Finlayson Christopher: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2539] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As the acting Minister Jim Sutton said this bill gives some belated but much-needed partial relief to the Court of Appeal. Clause 3 which has not been amended since 1987 will have the effect of amending section 57 of the Act to permit the appointment of eight permanent judges to the Court of Appeal. 
The Court of Appeal plays a major role in the justice system of this country. It has been overworked for a number of years and it reflects no credit on the Government that it has taken as long as this for something to be done about it. At the very least there should have been amendments to the Judicature Act in 2004 when the Supreme Court was established and the Privy Council appeal system was let go. 
This provision is a major improvement. It will enable the court to sit in two divisions and will allow at least two judges to be working on their written judgments. Hopefully that will go some way to improving the procedures of our intermediate appellate court. 
 As I said in the second reading debate—and I also mentioned it during the Committee stage—it is a good first step but I think the time is coming when a leave provision needs to introduced. I also think the time is coming when the Law Commission’s report has to be dusted off. We need to consider whether appeals from District Court jury trials should go to the Court of Appeal as they do now or to a full court of the High Court. So that is the first part of this legislation. 
The second part improves some court procedures not just in the Court of Appeal but also in the High Court. The Minister referred to the minor amendment instituted by clause 5 which is about the procedures when judgments of the Court of Appeal are given. He also mentioned a minor change introduced by clause 5A on Supplementary Order Paper 21 dated 21 March whereby a judge or associate judge may by video link preside at a hearing of specified matters. 
Some concern was expressed in the Committee about this procedure and whether it could be used for nefarious purposes but in my opinion it simply reflects existing practices. I have been involved in a number of cases over the years where evidence at the trial—and not just interlocutory matters—has been taken by video link. I recall on one occasion having to get up very early to go down to the Auckland University video centre so that the evidence of an expert in a case could be taken from England. So new section 26IB in clause 5A is a standard change and it causes me no distress at all. 
The third part of the legislation rectifies an embarrassing mistake that reflects rather poorly in my opinion on this Parliament. Clause 6 which is in Part 2 provides that section 65 of the Judicature Act is to be repealed. Section 65 deals with decisions of the Court of Appeal whereby a case is removed to it and it provides that the decision of the Court of Appeal is final subject to an appeal to the Privy Council. That proviso was not repealed in 2003 when the Supreme Court Bill was being debated. It should have been. Other legislation was the subject of consequential amendment on the passage of the Supreme Court Act but for some unknown reason that particular section of the Judicature Act remained unchanged until someone in the Ministry of Justice apparently spotted the error after the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court had mentioned it and it now forms part of this amending legislation. 
That is the kind of sloppy unsatisfactory drafting that bedevils much of our legislation. The mistake should have been picked up as I said a couple of years ago and it reflects no credit on this Parliament that we have this kind of sloppy drafting. Quite frankly we need to lift our game. So that is really what the bill is about—giving belated relief improving some procedures and stitching up an embarrassing mistake. 
But I want to end my third reading speech by saying that I think the time has come for more than just piecemeal reform of this legislation. As the Minister said this is the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3). The time has come for us to take a good look at all the statutes governing courts and tribunals in this country and have a consolidated courts and tribunals Act that deals with the High Court the Court of Appeal the Supreme Court the Maori Land Court the Maori Appellate Court and certain statutory tribunals. 
I think the time has come for a consolidated statute. The Judicature Act 1908 is hopelessly out of date. When one reads the synopsis of the Act one sees that a large number of sections have been repealed. Part 3 is a splendid example of a miscellany of sections that deal with a range of matters that are not related to the establishment and constitution of the High Court and Court of Appeal. 
So I would strongly submit to the Minister that that is a useful exercise that could be undertaken by this Parliament. I am sure the Justice and Electoral Committee would enjoy the work of bringing together the key statutory provisions dealing with all the courts including the Maori Land Court and the Maori Appellate Court within one statute. 
I go further than that. I do not know whether the Minister read an exceptionally good address given last week by the President of the Law Commission of New Zealand Sir Geoffrey Palmer to the New Zealand Centre for Public Law at Victoria University. Sir Geoffrey Palmer was reflecting on law reform and the Law Commission after 20 years and said we need to try a little harder. That could be the subtext of this legislation tonight—that Parliament needs to try a little harder. 
One of the key matters he talked about was the accessibility of statute law in New Zealand. He made the comment that the New Zealand Parliament is the fastest lawmaker in the West and that massive amounts of law are made in New Zealand every year. Indeed we have nearly 1100 statutes as part of our primary law—putting to one side our secondary legislation. He went on to say that New Zealand’s statute law is simply not accessible and I quote: “In New Zealand unless one knows the name of the principal public Act there is a good chance that relevant provisions can be overlooked. The New Zealand statute book is both massive and unmanageable. More useful is the American approach where both at state and federal level a code is produced of all statute law or federal law passed by the legislature and arranged under topic headings.” He referred for example to the code of the state of Iowa which is contained in four volumes and he said that the code allows people in both the public and the private sectors to locate and read all the relevant primary statute law that may be important to a particular concern. 
I heartily endorse what Sir Geoffrey said in his speech. I think it could be an excellent exercise for the New Zealand Parliament to codify much of its legislation and I can think of no better place to start than with the statutes that govern the courts of New Zealand. There needs to be a comprehensive code or statute bringing together all the relevant provisions and as Sir Geoffrey said we need to try a little harder. 
As I said this legislation is an improvement but it is piecemeal and bitsy and at the end of the day the Judicature Act is a mess. I described it during the Committee stage as a dog’s breakfast. The District Courts Act 1947 is not much better. There really needs to be a bit of effort made by this place to bring together all these pieces of legislation in one statute that is easily readable and easily accessed by lawyers and laypeople. 
So the National Party will support this legislation through its third reading but like so much legislation introduced by this Government I would have to give it only a C pass. It is a rather poor effort indeed.