Ardern Jacinda: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8855] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to follow on from my colleague on the Justice and Electoral Committee Paul Quinn and also speak to the Judicial Matters Bill. We were both members of the select committee that considered this bill. I acknowledge that the bill was considered in a very brief amount of time primarily because it was perceived within the select committee to be reasonably uncontroversial and there was only one submission. 
Basically I want to come back to the first principles which Paul Quinn touched on briefly in his contribution. The goal of this omnibus legislation in conjunction with the primary legislation was I believe to enhance public confidence in the judiciary. I think that is quite critical just as I believe that it is critical that people have faith in the politicians they democratically elect. The goal was not only to enhance public confidence in the judiciary but to ensure that there were adequate resources to meet the growing workload of the judiciary. I do not think any of us can deny that that is the case. 
We received only one submission on the Judicial Matters Bill and that was from Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias who made a submission after consultation with the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief High Court Judge. They were in support of the bill and made a few short suggestions to the bill itself. 
I will touch on the bill as it was reported back to the House from the Justice and Electoral Committee. We made one small recommendation. We recommended the insertion of clause 12A which amends section 17(1) of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act. That was to clarify that where the commissioner has exercised his or her power to take no further action on a complaint the commissioner is not required to then refer that complaint back to the head of bench. That is an acknowledgment that although what is key in all of this is that we have this system in place by the very nature of our justice system people may use this complaints process to complain about a judgment as opposed to complaining about the conduct of the judge presiding over the court at that time. We were mindful that a balance needs to be struck and that although this mechanism is key and important we do not wish it to be unnecessarily bureaucratic. 
I will come back to a few of the figures about how frequently this process has been used since its introduction in I believe 2004. But before I do that I want to return to some comments that have been made by my colleagues in this House not just this afternoon but when this bill was first introduced. In fact I want to go all the way back to the first reading of this bill in July 2008. A member of the National Party stated clearly and categorically: “This bill will not be supported by the National Party. The material dealing with the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner is as misconceived as the contents of the substantive legislation.” Not only the amendment but the whole notion of this process this backstop measure this measure of confidence was something National stood against. “Secondly although National has great respect for associate judges and the work they do simply increasing their number is not the answer. Reforming the civil justice system is the answer. Of course this Government not only does not know the answers; it is so hopeless that it does not even know which questions to ask.” 
I have a question to ask. If the key to everything including deeming the Judicial Matters Bill to be unnecessary was to reform the civil justice system why have we not seen that bill come before the House yet? Perhaps it is in the work programme and is to be introduced some time in the future. Instead National decided to support the Judicial Matters Bill. Just for clarity’s sake can I say was reading from Chris Finlayson’s first reading speech. Those were his comments. He clearly and categorically spoke against this bill. I would be very interested to hear from him further down the track as to why he has changed his mind on this bill. I would be genuinely interested. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: We didn’t get that in his speech. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: My colleague is right; we did not get that in his substantive speech and I would be interested to hear further from him. In fact I have a couple of follow-on questions for him which I will throw out now while I am reviewing his words. He also said that he saw this as “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.” So we should not have any ombudsmen in this country because then people might just complain to them! 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Who said that? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I added the ombudsmen remark but his final statement which I will read again was: “in fact that it would encourage a culture of complaints”. He went on to say: “And colleagues of mine like Judith Collins who spoke against the legislation were indeed prophetic because it has basically been a waste of time. We were right to oppose this legislation in 2004 and we are right to oppose this amendment bill the Judicial Matters Bill.” We have of course had a select committee process. That may have been the time to withdraw it. As a Minister perhaps he could have withdrawn the bill from the Order Paper. It has not happened. I would be interested to know why given the strength of feeling coming through in his speech. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: They’re flip-flopping over everything. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: It does appear as my colleague says to be a flip-flop or perhaps—I want to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt—he has had new information before him that has substantively changed his mind. I think the House would benefit from hearing that information. 
He did have one specific point on the deputy commissioner: “We do not see any need for a deputy commissioner. In fact we do not see any need for a commissioner. I noted from the commissioner’s report that it was said it would be helpful to have a deputy because of conflict of interest but Dr Worth has dealt with that. This person does not need a deputy because the prospect of conflict of interest is minimal.” I am sorry but in my mind that is not good enough. Saying that the prospect of conflict of interest is minimal and therefore there is no need for a commissioner at all again undermines that first principle of ensuring that we can all have faith in our judiciary. 
The fact that we are a small country is consistently raised when we talk about the criminal justice system and our judiciary generally in New Zealand. It was the argument made by some people in claiming that we should maintain the Privy Council—that we were too small to maintain our own truly independent judiciary and we could not do it on our own. Those were the kinds of arguments that were made probably by people who considered themselves to be royalists. But this provision is the kind of thing we put in place to pay heed to that; to acknowledge that yes we are a small country but we do have the depth the knowledge and the experience in our judiciary to be entirely independent but we should put in safety measures as well so that we can ensure that the public has faith and trust in our system. 
I do not care if there are two three or no cases of a conflict of interest for a commissioner at any one time; the amount is significant enough in my mind to require us to have the right people in place to deal with those cases and if that includes having a deputy commissioner to assist then I think that is something worth doing in order to maintain faith in the system. I want to reflect on the fact that in 2009 the Judicial Conduct Commissioner reported that the number of complaints about judges dealt with in the year ended July had increased from 132 to 189. According to Chris Finlayson they exist only because there is an ability to complain—that is the only reason there are complaints to be heard. Those complaints included 139 new complaints and 50 carried over from the previous year—so they were obviously worth consideration. The number of complaints against High Court judges increased from 19 to 44 and those against Family Court judges from 13 to 27. We have to acknowledge that some of those would have been frivolous but four complaints were significant enough to be referred to the head of bench to deal with compared with two in the previous year. The grounds for some of those were rudeness unfairness inappropriate remarks failure to listen bias and predetermination. I think those are significant enough grounds to ensure that we at least have a mechanism in place to consider those complaints on behalf of New Zealanders. 
I briefly mention that in December last year we had the first case of a judge going before the conduct panel in relation to a financial relationship. Details had emerged that the judge had presided over a case involving a Queen’s Counsel to whom he owed $250000. That is the kind of situation where it is important that we have this mechanism in place so that if there is a clear conflict of interest that has not been dealt with appropriately it can be dealt with. 
I commend this bill to the House.