Dalziel Lianne: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9348] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I will follow on from the comments that my colleague Trevor Mallard made because we should not be debating this bill under urgency. I know that Hansard will record that this contribution was made on 23 February but I think that in fact—I do not have my diary with me—we are up to 25 February. That means that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not in here we’re not. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well for Parliament time stands still. Most people do not know about the effect of the urgency motion: the day stops on the day that the urgency motion is adopted by the House and then we are essentially extending the sitting hours of the House so that even though we get to go home to bed at midnight and come back at 9 o’clock in the morning in actual fact Parliament shows itself as sitting on the same day—in this case 23 February. 
Normally at this time I would be chairing the Commerce Committee—a very very good committee. I think that other members of the House would agree— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Good chair. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Good deputy chair over there as well. We are very effective. And Charles Chauvel would be chairing the Regulations Review Committee. He is a very good chair of that committee; it is a very good committee. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no. It sat this morning. We dealt with the business. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Oh! Well the point I am making is that other business of the House would be being conducted in other forums if this bill were not going through under urgency. 
I think Mr Mallard missed one essential point about the nature of this legislation. Even though we agree with Part 1—we were the Government that introduced Part 1—we will have a further debate about moving amendments under urgency to what is a constitutional bill. That is the point Mr Mallard did not pick up on—this is a constitutional bill. Judicial matters bills always are constitutional bills; that is why the Attorney-General is the Minister in the chair. 
This bill is not a matter for the Minister of Justice; it is a matter for the Attorney-General. I am very pleased we are debating Part 1. I also congratulate the Attorney-General on having the integrity— 
Charles Chauvel 
: The grace. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —the grace to say that after reflection on practice the situation is different from how he expected it to be. 
But there is a little bit that kind of sticks in my throat—just a little—and I thought I would cover some of the things the Attorney-General said when he was of a different mindset. First of all he talked about the ridiculous nature of the regime. He said that in 2004 National had opposed the substantive legislation. He said: “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.” Later on in that same commentary he said: “Of course judges can be rude grumpy or discourteous. In many cases one can hardly blame them given the quality of submissions they have to hear from lawyers. But are we such a weak-kneed sissy society that if a judge barks at us we have to run off to some judicial complaints body?” 
I think that that was spoken by a true list MP. If that member had ever had a constituent in his office talking about how he or she felt about judges—not just the decisions but the way in which the constituent was treated and spoken to by the judge; sarcasm no eye contact—the member would know that those are all things that lead to a grievous sense of grievance. It is much worse often than it is at the beginning of court proceedings. 
I had such a constituent in my office last week and I can understand how he felt. I also understand the message the judge was trying to give but there was a total disconnect. Therefore there was a complaint. I see this judicial complaints process as a steam valve on what would otherwise be a pressure cooker environment. It is not for lawyers that the complaints provisions exist; it is for the ordinary people who live along the street who end up in a court environment and who find themselves on the receiving end of something more than rudeness grumpiness discourtesy or a lack of grace; it is a complete lack of a meeting of the minds. 
People often think they can effect change by court proceedings. I think that the Attorney-General and I would probably agree that that is not possible. So neighbourhood disputes end up in our courts when they should never end up there. People want to prove they are right so others have to be proved wrong but the court is not the place to prove those sorts of things. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner has really helped in that process.