CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : The National Party will support this bill through all its stages, and we will support its rapid return to the House from the Justice and Electoral Committee for a number of reasons.
Primarily, as the Minister observed, the gestation period for this redraft has been quite some time, and during its course the Rules Committee has extensively consulted on these rules. So it should not be necessary for the Justice and Electoral Committee to have an extensive period of public submission. This may seem to be a rather dry and dusty topic--
Dr Richard Worth: No!
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Oh, it is, I tell Dr Worth, or at least it is on appearances. But I think it is fair to say that procedure is not an aspect of justice; it is essential to justice. The primary aim of the High Court Rules, and indeed of other rules of court, must be to secure, as the Minister said, the just, speedy, and expeditious determination of proceedings. It is also true that, to the public, the procedures of the court seem to be very arcane, and people do not seem to understand them, which is not surprising given the way they are drafted.
Indeed, one English commentator said, of civil justice: “Its procedural part is generally or at any rate popularly regarded as being highly technical, rule-ridden, formalistic, shrouded in mystery, and serviced by its own cloistered priests, some of whom perform their ritual capers and speak in unfamiliar language in strange surroundings and, in the highest strata, dressed in ornamental garb. Thus it is that for most people civil justice is a remote, incomprehensible, mystifying, and in some ways terrifying area of the law. What is needed above all today is a breath of fresh air to blow through the corridors of civil justice to demystify the process, to render it plain, simple, and intelligible, to enable not only the experts in other disciplines but also the person in the High Street to understand and appreciate its operation, and in this way to bring justice closer to the people.” One can only say “Amen!” to that.
I want to recount the history of the rules revision project, because I do not think that the Minister got it entirely right. The original Code of Civil Procedure had been in force in this country for many years, and in 1970 the Rules Revision Committee was constituted as a subcommittee of the Rules Committee. Its purpose was to take a good look at the Code of Civil Procedure and to update it. Incredibly, there was a 14-year gestation period, and the reforms were passed in the 1980s—shortly, I think, after Sir Geoffrey Palmer became Attorney-General. The High Court Rules have been in force since that time, and during that period there have been a number of changes to the rules as they have been progressively updated by the Rules Committee over the years. I was a member of the Rules Committee from 1999 until 2005 when I was booted off it shortly after I came in here, because the Ministry of Justice officials did not think it was appropriate for me to be on it, even though they got it wrong—it is a statutory committee and it is not part of the executive.
Anyway, in 2002 I proposed that the members should step back from the Rules Committee day-to-day workload, look at the rules as they had developed, and consider whether an update was required. And after 6 years we got to the stage where this bill can be introduced. The changes that are proposed are stylistic more than substantive. The rules as they had developed after 20 years—being in force since 1985—had become very convoluted and confusing. We had rules such as 700ZZAA, and so on, and the proposal was to put them in a form that was easily understood, so that is what we have with this bill. Instead of having the rules sequential, there are now parts that deal with particular issues—for example, Part 5 deals with “Commencement of proceedings and filing of documents”.
The changes that are proposed are sensible. There is not a great deal of substantive change and those that are substantive we can cover when the bill comes back to the House from the select committee. A number of prospective changes are introduced by this legislation, but they will not come into force immediately. For example, the bill proposes a commencement date of 2009, except for Subparts 15 and 16 of Part 5 of the High Court Rules. These latter provisions, which relate to the electronic filing of documents at the commencement of proceedings, will commence at a date to be established by Order in Council. These are actually rules that are in force in pretty well every jurisdiction except New Zealand. Electronic filing in this country is long overdue, and it is time that the Ministry of Justice moved to introduce it. It is not a huge task, and it will greatly simplify procedures for those who are involved in court proceedings. It will also cut down on the excessive paper that much litigation seems to generate. That is an example of a prospective change but, as I say, most of the changes dealt with here are stylistic. Indeed, that was the purpose of this rules revision project. It was not to deal with substance but to deal with putting the rules in a more sensible order, and then substantive reform could come at a later stage.
The Minister quite fairly mentioned Justice Baragwanath. He was chair of the Rules Committee for the major part of the project, did an excellent job, and ensured that this project was progressed. The former Attorney-General came along to the committee, and she thought it was all too hard and would require a great deal of expenditure and research. It was due to Justice Baragwanath and also to George Tanner, who was then Chief Parliamentary Counsel, and to Dr Don Mathieson QC, who was engaged and who has done an excellent job to update these rules, and his efforts should not go unnoticed. The Minister also did not mention the excellent work undertaken by various members of the Law Society. Groups of people were asked to look at particular areas. They did that work without delay, and their reports, which were fed into the Rules Committee and into the steering committee, were of a very high standard indeed.
So that is the background to the introduction of this legislation. As I said, National will cooperate to ensure that the legislation is passed through all its stages very quickly. It is long overdue; it is but a start. As I said at the outset, this is a very arcane area of the law, but it is fundamental to dispute resolution. If the rules are unintelligible or if they are unnecessarily arcane, they can delay the resolution of civil proceedings, and that is not in the public interest. The National Party supports this legislation, says it is long overdue, but says that it is only a step in the reform of civil justice. It is one of those areas of the law, like so many areas, that this Government fails to understand and has failed to deal with in its 9 long years in Government, and it is high time that this area was given some prominence because it is extremely important. If people cannot go to court and resolve their disputes in a peaceable manner, justly, speedily, and inexpensively, then we fail as a country.
