THE JUDICIARY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8559, 23 October 1913, Page 10

THE JUDICIARY

INFORMATION WANTED WHO MADE THE RECOMMENDATIONS? POINTED QUESTIONS BY SIR JOSEPH WARD. Some stormy discussion and eager requests for information as to who made the recommendations embodied in the Judicature Amendment Bill were heard in the House yesterday afternoon, upon the presentation by Mr Vernon Reed (Bay of Islands) of the report of the Statutes Revision Committee, recommending that the measure ho allowed to proceed, with certain amendments. He moved that tho report lie on the table. Mr T. M. Wilford (Hutt) asked whether it was proposed to make any alteration in the number of the judges, in view of what had occurred. There was a great deal of difference of opinion regarding the proposal, for instance, to divide tho Appeal Court, and more information was required on tho whole position. “I suppose,” said Mr Wilford, “that Mr Hosking, of Dunedin, will be one judge, and that the Solicitor-General will bo another. I suppose too, that Mr Ostler will be elevated to the position of SolicitorGeneral.” (Members: “Oh!”) He thought the House should know a little more than they did then. WAS THE CHIEF JUSTICE CONSULTED ? Sir Joseph Ward said that he assumed that as tho member for Hutt was a member of the Statutes Revision Committee, he sx with some knowledge that other members did not have. Mr AYilford: “I wasn’t present at the committee.” Sir Joseph Ward: “Well, has any member of tho committee been taken into tho Minister’s confidence?” Mr McCallum: “No.” Sir Joseph Ward: “Well, I want to protest against tho position wo now find ourselves in.” He could not for ian instant believe that if the Chief Justice was consulted in these matters, the representatives of the people should not know what was going on. The Attorney-General, as the medium between the Chief Justice and tho House, should give the House all ■the information possible. What did the committee know? Mr Leo (Oamaru): “Don t you know?” , Sir Joseph Ward: “No, X don t. The Houso should know everything. There is no reason why the Houso should not know tho opinion of the Supreme Court judges concerning the proposals. What was tho bill referred to the Statutes Revision Committee for?” , Mr V. Reed; “There are amendments.” Sir Joseph Ward: “XV ell, was &videne© taken —and I understand it waa —isn’t the House entitled to hear what the evidence was? It’s no interference with justice or the Supreme Court judges, but wo are entitled to know why two more judges are going to be appointed. Would tho AttorneyGeneral tell us whether tho Chief Jus--tico had recommended the appointment of two more judges?” Mr J. Payne (Grey Lynn) agreed with tho leader of the Opposition that tho taxpayers were entitled to know why two more judges were to he appointed. The party in power had made such a parade of what they called extravagant expenditure, that SjC Joseph Ward was justified in asking tho question. The public disr appointed at tho broken pledge of tho Government to reduce expenditure, and they wanted to know everything that was going on. EXTRAORDINARY proposal. Mr G. Laurenson (Lyttelton) said that this extraordinary proposal to make two appointments at £l/o0 a year each was simply following up the practice .which had been adopted by the party in power of appointing highly-paid officials. This was in spite of the fact that tho Government had come into power shrieking against the alleged extravagance of the previous Governments. Mr G. AY. Russell (Avon) also agreed that the House should know what the committee had hoard about this matt<3Mr G. Witty (Riccarton) said the Minister should explain the amendments that had - been made hy the committee. 7 , ~ , , Sir Joseph AVard; “Me want to know more than that.” Mr Witty; “ Yes, we want all tho information the committee got.” Mr R. McCJHum (Wairau) said that as a member of the Statutes Revision Committee he thought that there was nothing given to the committee which could not bo given to the House. There was a division amongst tho Supreme Court judges on the matter. not going to say what the division was. The committee was unanimous that an addition to tho judiciary was necessary, but they knew that there had been a further change while tho committee was sitting. He was not foing • to say what the details of the ivision were amongst the judges. Sir Joseph AVard : “ Don’t you think wo should have them ?” Mr McCallum; “ Certainly. Even to the committee the Attorney-General had only given tho effect of the judges' views.” “CONFIDENTIAL.” The Hon. A. L. Herdman said he proposed when the second reading came along to give the reasons why two additional judges were to be appointed. Ho regarded for the present the communications which he had had on the subject from the judges as confidential. It was ridiculous to suggest that there was anything to conceal. If tho judges were overworked, and if the legal work of the country was not being carried out expeditiously the member for Lyttelton would be the first to say that they should have assistance. The Law Society had recommended the additions to tho bench. Ho would remind the leader of the Opposition that his former colleague, the late AttorneyGeneral, had brought down proposals relating to the judiciary in 190 S providing, amongst other things, for a permanent Court of Appeal, an institution which he thought then, and still thought, impossible. For the present, he preferred to treat the judges’ communications as confidential. Mr G. AY. Forbes (Hurunui) said that the House should have all the information then, and not wait for the second reading. Apparently the opinions of the Law Society carried more weight with the present Government than the general public. Ho was so dissatisfied at the information not being available that he felt it his duty

