Thursday, 2 July 2015

THURSDAY, 2 JULY 2015

THURSDAY, 2 JULY 2015

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House): Next week the House begins a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday, 21 July, the Government will look to begin the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill and to make progress on a number of third readings on the Order Paper.

Motions

Nauru—Government Actions

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate expressing concern at the Government of Nauru’s actions.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: I move, That this House express its concern regarding the Government of Nauru’s alleged interference with the judiciary, the suspension of Opposition members of Parliament, the cancelling of passports of Opposition members of Parliament, and the removal of civil and political rights.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economic Outlook—Global Markets

1. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the international economy and its effect on New Zealand’s economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Overnight the global dairy auction registered a 5.9 percent fall in the price index, compared with the last auction a fortnight ago. That was the eighth consecutive auction to see a fall, and the average global dairy trade price is now back to similar levels to those seen in late 2014, or around 30 percent lower than the recent peak in early May. Offsetting that somewhat is the fact that the trade-weighted New Zealand dollar has fallen 19 percent in recent months. Lower interest rates are also helping farmers, to some extent. This week financial markets have also had to digest the unsettling news in regard to the Greek economy, with the Greek Government being in default on a payment to the IMF, and volatility in the Chinese equity markets. Again, these highlight that we cannot be immune to changes to sentiment and activity across the global economy.

Dr Shane Reti: How well positioned is New Zealand in the event that recent global market turbulence and weakness should deteriorate further?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We have, in recent weeks, been reminded that notwithstanding New Zealand’s strong relative economic performance and outlook, parts of the international economy are very fragile. The good news is that we are better placed to weather unexpected developments than we were back in 2008. For 5 consecutive years now, Kiwi households have been saving rather than over-borrowing. New Zealand’s net international investment position, which measures this country’s international debt, has strengthened considerably since 2009. Interest rates are back to near 50-year lows, which helps businesses and households with a mortgage, and every day we do the hard yards of managing our spending responsibly. We are on a clear track to surplus and to paying down debt. As members know, this is very important in order to strengthen the resilience of our economy and protect our people.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, could the Minister tell us what the Government’s net debt position was in 2008 and what it is now; if he does not have the exact figures, would he agree that it is slightly larger now than it was—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The first part of the question is quite in order.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is deliberately misrepresenting New Zealand’s external position. The important position is the country’s net investment position—which was what I was stating in my answer—which has improved and strengthened considerably since 2009. Once again, Mr Robertson shows that he is all about the Government and not about the country.

Dr Shane Reti: How does New Zealand’s current economic performance compare with other developed economies?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is important that we do not talk New Zealand down, although that is a favourite pastime of some members of this House. The reality is that New Zealand’s economic performance is currently stronger than many of the economies that we typically compare ourselves with. New Zealand’s 2.6 percent GDP growth in the year to March compares with 2.3 percent in Australia, 2.4 percent in the UK, 2.1 percent in China, minus 1 percent in Japan, and 1 percent in Germany.

Hon Member: What about the last quarter?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Perhaps, the member might like to get himself a question. Average growth across the OECD group of rich economies was just 1.9 percent. So despite a number of global risks, New Zealand is performing well by international standards and is heading in the right direction.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Will he now concede that his Budget should be called “the plan that is already not working”, as it was a Budget made using overly optimistic assumptions, which, in fact, means that it is a Budget that will not work, now reinforced ever so sharply by the loss of $1.2 trillion off the Chinese stock exchange since 12 June?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, and it is important that the member notes the automatic stabilisers that do exist in the New Zealand economy—for example, the exchange rate, as I said in the answer to the primary question, has dropped a trade-weighted level of around 19 percent, and that helps to offset a decline in prices for commodity exporters. On top of that, the Reserve Bank has the ability to reduce interest rates, and we have seen that also. That is how a modern market economy deals with changes in international prices for its goods.

Dr Shane Reti: What is the Government’s approach to strengthening the economy’s resilience in the face of recent turbulence and weakness in some global markets?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Firstly, of course the Government runs a conservative and sensible fiscal and monetary policy for New Zealand. It also remains focused on progressing its economic development plan for New Zealand. These things—like ultra-fast broadband to 80 percent of New Zealanders; like signing new free-trade agreements such as the Korean free-trade agreement and negotiating others like the Trans-Pacific Partnership; delivering on more skills that are relevant to industries in the areas of information and communications technology, engineering, and so on; rolling out key transport roading projects, which improve the connectivity between our regions and our major ports and facilities; and reforming various regulations to provide certainty, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness in investment decisions—are part of the 350 action points making up the Government’s Business Growth Agenda, a plan that is steadily delivering dividends for this country.

James Shaw: With continuing falls in global dairy prices, would he agree that Treasury’s downside economic scenario in the 2015 Budget Economic and Fiscal Update is turning out to be the reality; and how is he preparing New Zealand for the blowout of the current account deficit, the loss of $26 billion of GDP out to 2019, and increased Government debt?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I do not think he is correct in relation to Treasury’s downside scenario. Although, of course, prices are dropping, Treasury’s downside scenario actually made its prediction without a decline of the trade-weighted New Zealand dollar or short-term interest rates, which has come to pass. As I said to the other member, that actually has the off-setting for some of the decline in commodity prices. So the easing in monetary conditions does help to protect New Zealanders from the less rosy international developments and does help to off-set the negative impact on New Zealand exporters. As I say, that is a slightly different track from the scenario he refers to.

Dairy Industry—Milk Price

2. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s advice to farmers in November of last year that they should not get too worried about the milk price?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes. Every farmer’s situation is unique, but the point the Prime Minister was making is that we have a world-class dairy industry that has a very solid track record of resilience and adaptation to changing international market conditions. The member should also be aware, of course, that the trade-weighted New Zealand dollar has fallen 19 percent in recent months, and this, along with lower interest rates, will help off-set the full impact on farmers’ incomes from the drop in global dairy prices. Declaring a crisis is the member’s preferred approach to every market development, but I cannot see how that actually is particularly constructive.

Grant Robertson: Was the Prime Minister correct, then, when he also told farmers in November, 7 months ago, that the dairy price slide would bottom out soon and start climbing again, and what is his definition of “soon”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The dairy price will undoubtedly rise again in the next stage of the cycle, and the member, I think, would be trying to guess exactly when that occurs. There are a number of intersecting international conditions, including, as I pointed out in response to an earlier question, the Greek situation and some of the challenges in the Chinese economy currently. The thing for New Zealand is you cannot control the world economy, but you can control your response, and our response is to operate a conservative, sensible fiscal and monetary policy and continue to encourage the diversification of the New Zealand economy.

Grant Robertson: When did he first become aware that there was going to be a global milk glut, and what action did he take in response to that?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am tempted to say that it is not the job of the Minister of Finance to soak up a glut in any particular commodity. The member, of course, may think that in his command economy - type approach to the world, that would be possible. The response of a sensible Government is to run a sensible fiscal policy to ensure that the stabilisers are in place to counter any downturn in commodity prices and continue to invest in opportunities to grow and develop the other parts of the New Zealand economy. That is exactly what this Government is doing, and that is exactly what the Opposition now appears to be criticising.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table a report from Goldman Sachs Group dated June 2014 that indicated that there would be a 5-year global milk glut. It is not—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is it available on the net for members to get?

Grant Robertson: It is available on the net, but it is difficult to find. I doubt many members—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will accept the honourable member’s word. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Grant Robertson: Is he aware that ANZ is now forecasting a dairy payout of $4.50 for next season on top of the $4.40 for this season, and that this would see $13 billion stripped from regional economies over 2 years, representing a real risk to the viability of many farms?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am tempted to leap to Mr Robertson and say: “Well, why don’t you just call it a crisis, then, because you’ve been dying to all week?”. [Interruption] Go on; call it a crisis, because it generally helps when the Opposition calls something a crisis. Obviously, for the dairy industry, dairy prices are a concern. I do, however, remind the member that there are a lot of other industries that are doing very well. He speaks of the regions, and the tourism industry is going absolutely gangbusters at the moment. Then there is the high-tech manufacturing industry. Then there is the wine industry. Then there is the kiwifruit industry. Then there is the information and communications technology exports industry, and then the red meat industry, which is also doing better. I appreciate that in Mr Robertson’s cartoon world—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is now going on for far too long.

Grant Robertson: Is it not time for him to drop the complacency, stop blaming everybody else, get real about an economy that has moved from a stumble to a stagger and is built on the volatility of the Auckland housing bubble and a peaking Christchurch rebuild, and actually come up with some action to diversify the economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is the most pathetic list of platitudes I have heard in many a day in this House, from a member whose answers to life are absolutely as shallow as a puddle. His depth of analysis is so shallow that the only thing that could possibly drown in it is a grasshopper. This Government is, in fact, doing much more of the things that Mr Robertson would suggest. Again, I have given an example of the information and communications technology industry, which is growing at the rate of 9.5 percent per year, and, in fact, exports are growing at 14 percent a year. Mr Robertson—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member must resume his seat. That is enough of an answer.

James Shaw: When does the Minister of Finance project that dairy prices will recover?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not think it is wise for the Minister of Finance to be picking the turn in any commodity cycle, actually. I think the job of the Minister of Finance is to carefully run the country’s finances to ensure that the automatic stabilisers have an opportunity to operate, as they are in this case in terms of a lower exchange rate and lower interest rates through the Reserve Bank; to continue to invest, through other Ministers, in things that help diversity and develop other parts of the New Zealand economy; and to continue to do such things, through other Ministers, that help New Zealand trade—for example, free-trade deals like the Korean free-trade agreement, and, hopefully, soon for New Zealand, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These sorts of things actually improve the opportunities for New Zealand exporters.

James Shaw: Given that the Minister of Finance does not seem to have any information projecting when dairy prices will recover, why did he tell Radio New Zealand in March that the concentration of capital in dairying was not a bad thing; and does this over-allocation of resources into one sector not risk destabilising the whole economy as the dairy boom turns to bust?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member is in danger of catching Mr Robertson’s cartoon disease, because the dairy industry represents, depending on how you measure it, between 4 and 5 percent of the New Zealand economy. So the member may think that is the whole New Zealand economy, but it actually is not. Again, there is a large number of other industries that are having significant and sustained levels of investment, including kiwifruit, including wine, including information and communications technology—

Hon Nathan Guy: Apples.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —including high-tech manufacturing, including apples—a whole range of those sorts of export industries. So, again, if he wants to subscribe to Mr Robertson’s bust scenario, that is fine, but most New Zealanders know we have a very resilient and broad-ranging economy.

James Shaw: What specifically is he going to do to support overleveraged dairy farmers through this bust?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We will be doing the sorts of things that actually help minimise the risk, which include keeping Government expenditure under control to keep interest rates down through the cycle, which is very, very important. We will also be running a responsible fiscal policy that does not create risk externally in a time of a fragile, and not without risk, world economy. What the member may be suggesting is something in terms of direct bailouts. I think that would be inappropriate. The New Zealand dairy industry is very resilient. It is one of the most efficient dairy industries in the world. I am sure it will be positioning itself right now to recover from this lower dairy price and prosper in the next cycle.

Hill Country Erosion Fund—2015 Funding Round

3. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcement has he made about Government support to help tackle hill country erosion?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Yesterday I was in the hills west of Whanganui to announce that nearly $8.8 million in funding grants over 4 years will be provided to help councils and farmers tackle hill country that is prone to erosion. This hill country erosion fund was established in 2007 and is part of the Government’s commitment to improve the sustainability of hill country. The current round is supported by funding from local councils and landowners and will provide funding that covers almost 550,000 hectares of erosion-prone hill country.

Ian McKelvie: Why is this scheme so relevant to landowners in the flood-affected areas of the lower North Island?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Good question. I have seen the serious damage that hill country erosion has caused after the storm in the Whanganui, Rangitīkei, and southern Taranaki districts, both economically and environmentally. This funding round is timely, given that $4.7 million out of the total is going towards the Horizons Regional Council. This covers these districts that have been badly affected by some flooding and erosion. The fund allows councils an opportunity to plan and deliver initiatives over the next 4 years to tackle this problem. This includes projects like farm planning, modelling, and tree planting.

Partnership Schools—Financial Performance

4. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes, I stand by my full statements in the context that they were given.

Chris Hipkins: Does she stand by her answer to the House yesterday that the $2.5 million surplus of a charter school sponsor is “accounted for, but the member just does not like the way they are using their funds.”; if so, can she explain exactly what the sponsor is using the $2.5 million for?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do stand by my statements. So for Te Kura Hourua o Whangarei Terenga Parāoa, it had an income of $2,016,630 and parent contributions of $204. Curriculum delivery was $149,668. Finance and administration was $239,381. I can go on, but I am happy to table this, although it is already in the public domain. Basically, total expenses were $1,355,782, leaving an operating surplus of $637,170.

Chris Hipkins: What is the operating surplus, and the $1.8 million establishment grant they received in addition to that, being used for?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: For their contracted outcomes: education deliverables.

Chris Hipkins: What costs was the $1.8 million establishment grant intended to cover?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Establishment costs.