National will support this legislation through all its stages. As I said, it is long overdue, and it is only because of the efforts of Justice Baragwanath and a small team of people that it has been brought to this stage.
Dr Richard Worth: No!
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Oh, it is, I tell Dr Worth, or at least it is on appearances. But I think it is fair to say that procedure is not an aspect of justice; it is essential to justice. The primary aim of the High Court Rules, and indeed of other rules of court, must be to secure, as the Minister said, the just, speedy, and expeditious determination of proceedings. It is also true that, to the public, the procedures of the court seem to be very arcane, and people do not seem to understand them, which is not surprising given the way they are drafted.
Indeed, one English commentator said, of civil justice: “Its procedural part is generally or at any rate popularly regarded as being highly technical, rule-ridden, formalistic, shrouded in mystery, and serviced by its own cloistered priests, some of whom perform their ritual capers and speak in unfamiliar language in strange surroundings and, in the highest strata, dressed in ornamental garb. Thus it is that for most people civil justice is a remote, incomprehensible, mystifying, and in some ways terrifying area of the law. What is needed above all today is a breath of fresh air to blow through the corridors of civil justice to demystify the process, to render it plain, simple, and intelligible, to enable not only the experts in other disciplines but also the person in the High Street to understand and appreciate its operation, and in this way to bring justice closer to the people.” One can only say “Amen!” to that.
I want to recount the history of the rules revision project, because I do not think that the Minister got it entirely right. The original Code of Civil Procedure had been in force in this country for many years, and in 1970 the Rules Revision Committee was constituted as a subcommittee of the Rules Committee. Its purpose was to take a good look at the Code of Civil Procedure and to update it. Incredibly, there was a 14-year gestation period, and the reforms were passed in the 1980s—shortly, I think, after Sir Geoffrey Palmer became Attorney-General. The High Court Rules have been in force since that time, and during that period there have been a number of changes to the rules as they have been progressively updated by the Rules Committee over the years. I was a member of the Rules Committee from 1999 until 2005 when I was booted off it shortly after I came in here, because the Ministry of Justice officials did not think it was appropriate for me to be on it, even though they got it wrong—it is a statutory committee and it is not part of the executive.
Anyway, in 2002 I proposed that the members should step back from the Rules Committee day-to-day workload, look at the rules as they had developed, and consider whether an update was required. And after 6 years we got to the stage where this bill can be introduced. The changes that are proposed are stylistic more than substantive. The rules as they had developed after 20 years—being in force since 1985—had become very convoluted and confusing. We had rules such as 700ZZAA, and so on, and the proposal was to put them in a form that was easily understood, so that is what we have with this bill. Instead of having the rules sequential, there are now parts that deal with particular issues—for example, Part 5 deals with “Commencement of proceedings and filing of documents”.
The changes that are proposed are sensible. There is not a great deal of substantive change and those that are substantive we can cover when the bill comes back to the House from the select committee. A number of prospective changes are introduced by this legislation, but they will not come into force immediately. For example, the bill proposes a commencement date of 2009, except for Subparts 15 and 16 of Part 5 of the High Court Rules. These latter provisions, which relate to the electronic filing of documents at the commencement of proceedings, will commence at a date to be established by Order in Council. These are actually rules that are in force in pretty well every jurisdiction except New Zealand. Electronic filing in this country is long overdue, and it is time that the Ministry of Justice moved to introduce it. It is not a huge task, and it will greatly simplify procedures for those who are involved in court proceedings. It will also cut down on the excessive paper that much litigation seems to generate. That is an example of a prospective change but, as I say, most of the changes dealt with here are stylistic. Indeed, that was the purpose of this rules revision project. It was not to deal with substance but to deal with putting the rules in a more sensible order, and then substantive reform could come at a later stage.
The Minister quite fairly mentioned Justice Baragwanath. He was chair of the Rules Committee for the major part of the project, did an excellent job, and ensured that this project was progressed. The former Attorney-General came along to the committee, and she thought it was all too hard and would require a great deal of expenditure and research. It was due to Justice Baragwanath and also to George Tanner, who was then Chief Parliamentary Counsel, and to Dr Don Mathieson QC, who was engaged and who has done an excellent job to update these rules, and his efforts should not go unnoticed. The Minister also did not mention the excellent work undertaken by various members of the Law Society. Groups of people were asked to look at particular areas. They did that work without delay, and their reports, which were fed into the Rules Committee and into the steering committee, were of a very high standard indeed.
So that is the background to the introduction of this legislation. As I said, National will cooperate to ensure that the legislation is passed through all its stages very quickly. It is long overdue; it is but a start. As I said at the outset, this is a very arcane area of the law, but it is fundamental to dispute resolution. If the rules are unintelligible or if they are unnecessarily arcane, they can delay the resolution of civil proceedings, and that is not in the public interest. The National Party supports this legislation, says it is long overdue, but says that it is only a step in the reform of civil justice. It is one of those areas of the law, like so many areas, that this Government fails to understand and has failed to deal with in its 9 long years in Government, and it is high time that this area was given some prominence because it is extremely important. If people cannot go to court and resolve their disputes in a peaceable manner, justly, speedily, and inexpensively, then we fail as a country.
National will support this legislation through all its stages. As I said, it is long overdue, and it is only because of the efforts of Justice Baragwanath and a small team of people that it has been brought to this stage.
- Debate interrupted.
