process. In fact I have done that in relation to High Court procedure. It is transparent but it is not well known but now as a result of the work that the Chief Justice and I have done it will hopefully be much better known. The select committee is going to have to have a very good look at clause 161 which deals with contempt of court. Contempt of court is set out in clause 161 and there is a cross-reference to the other courts—for example the District Court and the Employment Court and so on. It deals with a particular subclass of contempt contempt in the face of the court. That is a very serious issue. Other work on contempt needs to be undertaken. The Law Commission is looking at that issue now. There is also existing law—for example on the breach of suppression orders something Mr Goff knows a lot about because he was recently warned by the police about breaching suppression orders.I also want to say something very important on the issue of vexatious litigants. There are so many more now than there were. Once upon a time in Wellington there was one person who was sort of the Albert Haddock of the Wellington District Court—Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: A former National member of Parliament.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The New Zealand First member will remember that programme from the late 1960sA. P. Herbert’sMisleading Cases. What we now have is almost an epidemic of vexatious litigants which is why clauses 162 to 165 are so very important because they will replace the existing rule for vexatious litigant and insert these rules which deal with restrictions on either the commencement to a limited extent of a proceeding an extended effect or a general effect. I hope that the select committee takes a good look at this because vexatious litigants are a problem and we really do need to do our homework on this particular issue.Mrs Collins has also referred to clause 166 dealing with reserved judgments. That is in the context of the senior courts. It will also apply in other courts. That is designed to ensure that the judges of all courts are able to ensure that judgments are given as quickly as possible because sometimes the delays can be rather lengthy. The other part that I certainly hope that the select committee takes a good look at is the rules relating to recusal of judges. Many of these provisions set out in what will be the Senior Courts Act are replicated in Part 2 which is dealing with the District Court.I do want to refer simply to clause 214 in Part 2 which deals with the appointment of acting judges. Again this is an area where the Chief District Court Judge and I have recently agreed on a protocol. When I came to office there were quite a number of acting judges. What I have tried to do in conjunction with the Chief District Court Judge is narrow that number down because there have been a number of attacks on the appointment of acting judges. The allegation is basically that in order to get a further acting warrant they have to do what the executive wants so it is inherently what one Scottish judge once called a cheap and nasty form of justice. So I believe we should have acting judges only in very special circumstances. That protocol on acting judges has now been approved.There are a number of consequential amendments to the Employment Relations Act and the Resource Management Act. The honourable Minister has also referred to the recasting of the Judicature Amendment Act one of the most critical pieces of legislation passed by this Parliament in many years which sets out the rules for judicial review. We have rewritten it in modern English and it too requires a good hard look on the part of the select committee.There is a lot in the bill. I would not simply characterise it as mere administrative reform; it raises a number of very important constitutional issues. But I do end by saying that the Minister has done a fantastic job. We can be really proud of this effort and I do hope that the select committee will turn this legislation round because the package will be very good for the administration of justice in our land.