Mapp Wayne: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12806] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This bill breaches constitutional conventions and I am not surprised that the previous speaker for the Government does not recognise those fundamentals. I guess that most New Zealanders who follow these kinds of issues will be well aware that we have three branches of Government—the legislature the executive and the judiciary. The legislature is properly—being the representative of the people—the superior branch of Government but what this bill does is diminish the role of the judiciary. I say that because if there is judicial misconduct currently there will be an address to the House of Representatives to remove a judge. That is to demonstrate the gravity of the issue—the fact that one branch of the Government of New Zealand is exerting a power over another branch. Properly as one would expect it is the superior branch—that of Parliament. This recognises the essence that the three branches of Government have governing powers in a sense. 
By having a new and dangerous procedure for the removal of judges by judicial commissioners and by having a Judicial Conduct Panel this bill degrades and lowers the status of the judiciary. The bill will harm the judiciary because it essentially puts in place Government appointees—people who are not directly accountable to the people of New Zealand but who are political appointees. As political appointees they will exercise power over one of the branches of Government the judiciary. That is wrong and it is the fundamental reason why National is opposed to this bill. 
On this side of the House we are used to the Government now treating constitutional conventions with some disdain. So it is not at all surprising to find the Judicial Matters Bill being dealt with separately and entirely differently from judicial appointments. Once again the Government wants an appointments system removed from people who are accountable to the public of New Zealand—to the electors. Nevertheless the Government wants to do that by a series of stealthy separate moves intended to be disconnected from one another and intended to disguise the real intent of the Government. 
Whether or not the Government likes it the effect of that is to diminish the role of the judiciary. Members of the Government might find that hard to understand but all their actions not just in this matter but also in the way they created the Court of Appeal show a scant regard for the respect of the judiciary. 
Richard Worth 
: The Supreme Court not the Court of Appeal. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Sorry. Actually effectively it was the Court of Appeal because all the Government did was just promote the judges. It was a transparently cavalier approach to dealing with constitutional issues. Not once did members on the other side of the House even consider it appropriate to approach members on this side of the House—for instance my learned colleague Mr Worth National’s spokesperson on justice—on this hugely important issue of the appointment of our Supreme Court justices. No it was done by secret cabal. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General simply got together and made their own decisions. This bill is an unfortunate and dangerous repetition of that kind of approach. 
If members want further proof of these assertions they should look at the mischief this bill is purported to fix. As my colleague Mr Worth very thoughtfully noted in the minority report this issue has not come before Parliament since 1913. There is no mischief to correct here. In any event it is extraordinary that a correction would be made in such a disconnected way whereby no attempt whatsoever has been made to gain any sense of a bipartisan approach. One of my real regrets about the way important constitutional issues are dealt with is that the Government has failed to understand the necessity of firstly gaining the support of those people affected—in the case of the Supreme Court business the principal users—and secondly making an effort to reach across to this side of the House to ask Opposition members how we could improve our constitution for the benefit of New Zealand. No effort was made whatsoever because the Government shows a certain contempt for constitutional principles. That is precisely why we are faced with these kinds of bills. 
The Government has introduced things like part-time judges and it has introduced the whole idea of just increasing the number of judges without a real consideration of the need to do so. It is not surprising to find when I set out all the adverse features of this bill and of the way the Government has conducted itself that the Government has not gained any support from the profession. As was noted in one of the earlier speeches prior to 6 o’clock it is extraordinary to find that the Law Society made a submission that was directly opposed to the bill. The usual practice is that the Law Society comments on particular aspects of a bill; it rarely opposes the substance of a bill in total. When it does so that is supposed to be a real warning signal to the Government that it is going too far and is losing the confidence of people who should have faith in its institutions. 
 I want to conclude on this point: an arrogant Government is a Government that ignores constitutional propriety that ignores the views of key stakeholders and that makes no attempt whatsoever at bipartisanship. This Government has all the hallmarks of an arrogant Government and that will prove to be its undoing.