uncertainty  and  apprehension  about  the  unknown.    The  keeping  alive  of  memories  of events which would best be put to rest so that someone can get on with making a new life are examples of the abject failures in the timeliness of our Court processes. Reducing  these  delays  requires  attention  to  the  complex  matrix  of  scheduling  cases, rostering    judges,    provision    of    adequate    administrative    services,    effective    case management,  counsel  support  and  last,  but  by  no  means  least  –  streamlining existing, often antiquated, court procedures.  This is complex but there is now willingness in New Zealand, I think (or certainly hope), to look at all these aspects.     My third issue relates to the nature of our processes and procedures.  I believe that our civil  procedures  have  become  constipated  by  Court  Rules.  This  country,  under  the committed leadership of Roger Coventry when he was Puisne Judge here, created a set of    Civil    Rules    for    Court    which    are    sufficient    to    ensure    the    basics.        They comprehensively  cover  what  needs  to  occur  so  that  people  get  to  tell  their  story,  to identify  their  issues  and  to  know  what  they  are  up  against.    The  indignation  of  some colleagues  when  the  Law  Commission  suggested  New  Zealand  could  emulate  their approach. No-one identified the real problems in doing so.   The  New  Zealand  approach  is  not  inconsistent  with  what  occurs  in  Australia,  Canada and  perhaps  the  United  Kingdom,  although  Woolf  reforms  did  lessen  some  of  the burdens.  Whether this sophisticated and prescriptive approach is necessary or justified in those countries is open to debate but not here.  I submit, that imposing this approach in small emerging Pacific nations, is indefensible.