Chris Hipkins: Given that none of the $1.8 million has been spent on establishment costs, does the Crown have any ability to recoup that money?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The school is still in the process of establishing itself. It received, as part of the total sum I have just outlined, $2,016,630, of which $1.8 million was received for the purposes of establishing the school. As I advised the House yesterday, the school is leasing premises while it secures land, if it is able to do so; upon which it will build a school if it is able to do so. In the meantime, it has, according to its tabled accounts, banked those funds, has accrued interest, and is spending it on education deliverables. I am sure that the member and the House will be pleased to know that in 2014 it delivered 100 percent in National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 1, 86 percent in NCEA level 2, and 100 percent in NCEA level 3. And this is for a school that, unlike other State schools—if the member would like to listen to the actual facts rather than to himself—requires that its roll be made up of 75 percent of the most at-risk kids. The irony here is that instead of the school being applauded for turning around kids who are most at risk, it is being criticised. Instead of being applauded for its transparent accountability, which is up on the site, it is being deplored by the Opposition.

Chris Hipkins: Do Ministry of Education guidelines recommend that State schools aim to operate a 0.05 percent surplus; if so, how does she justify the roughly 66 percent surplus He Puna Mārama Trust generated, once its establishment funding is taken into account?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Those are indeed the guidelines, not the prescription, and that is why just under 50 percent of all of our State schools run surplus-operating budgets.

Chris Hipkins: Has any single State school in New Zealand operated a surplus in excess of 66 percent; if so, when and which ones?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I try very hard to be on top of my portfolio, but I am unable to give the specific dollars for 2,493 State schools in financial year 2014. I think the member is being unreasonable.

Tracey Martin: Does she stand by her statement of 30 April 2015 that the ongoing problems at Hato Pētera College boarding hostel need to be resolved by the school and the Catholic Church, even though she has the power to remove the hostel licence on health and safety grounds, which would force the diocese to take action to improve the hostel conditions for these boarding students?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes.

Social Housing—Providers and Overseas Investment

5. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for Social Housing: In light of [the Prime Minister’s] answers to Oral Question No. 2 on 30 June, does she consider overseas investment in community housing projects to be consistent with the openness of other countries to New Zealanders investing internationally?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): To my knowledge there is currently no overseas investment in community housing projects. However, we would not rule that out. There are, of course, examples of New Zealand organisations investing overseas very effectively, and I am sure that is in the best interests of New Zealanders.

David Seymour: Does the Minister find it odd that some people are questioning whether Australian and other overseas parties should be able to buy into community housing projects in New Zealand while they also celebrate the investment success of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, which is substantially invested overseas and has over $25 billion of foreign investments, 5 percent of which are estimated to be in property?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes—in fact, I find a lot of things that some people say in this place to be odd. For example, someone who may have once worked for an international charity organisation like Oxfam—which has a New Zealand presence but has a huge issue with, obviously, other organisations playing a part in New Zealand—would seem hypocritical.

David Seymour: Is the Minister aware that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has $2.4 billion invested in Australia, that its 2014 annual report featured its diverse property investments in Europe and the US, and that Kiwi households have in excess of $7 billion in direct investments in overseas sharemarkets and another $39 billion invested in funds that will also be substantially invested overseas; and does she agree that this no more hurts those countries than overseas investment in New Zealand harms us?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility—the Minister for Social Housing, the Hon Paula Bennett.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I suppose the question was whether I am aware, and, yes, I am. The figures that I have in front of me say that the fund’s overseas investments are worth $25.5 billion, or 86 percent of the Superannuation Fund is invested overseas. Of course, the fact that those advantages are being brought back to New Zealand will be in New Zealanders’ best interests.

Cycling—Urban Cycleways Programme

6. JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister of Transport: What recent progress has the Government made on delivering the Urban Cycleways Programme?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Earlier today, alongside the member Jono Naylor and Grant Smith, the Mayor of Palmerston North, as well as many happy children and much merriment, I was delighted to open the Longburn shared pathway in Palmerston North. The Longburn pathway is the first project to be completed in the Government’s $333 million Urban Cycleways Programme, which will see 54 cycleways rolled out across the country over the next 3 years. By central and local government working together through the Urban Cycleways Programme, the project has been completed 6 years ahead of schedule and now provides residents with an alternative safe transport and recreational link between Longburn and Palmerston North.

Jono Naylor: In what other ways is the Government’s Urban Cycleways Programme supporting the increased uptake of cycling in Palmerston North?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Last week I announced that $10.2 million will be invested in two further projects in Palmerston North as part of the Government’s Urban Cycleways Programme. The Manawatū River bridge and shared-path project will provide a safer and direct cycling route option for residents and allow over 6,000 workers and over 7,000 students to access work and educational centres. The Mangaone underpass project will provide an alternative and safer route for access to schools and residential areas west of the city. When completed, all three cycleway projects will provide safe and healthy transport and recreational options for the people of Palmerston North.

Darroch Ball: Does the Minister believe the Manawatū region’s priority is a $6.2 million “nice-to-have” cycleway or investing that money on the region’s essential roading infrastructure, which this Government has consistently neglected, namely the Manawatū Gorge, a major artery to our region, which has cost nearly $20 million just due to slips over the past 5 years?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I appreciate the member’s disappointment, though that is primarily because he was not elected deputy leader of the New Zealand First Party; Ron Mark was. We are spending and we are investing $450 million in that region over the next 3 years, some 30 and a bit percent more than the last 3 years. I went personally today and visited the gorge and Saddle Road. We are upgrading that road with about $4.5 million. We are focusing across the spectrum of transport modes in that region, and that is why this Government is popular.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Consultation with Māori

7. MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister of Trade: Does he stand by the answers given on his behalf to Oral Question No 6 yesterday?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Trade: Yes.

Meka Whaitiri: Does he stand by the statement given on his behalf that “there have been numerous instances of consultation with at least five Māori organisations including Federation of Māori Authorities, Ngāti Kahungunu, the Māori Medical Practitioners Association, the Ngāpuhi Group, and Te Kupenga Hauora Māori.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: When I said yes, I meant yes.

Meka Whaitiri: Given that answer, why has Ngāti Kahungunu stated that “No Crown representative has ever approached, briefed, or consulted with Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated.” on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I certainly mean yes, because they are wrong.

Meka Whaitiri: I seek leave to table an email received today from the acting chief executive of Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated stating that they were not consulted.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Meka Whaitiri: When, or even will, all these iwi be consulted in public on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: They have been, and Ngāti Kahungunu was consulted on two occasions: by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 2008 and by the former Ministry of Economic Development in 2010. If they said they have not been consulted, they are wrong.

Meka Whaitiri: Given that he cannot recall accurately which iwi have been consulted, what confidence can other New Zealanders have that they will ever be consulted?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do not know how I could be more precise. Ngāti Kahungunu were consulted. This will be the great litany of July. Ngāti Kahungunu were consulted, and as I said yesterday, there has been a regular pattern of sending out material to people, including Ngāti Kahungunu.

Work Visas—Queenstown Labour Market Test Process

8. TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Immigration: How is the Government supporting Queenstown’s labour market through immigration?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): This week the Minister for Social Development and I announced a new streamlined labour market test process at Queenstown. This new process will enable employers with a low-skill vacancy to receive formal advice from Work and Income prior to lodging a migrant work visa application, rather than Immigration New Zealand contacting Work and Income after the application has been lodged. Work and Income will refer any suitable New Zealanders to the employer for consideration. Employers will also have access to an updated list of jobs where advice is required if Work and Income has no job seekers available to fill the positions. This change replaces the temporary labour market test exemption, which was in place during the busy summer tourist season and ended on 30 June.

Todd Barclay: How will this process benefit employers in the region?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: New Zealanders will always be first in line for jobs, but this Government recognises that for certain roles that are hard to fill, employers need to bring in migrant workers, and this new system provides a quicker and more effective solution for them. I am advised that at 30 May fewer than 100 job seekers were registered with the Ministry of Social Development in the Queenstown Lakes area. These changes in Queenstown help address the unique circumstances faced by Queenstown employers, particularly tourism operators. The new process will provide for more certainty for employers and migrants as they know sooner whether a work visa application is likely to succeed.

Sue Moroney: Does his plan to close the Queenstown Immigration New Zealand office support Queenstown’s labour market through immigration?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Matters of the deployment of the resources for Immigration New Zealand is for it to decide, but I can inform the member that no decisions have been made on the future of the Queenstown office.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request response detailing that five onshore Immigration New Zealand offices have been identified for potential closure: Queenstown, Wellington—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is enough description there. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Courts—Legal Aid and Self-representation

9. DAVID CLENDON (Green) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement in Law Talk of 8 May 2015 that “… we’d all agree it’s wrong for someone to receive preferential treatment in our courts. That is if you have more money or look a certain way that you might get a different outcome to someone else in your situation.”?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes, in the context it was given.

David Clendon: Does she agree that the outcome will be different for people with money, as opposed to those without, given that her Government has cut legal aid funding by over 15 percent in the last 5 years, and intends to cut even more money next year.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, not at all. In fact, the international trend is quite clear, across many countries, towards self-represented litigants. There are many reasons for this and they are far from simply economic, so to attribute all of these phenomena to system changes is clearly quite incorrect. In fact, it is misleading.

David Clendon: Does the Minister agree with Justice Helen Winkelmann’s statement that: “Present levels of civil legal aid inevitably mean that many individuals cannot look to the courts to enforce their rights or obtain a remedy for a wrong.”?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: To some extent I also agree very much with what she said in, I think, the same speech—that there are no easy answers to this issue. But the profession has to take a very active part in understanding the nature of the problem and striving for the solution. Indeed, she is very clear that the profession—the judiciary—has a very strong role to play in what is a complex issue.

David Clendon: Does the Minister agree with her own Ministry of Justice officials, including the general manager of the District Courts, who link the increase in the number of people self-representing with the reduced availability of legal aid?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As the member has said, that does not make very much sense at all. The introduction of legal aid, of course, is one aspect that goes to assist with access to justice. I think we all accept that access to justice is incredibly important. I would make the point that legal aid is but one part of that puzzle, if you like, and there are many things that the State provides in terms of its role to ensure that there is strong access to justice in New Zealand.

David Clendon: How can the Minister continue to claim that justice is accessible to everyone when the number of community law centres has fallen over the last 6 years, despite increased demand, and when legal aid funding has been cut, despite the expressed concern of senior judges, lawyers, academics, and ordinary New Zealanders?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, of course, in relation to community law centres, funding has been retained. Indeed, I would note the basic ignorance in the question, because community law centres provide information, not advocacy—

David Clendon: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether it is appropriate for the Minister to refer to a member as being ignorant, in this House? I take offence at that.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, it is certainly not helpful to the order of the House and I would appreciate it if the Minister would just answer the question. [Interruption] Order! If the Minister wants to stay in the House, then I would be grateful if he would not chat while I am suggesting that his answers could be far more helpful without creating disorder in this House. Does the Minister wish to complete his answer? Is there a further supplementary question?

David Clendon: Given the widespread concern around access-to-justice issues, will the Minister consider supporting the Green Party’s request to the Justice and Electoral Committee for an inquiry into the accessibility of justice in New Zealand?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, because the courts are open to those who wish to avail themselves of them, because legal aid is there to support those who most need it in our society, and because support is available from the courts for those who self-represent.

David Clendon: I seek leave to table research prepared today by the Parliamentary Library, which shows a 15 percent cut to the legal aid budget over 5 years—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, that information will then be easily available for members to obtain.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Dairy Industry

10. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Minister of Trade: Does he stand by his statement in respect of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement that “We were never going to start the serious negotiations until it was show time”, and will this include the future of Fonterra?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Trade): Yes, the Minister does stand by his statements on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This includes the statement that further negotiations are needed to resolve the most difficult issues in negotiation, which include market access for dairy. In respect of the second part of the question, if the member is referring to the structure of Fonterra, the way Fonterra operates, established in the dairy industry reforms of a decade ago, is not up for negotiation.

Fletcher Tabuteau: For clarification, how does the Minister then reconcile the US Dairy Export Council’s strong support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement fast-track when its president, speaking about Fonterra before a Senate inquiry, said: “If this is going to be a high ambitious agreement in the 21st century, you need to reform the industry, which is creating a 90 percent market share for one company in the global market that the company”—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary questions must be concise. Bring the question to a conclusion very quickly, otherwise I will rule it out of order.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The president was suggesting that Fonterra has way too much market power by law and should not be therefore—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Debates occur after question time. If the question can be made out—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet at the moment. If the Minister can establish a question out of that, I invite the Minister to answer it.

Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, because that is a direct quote from hearings held on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Minister would not be able to answer the question of my colleague without hearing the direct quote.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member needs to study the Standing Orders. Standing Order 380 is quite specific on how questions can be asked. That question is miles too long. I warned the member. He then continued with a long question. I am now giving the Minister the opportunity to answer. If there are further supplementary questions and they are of that length, I will simply rule them out of order.

