Chauvel Charles: 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 
Chauvel Charles: 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:9632] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The parts of this legislation that reform the judicial complaints procedure and allow for an increase in the number of Associate Judges of the High Court were introduced originally by Clayton Cosgrove on 25 June 2008 and were read by the House a first time on 26 August of that year. In his capacity as Associate Minister of Justice at the time Mr Cosgrove said they would increase public confidence in the judicial complaints process and ensure that an adequate resourcing level was available to meet the growing workload of the judiciary. 
In respect of the amendments to the judicial complaints procedure Mr Cosgrove explained that the amendments were based on the Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s recommendations in his reports annually to Parliament. Despite some minor changes recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee and some further changes introduced by Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson in the Committee stage in essence the legislation that we are now reading a third time and that will become the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and the Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Act will do just that. David Gascoigne a friend and former colleague of mine now holds office as the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. As I have said on previous occasions the House can be very confident that he will do an excellent job in that role and the amendments that we are about to make to the law will assist him to do so. 
As to the raising of the cap on the number of associate judges from six to nine at the time of the first reading of this legislation Clayton Cosgrove pointed out that this is the first increase in the ceiling since 1991. He set out very helpfully in his speech the history of this class of judicial officer. He started with the amendment back in 1989 to provide for the appointment of Masters of the High Court. He noted that since their inception the jurisdiction of the masters increased from hearing summary judgment and bankruptcy applications to much more complex commercial issues such as insolvency proceedings. He canvassed the renaming of the masters in 2004 to become associate judges and he recited the fact that at that time they were given permanent tenure of the court. He noted that associate judges have a specialist civil jurisdiction and that they are invaluable in alleviating the workload pressures of judges by undertaking a range of work in the company law and insolvency areas. 
It is clear I think that the increase in the statutory cap will enable future associate judge appointments to be made if and when they are required without an unnecessary legislative delay. This in turn will ensure that adequate resources are available for the growing workload of associate judges especially given the commencement of the Insolvency Act 2006. 
Christopher Finlayson conceded during the second reading of this legislation that he and his colleagues had opposed it when it first came before the House. He had used quite strong language to express that opposition. On the judicial complaints issue he originally said in the first reading that the approach adopted by Labour was “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. The next thing we will have is … a culture of complaint being encouraged and nurtured. There are plenty of litigants out there who having lost their cases will personalise them against judges. They are encouraged by this ridiculous regime to make complaints. … We do not see any need for a deputy commissioner. In fact we do not see any need for a commissioner. … This person does not need a deputy because the prospect of conflict of interest is minimal. … There is no need to legislate the obvious such as clauses dealing with the disposal of complaints and we are therefore opposed to this stupid legislation.” 
In respect of the proposal to raise the maximum number of associate judges Mr Finlayson wondered “whether simply increasing their number at this time masks the real problem with civil litigation an area of the law that this Government [the previous Labour Government] has neglected throughout its term.” He referred to a crisis in civil litigation and a system that he said was “undermined by costs increasingly prescriptive processes and delay. A real problem in civil litigation is the vast amount of money being spent on needless discovery of documents. Another problem in my opinion is the prescriptive case management procedures”. Mr Finlayson went on to suggest that “Fundamental reform of the civil justice system is required. I do not think we need more associate judges; we need fundamental reform. We also need to free judges from the burdens of administration so that they can concentrate on their core job which is to judge.” 
As I said Mr Finlayson acknowledged the change in his position during subsequent readings of this legislation. I suppose he could hardly do less than that since by then he had become the sponsor of it. He did not apologise for the intemperate language that he had used in his original speech in the first reading; perhaps that would be too much to hope for. But Mr Finlayson went further than reversing his original position and his party’s original opposition. He tabled further amendments during the course of the Committee stage that provide for another permanent member of the Court of Appeal 16 new District Court judges and the regularisation of a higher duties allowance payable to members of the High Court who are sitting temporarily on the Court of Appeal. None of those amendments went to a select committee despite the significant financial and constitutional issues that they raise. Mr Finlayson even sought at one stage to have the House deal with them under urgency. Labour did decide in the end to support the changes sought by the Government when it was asked to do so although not to have them dealt with under urgency. 
In closing I want to tell the Government and the Attorney-General that in fact many members on this side of the House actually have sympathy with the original sentiments that he expressed. There are real issues with regard to the administration of our justice system and ordinary New Zealanders have real problems in accessing justice meaningfully in our country. Many of those matters were ameliorated by Labour when it was in office but I do agree that more thorough reform is needed. It should not simply be a matter of always increasing the maximum number of judges that can sit in a particular court. As was noted during the Committee stage debate if we reach the new ceiling for the number of District Court judges the largest court in Australasia will be represented by the District Court. It cannot be the case that we will simply continue to add more and more judicial officers to the system without looking at the fundamental questions that arise about the operation of that system. 
I hope that Mr Finlayson will be equal to the challenge of reforming the system the challenge that he laid out in Opposition and that he does not lose his passion for reform now simply because he is sitting on the Treasury benches and is being advised by officials. If he is to have a place in our history as a significant reformer of the civil justice system he needs to rise to the challenge of the need for thorough reform of that system along the lines perhaps of the excellent report of the Law Commission on the structure of the courts which sadly has sat on the shelves since it was published. That is an excellent report. It recommends thorough reform of the system the creation of a community court at the first level the rationalisation of the High Court and the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court sitting at the apex of the system. That sort of reform is needed in the system at the moment not simply the continued addition of more and more judicial officers to the creaky system that currently exists. If Mr Finlayson is up to that challenge he will certainly have support from this side of the House. If he is not then certainly the next Labour Government will look to enact those sort of reforms. Thank you.