Have Your Say On The Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill
The Chairperson of the Justice Committee is calling for public submissions on the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill. The objective of the bill is to improve timeliness in New Zealand's courts by maximising judicial resources. It aims to ensure that judicial time is focused on the most critical tasks and decisions.
The bill would amend the Senior Courts Act 2016, the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and the Coroners Act 2006. It would:
increase by two the number of High Court Judges that could be appointed, from 55 to 57
make procedural amendments to minimise the volume of proceedings that abuse the process of the courts
reduce duplication at the pre-trial stage and maximise the use of judicial and court resources
allow appeals to the Court of Appeals relating to District Court decisions to be heard by a court at the appropriate level
enable coroners to close an inquiry if it were no longer appropriate to conduct an inquiry because of new information or changed circumstances.
Tell the Justice Committee what you think
Make a submission on the bill by 1pm on Wednesday 25 June 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
6 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
In it for the long haul
If you like Parliament you well and truly had a treat last week, as the House sat until midnight Saturday under urgency to consider the wide range of legislation the government wanted to progress. Some of the matters considered under extended hours were entirely reasonable — every government needs to push through Budget-relevant law changes as soon as possible. Some matters, not so much . . . worthy though the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill may be, did it really need to go through the House at 11pm on Saturday? Much earlier in the day the House considered the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill, legislation which, arguably, could also have waited for another day. The Bill introduces an annual review of what beneficiaries receive to make sure everything is above board, and partially automates the process. If nothing else, the advent of the Bill revitalised an opposition bench which had every reason to be jaded as the House entered its third day of urgency. Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori all believe this law change is "beneficiary bashing" and were happy to keep on roaring so, despite spirited remonstrations from National Southland MP Joseph Mooney — who had quite the row, as well as a possible lunch date, with Labour's Willie Jackson — to the contrary. "It introduces a requirement that the Ministry of Social Development must review a client's eligibility and rate of a specified benefit at least once every 52 weeks. That is to make sure that they are getting the right amount of assistance that they are entitled to," Mr Mooney said. "It's a very simple Bill. It's quite amazing to hear the lack of quality of contributions from the Opposition. This also introduces a little bit of automated decision making, and, honestly, if that's the quality of debate we get from the Opposition, maybe there should be some more automated decision-making from the other side of the House as well." Mr Mooney was back for more during the second reading debate, accusing the Greens Ricardo Menendez March of rambling and uttering "a complete load of nonsense". "This government is going to bring in structured literacy, which will hopefully help people like the Opposition actually get some reading comprehension and actually read the Bills and understand what they're about, because they don't," he said, before going on to accuse the members opposite of being Luddites. That did not sit well with the next speaker, Labour Dunedin MP Rachel Brooking, who found Mr Mooney's speech to be "curious". "The member will be very happy to know that I spent considerable time reading this Bill . . . If it is simply about reviews, why is it here in Budget urgency? Might that be because the regulatory impact statement (RIS), on page 12, says that the cost of the IT for this will be $5.339 million and the FTE costs associated with that is $7.559m. "Is it also because in that RIS it talks about the expected $238.302m in benefits or related expenses savings over five years? This is about money." For good measure the eagle-eyed Ms Brooking went on to explore the depths of section 363 of the Bill, which she said introduced the sanctions regime. Of course, this was something which government MPs could have been denying had been created had they been making any more substantive contribution to the debate than simply saying: "I commend this Bill to the House," and sitting straight back down again when their time came to speak. That was not it from the South though, as Taieri Labour MP Ingrid Leary wanted to explore "a really problematic piece of lawmaking." "It just seems crazy that 332,000 reviews would be done each year, and the RIS says very openly, on page 12, that would cost — it adds up to about $13 million, and there's no way they could make this happen with the current staff and that's why they need the technology," Ms Leary said. "Instead, they are looking at bringing in this very dodgy technology which is dehumanising and which doesn't have appeal rights." Rather like being stuck in the House on a Saturday rather than being at home in one's own house. I can see for miles and miles Of the many National MPs who made videos or social media posts complaining at media coverage of what Finance Minister Nicola Willis wore on Budget day, no-one beat the effort from Waitaki National MP Miles Anderson. Mr Anderson proudly showed off a tie which his daughter had bought him, which was festooned with pictures of the wearer's head. He mentioned it in the House later too, saying that the Bill he was voting for, like his tie, was splendid.