Ron Mark: Point of order. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would all members resume their seats. This may be a fresh point of order, in which case I am happy to hear it. But if it is in any way a relitigation of a ruling I have just made in respect of that question, then I will treat it very seriously indeed.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fully accept your ruling. The question, though, is going forward to help us, could you give us a word count so that we can check ourselves—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is the last day before a break, so I will, on this occasion, be a little generous to the member. The published Hansard will be available at about 4.30 p.m. I suggest he just count it for himself. [Interruption] Order! No, the member will resume his seat. The question has been asked with some difficulty for me to decipher, but I am going to give the Minister a chance to answer. If there are further supplementary questions, we will move from there.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is not the job of the New Zealand Minister of Trade to reconcile the statements of a US lobbying group, whoever they are. I stand by the answer to the substantive question.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Would the Minister describe the stand by the US National Milk Producers Federation as shadow-boxing, given that it stated, after the fast-track was passed, that the US dairy industry has been a strong advocate for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, with it previously telling the US international—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That will do. The question has been asked, and again it is too long.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The answer remains the same. It is not the job of the New Zealand Minister of Trade to reconcile the positions of any other organisation that is lobbying in favour of a particular outcome in regards to a trade agreement. It is the responsibility of the New Zealand Minister of Trade to lead the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Can I raise a point of order and seek clarification?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, you can.

Fletcher Tabuteau: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have sought to keep these questions within the bounds and structure of previous questions that I have asked in this House and have been allowed. Your—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has just summed it up perfectly for himself. I have noticed a habit whereby increasingly the questions that are asked by this particular member are far too long. I have given him the opportunity to shorten them. He has not taken my advice. He may well get the same treatment in the future. Does the member have a further supplementary question?

Fletcher Tabuteau: Can the Minister confirm to New Zealand farmers and consumers that under a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement United States milk and meat products containing wrapped dopamine and recombinant bovine growth hormone, both banned here in New Zealand, will not enter into New Zealand, as stipulated by the EU in its own free-trade agreements with the United States?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, marginal but I will allow it.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are all sorts of things that are being negotiated, including such issues as phytosanitary conditions and all the requirements on animal product health and so on. These negotiations are continuing. The Minister is not in a position to comment on individual items, except to say, in response to the substantive question the member raised, that the way Fonterra operates is not up for negotiation.

Interest Rates —Business Confidence

11. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Small Business: How are small businesses benefitting from Government policies that are helping to keep interest rates lower for longer?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Small Business: A strong, growing economy and low interest rates help create an environment that supports small business growth. Policies limiting the amount of extra Government spending, lowering personal and company taxes, and focusing on sustainable jobs have contributed to GDP growth of 2.6 percent, while at the same time reducing upwards pressure on interest rates. Annual business investment increased by 13 percent over the past 2 years, to record highs, and is expected to increase by a further 15 percent by mid-2018. That is why this Government is better for business.

Jacqui Dean: Why are lower interest rates important for small and medium businesses?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Small and medium businesses are now more confident as they have been operating in a growing economy and enjoying low interest rates. Lower interest rates help ensure small businesses have good cash flow. Cash flow gives small businesses certainty when paying bills. This is in contrast to 2008, when the economy had been in recession for 1 year prior to the global financial crisis, and mortgage interest rates were over 10 percent.

Ria Bond: If the Minister is such a big champion of small business, as he claims, then why is he not calling for an immediate cut in the official cash rate, along with reforming the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, to put our exporters first?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I just want to pass on to the new member of the caucus that the Reserve Bank is not foreign-owned, and it would not be appropriate for me as a Minister to instruct it in any way.

Housing Market—Christchurch

12. POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he stand by his statement in relation to affordable housing in Christchurch that he is “on top of the problem”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Yes. Average rents grew by 9 percent in 2012, 12 percent in 2013, and another 9 percent in 2014, but have dropped by 4.7 percent in the past year. Median house prices grew by 9 percent in 2012, 7 percent in 2013, and 15 percent in 2014, but house prices in Christchurch have dropped by 3.6 percent in the past year.

Poto Williams: Why did he say that he was encouraged by affordable housing figures for Canterbury when his housing accord has failed to meet its own target of 25 percent of new houses being affordable in all but one of the past 6 months?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The housing accord in Christchurch was signed just 6 months ago. An important part of it is the change in the district plan, which has not yet occurred. The HomeStart scheme began only on 1 April, but I note that in house prices, in rents, and in affordability, all have improved over the past 6 months.

Poto Williams: How can he say that he is on top of the problem when Christchurch rents are still $82 per week higher and house prices are still $110,000 higher than they were before the February 2011 earthquake?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would point out that if you look at the Massey University housing affordability study, it actually shows that despite the earthquakes, houses in Christchurch are 30 percent more affordable than when we became the Government—30 percent more affordable than when we became the Government—which actually shows simply how bad things had got at the end of Labour’s term, in respect of housing costs.

Paul Foster-Bell: What does the latest data on housing affordability show in Canterbury, and how does this compare with the previous quarter, the past year, and when National came into Government?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Massey University housing affordability index is out just today. It looks at house prices. It looks at mortgage interest rates. And it also compares incomes. It shows that affordability in Canterbury improved over the previous quarter, that it has improved over the past year, and, as I noted in my answer to the previous question, that it is 30 percent more affordable than when we became the Government.

Poto Williams: What does he say to Sonya Tranter and her children, and to two other families forced to live in an overcrowded house in Linwood because it was all they could afford; and does he agree with the Christchurch Press that there is no bigger crisis facing the region than security and affordability of housing?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would say two things. Firstly, to the woman and family concerned: if she looks at all of the data—rents, house prices, and housing affordability—things are significantly better than they were after 9 years of a Labour Government. I would say: look at the data that shows that, on housing in Canterbury, we are on top of the problem.

Poto Williams: Which of the five excuses that he gave the Press has the most credibility: when he disputed that there was a 25 percent target; when he challenged Labour’s figures, which turned out to be correct; when he claimed incorrectly that he was exceeding the target; when he said that it was too early to draw conclusions; or when he tried to blame the council?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I simply draw to the member’s attention the fact that rents in Christchurch have dropped by 4.7 percent over the past year. If we look at house prices in Christchurch over the past year, they have dropped by 3.6 percent. That is an improvement in affordability, and I do not know what the member’s problem is.

Urgent Debates Declined

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery—Proposed Changes to Governance Structure

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Ruth Dyson seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government’s proposed new governance structure to replace the existing arrangements for the Canterbury earthquake recovery. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. The Government announced the proposed new structure at 12 noon today. It involves ministerial responsibility. The announcement about the new governance structure is an important one, likely to be of considerable public interest.

However, the Government’s announcement also indicated that legislation would be introduced to give effect to the new structure. Consideration of this bill will provide opportunities to debate the proposed new governance arrangements. For that reason, the application is declined.

Appointments

Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I move, That, pursuant to sections 7(2) and 8A(2) of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004, this House recommends His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Mr Alan Deans Ritchie as the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and appoint Kathryn Mary Snook as the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner, each for a term of 5 years having noted that the Attorney-General advises the House, in accordance with sections 7(3) and 8A(3) of the Act, that the Chief Justice has been consulted about the proposed appointments. I wonder whether members would like to make more noise on exiting the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is making a reasonable point. Would members exiting the Chamber do so with less interference to the Minister speaking.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Thank you. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 provides for the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and sets out a statutory regime for dealing with complaints about the conduct of judges. If appropriate, the commissioner or the deputy commissioner may recommend the appointment of a Judicial Conduct Panel to inquire into any matter about the conduct of a judge. The Act establishes processes that recognise and protect the requirement of judicial independence and natural justice. It is not a function of the commissioner or the deputy commissioner to challenge or call into question the legality or correctness of any instruction, direction, order, judgment, or other decision given or made by a judge in relation to any legal proceedings.

The positions require persons who are of high standing in the community, with demonstrated integrity. The proposed appointees must be familiar with the role of the judiciary, the principles of judicial independence, natural justice, and procedural fairness, and be highly competent communicators. In my experience, I think I can say it is a very difficult job, because although there are some people who may have a genuine complaint, there are also others who are vexatious and malevolent and complain, frankly, just to be unpleasant, and it is the role of the commissioner and the deputy commissioner to deal with all complaints expeditiously and justly, sometimes in very, very trying circumstances.

I have consulted with the Chief Justice, as required under the Act, on both appointments. Mr Ritchie has been Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner since 2011. He was admitted as a barrister and solicitor in 1971. He practised with Spencer and Ritchie in Ashburton and Chapman Tripp Sheffield Young in Wellington for about 12 years. He was the chief executive officer and executive director of the New Zealand Law Society from 1985 to 2008, and was a consultant to the New Zealand Law Society from 2008 to 2013. He is a member and panel convenor of the Parole Board.

Ms Snook is a Wellington lawyer. She was admitted to the Bar in 1991. She was employed by Minter Ellison Rudd Watts as a senior associate from 1997 to 2000, providing commercial legal advice to a broad range of private and public sector clients. From 2004 to 2008 she was employed in the Office of Treaty Settlements, before returning to Minter Ellison Rudd Watts in 2008, where she remained until 2010. In 2011 she too was appointed a member of the Parole Board and in 2013 appointed a panel convenor.

The terms of appointment must be for not less than 2 years and not more than 5, and it is proposed that both Mr Ritchie and Ms Snook be appointed for terms of 5 years. The commissioner and deputy commissioner are remunerated at a rate set by the Remuneration Authority.

Can I take this opportunity to say something about the retiring commissioner, Sir David Gascoigne. He was appointed in 2009 and did not seek reappointment. I want to place on record the Government’s appreciation and gratitude for the professional and conscientious manner in which Sir David has carried out his duties over the past 6 years. In the course of his career he has given a great deal to New Zealand. He was one of those who founded the Film Commission. He served on the boards of Te Papa, the Queen Elizabeth II Arts Council, and many, many other cultural organisations. He is a fine New Zealander who has served his country very well.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise to take a brief call. Can I begin where the Attorney-General left off and add my thanks, on behalf of the Labour Party, for the service that Sir David Gascoigne has given across a number of Governments over a long period of time, both in important regulatory roles such as this, but he has also given a lot of service to the arts, at his own cost, and also commercial service, including as chair of Transpower for a while.

In terms of the appointment, Alan Ritchie is well-known to most lawyers in New Zealand, having been the chief executive officer of the Law Society for a period of more than two decades, which was long service indeed. I am sure he will be a very, very capable Judicial Conduct Commissioner, having served already in the role of Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. I know less well the person who is being appointed as the deputy, Kathryn Snook, but I accept the Attorney-General’s recommendation and acknowledge that he has consulted with me in respect of both of those appointments.

I will not take a lot of time. I will say that we do have to be careful that we do not allow vexatious litigants to be the bane of judges’ lives. The Judicial Conduct Panel is not an appeal body. It is not a way to relitigate decisions that litigants are dissatisfied with. I think that there is a worrying tendency for some vexatious litigants to take things too far. I see in the latest annual report of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner that there is an increasing incidence of judicial review of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s decisions. So not only have litigants had their appeals finished in the judicial system; they have had a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and that has gone against them as well, and, not satisfied with all those steps, they are now starting to take judicial review proceedings against the Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s decision. It can go too far in those situations.

Sometimes I feel that some of those litigants are themselves being used by interest groups within society that favour longer sentences, for example, or that are all too willing to challenge bail decisions that occasionally have adverse consequences, even if the bail decision was right. The only way to avoid some bail decisions going wrong is to have no bail, which, of course, causes other injustices by having people who are not guilty of crimes lose their liberty. It would also, of course, put a huge cost on taxpayers to be locking everyone up on remand, rather than having people getting bail.

It is a difficult job that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner faces because the people who are complaining are sometimes very distressed. They are sometimes right, but more often they are wrong—as the statistics show—as to the outcomes of most of the complaints that are made. Most complaints are not upheld and most of them do not get to a panel, and I think that that is the right outcome.

So, with those brief comments, I endorse the Attorney-General’s recommendation of Alan Deans Ritchie as Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Kathryn Mary Snook as deputy.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Greens in supporting the Attorney-General’s recommendation for the appointment of Mr Ritchie as Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Ms Snook as Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. Clearly, Mr Ritchie is very well qualified for the role, having been deputy commissioner; having served, as has been noted, for over 20 years as chief executive officer of the Law Society; having had a long legal career in his own right; and having been a member the Parole Board. He would seem eminently suited for what is undoubtedly a very demanding task. Equally, Kathryn Snook has nearly two decades practising law in both the public and private sectors. She has served in the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Ministry of Justice, and has been a member of the Parole Board, so, again, she is eminently suited to the task.

The Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner has been with us for about 10 years. The purpose of the commissioner is to “enhance public confidence in, and protect the impartiality and integrity of the judicial system.” It is critical. It is clearly very important that we maintain such integrity. However, as Mr Parker noted in his contribution, the commissioner cannot and, indeed, must not challenge the legality or correctness of any judge’s decision in relation to any legal proceeding.

All too often, critique of our judges, our judiciary, is with regard to sentencing decisions, and very often they are claimed to be at one end of a spectrum—either excessively lenient in their sentencing, their judgments, or excessively harsh. Sometimes these accusations are extremely aggressive. They roll over into accusations of incompetence, unsuitability for office—those sorts of things. The judges have very little available to them to remedy that. I would suggest that we in Parliament do have access to a mechanism in the form of the Sentencing Council.

In 2007 this House passed legislation enabling the creation of the Sentencing Council, the purpose of which would be, among other things, to produce guidelines around sentencing and parole, to promote consistency in sentencing practice between different courts and judges, to ensure transparency in sentencing policy, and to promote consistency and transparency in parole. Sadly, this legislation has sat on the statute book for some 8 years without being implemented. We think it is unhelpful that we do not exercise or put into action that mechanism, which could deflect, take away, some of the critique—often unfounded critique—of the judiciary.

