I want to make a brief contribution to the debate on this appointment. The office of Judicial Conduct Commissioner was established in August 2005 to deal with the issue of complaints against the judiciary. The purpose of establishing the office was to enhance public confidence in the judiciary and to protect the impartiality and integrity of the judicial system. Under the legislation complaints can be made against judges of the various courts set out in section 5 of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. A very wide range of judges falls within the ambit of that section: temporary, associate, and acting judges, but not, obviously, retired or former judges.

As the Attorney-General mentioned, the first Judicial Conduct Commissioner was Ian Haynes, a past president of the New Zealand Law Society and a former president of the Auckland District Law Society. Mr Haynes is a well respected lawyer in New Zealand and internationally, and is the architect of a new model for the governance of the legal profession, on which the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act is based.

One thing that I think it is appropriate to mention in this debate is that the Judicial Matters Bill, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government, is awaiting its second reading. It seems to me that it is worth commending that legislation to the Attorney-General, because it makes some sensible machinery amendments to the legislation that would make the job a lot easier for the candidate currently under consideration for recommendation to the Governor-General. It would allow for the appointment of a Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner and it would allow the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, in addition to existing remedies that he may exercise, to decide to take no further action on a complaint. I think the Attorney-General will know—he is nodding—that one of the frustrations Mr Haynes found in the role was that he did not have those powers. He did not have a deputy to delegate any power to, and he had to deal with each and every complaint that came before him. He did not have any power to dismiss them in limine in the event that they were clearly baseless. I urge the Government to consider the merits of that bill, because I think that if Mr Gascoigne’s recommendation is adopted by the Governor-General and he is appointed, he will find those powers quite necessary.

I have just one or two words on Mr Gascoigne. As the Attorney-General said, he was a founding partner of my old firm, now known as Minter Ellison Rudd Watts. I was fortunate to spend some 8 years in that firm with David Gascoigne as a mentor when he was a consultant to the firm and I was a partner. He is a fine person. In addition to the positions that have already been outlined as having been held by him, he is also a very distinguished corporate governance expert. He has been a chair of Mitsubishi Motors New Zealand and New Zealand Insurance, and he served on the Minter Ellison Rudd Watts board at the same time that I did.

I would just like to note, with some pride, that Minter Ellison Rudd Watts is a firm that delights in making its personnel available for public office in this way. There is Cathy Quinn’s contribution on the Securities Commission. David Patterson served on Michael Cullen’s tax review, the so-called McLeod Tax Review. Peter Rowe served on the board of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. The firm has also made its contribution to the judiciary in the persons of Justices Allan and MacKenzie in the High Court at the moment, and Judges Thomas and Crosbie in the District Court, amongst others. David Gascoigne joins in that tradition, and I am sure he will hold his head high as he performs the important role of Judicial Conduct Commissioner. I certainly wish him well in that role, in common with other members of the House.