1News
7 days ago
- 1News
Appeals court allows Trump to continue collecting tariffs
A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump to continue collecting tariffs under an emergency powers law for now, as his administration appeals an order striking down the bulk of his signature set of economic policies. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted an emergency motion from the Trump administration arguing that a halt is 'critical for the country's national security". The appeals court temporarily halted the order from a federal trade court issued a day before. Trump is facing several lawsuits arguing Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs exceeded his authority and left the country's trade policy dependent on his whims. Earlier ADVERTISEMENT Earlier a federal court in New York handed Trump a big setback, blocking his audacious plan to impose massive taxes on imports from almost every country in the world. A three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare a national emergency and justify the sweeping tariffs. The tariffs overturned decades of US trade policy, disrupted global commerce, rattled financial markets and raised the risk of higher prices and recession in the United States and around the world. The US Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over civil cases involving trade. Its decisions can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington and ultimately to the Supreme Court, where the legal challenges to Trump' tariffs are widely expected to end up. Which tariffs did the court block? The US president's tariff regime has been paused - except for imports from China - after upheaval in the markets. (Source: 1News) The court's decision blocks the tariffs Trump slapped last month on almost all US trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada. ADVERTISEMENT On April 2, Trump imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else. He later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to agree to reduce barriers to US exports. But he kept the baseline tariffs in place. Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, he justified the taxes under IEEPA by declaring the United States' longstanding trade deficits 'a national emergency'. In February, he'd invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the US border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Trump has made the most of it. The tariffs are being challenged in at least seven lawsuits. In the ruling yesterday, the trade court combined two of the cases — one brought by five small businesses and another by 12 US states. The ruling does leave in place other Trump tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminium and autos. But those levies were invoked under a different law that required a Commerce Department investigation and could not be imposed at the president's own discretion. Why did the court rule against the president? Generic NZ court photo ADVERTISEMENT The administration had argued that courts had approved then-President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic and financial crisis that arose when the United States suddenly devalued the dollar by ending a policy that linked the US currency to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEPPA. The court disagreed, deciding that Trump's sweeping tariffs exceeded his authority to regulate imports under IEEPA. It also said the tariffs did nothing to deal with problems they were supposed to address. In their case, the states noted that America's trade deficits hardly amount of a sudden emergency. The United States has racked them up for 49 straight years in good times and bad. So where does this leave Trump's trade agenda? File photo. (Source: Associated Press) Wendy Cutler, a former US trade official who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, says the court's decision "throws the president's trade policy into turmoil'. 'Partners negotiating hard during the 90-day day tariff pause period may be tempted to hold off making further concessions to the US until there is more legal clarity," she said. Likewise, companies will have to reassess the way they run their supply chains, perhaps speeding up shipments to the United States to offset the risk that the tariffs will be reinstated on appeal. The trade court noted that Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and only for 150 days with countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits. For now, the trade court's ruling 'destroys the Trump administration's rationale for using federal emergency powers to impose tariffs, which oversteps congressional authority and contravenes any notion of due process,' said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University. "The ruling makes it clear that the broad tariffs imposed unilaterally by Trump represent an overreach of executive power.''
Scoop
29-05-2025
- Scoop
Have Your Say On The Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill
Press Release – Justice Committee The bill would amend the Senior Courts Act 2016, the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and the Coroners Act 2006. The Chairperson of the Justice Committee is calling for public submissions on the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill. The objective of the bill is to improve timeliness in New Zealand's courts by maximising judicial resources. It aims to ensure that judicial time is focused on the most critical tasks and decisions. The bill would amend the Senior Courts Act 2016, the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and the Coroners Act 2006. It would: increase by two the number of High Court Judges that could be appointed, from 55 to 57 make procedural amendments to minimise the volume of proceedings that abuse the process of the courts reduce duplication at the pre-trial stage and maximise the use of judicial and court resources allow appeals to the Court of Appeals relating to District Court decisions to be heard by a court at the appropriate level enable coroners to close an inquiry if it were no longer appropriate to conduct an inquiry because of new information or changed circumstances. Tell the Justice Committee what you think Make a submission on the bill by 1pm on Wednesday 25 June 2025.