With those few comments, I would simply reiterate that we are confident about the Minister’s nominees for the role, and his recommendations that those people will fulfil the functions and duties of their office. We would also add that the establishment of the Sentencing Council would be a useful ancillary step towards maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the judiciary and the justice system. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First is very happy to support the motion for the appointment of Alan Ritchie as the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Kathryn Snook as the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. They are clearly both very well qualified for the roles, and I am sure they will perform them very well indeed. I would like to actually take this opportunity to congratulate them both on their appointment and to thank them in advance for the valuable work they will do. It is certainly not an easy job.

The Judicial Conduct Commissioner in his most important role has to look at which complaints brought to the commission are actually able to be investigated and need to be investigated. That requires quite a lot of sifting-out work because, as I think we all know, some people make an application to the commissioner simply because they are dissatisfied with the result of their case. That does not mean they have a genuine complaint that should be taken through the process. But where there is a genuine complaint against judicial misconduct, or at least an allegation of it, then it is important that the country has a means by which people can work through that. Without the Judicial Conduct Commissioner there would be no such avenue. So it is an incredibly important role, and it is one that I think these two people will carry out very well.

It was not so long ago that the Justice and Electoral Committee actually spoke with the Judicial Conduct Commissioner—the then commissioner—and we all took a great deal of interest in what he had to say on that occasion. One of the things I remember was the sheer volume of work that the commission had to undertake and the difficulty in carrying out that sifting process I mentioned. One of the things that is very important is the appointment of a deputy, and that is one of the things that we are doing in this motion today.

So for those reasons New Zealand First is very happy indeed to see the appointment of both the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner. We are particularly pleased that these two people have agreed to accept their appointments, because I do think that they will make a very, very good job of it. We should all be very proud of the way in which the commission has so far operated and the way in which I think it will continue to operate in the future.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I want to join with my colleagues in supporting this motion, of two very experienced members of the legal fraternity who are taking on two very important roles. As my colleague David Parker has done, I just want to acknowledge the tough role that they have. The Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner was established in 2005—based on legislation passed the year prior to that—with the very explicit role of enhancing public confidence; in fact, that is one of its stated roles. One of its other stated goals is to protect the impartiality and integrity of the judicial system. I think that sometimes you hear the statement: “Who judges the judges?”. Making sure that we have transparency and oversight of judicial conduct is one way that we can add a greater layer of integrity to our criminal justice system. That is something that I think is to really be applauded. That we have, I think, good consensus across this House on roles like this is also to be applauded. So to have systems like this only adds weight, I think, to our judiciary.

As has been said though, this is not a group that plays any role in contesting the decisions of judges; that is a role for our courts and the appeal processes within our judicial system. This is solely about conduct. And we know the importance of this role. We have had high-profile cases in the past—Justice Wilson, for instance, in the Saxmere case, where the Judicial Conduct Commissioner played a very important role in looking into whether or not there had been an issue of conflict of interest, and he took a strong stance on that. That was a very important thing to occur.

I do want to join my colleagues in thanking Sir David for the role that he has played since his appointment in 2009. It was due to finish in 2014, but he continued on. He had, of course, taken over from Ian Haynes, who was our first commissioner.

The workload of our commissioners is reasonable, as well. There were 235 complaints in the year 2013-14. In the first year, it was 223. We have seen fairly consistent rates of complaints. I think that consistency probably speaks to the fact that we have had a consistent level of performance. Only four of those complaints were referred to the head of bench, so quite a few of those complaints were dismissed. As my colleague mentioned, they will be sifting through vexatious complaints. But the fact that there has been a fairly steady rate—and yet we have seen some escalated—shows the worth and the value of this role.

Also, I want just to point out that there has been not one complaint—not one complaint—about the Youth Court since 2005. I think we should acknowledge the fine role—

Hon David Parker: Voiceless youth.

JACINDA ARDERN: Well, it is either the voiceless youth or it is doing a good job. You could take a glass half-full or a glass half-empty approach on that one. I do want to note, though, that there were 95 cases unfinalised from the previous year. There was a note from Sir David about the pace that needed to be maintained in order to process complaints. It is always useful for Parliament to keep a watchful eye on whether or not we are adequately supporting the commissioner to do the work that they have been tasked to do.

I want to finish, though, by acknowledging the role that Alan Ritchie is taking on, in conjunction with Kathryn Mary Snook. They both have an extraordinary amount of experience—both have had roles on the Parole Board, for instance. In the past Alan Ritchie has stood in for the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, and his extensive experience with the New Zealand Law Society bodes very well, I think, for New Zealand’s justice system and for the role that he will now take on—equally, with Kathryn and the role that she has played both in private practice and also in her role within the Office of Treaty Settlements, for instance. I think the commission is in very good hands, and I thank the Minister for his recommendation.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill

First Reading

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Regulations Review Committee to consider the bill. Confirmation and validation bills are routine and technical, and come before the House every year to confirm, or confirm and validate, subordinate legislation through an Act of Parliament. Confirmation to prevent lapse is a requirement of the empowering Acts under which the various orders or regulations have been made. Bills of this kind are not very glamorous but they are important bills none the less.

The role played by the House in confirming or validating the various items and the scrutiny provided by the Regulations Review Committee provide a layer of protection in the regulation-making process. Should the House decide to withhold its approval for a particular regulation or order contained in the bill, that regulation or order will lapse.

Part 1 relates to a total of 22 items of delegated legislation. It confirms 20 items, and validates and confirms two items. Part 2 of the bill rationalises the terms and operation of all existing confirmation and validation provisions currently in more than 35 Acts by replacing them with one set of standard provisions in the Legislation Act 2012. Simplifying and standardising the terms and operation of the scattered and unhelpful varying confirmation and validation provisions will benefit all departments that administer Acts containing confirmation and validation provisions. A rationalised process will also make the preparation and enactment of every annual confirming bill a simpler process.

Standing Order 325 provides for a streamlined enactment process for confirmation and validation bills. There is no amendment or debate for the first reading, and following the bill’s second reading the bill proceeds, if no amendment in Committee is required, immediately to its third reading with no amendment or debate.

Because of the rationalising provisions contained in Part 2, this year’s bill is not eligible for that simplified process. However, the bill is structured so that if the Regulations Review Committee so chooses, the bill can be divided into the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation and Validation Bill, which would be enacted by the end of the year in accordance with the process and time line for confirmation and validation bills.

In the legislation, confirmable instruments would be progressed when the House considers appropriate. The bill traditionally receives cross-party support. All of the orders and regulations in this year’s bill are of a technical character. The 22 orders or regulations listed in the bill have been made under 10 different Acts, and I do not propose to go through those. I do commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I rise to take a brief call in support of the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill. Labour will be supporting the bill and the Minister’s comments that this is a routine part of the House’s work. I support this bill as chair of the bipartisan Regulations Review Committee, and in so doing wish to affirm the role of that committee and of the various processes, which the public so seldom see, that contribute to the orderly working of this House and our democracy. The Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill plays a role in examining regulations and their associated regulation-making powers to confirm, or confirm and validate, subordinate legislation—in this case, in nine Acts that will lapse unless confirmed or confirmed and validated. That is in Part 1 of the bill. It also replaces all existing confirmation provisions in the Legislation Act 2012 with standard provisions, and that is in Part 2 of the bill.

There is, I would note, a matter before the Regulations Review Committee that goes to the nomenclature that is being used pursuant to the Legislation Act 2012, of which there is a diverse range to describe different technical categories of instruments, such as disallowable and non-disallowable instruments. This bill introduces a new term that is called “confirmable instruments”. I wish just to put on record the fact that the committee is working in a bipartisan way with the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Attorney-General to undertake a review of this nomenclature with a view to it being standardised and further streamlined, and for the development of a mandatory reporting and registration system so that all Crown agencies and entities have a streamlined, easy-to-read, easy-to-find set of indicators of regulations and other forms of subordinate legislation. That is an ongoing process with which we are engaged, and I mention it simply to say that it is one of those other cross-party, below-the-radar, useful pieces of work that the public so seldom see, but they can have some confidence that it is occurring in a reasonable and bipartisan manner.

The next steps from here are that the House and the Regulations Review Committee will see this bill off to its various subject select committees. The nine Acts that are referred to within the clauses of this bill will be separately considered by the relevant committees. They will satisfy themselves as to the basis for the confirmations—or confirmation and validations, as the case may be—and then they will report back. It would be unusual for a bill that has got this far through the Cabinet process to contain matters that are either controversial or technically problematic. It would be our expectation that we would be able to report back to the House in a timely fashion that these measures should proceed. Labour supports this bill, and, as I say, this is part of the unseen process that goes to ensuring that our democracy is healthy and our legislative processes robust. Thank you very much.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on this bill. As a member of the Regulations Review Committee, along with my colleague who has just finished speaking, David Cunliffe, this is an exciting bill. Many of you do not think that, but I do, actually. And although it is a small bill, it is important. It is even unusual, in that support for it comes from the cross benches.

What the bill really is about is validating and confirming Acts, bills, and regulations. Such orders need to be considered because, whilst they are technical in many parts of them, it is absolutely essential that we deal with these issues before they are revoked or simply go out of existence. Therefore, what this does is it actually deals with the confirmation and validation of certain Acts.

But before just going on and talking a little bit about the bill before us today, I want to take the opportunity to talk about the role of the Regulations Review Committee, because not many people understand its role. We have five key areas of interest. First of all, we have the opportunity to examine all regulations. Secondly, we examine regulation-making powers in bills, and from time to time we speak to various select committees about that issue. We do investigate complaints about the operation of regulations; in fact, we have done some. We conduct inquiries into matters relating to regulations. And, fifthly, we consider any draft regulations referred to by Ministers of the Crown and we report back on them. [Interruption] I am going to talk about that. Sometimes bills are referred to the Regulations Review Committee, and in this instance confirmation and validation bills that might otherwise lapse will seek to be confirmed or validated.

I just wanted to explain what confirmation and validation means. In terms of confirmation, many statutes empower the making of regulations with immediate effect. However, those regulations need to be expressly confirmed by an Act of Parliament within a certain time frame or they cease to have an effect. In general, there are four categories of regulations that need to be subject to confirmation: firstly, emergency regulations; secondly, regulations imposing a financial charge or in the nature of a tax; thirdly, regulations amending the empowering Act or another Act; and, fourthly, regulations dealing with issues of policy under the authority of the broader empowering provision.

The second aspect is validation, and this goes further than confirmation. Validation can also cure other defects in a piece of legislation or regulation if the manner in which the regulations were made would otherwise have led to the regulations being regarded as invalid. In other words, validations can make unlawful regulation lawful. As my colleague previously referred to, this piece of legislation actually introduces a new title, which is confirmable instruments. This is certainly going to be an issue that the Regulations Review Committee is going to be looking at. It is a new term, and confirmable instruments are normally referred to as “DINLIs”, as someone just asked about before. DINLIs are, in effect, delegated instruments that may or may not be legislative instruments.

So what we will be doing in the Regulations Review Committee is talking about the use of the term “confirmable instruments”, how they apply, and whether that is appropriate. There are some very important parts of the bill that deal with that, and I cannot wait to have those conversations with my learned colleagues. Therefore, on that basis, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I have a rare opportunity to disagree with the last speaker, Andrew Bayly. Actually, most of these are not disallowable instruments that are not legislative instruments; some of these are regulations. I do agree with the member Andrew Bayly, whom I have got a lot of time for, that the main categories of these pieces of subordinate legislation needing to be confirmed are things that are emergency regulations or things that impose levies or taxes.

If you think about the reason for that, it is that things that are, generally, more important are meant to come before the House. Things that are less important and more administrative are often delegated to arms of Government or, indeed, sometimes to bodies outside of Government, like standard-setting boards and things. They are less important, and they are done without scrutiny from Parliament. They have got the ability to put regulations in place. Sometimes things sort of fall a bit in the middle, where they are getting close to something that is important enough for you to think “Well, that’s the sort of thing that Parliament would do for itself.”, but if it is an emergency thing that has to be done immediately rather than through some long legislative process, then it is done by way of a regulation, which then has to be confirmed within a certain period by Parliament or it lapses.

In the case of things that strike levies, which sometimes verge on being taxes—given that, generally, Parliament reserves for itself the right to levy taxes—these things then are done, effectively, in a way that is conditional upon parliamentary approval through the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill. The most obvious one in this batch that falls, if you like, into that category is the setting of road-user charges, or RUC, and those road-user chargers are, of course, a substitute for excise duty, which is a tax. So you can see why Parliament wants to retain some control on the setting of those sorts of levies, and that is why they fall within the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill.

I am not going to repeat what has been said in respect of some of the non-standard provisions of this Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill being the tidying up of the different legislative confirmation rules that apply under different statutes. What has been said on that by other members will suffice. With those comments, I support this bill.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): As my colleague Andrew Bayly pointed out, this is, I think, the only bill that the Regulations Review Committee considers, but it is an important bill. Mr Hipkins has unfortunately left the Chamber, and he noted before that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You cannot refer to the absence of a member.

CHRIS BISHOP: Good point. I acknowledge that, Mr Assistant Speaker. Apologies. Mr Hipkins mentioned before that my colleague Andrew Bayly’s speech was so boring. One may say that these issues are somewhat technical, but they are actually very important. I think the speech by the Hon David Parker actually elucidated why bills such as these are small and minor and in some ways technical, and you may even call them boring, but they are really important.

