District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill

2.1. Are there any publicly available inquiry, review or evaluation reports that have informed, or are relevant to, the policy to be given effect by this Bill?

NO

2.2. Does this Bill seek to give effect to New Zealand action in relation to an international treaty?

NO

2.3. Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill?

YES

No Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) was developed for the proposal to increase the limit on the number of District Court judges by one (from 182 to 183) to support the implementation of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill because of the administrative nature of the amendment. However, a RIS was prepared for the Sentencing Reform Amendment Bill at the time the decision was made.

The RIS can be found and downloaded from the Ministry of Justice’s and Treasury’s website:

https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/regulatory-stewardship/regulatory-impact-assessments/

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/legislation/regulatory-impact-assessments

2.3.1. If so, did the RIA Team in the Treasury provide an independent opinion on the quality of any of these regulatory impact statements?

NO

The RIS above did not meet the threshold for receiving an independent opinion on its quality from the RIA Team based in the Treasury.

2.3.2. Are there aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill that were not addressed by, or that now vary materially from, the policy options analysed in these regulatory impact statements?

NO

2.4. Has further impact analysis become available for any aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill?

NO

2.5. For the policy to be given effect by this Bill, is there analysis available on:

(a)   the size of the potential costs and benefits?

NO

(b)   the potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial unavoidable loss of income or wealth?

NO

A cost-benefit analysis of the proposal to increase the number of District Court Judges by one was not undertaken.

2.6. For the policy to be given effect by this Bill, are the potential costs or benefits likely to be impacted by:

(a)   the level of effective compliance or non-compliance with applicable obligations or standards?

NO

(b)   the nature and level of regulator effort put into encouraging or securing compliance?

NO

3.1. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations?

We have considered New Zealand’s international obligations and there are no relevant obligations to the policy to be given effect by this Bill.

3.2. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

The amendment to increase the number of District Court Judges by one will not have specific implications for Māori as individuals, communities, or tribal groupings.

3.3. Has advice been provided to the Attorney-General on whether any provisions of this Bill appear to limit any of the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?

YES

The Bill will be vetted for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 by Crown Law Office.

Advice provided to the Attorney-General by the Crown Law Office, or a section 7 report of the Attorney-General, is generally expected to be available on the Ministry of Justice’s website upon introduction of a Bill. Such advice, or reports, will be accessible on the Ministry’s website at http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/constitutional-law-and-human-rights/human-rights/bill-of-rights.

3.4. Does this Bill create, amend, or remove:

(a)   offences or penalties (including infringement offences or penalties and civil pecuniary penalty regimes)?

NO

(b)   the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal (including rights to judicial review or rights of appeal)?

NO

3.4.1. Was the Ministry of Justice consulted about these provisions?

NO

The Ministry of Justice was the lead agency for developing these provisions, and the relevant policy teams were consulted during policy development and drafting of the Bill.

3.5. Does this Bill create, amend or remove any provisions relating to the collection, storage, access to, correction of, use or disclosure of personal information?

NO

3.6. Has there been any external consultation on the policy to be given effect by this Bill, or on a draft of this Bill?

YES

The Ministry of Justice undertook some targeted consultation during policy development, and with some non-departmental central government agencies with prosecution functions during the drafting stage. The detail of this is set out in Appendix 1.

More widespread external consultation with the general public or other groups was not carried out because of time constraints and Ministerial direction.

3.7. Have the policy details to be given effect by this Bill been otherwise tested or assessed in any way to ensure the Bill’s provisions are workable and complete?

NO

4.1. Does this Bill contain any provisions that could result in the compulsory acquisition of private property?

NO

4.2. Does this Bill create or amend a power to impose a fee, levy or charge in the nature of a tax?

NO

4.3. Does this Bill affect rights, freedoms, or impose obligations, retrospectively?

NO

4.4. Does this Bill:

(a)   create or amend a strict or absolute liability offence?

NO

(b)   reverse or modify the usual burden of proof for an offence or a civil pecuniary penalty proceeding?

NO

4.5. Does this Bill create or amend a civil or criminal immunity for any person?

NO

4.6. Does this Bill create or amend a decision-making power to make a determination about a person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law, and that could have a significant impact on those rights, obligations, or interests?

NO

4.7. Does this Bill create or amend a power to make delegated legislation that could amend an Act, define the meaning of a term in an Act, or grant an exemption from an Act or delegated legislation?

NO

4.8. Does this Bill create or amend any other powers to make delegated legislation?

NO

4.9. Does this Bill contain any provisions (other than those noted above) that are unusual or call for special comment?

NO

Judges’ remuneration is set independently by the Remuneration Authority to maintain judicial independence.  District Court judges are remunerated through a permanent legislative authority in section 31(1) of the District Court Act 2016. A permanent legislative authority is, in relation to spending public money, an express authority given by or under an Act to spend public money without further authority (see section 2 of the Public Finance Act 1989). A permanent legislative authority has been set up because Parliament wishes to signal a commitment to not interfere with judicial remuneration, to maintain judicial independence. To enable control of the overall budget for judicial remuneration, as judges have security of tenure, Parliament maintains a cap on the full-time equivalent number of permanent judges that can be appointed (the judicial cap).  As the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill increases the judicial cap, this has a long-term impact on the spending of public money.