Barker Rick: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Barker Rick: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1758] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time 
. I thank the Government Administration Committee for its careful consideration of this bill. The bill amends the Judicature Act 1908. The committee recommends some amendments in the light of public submissions and I agree with those recommendations. The changes improve the clarity of the provisions to ensure that Parliament’s intent will be clearly understood. It is essential in a democratic society that courts have the confidence of the public. For this confidence to be encouraged the courts need to be responsive timely effective and accessible. Combined these conditions will help ensure access to justice for all. 
This bill will particularly assist the responsiveness of the Court of Appeal. In recent years the Court of Appeal has faced an escalating workload. The bill increases the statutory limit on the number of judges who may be appointed as permanent members of the court. This is the first increase since 1987. The increase will be achieved within the overall statutory limit of the number of judges who can be appointed to our higher courts: the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. As well this bill introduces greater flexibility in the court processes which will provide for more efficient use of judicial time and resources. These changes will assist the Court of Appeal to carry out its important role. 
This bill ensures that the courts are effective and accessible by increasing access to New Zealand’s final appellate court the Supreme Court. One of the goals of the Supreme Court Act is to increase access from our inferior courts to our highest appellate court through an orderly appellate pathway. This was largely achieved by the removal of the existing statutory bars to take an appeal beyond a certain level and replacing them with the ability to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The proposed amendments in this bill are in keeping with this approach. The bill will remove the residual barrier precluding the opportunity to seek leave to access the Supreme Court. 
I now turn to the committee’s recommendations. The committee was satisfied that increasing the maximum number of permanent members of the Court of Appeal together with the continued use of High Court judges in the criminal and civil appeals division is sufficient for the foreseeable future. When considering whether an increase of up to two judges was sufficient the committee carefully considered the suggestion of double-dipping in the use of acting judges in the High Court which had been raised in submissions. The committee was satisfied that judicial independence was not being compromised. I agree with the committee’s conclusions. 
I take this opportunity to add my own comment that New Zealand is well served by its judges. The use of acting judges in the High Court provides a degree of flexibility to supplement the permanent judicial resources of the High Court. An acting judge is used when there is an unexpected variation in the High Court’s workload or when there is a temporary absence of a permanent judge. In recent years the use of acting judges has declined due to the significant increase made in 2004 to the statutory cap on the number of permanent High Court judges. At present there is only one acting judge in the High Court. An acting judge is paid at the same rate as a High Court judge for the period during which he or she acts as a judge and not otherwise. As a former judge an acting judge will also be in receipt of his or her judicial superannuation entitlement. Contrary to criticism this is not double-dipping. 
I return to the committee’s recommendations. The committee recommended a technical amendment to clause 5. In considering clause 5 the committee spent some time addressing a submitter’s concerns that the judge or judges involved in decisions may not always be identified in the court minutes interlocutory judgments and other court directions. The then President of the Court of Appeal the Hon Justice Anderson advised the Ministry of Justice that he had formally reminded all judges and registry staff of the need for judges involved to be identified in every judgment minute and direction of the court. This action was welcomed by both the committee and me. However to ensure the continuity of the practice the committee recommends that the Rules Committee consider amending the Court of Appeal Rules that regulate the court’s practice and procedure. I agree with that recommendation. 
Clause 6 removes the ability to appeal to the Privy Council in section 65. It is a consequential amendment arising from the establishment of the Supreme Court. There was some concern that the clause may be interpreted in a manner that would preclude an affected party from being able to seek leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court. The committee’s recommendation to repeal section 65 clarifies that this is not the case. Parties affected by section 64 will not be excluded from the opportunity to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. This clarification is welcomed. 
The committee also recommended that clause 7 be amended. This clause amends section 67 which outlines how a party may seek leave to appeal a High Court decision on an appeal from an inferior court such as a District Court. The committee’s recommendation clarifies a party’s ability to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court following a decision of the Court of Appeal. 
I will be circulating a Supplementary Order Paper proposing several minor amendments for consideration at the Committee stage of the bill. The Supplementary Order Paper will change the commencement date of clauses 4 and 5 to allow time for the Rules Committee to amend the Court of Appeal Rules to establish new processes for delivering judgments. 
Again I thank the members of the Government Administration Committee for their valuable contribution to improving the bill. The bill will encourage public confidence in the court system by ensuring continued timely access to justice and more efficient use of judicial resources. I commend the bill to the House.