The Regulations Review Committee is a real workhorse of the Parliament, I have to say. I have to say it is very well chaired by the Hon David Cunliffe, and we are very fortunate to have David Parker on the committee. We are really, actually, making a huge amount of progress across a whole range of issues at the Regulations Review Committee on Thursday mornings. It is very collegial; we work in a very bipartisan fashion. We are also privileged enough to have the Hon Chester Borrows on the committee.

I think we are raising the bar in terms of what Regulations Review Committees have done. I acknowledge that the Hon Maryan Street in the previous Parliament did a good job of chairing the committee, but we are, as my colleague has mentioned, taking a look at the vexed issue of disallowable instruments that are not legislative instruments.

We are taking a look at the issue of Acts that Parliament has passed but that have not actually been brought into force yet. The House may be surprised to know that there is a whole range of Acts that Parliament has passed, some as far ago as the 1980s, that are actually not part of our law, because they have not been brought into force yet through Order in Council by the Governor-General acting on ministerial instruction. For some of them, as my colleague Paul Goldsmith points out, there are good reasons, but for others there perhaps are not. So we are actually kind of forensically going through that list and thinking, well, perhaps that situation is not desirable—that Parliament passes an Act that has the support of the majority of Parliament, it sits on the statute book, or at least provisionally sits on the statue book, I guess you could say, but it is not actually part of the law of New Zealand. So we are having a look at that.

With that minor digression about the important and powerful Regulations Review Committee, which I am very pleased to sit on, I just want to endorse this bill. Part 2 is the most interesting part of the bill, because it rationalises the terms of the existing confirmation validation provisions, and, as colleagues on the committee have pointed out, we will be taking a close look at that. The nomenclature of these provisions is confusing, and, as Andrew Bayly has pointed out, we are taking a good look at that in the select committee. Part 2 of the bill is the one that I think we will be examining most closely. With those brief remarks, I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 1 to Minister

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance): I seek leave to correct an answer I gave in the House this afternoon.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There no objection.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This afternoon, in response to a supplementary question to question No. 1, I listed a number of countries’ growth rates. I mistakenly referenced China when I should have referred to Canada.

Bills

Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a brief call on this bill in order to confirm that the Greens will be supporting its referral to the Regulations Review Committee. These bills are necessary and important. Some might call them a necessary evil, given the intensity and the detailed work that must sit behind them.

Andrew Bayly: Oh, how could you say that? That is unfortunate.

DAVID CLENDON: I must compliment Mr Bayly on his obvious enthusiasm for the task. His positive attitude is to be complimented, I think. If I may digress momentarily, I will point out that Mr Bishop, in extolling the virtues of the Regulations Review Committee—which are, undoubtedly, many—referred to it as a “bipartisan” way of operating. Given the make up of the committee, one hopes that it is actually a “multipartisan” approach that that committee takes.

Hon David Parker: You’re welcome to join.

DAVID CLENDON: I certainly am not, Mr Parker; no. The only aspect of this bill about which we are unsure is that it is normally the practice for these bills—validation and confirmation bills—to go through the House under the auspices of Standing Order 325, which, effectively, means that where the matters contained in the bill are limited solely to confirmation and validation matters the first reading is without debate. The bill is then sent off to the select committee immediately for the serious and, no doubt, detailed work that will be done there. It then comes back for a second reading, which is debated. Then the third reading is held forthwith without debate, unless, for some unusual reason, the bill goes through the Committee stage. So, generally speaking, the grunt work, if you like, is done at the select committee level, with only one reading in the House.

So we are simply unsure as to why the Minister has chosen to include matters that are out of scope for a validation and confirmation bill—namely, the amendments to the Legislation Act, which are, no doubt, well intentioned and which may be very necessary and important. It is just not clear to us why he has not chosen simply to create an amendment to the Legislation Act and leave the validation and confirmation stuff to go through under Standing Order 325. However, we will see how that resolves itself in the course of the Regulations Review Committee hearing, which we will participate in, and we look forward with interest to seeing how this eventually pans out in the House.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I am very glad that I am speaking in this debate after Mr Bayly, otherwise I am sure I would not be nearly as excited about this bill as I am now. Indeed, if I could only remember what he said, I think I would be more excited still. However, New Zealand First does support the bill, which validates and confirms subordinate legislation made under various Acts that will lapse if not affirmed and which may need validation. I rely very much on the work of the Regulations Review Committee, which has said: “We found no reason that the orders and regulations should not be confirmed or validated and confirmed.” I am sure that it has been through the bill in fine detail, and that—

Hon David Parker: That was what we said last year.

DENIS O’ROURKE: That is fine. As long as they have deliberated on it and we can rely on what they say, that is fine.

Chris Bishop: It’s a new bill, Denis.

DENIS O’ROURKE: Anyway, the point is this: New Zealand First has examined this bill—this bill—and we are satisfied that the various clauses relating to the legislation or regulations being confirmed or validated should be agreed upon. There are nine of them, and I believe that everything contained in the bill is appropriate. We find no reason to question anything that is included in the bill. They are appropriate measures for a subordinate legislation bill. Accordingly, we shall be voting in favour.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. I stand to take a short call in support of this bill. I too am really confident in it going to the Regulations Review Committee. I had a great opportunity to actually attend a meeting of this committee one morning. It was well chaired, and it was oozing with collegiality—I thought that I was in the Māori Affairs Committee. Anyway, the final thing that I can say about this bill is he iti, he pounamu. It is small, but it is pounamu. I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I rise, along with my colleagues in the House, just to say that, yes, this bill is small but perfectly formed. It will validate and confirm those pieces of legislation that we need to confirm in order for them to remain valid. We commend this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Your chance, if you want to speak.

Ian McKelvie: Not for long, Mr Assistant Speaker. But as an old pupil of the Regulations Review Committee, and as a farmer—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Ian McKelvie.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. So as an old pupil of the Regulations Review Committee and as a farmer—and most of the business of this bill concerns farmers—I certainly have a great deal of pleasure in supporting it as it goes through the House. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Regulations Review Committee.

Bills

Evidence Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Evidence Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider this bill. This bill is about better protecting vulnerable witnesses in court processes, and includes the first part of our sexual violence reforms. It underlines the Government’s commitment to better support victims of crime and vulnerable people who get caught up in the justice system through no fault of their own.

This bill also implements the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s review of the Evidence Act 2006, which was completed in 2013. Although the commission considered the Act to be working well generally, it suggested a number of targeted and technical amendments to ensure the Act is up to date and workable in practice. Implementing these recommendations also presents the opportunity to progress further changes aimed at making the court process less traumatic for victims of sexual violence and child witnesses.

The first of these changes that I would like to highlight aims to make the criminal trial process easier and less damaging for child witnesses. It will introduce a presumption that in all stages of a criminal trial, child witnesses give evidence in alternative ways. Giving evidence in front of a whole court and the defendant, and especially being cross-examined, can be extremely distressing for any witness, let alone a young child. Alternative methods of giving evidence, such as through closed-circuit television or from behind screens, can help reduce the trauma children experience.

These methods can also help to elicit more accurate and reliable evidence, especially when the trial is protracted or delayed. A good example of the way this presumption could work in practice is where a child witness gives some of their evidence in a pre-recorded video interview outside court. The bill will introduce a presumption that the video can be played at trial as the child’s evidence-in-chief. Because the interview will have been conducted in a less confrontational environment than a courtroom, the process should better support the child’s well-being. It may also improve the quality of the evidence both because the events will be a fresher memory and because stress can make it harder for children to recall events accurately.

Currently, in all criminal cases involving child complainants, the prosecutor has to apply for directions from the judge about how the child is to give evidence. Where a witness is a child, a judge can order that the evidence be given by alternative means, either on application or on their own initiative. We know that many children who give evidence in criminal cases already do so by alternative means. However, applications for use of alternative methods vary across different regions of New Zealand. Applications for older children and young people to give evidence in alternative ways also appear to be less common. This bill will align standard practice and help to ensure all children in criminal trials are protected as much as possible, while still allowing the method of giving evidence to be tailored to the case and to the child.

It is also important to mention that the presumption will not hamper the court’s ability to hear further evidence from the child. Under the bill, only evidence-in-chief can be pre-recorded. When it is, the bill explicitly allows other parts of the child’s evidence to be given in other alternative ways. This includes further evidence-in-chief and evidence given in cross-examination, which ensures the defence will still be able to effectively cross-examine all witnesses. The Act currently provides that child complainants have an automatic right to a support person. The bill will also extend this right to all child witnesses when they are giving evidence. Support people whom child witnesses know and trust can help to reduce the trauma of going through the criminal trial process, without interfering with that process.

Another of the bill’s amendments that I would like to draw to the House’s attention will support victims of sexual offending. It is important to emphasise that in the last 30 years our justice system has changed to better recognise the place of victims, especially victims of sexual offences. Parliament has changed laws and the police and courts have changed their practices to ease the trauma for victims giving evidence and to better support them through this process. Even so, it will never be easy for a victim of a sexual crime to come forward and make a complaint. It will never be easy for a victim to relive their painful experiences in a courtroom, facing the judge, jury, legal counsel, media, and the person who is alleged to have offended against them, and after a trial is over it will never be easy for a victim to deal with the consequences of what they have experienced. What I want to do is to make that inherently stressful process as undemanding as possible while still preserving the core elements of a fair trial.

One thing we can do to lessen the distress and revictimisation is to ensure complainants can be prepared for what will happen during the trial. This bill will require the defence to give notice before the trial begins if it intends to use evidence about a complainant’s sexual history with someone other than the defendant. Currently, permission to introduce this evidence can be sought from the judge at any time during the trial. A new requirement to give notice earlier means the admissibility of the evidence can be determined before the trial begins. The current court process is one of the most daunting and humiliating processes to go through, particularly for sexual assault cases. The very least we can do is ensure the complainant knows what to expect before they come to court. This change was recommended in the Law Commission’s review. The commission also noted that it may improve efficiency and promote more consistent decision-making with regard to the admissibility of evidence.

In the same vein as the amendments I have outlined so far, the bill will also change the way some evidence is dealt with before trial. It will place new restrictions on access to police videos of witnesses’ evidence in sexual and violent cases, and to child complainants’ evidence in all cases. The defence will only be able to view these sensitive video records on police premises or in other places agreed to by the police. To ensure defence access to the video is adequate in all cases, the defence will also be able to apply to the court for a copy of the video. The defence will also have automatic access to the transcripts of the videos.

The bill also introduces new offences for copying and distributing these types of video record evidence without the court’s permission. The aim of these new restrictions and offences is to reduce the risk that video records are misplaced or used inappropriately. This will serve as an assurance to vulnerable complainants and will help maintain the public’s trust and confidence in the justice system. We are reminded too frequently of how quickly sensitive information can spread out of control in the digital age and the damaging effects that can result. These effects are only heightened when the videos are of vulnerable people having to relive the circumstances of their victimisation. I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that these amendments align with the intent of the Harmful Digital Communications Bill, which is currently awaiting its third reading before this House.

I want to just touch on a few of the other amendments, such as the privilege to plea discussions. Aside from the changes just outlined, the amendments proposed by this bill are largely technical and are in line with the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s review of the Act. One of the more substantial technical amendments made is the extension of privilege to plea discussions. Currently, privilege applies to settlement negotiations and mediation in civil cases, but the law is unclear as to whether plea discussions in criminal cases are privileged. Clarity in this area is increasingly important as plea discussions are now commonplace. Making plea discussions privileged will enable those discussions to be full and frank, and will encourage cases to be resolved earlier. The bill will allow a court to order disclosure of a privileged communication or document in certain specified circumstances, such as when disclosure is necessary for a subsequent prosecution or perjury.

Another amendment will enable more previous consistent statements to be admitted as evidence. There are already some circumstances where previous consistent statements are allowed to be used as evidence in court. The bill will clarify and extend these circumstances slightly to include statements that make up an integral part of the events before the court—for example, a record of the 111 call made to police. This amendment modifies the commission’s recommendation about previous consistent statements. The commission considered that decisions about the admissibility of statements should be made in accordance with the Act’s general admissibility rules.

The laws of evidence are absolutely salient to the fair and effective operation of the justice system. This bill will help to ensure that those laws not only are fit for purpose but also will reduce the impact on vulnerable witnesses of giving evidence. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to say that we will be supporting this bill to select committee.

The Evidence Act 2006 is one of our most important pieces of legislation. Effectively, it codifies much of the prior common law and sets out rules that govern fair trials. I thank the Minister Louise Upston for her speech. I thought that was a very clear exposition of the reasons for these changes that are proposed. I thought that the way in which the Minister dealt with the issues as to the alternative ways in which child witnesses can give evidence was balanced. It is a very difficult issue. We do need to stop victims and witnesses of awful crimes, including children who are witnesses to terrible crimes, being abused through the trial process itself.

But we also need to be fair to the accused. Sometimes people are accused when they are not guilty. I think one of the fears that most people would have in any society is that they do not have the ability to properly defend themselves against allegations, and they need to have a right to a fair hearing, as well. The Minister was careful to say that we are trying to protect victims and, in this case, particularly children, who may not be the victim; they may be the victim, but they may also be just a witness to some other domestic violence in a household, for example. The way that we are trying to protect the child witness, in allowing more humane—it could be said—ways for their giving evidence but still retaining the fundamental right of the accused to question that evidence through appropriate cross-examination is, I think, the right balance.

