Tanczos Nandor: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8310] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Judicial Matters Bill as previous speakers have said is just one part of some significant reforms of the legal system being undertaken by this Government that the Green Party in general does support. 
Richard Worth 
: It doesn’t support it. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: It does support them I say to Mr Worth. The Green Party will support this bill going to a select committee and we look forward to hearing submissions on it particularly in the context of a number of the issues raised by the Supreme Court Bill as has been referred to previous speakers. We are pleased to see that the bill contains a number of changes to the management of the judiciary; we think a number of those changes are long overdue. But as previous speakers have said there are some important omissions in it and we hope there will be an opportunity to address some of those things during the select committee process. 
Of course the bill has to be seen in the context of the review by Chen and Palmer of the judicial management system. The  
Judicial Administration Issues 
 report which was released last year raised a number of important issues. One of the questions that the report looked to address was that of a judicial appointments commission. The Greens do support the establishment of such a body as does United Future as stated by Murray Smith. The Supreme Court Bill which is currently before the Justice and Electoral Committee has precipitated wide discussion as members know on the appointment process for judges in the context of the establishment of a domestic court of final appeal. Although there has been no suggestion that the process has been biased or corrupted in the past there is growing interest in this country in removing judicial appointments from the realm of politics as much as possible. The basic principle is that judges not only should be free of political influence but should be seen to be free of it. That is particularly important if we are to move to a domestic court of final appeal such as a Supreme Court. 
That general principle was acknowledged in the Chen and Palmer report. The report comments on the fundamental constitutional importance of the independence of the judiciary continued—and probably intensifying—public scepticism about judicial independence criticism of judicial accountability and of course Labour’s 1999 commitment to introduce an independent decision-making body for judicial appointments and removals. But the report did not go so far as to recommend an independent appointments body which the Green Party believes is the obvious logical step to take given those stated concerns. The Greens are very keen to see the establishment of such a body and we will be very interested in what submitters to the select committee say on that subject. Unlike Mr Smith I do not agree that the Justice and Electoral Committee will be unable to look at that question. If it is raised by submitters of course we will look at it and we believe that there are a number of ways that such a thing could be introduced. This bill is the appropriate vehicle to do that. 
A number of submissions on the Supreme Court Bill also addressed the question of the retirement age of judges. The ministerial advisory group on the Supreme Court also suggested that the question of the retirement age of judges generally should be looked at although it did not express an opinion on that matter. That is also something the select committee should examine in the context of this bill. 
The bill does some good things. We welcome the establishment of a Judicial Conduct Commissioner. We believe that this new position and process will increase public access to the complaints procedure and it will also increase transparency in the complaints process which is essential if we want to build public confidence in the judicial process. This position and process are particularly essential when judges are accorded the protection of absolute immunity from suit. Although there are good reasons for that protection it needs to be properly balanced with a transparent process for public complaint. Judicial accountability is essential given the extraordinary level of authority and coercive power that the judiciary holds over the community. 
The Greens also welcome the ability for judges to work part-time. We believe that this is an important facility if we want to attract more judges to the bench and it is important if we want to attract judges who are committed to their families and to community activity as well. This provision will help to increase the diversity of judges and perhaps as a result their temperament. 
The Greens are pleased to see the capacity to increase the number of District Court and High Court judges. One of the major issues for our judicial system is the delays for individuals and their families who either seek justice in the court or are subject to the force of the law. We believe that long delays between hearings cause considerable uncertainty unnecessary disruption to families and hardship. Given that the court process is an intimidating and complex process this uncertainty and disruption will be assisted to some degree by effectively increased court sitting time. 
The bill as I have said has a number of omissions but the Green Party believes that it is a useful place to start. On that basis we are supporting it going to a select committee and look forward to hearing submissions at that stage.