to move that tho matter should be referred back to the Statutes Revision Committee. Before they agreed to the appointment of any more high-salaried officers, they should know all that there was to know about them. SHOCK TO MANY PEOPLE. Tho Hon. D. Baddo (Kariapoi) said chat the announcement that the Government intended to appoint two more judges was a shook to many people. Tho information saying why the appointments were necessary, had never geen given. The public were certainly being left in the dark. Sir Joseph Ward said he was sorry that the Minister for Justice had not answered ono of the questions he had put to him. The Minister had said ho was prepared to regard the judges’ communications as confidential. Mr Herdman: “If you are prepared to break confidences, I’m not.” Sir Joseph Ward (heatedly); "I vc never, during the whole of my public life broken any confidence placed in me ” It was no use the Minister hid ,ng behind such an excuse. It was ridiculous. Why should not the House have the information regarding the recommendations of tho Chief Justice. The truth was that the judges had been treated very liberally, in that they had been granted twelve months’ leave of absence in turn. There co'ald not be anything confidential in the Chief Justice’s recommendations re garding the additional appointments. Two years ago, the increase of judges was opposed by the Chief Justice. Mr Herdman: “Five years ago!” Sir Joseph Ward; “Whatever tho time was—but even more recently than that.” It was not confidential to say whether the .Chief Justice supported an increase in the number of judges. They were public appointments and the public were entitled to know everything about it. When had the judges said they were overworked ? Mr Nosworthy: “Some of them are becoming old.” Sir Joseph Ward: “Age comes upon i.veryouo. That’s nothing to dp with it.” His opinion was, and the opinions of many other competent men to judge was that there was a great deal of tho judges’ work in chambers which could bo done by the registrars of the Supremo Court. Men high up in the legal profession said that additional judges were not required. WHO RECOMMENDED THEM? Mr Herdman; “Friends of yours are against it.” Sir Joseph Ward: “I’ve got some very fine friends amongst the legal profession. I hope the hon, gentleman has as good.” It was futile to say that he (Sir Joseph) was asking for anything confidential. All he wanted to know was who recommended the two additional judges, and who said the present judges were overworked. If bo went single-handed, bo was going to vote for this matter to go hack to the Statutes Revision Committee. He wanted to know what ho Viis doing before ho voted for sin additional £6OOO or £BOOO a year. What was the reason for secrecy in a matter of this kind? At 4.4 p.m. tho House divided on Mr Forbes’s amendment to refer the matter back to the committee. This was defeated by 33 votes to 23. The original motion was then agreed to on the voices. AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL. As amended by tho Statutes Revision Committee, the bill, it is proposed, shall come into operation on February Ist, 1914, instead of April Ist. .It is further proposed that the Gover-nor-in-Council may at any. time revoke the appointment of any judge as a member of either division of the Court of Appeal. Appointments to the divisions shall lapse on December 31sfc following tho appointment, hut may be renewed. The Governor’s power of appointment and revocation shall be exeroiseable only on the recommendat:on of three Supremo Court judges, including the Chief Justice.