I am sure that there will be members of the legal profession, as well as advocates for children and victims more generally, and victims who will give detailed submissions as to whether the legislation gets the balance right in respect of that issue.

In respect of restrictions on video-recording evidence, I support those too—on the use of a video record of evidence in sexual and violent cases. As the law currently stands, the lawyer who might be acting for an accused person—if that lawyer has access to and has a copy of that video, then my understanding is that under existing law they probably have a duty of disclosure to their client, which would put them in an invidious position. Although they might have a ratbag client—and, actually, lawyers quite often know that their clients are ratbags—they still face duties to their clients of openness and disclosure, and to provide them with copies of what they have got. Without this legislative control allowing this, the lawyer might be under a duty to give that information across even though the lawyer might think that that is not in the public interest either. So we have to make sure, of course, that the accused and their legal representatives have proper access to the evidence that is being used against them, but none the less we should not allow that to be copied and put out there on the internet, for example. So I agree with that one also.

In respect of the requirements to give advance notice when an accused’s prior sexual history is going to be used as evidence against them in the case that they are giving evidence in, then, again, I think there should be warning of that. You should not spring that upon someone. If someone’s reputation is going to be attacked—if, somehow, someone’s sexual history in life is going to be used as a way to undermine their assertion that they perhaps did not give consent to another sexual occurrence—then I think you should warn them. It is not to say that it will never be relevant. I struggle to see how it would be relevant often, but, occasionally, it could be. Where it is going to be put at issue, then I think that it should have to be warned of, and the provisions of this bill seem wise in that regard.

In respect of the privilege for plea discussions, again, if you are going to have full and frank discussions leading to a proper pleading, then that seems to be sensible. I would say that I have a slight concern about the rise of American-like bargaining around pleading. I think that the current Solicitor-General, who is responsible for the prosecutorial decisions that are made on behalf of the Crown, listened carefully to some complaints that had been made to me and at least one other member of the select committee, which we raised with the Solicitor-General at either the estimates or the financial reviews last year. I was very pleased that the Solicitor-General took those complaints seriously, and I was satisfied by his explanations this year that he looked into them carefully and that he did not think that the accusations that were made were fair.

So I accept that explanation, but I do think we all have to be careful that we do not fall into the situation where, because we are starting to bulk-fund prosecutorial services—we do not want there to be a financial incentive that is inappropriate, to settle for pleading guilty to a lower level of charge than reflects the seriousness of the offence. We do not want that to become part of the New Zealand justice system. None the less, I can see why we need full and frank plea discussions, and that privilege should be attached to those discussions.

In respect of previous consistent statements, this bill puts the position back to where it was before the Evidence Act 2006 was enacted. In that regard, large pieces of legislation like that, despite the best care of this Parliament and the Law Commission, do occasionally throw up things that we did not get quite right. I think it is a testament to how good the work was on the Evidence Act 2006 that there have not been many instances of that.

One final thing, which is not within the scope of this bill but which I would like to have seen fixed, is that we still have this problem in respect of the evidence that can be gathered through search and surveillance mechanisms for the Serious Fraud Office in New Zealand. We have conferred protections on the media through the Search and Surveillance Act, which was passed a couple of years ago in this House, in respect of the arms of the State—other than the Serious Fraud Office, but including the police, which confers protections on the media. We have had problems with the media being subjected to inappropriate search and surveillance by an arm of the State—most notably the Serious Fraud Office, in the National Business Review case arising out of the South Canterbury Finance controversy.

I just use this opportunity to put on record that I think we are overdue for fixing that up. I know it was stubbornness on the part of then Minister Judith Collins, and there is a long record of how we tried to fix that. But I still think it is an outstanding matter that I would like to see fixed because I want to protect media freedoms, including against inappropriate action by the Serious Fraud Office, which, overall is a good office. I just think that that is a bit of law that still needs to be tidied up. With those comments, I again record that the Labour Party is supporting this bill.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Following this first reading of the Evidence Amendment Bill, the bill is going to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I am very pleased, as chair, to be sent this bill. Along with the Harmful Digital Communications Act, which has just very recently passed through this House, this bill indicates a general move by, certainly, the Government—which is supported in this instance by many parties around the House; we will find out how many parties around the House—that shows a trend towards greater protection for victims of crime.

If I might just divert very slightly off the bill for a very short time—the harmful digital communications legislation will protect young people, give them a measure of protection in law and in practice from cyber-bullying. This Evidence Amendment Bill, of course, is a different beast, and it gives legislative protection for children who are victims in terms of giving evidence and cross-examination in the court. As the previous speaker, David Parker, noted in his very thoughtful contribution to this debate—and I thank him for that—this work does come out of the work of the Law Commission, which was commissioned by the then Minister of Justice Judith Collins in 2013. This bill picks up most of those recommendations, with one or two of those recommendations altered slightly. But, in essence, the Law Commission’s recommendations have been picked up in this Evidence Amendment Bill.

The main provisions in this bill are to make changes to improve the court processes for vulnerable witnesses; clearly, most of those are children. At the moment, prosecutors have to apply to the court to use alternative ways of giving evidence. An application must be made, and then the judge has to consider and give permission for alternative ways for evidence to be given on behalf of children. Commonly, that will be for the child or young person to be supported by a family member or representative, and perhaps for a videoconferencing method to be used to give evidence.

The presumption in this bill will now be that child witnesses give evidence in alternative ways. It will be up to the child’s counsel and the child’s support person as to what kind of degree that child can be exposed to the courtroom in order to get the best evidence from that child. Fundamentally, that is a very humane way—and a very humane change to our court system—to minimise the stress on children and any long-term impacts of not just the offending but the reliving of that offending in the court processes.

The restriction on video recording of evidence, again, is supported by the Labour Opposition. I can only reflect that David Parker, as a former lawyer—he is not practising now—who no doubt has been through this process on behalf of some of his clients, again is in agreement with this provision. I do hope that the rest of the House is.

As I was preparing for this speech I did not quite have time to go back through the legislative changes that this Government has made, but it brought to my mind some other changes we had made in a former piece of legislation where this type of information was, again, restricted. The case I am thinking of is where a victim’s contact details—address and phone number—were able to be shared with the offender by the offender’s counsel. The offender was then able to recall those details—remember them—and harass that victim from inside prison. I will not make a stab at what that legislation was—it was a few years ago now—but, again, the provision in this Evidence Amendment Bill is in line with those further protections for witnesses. It is nothing else—it is not a mechanism for preventing information being shared with the defence counsel; rather, it is a measure for protecting witnesses.

The Minister Louise Upston in her opening comments outlined the privilege for plea discussions. The provisions in this bill extend the privilege that currently applies to settlement negotiations and mediation in civil proceedings to include plea discussions in criminal proceedings. At the moment, there is no clear privilege in this matter in respect of communication in plea discussions. Again, the Law Commission recommended reform in this area, and that has been picked up in this bill. Again, it deals with previous consistent statements admitted into evidence. Here, I think the member who spoke previously, David Parker, rather glossed over, perhaps, some of the consequences of the 2006 amendment to the Evidence Act in saying: “Oh, well, we don’t always get everything right.” No, we do not, and there is an opportunity in this bill to reinstate the provision for consistent statements to be entered.

Perhaps an example of that would be where a complaint was made in a criminal case; maybe a complainant, a child, told their mother that they had been raped. Consistent evidence of a 111 call made on the day or night of the occasion of that alleged rape could then be used as supporting evidence. So, yet again, that is another good inclusion in this bill. There are also a number of minor and technical amendments in this bill, which the Justice and Electoral Committee, together with other parties in the House, will go over.

I just want to finish my initial contribution on this bill by saying, again, that it is another piece of legislation brought to the House over the past 7 years that puts the victim of crime at the centre. In this instance it provides protections for child victims so that they can give good quality evidence—and that is the key; good quality evidence—to the court, but without revictimising or further victimising or traumatising them. It provides more clarity to the court around evidence to be introduced that is consistent with the original statement, and it also provides for notice requirements for evidence of previous sexual history, where a notice must be given to the court if a previous sexual history is to be entered into evidence. With those words, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and thank you very much. It is an honour to rise and speak on the Evidence Amendment Bill today, and I would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague the Hon David Parker to the Minister, the Hon Louise Upston, who I thought gave a very good speech in introducing this bill to the House. It was sensitive, well constructed, and certainly laid out a fair amount of the detail. That is important, because as the general policy statement in the explanatory note of the Evidence Amendment Bill states: “This Bill makes a number of minor and technical amendments …”. I think the sheer nature of the discussions and debates that have happened in this House so far to date on the bill show that although minor and technical, it is very important. So I do want to commend the Minister and I do look forward, as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, to having this bill come in front of our committee and us being allowed to pore over the detail and the fine print.

We in the Labour Party support this bill. I want to pick up on a couple of points that the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, Jacqui Dean, mentioned in her contribution in the House today, and one those points was really about putting the victim at the forefront of all our thinking when we consider bills like this. It is important that we do that, and just as important, as she mentioned too, is that we wrap the correct services and support around the victims. In particular, in this case, the bill talks of children, our most vulnerable in this country, and it is important that we get this process right. So although I agree that this legislation is a step in the right direction, it is but one step. I do acknowledge that some of the other bills that we have supported through the House in recent times add to that jigsaw puzzle that is looking after the victims, and I support that.

It is clear that the bill makes a number of amendments to the Evidence Act 2006 following a review by the Law Commission. I spoke briefly about how we need to wrap these support services around the victim. Another point that the member Jacqui Dean mentioned was a support person for our tamariki, or the children, who are required to give evidence. It is a good thing to have a support person for our most vulnerable, our children, when they go through this particular process, but I want to make a point in my contribution about the nature of that support person. We know it is important to have family, but, often, as we know, in cases such as this, family or wider family are involved. I just wonder what kind of influence a support person may have on the child before they give evidence. Perhaps that is something that we can debate or discuss a bit further in the select committee process.

There was a report prepared by the Auckland University of Technology in 2010 that looked at this particular issue, and it highlighted two very important points. One of those was the length of time that the child had to wait before giving evidence. It was approximately something like 15 months, and that is, as we would all agree, I am sure, arguably too long. However, it is important that the trial must go through its process. It must be fair for all sides, and it must be able to be considered properly and appropriately.

The reason I mention that is that not too long ago I was called to jury service in a particular case, about which I will not speak in too much detail on. It was clear, sitting there as a juror, just how hard these cases can be on children and young people who have to present in front of—as the members have already mentioned—such a daunting audience. You have your judge, you have the jurors, you have lawyers, and also the person whom the charges are brought against. I think it is about time that, as technology progresses so fast—although we may say it is just a video recording or it is a video conference or closed-circuit television, it is important that we use the technology of the day, and, in this particular case, the bill does allow for those provisions for our children to be cared for. I want to also mention the great work by my colleague Kelvin Davis, who has stood up and, indeed, during the campaign, campaigned against sexual violence. I know that he actually just flicked through a text, and he is very happy that this particular bill has come up and he, along with all of us, will support it into the select committee.

These are sensible changes. They are a step in the right direction. The protections of victims do need to extend beyond the courtroom interactions, however. This is why, at the beginning of my contribution, I talked about a full wraparound service. I would be interested, as this bill progresses, to see what that looks like. It is not just about the time at which the child or the victim gives the evidence; it is about the entire process: how they are supported while the trial is going on and how they are supported post-trial. It is the whole wraparound service that we need to get right in order, as the bill states, for the child or the victim to move on. It is appropriate that we get that right so that the children can move on with their lives.

I will not talk too much longer on this bill. We do support it here on this side of the House. We look forward to it going to the select committee, of which I and, of course, members from across all parties are on, and we look forward to debating this as it moves forward. I want to once again thank the Minister for her kind words in the introduction of this bill. Kia ora.

JONO NAYLOR (National): I just want to echo the sentiments from the previous speaker, Peeni Henare. It is certainly a pleasure to sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I will touch on that a little bit further as I go through my speech. I want to start by just reflecting a little bit on what a good judicial system looks like. Of course, first and foremost, it has to be just and justice needs to be done, and it needs to be seen to be done. It needs to ensure that it brings perpetrators who are guilty to have an appropriate consequence for their actions. It needs to be timely and it needs to happen in an appropriate time to ensure that justice is being done. But I think the third phase of it, which to me is probably most critical, is that our judicial system must not revictimise our victims.

This bill, I think, just really does enhance our judicial system in a number of ways. Particularly, there are some aspects of it that will improve timeliness, and that has been expressed already through the opening remarks of the Minister, the Hon Louise Upston, so I will not dwell too much on that. But I do want to focus particularly on the aspects of what I think is really one of the critical points, as I said, about the judicial system: that we do not revictimise victims of crime, and, to a certain degree, that we do not victimise witnesses of crime either. Often witnesses are the untalked-about victims where crime is concerned, particularly when somebody has witnessed something that is particularly distressing and they have become, by association, victims even though they may not have had the crime specifically performed against them.

This is in line with a huge amount of work that has already been done by this Government through other legislation: through the Victims’ Rights Amendment Act, which has been dealt with; through—and I have forgotten the name of the legislation, but it provides for an offenders’ levy so that offenders are therefore having to pay to provide better services for victims and otherwise; and, as previous speakers have alluded to, the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. It is showing again, I guess, that this Government is committed to ensuring that victims are being looked after, that victims are at the forefront of our minds when we are thinking about the judicial system, and we are ensuring that they are receiving the best care and the best processes to ensure that they can come through their experiences in the best possible shape. This is where I believe this Evidence Amendment Bill really does come into its own.

I particularly want to focus on this point about how evidence is gathered from victims, particularly young victims, through alternative means other than putting people in a witness box. I particularly like the fact that this is now going to be a presumptive position. First and foremost, it is going to be assumed that a child will give evidence in this way instead of an application having to be made and a Crown prosecutor or otherwise being unsure of what the outcome of that application will be.

Can I just divert slightly and tell a little bit of a story from my own past experience that I think is relevant to the situation. I come from a background where I was working in social services. I have had to deal with young people in all sorts of difficult situations, but a particular situation comes to mind where a young teenager confided in me that she had experienced a gang rape. It was particularly traumatic for her to have to disclose that to me, and, as you can well imagine, not particularly pleasant for me to then have to deal with it. One of the tricky things that I faced in dealing with that situation was having to explain to this young woman that in order to bring justice to the perpetrators of that crime, she was going to not only have to tell that story again to the police but potentially have to tell that story possibly again in court. Although she was keen to see the perpetrators brought to justice, that was a big hurdle for her. It was not something that I particularly wanted her to have to do. There was good law in place. As the professional who was the first person to hear that I was, of course, interviewed by the police because there are aspects whereby that evidence can be admitted as well.

But under this legislation, should it pass, for a professional working with somebody like that who would make such a disclosure, it provides a much better avenue to take that person forward in their journey of dealing with the issue and recovering, and also bringing those perpetrators to account. It would be great to then be able to acknowledge to that victim that, actually, it was assumed that they would not have to stand in front of the court and retell their story; that it would be able to be done in an environment that was more suited to them; and that they would be able to have a support person with them while they did that.

I think the point that has been raised by Mr Henare over there about the nature of that support person is a really important one. It is probably something that we are going to need to think about because in, say, the situation I had found myself in, it would have been good to have a professional person who perhaps had been supporting this person through what they were facing—perhaps they may have been the support person in a case like that. But we do need to ensure that, actually, there is not an opportunity for a victim or a witness, as I said earlier, to be sort of put in a compromised position because of the nature of the support person who is with them. That is clearly something that we are going to have to think about.

So I really do look forward to this legislation coming to the Justice and Electoral Committee. As I said before, it is a very good committee, ably chaired by Jacqui Dean, who we have heard from this evening and who is possibly, you know, one of the better, if not the best, select committee chair in the House. That is four times that I have said that now, Jacqui. I have got to say it only one more time. [Interruption] It is controversial, I know, and I am going to upset a whole lot of other committee chairs out there, but a deal is a deal. I said I would say it publicly, and I am.

But anyway, all jokes aside, this is a very, very serious piece of legislation, and it is one that I think, perhaps through the select committee process, there may be some things we can examine and look at that may help tweak it a little bit. But the basic premise of what is in here and what it is trying to achieve is, I believe, exactly where we need to be moving as a nation. It is exactly what this Government is committed to doing to ensure that victims and witnesses of crimes are being dealt with in the most appropriate way, and that we are doing so without causing them any more suffering than what they have already been through—any more than is absolutely necessary. So I look forward to seeing the passage of this bill through this Parliament and look forward to getting to the point where we arrive at the third reading, we can give it the Royal assent, and our victims will be able to, I guess, really have confidence in our system.

I think that ultimately that is really what it is about; it is about us as lawmakers in New Zealand being able to give the public of New Zealand even more confidence in our judicial system. By allowing victims of crime, particularly young children, this presumption that their evidence will be gathered in this way we are going to be ensuring that they are looked after. That will, I believe, really deliver a positive outcome for New Zealand. So, as I said, I am looking forward to this bill coming through the select committee, I look forward to its passage through the House, and I certainly look forward to it being passed into law. Thank you.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a call on behalf of the Greens to express our support for this legislation. We think it is a good bill that will achieve some good outcomes. We note that to a large extent it follows, of course, the recommendations of the Law Commission review in 2013 of the primary legislation of the Evidence Act 2006. The preamble to the review essentially says that the Evidence Act is pretty robust and quite fit for purpose. The Law Commission did not find too much wrong with it. It did, nevertheless, manage to generate a fairly substantial document with a lot of detailed commentary in it, and that is a good thing. Out of that has emerged the provisions of this bill, and we see them as being quite positive and forward-looking.

The Minister of Justice in her introduction, as has been noted, made some comments about the importance of doing as much as we can to reduce the stress of people who are obliged to give evidence in a court. That is almost inherently going to be stressful, particularly for complainants. There is a risk of revictimisation of people who are obliged to speak to and describe events—often very traumatic events—which, no doubt, they would much prefer to put behind them and speak no more about. Of course, the legal system does, quite rightly, require them to give evidence, so anything we can do to reduce the likelihood of revictimisation and to reduce the stress and trauma involved in the legal process is to be desired. We think that this bill will make some contribution to that.

In terms of some of the specifics, of course the bill does seek to enable more previous consistent statements to be admissible and to extend the privilege that currently applies to settlement negotiation and mediation in civil proceedings to include plea discussions in criminal proceedings. I must confess that as a non-lawyer and a person who, to date, has managed to avoid being embroiled in significant legal proceedings, I was unclear, initially, exactly what the background to those statements was and what the implications were. I am fortunate to have an executive assistant who does have legal training who was able to guide me through some of that. I am sure the select committee will deal with those matters, but clearly they are matters that do seem to have positive potential outcomes in terms of the matters that will come to the court.

The restriction on video recording of evidence—essentially putting in some boundaries and ensuring the safety and security of any recordings by either victims of violence or sexual violence, or all evidence given by children—is important. Clearly, people in that position of giving such evidence are vulnerable. It is a very difficult time for them. It would be unfortunate if video of their contribution and them giving their evidence was made more generally available than was absolutely necessary for the court to do its work—so that is a good provision of the bill.

Similarly, we wholeheartedly support the requirements for evidence of previous sexual history. Sadly, in the past it was possible for complainants—particularly in matters of sexual violence—to be subject to some really quite aggressive, irrelevant, and very intrusive questioning around their entire sexual history that was often more to unsettle the complainant, to challenge their credibility, than it was to actually bring matters of relevance and value to the particular proceedings. This is changed to the extent that any investigation or any questioning of a complainant’s sexual history will be in relation only to the defendant, and it has to be agreed upfront by court that it will be heard and matters of relevance and justification will be considered. It is a kind of no-surprises approach. It does enable people who will nevertheless be required to reveal quite intimate details of their personal lives to at least have the security of foreknowledge of that and be able to prepare for it, to the extent that one can do such things.

Similarly, we are pleased at the change to a presumption that children or those under the age of 18 giving evidence in court will use alternative methods and will not simply stand in the dock in the way that an adult might. We have not always been fans of the change around presumption matters. I think back to some of the legislation passed last year or the year before where the presumption of innocence was overturned for some offences in favour of a presumption of guilt, which we were not terribly thrilled about, but in this instance the switch of presumption is, we think, positive. It may well be that some 16 or 17-year-olds are perfectly confident to stand in court and give their evidence as if they were adults. Certainly, the presumption change does not preclude that, but it does make it clear that any arguments will need to be made for other alternative mechanisms to be used. We think that is a very positive thing. We do have the technology and the capacity now to protect young people when they are giving evidence, and it is important that we do that. I am interested to hear some of the comments about the nature of the support person who might be considered appropriate. I am sure that the select committee will come to those matters as it does others.

I do look forward to the select committee investigation of this bill—to hearing evidence and submitters on it. It is a good and well-functioning select committee. We do, for the most part, get to the bottom of matters. I assume that the evidence and the submitters we will hear, let me say—I should not get too presumptive—will, for the large part, be supportive of this. But, nevertheless, invariably the initial draft can be improved on, and I look forward to being part of that work. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This bill will enact all but one of the recommendations of the Law Commission’s 2013 Evidence Act review. I would like to begin by thanking the commission for its work and congratulating the Government on implementing those recommendations.

I want to briefly review some of the changes. They are all fairly technical and minor in nature but still important. One of them is that the bill alters the law relating to hearsay in criminal proceedings. As we know, in common law hearsay evidence is generally not admissible, but the principal Act made hearsay evidence admissible in some cases. It preserved the common law rules relating to statements of co-conspirators and persons involved in joint criminal enterprises. In that context, a hearsay statement made in a business record is admissible because they are regarded, of course, as being reliable, but only if the person who supplied the information is unavailable or cannot reasonably be expected to recollect the matters in question, or if the judge considers that there would be too much expense or delay in bringing such a person forward to give evidence themselves. In this bill, clause 7 amends that Act by redefining the term “business record”—and it really did need some definition—and also excludes police records of statements or interviews with the victim or an eyewitness. In clause 9 the bill adds new section 22A, which says that “a hearsay statement is admissible against a defendant if—(a) there is reasonable evidence of a conspiracy or joint enterprise; and (b) there is reasonable evidence that the defendant was a member of the conspiracy or joint enterprise; and (c) the [hearsay] statement was made in furtherance of the conspiracy or joint enterprise.” Those changes are all needed and are appropriate.

The bill also alters the law relating to improperly obtained evidence in criminal proceedings. As we know, there is a longstanding principle that such evidence would be inadmissible, but sections 30(1) and 30(2) of the principal Act provide that if evidence may have been improperly obtained, the judge must consider it on the balance of probabilities and decide “whether or not the exclusion of the evidence is proportionate to the impropriety …”. This is done by means of a balancing process that gives appropriate weight to the impropriety but also takes proper account of the need for an effective and credible system of justice. Clause 11 simply removes the words “but also” and substitutes the word “and” so that it makes it clear that both the impropriety and, in addition, the need for an effective and credible system of justice are considered together. It is just a matter of clarity, but it is an important matter of clarity.

There are other amendments in the bill relating to admissibility of previous statements and documents used to refresh memory. Section 35(1) of the principal Act says that a previous statement of a witness is not admissible unless it is necessary to respond to a challenge to the witness’s veracity or accuracy and the statement provides the court with information that the witness is unable to recall. In this bill, clause 12 amends these exceptions to the necessity of responding to a challenge to the witness’s testimony based on a previous inconsistent statement, or a claim of invention by the witness, or if the statement simply forms part of an integral part of an event before the court, and the example is given of a 111 call. The other possibility is that the statement simply consists only of a complaint made. Those are all sensible changes to clarify the operation of those rules.

The veracity rules are amended by clauses 13 and 14 of the bill. Section 37 of the principal Act provides that a party may not offer evidence about a person’s veracity unless the evidence is substantially helpful. In deciding that, the judge has to consider the fact that the person might have been convicted of an offence—showing “a propensity for dishonesty” are the words used. The bill removes the word “dishonesty” in favour of “veracity”, which simply means truthfulness specifically and not dishonesty generally. So that is a small but important improvement.

Concerning the previous sexual experience of a complainant in sexual cases, section 44(1) of the principal Act provides that no evidence can be given relating to the sexual experience of the complainant with any person other than the defendant, except with the permission of the judge. In the bill, clause 16 would add that, in addition, no such evidence can be used unless new requirements are met for a written notice to be given, stating the name of the person to give the evidence and the subject matter of it so that everyone will be properly informed beforehand. But the judge may dispense with that notice if any party is substantially prejudiced or if the notice is not reasonably practical to be served and it is in the interest of justice to do so. Those changes appropriately clarify the parameters of the judge’s discretion, which were not there previously in the legislation.

Another change relates to privilege for plea discussions. In section 57 of the principal Act, it is provided that privilege for negotiations in civil proceedings are acceptable, but in this bill clause 22, new subsection (2A), extends that privilege to criminal proceedings. But under clause 22, new subsection (2B), the court may order disclosure where it is necessary for the subsequent prosecution for perjury, or to clarify the terms of any agreement reached during those negotiations, or if it would be contrary to justice not to do so. These are more quite sensible—minor but quite sensible—changes.

Evidential rules on video-recorded evidence are amended by clause 30 of the bill so that a video record must first be offered for viewing by all parties or their lawyers. However, a party is not entitled to be given a copy of a video of any child complainant or of any witness in a sexual case or a violence case. However, a judge may still order that such videos be given to a lawyer representing the party before it is offered in evidence, if it is in the interests of justice and considering the nature of the evidence.

Finally, clause 32 deals with alternative ways of giving evidence by a child, and that has, of course, been a matter for some concern for quite a while. I remember that in Christchurch the Ellis case raised a whole range of very difficult issues in relation to those considerations. So this clause says that a child witness is entitled to give evidence in criminal cases by any appropriate means so long as the judge, the jury, the defendant, and the lawyers concerned can see and hear the witness giving that evidence. This bill says that a child witness who has indicated that they are willing to give evidence in the ordinary way may be permitted to do so if the judge makes the decision, and in doing so the judge must be satisfied that the witness fully appreciates the likely effect on him or her of doing that and for that purpose can call for a report on the likely effects on the witness. I think that is quite a valuable provision. It clarifies the circumstances under which a child witness can give evidence and takes appropriate action to protect the child. So I am glad to see that there.

Overall, all of these new amendments are deserving of support to the select committee, and for that reason New Zealand First will vote for the bill to do so.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): The Evidence Act 2006 was a big step forward for criminal law in New Zealand. I was a law student in 2006. In fact, I was doing fourth-year law at the time, and I did evidence law, so it was interesting when I was doing that because the Act came into force while I was actually a student. So we had to learn two bits of law. We had to learn the Evidence Act, which, as David Parker rightly pointed out earlier in the House, codifies, essentially, the common law rules. We also had to learn some of the common law rules and some of the statutory provisions that overlapped with the common law. So it was an interesting time to consider evidence law. But it is a really important Act, and the Hon David Parker is very much correct to point out that it is of fundamental importance. I was very fortunate to be taught by Associate Professor—I think she was at the time—Elizabeth McDonald, and she has actually had some involvement in the Law Commission review that has led to this bill. She is a very formidable figure.

It is a very important Act. The process of the codification of evidence law in New Zealand actually started back in 1989. Like so many things we often deal with in this Parliament, Geoffrey Palmer can be linked to it because it was something that the Law Commission started to look at back in 1989, and the eventual outcome, 17 years later, was the Evidence Act. It is of such importance that it is one of those Acts where Parliament put in place a review mechanism so that every 5 years the Government would have the ability to consider whether or not the Act was working as intended.

The amendment bill that we are dealing with today comes out of the review that the Government commissioned in 2011, 5 years after the bill was passed. The Law Commission did its review and published its report in 2013, and so we are dealing with the bill that results from that. And, as has been pointed out by a member previously, the Government actually adopted all bar one of the recommendations of the Law Commission.

Other members have gone through the bill in quite a high level of detail. I want to focus my remarks on the changes the bill makes to the sexual experience of complainants in sexual cases. It is, I believe, an important change that the bill makes and something that I am looking forward to examining in greater detail on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which, as my colleague Jono Naylor pointed out, is a good committee that operates in a fairly collegial fashion, much like the Regulations Review Committee does, which I was lauding only about an hour ago.

The issue of the admissibility of the sexual experience of complainants in sexual cases in New Zealand has, I think it is fair to say, a mixed history. The traditional view was, of course, that the past sexual activity of complainants was relevant to the credibility of complainants, even where there was no relevance to the alleged offending. Where consent was an issue in sexual cases—and it is so often the case in those sexual cases that consent is disputed—the defence would often argue that a complainant had consented because of past sexual encounters. There are some horror stories of the way in which complainants on the stand were put through the ringer by defence council about their sexual reputation or their past sexual encounters, which is now ruled out completely. In some ways it was a form of propensity evidence.

As the Law Commission notes, the common law gave considerable latitude to the defence counsel and to the defence more generally in raising this as a form of defence and raising it in evidence. Parliament acted in 1977 by inserting section 23A of the Evidence Act 1908 into the Evidence Amendment Act of 1977, thus passing what is commonly referred to as rape shield legislation, which was initially applied to rape only. Then in 1985, as part of the widespread reform of criminal justice statutes and evidence statutes, it was brought into all cases of a sexual nature, which I think is appropriate. That did place some limitations on what evidence could be applied to be admissible in those cases. The evidence could be admitted only if it was relevant and it could be admitted only if to exclude it would be contrary to the interests of justice. Section 44 of the current Evidence Act essentially replicates that provision.

So what does this bill do? There is a plausible argument—one that I think some members have sympathy with; I certainly do—that sexual history between complainants and defendants should be absolutely prohibited. There is a plausible argument for that, and the debates go back and forth on that. Actually, it is true to say that New Zealand is one of the few jurisdictions to allow it. There is a plausible argument that it should be prohibited, but I think that the balance of opinion—and I think that I subscribe to this view—is where the Law Commission came down, which is that where there are cases involving a prior relationship, those cases where consent is an issue will always turn on that belief in consent. So, inevitably, the prior relationship, or the prior sexual relationship, will be relevant to the question at issue in the case.

So this bill does not prohibit sexual history evidence, but what it does do is put in place some requirements that need to be fulfilled before an application can be made to offer that evidence in the case. So the bill says that no application may be made to offer evidence or ask any question about the sexual experience of a complainant unless the party proposing to offer the evidence has complied with requirements set out in the Act. The requirements are that they must provide every other party with a written notice stating the party’s intention to offer the evidence, the name of the person who will give the evidence, and the subject matter and the scope of the evidence. There is a series of other requirements that are laid out in the bill.

This picks up on Elisabeth McDonald and Yvette Tinsley’s suggestion to the Law Commission review in 2011, which reported back in 2013. It actually replicates, I think, the recommendation of the Australian Law Reform Commission. I understand that, essentially, what is being proposed in this bill has been in place in the state of Victoria in Australia since 2009. I, for one, am really looking forward to hearing from some submitters at the select committee about the experience of that in Victoria and how that has actually worked in practice. They have had 6 years of that to see how it goes. I am really looking forward to hearing whether or not it has worked in Victoria, and whether or not it is something that we should be replicating in New Zealand through this bill.

The relevant page from the Law Commission report is page 138, paragraph 7.33. In fact, the whole of that section in the Law Commission report is worth a read. As my colleague David Clendon mentioned previously, it is a very worthy report. It is a lengthy document and quite technical in its scope, as I said at the start of my speech, but it is actually really, really important to the way in which criminal trials are conducted in this country. I support this bill. I certainly support it going to a select committee.

The issue that I have canvassed in my speech today is one that Parliament has considered at various points. It is something that is contentious within the legal fraternity, but it is something that Parliament has to grapple with again, and I think the changes that are being promoted by the Government through this bill will be a useful change to the law of evidence to make sure that victims, or alleged victims, or complainants, in sexual cases are treated with respect and treated with dignity, because that is everyone’s right through the criminal justice system. With those remarks, I commend this bill to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I understand this is a 5-minute split call.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call on this bill for the Green Party, and we are supporting it. My colleague David Clendon spoke earlier more broadly about this bill, but I would like to pay particular attention to the aspects of this bill that will impact on victims of sexual violence and on children. It is actually quite nice to follow on from my National Party colleague Chris Bishop and to mention and give respect to Elisabeth McDonald and Yvette Tinsley for their incredibly important work in this area, as well as to all the other advocates in this country working in the community who have been working for decades to try to improve the absolutely appalling 1 percent conviction rate for perpetrators of sexual violence in this country. We do need to question whether it is in fact a justice system at all when gender-based crimes have such low conviction rates.

Before I get into some of the details of this bill, I do want to put it into a context of some action and inaction over time in relation to these legal and justice issues around sexual violence. We have had decades of challenge, of being advocates, and of legal academics drawing to our attention the need for substantive justice reform in this area. I think it came to most New Zealander’s attention how bad our system was when in 2006 we saw the acquittal of two former police officers and the then assistant commissioner of police who had been accused of the rape of Louise Nicholas in the 1980s. There was a very general and passionate response from most of this country in recognising the injustice of that decision and that that decision was an actual consequence of the way our legal system was set up, where a woman who was incredibly brave to take a case to court was humiliated through the process and was not able to get justice.

Out of that process the then Minister of Justice Mark Burton set up a task force for action—and I do emphasise that word “action”—on sexual violence, which saw 2 years of ministries, cross-ministries, and advocates putting in thousands of hours, probably, of work to try to come up with solutions to be able to fix this terribly broken system. The then Minister of Justice in 2009, Simon Power, described that work as the best road map that we had ever had for reducing sexual violence. Sadly, we are still waiting to see the results of that.

One of the key recommendations of that report was to refer options for fundamental change to the current justice system to the Law Commission. In 2011, I think, the Law Commission was working on this and put out recommendations and ideas for consultation. It came back and the summary was produced in 2012. The then Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, took that work off the agenda of the Law Commission. So after decades of work, of lost lives, and of injustice that work was taken off the agenda. I do want to give credit to the new Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, for putting that work back on to the Law Commission’s agenda, but I also want to register my absolute frustration that the time frame the Law Commission has been given of September this year means, it has indicated, that out of the 18 points for consideration in that consultation document, it is probably going to be able to consider only two or three issues in substance.

So that, in actual fact, is not a fundamental review of our justice system. It will be only a partial review, and what this bill does is respond, again, to a partial part of the problem—one tiny aspect of a system that is so fundamentally broken we should all be in the streets complaining about it. When we have one in four women experiencing sexual violence in this country and a justice system that delivers justice in 1 percent of cases, we have a bigger problem than this bill will solve.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Evidence Amendment Bill in its first reading. I am sure we will be canvassing some points that other members have raised. The changes proposed in this bill are extremely important and very, very welcome—very welcome, it seems, in this House and, I am sure, very welcome across New Zealand—particularly as they relate to matters around the means by which children provide evidence, and the way to deal with issues of the admissibility and presentation of evidence in cases of sexual and violent crimes. Of course, we can never legislate away the pain and suffering that is faced by victims, but we can, at the very least, make very sound, pragmatic efforts to help to make the process of the justice system, and particularly the giving and hearing of evidence, as easy as we possibly can for those victims.

I would like to first touch upon the provisions around child witnesses giving evidence, particularly giving evidence in alternative ways, and also their right to have a support person present with them when they are giving that evidence. I think this is an extraordinarily important area of the changes that are proposed in this bill. Although I am a father, I am very fortunate that I can say that none of my children have ever had to find themselves in a position to have to give evidence in court on any matter, one of great seriousness and great trauma or otherwise. So I do not pretend to be able to say that I can fully appreciate what that must be like, but I think it is well acknowledged across our society, and it is a very strong feeling I do get as a parent, that it must be an incredibly distressing exercise for children to go through and to be put through. It is a means that is necessary as part of ensuring that a defendant gets a fair hearing, but it must be very, very difficult for a child in this situation when they are there to give evidence.

So what this bill will do is it will allow a presumption that child witnesses can use alternative ways to give evidence, such as pre-recording of evidence-in-chief or delivering evidence via closed-circuit television hook-ups or behind screens. Although it is fair and important to note that at the moment it is possible for child witnesses to give evidence through alternative ways, it is possible today only if an application is made. I think that is quite concerning, actually, if we reflect on that for a moment. What it does permit at the moment is for a defendant’s legal team to actually present an argument to try to prevent the child or children in question giving evidence in a way that will be easier and more comfortable or less distressing for them. Ultimately, I think we probably all have confidence in the courts that the courts will make the right decision in the case of those applications. It certainly compounds more and more stress and worry for those child witnesses to have to go through that process before, ultimately, the court will make the right decision and allow them to deliver their evidence through the most appropriate means.

By taking away that need to apply, and operating on the presumption that the child can deliver their evidence through an alternative means, we are helping, I think, to ensure that what will still be a very difficult time for that witness will be that much easier for them. This is a very important consideration for all members of this House, and certainly is in line with this Government’s objectives and actions where we are very much about putting the victim at the heart of our justice system and making sure that their needs and considerations are dealt with also.

I would also like to touch upon the restrictions on video-record evidence. What this bill will do is it will restrict defence access to police videos of witness evidence in sexual and in violent cases and, in fact, of a child’s evidence or a complainant’s evidence in all cases. The fundamental reason for this is we want to help to ensure that the risk that the video records will be misplaced or misused will be minimised, and that is, I think, a very laudable basis for this. I would just like to make the point that this will not restrict the defence’s access to the evidence. It may mean that the evidence will have to be viewed on police premises or that they will have to apply to the court for a copy of those types of records, but it will not prevent the defence from gaining access to them, and it will not prevent the defendant’s right to the information and access to the evidence to help them go about their case. I think it is another element that this bill introduces that will help to remove barriers, perhaps, to complainants bringing forward their case, and will help to reduce the risk that the evidence they give may be misused or misplaced.

Moving on from that, I would also like to touch upon—and my colleague Mr Bishop, I think, talked a great deal about this in his fine contribution to this debate—the notice about requirements for evidence of previous sexual history. The requirement that the defence will have to give notice before the start of a trial if they intend to use the evidence about a victim’s sexual history with someone other than the defendant is, I think, very, very important. Like the rest of society, we do peruse a lot of the media available, and we all hear, I think, cases where a complainant’s past activities are brought to bear by the defence in a way that is intended to place a certain colour on their character that may or may not bring a jury to view other evidence in another light. I think it is very important—not necessarily that we have a situation where such evidence is inadmissible, but that the complainant can know in advance that they are going to be questioned on certain matters or that certain matters may be brought to light, and that they can also prepare adequately to deal with those.

One thing that springs to mind, actually—I would suggest it is possibly not a complete match to the sort of example I just used—is that we do know that in the defence of Clayton Weatherston, who was ultimately found guilty of the murder of Sophie Elliot, his defence team absolutely did use the victim’s, in that case the murder victim’s, past behaviours. In fact, I think what they held were some fairly recent behaviours that they used to cast a light on her character in, perhaps, an attempt to mitigate the actions of Mr Weatherston. I recall that the public reaction to that—certainly, the media reaction—was a strong sense that it was a reprehensible sort of an approach to take in that case. So I think the measures that we are looking to put in place through this bill will give the complainants and their team a fairer playing field in that instance to actually address the sorts of issues that the defence might bring up, and it will, in fact, allow tests of admissibility earlier, rather than in the middle of proceedings. I think that is another piece that the bill will bring about that is very, very good to see.

Another element I will touch upon is around privilege for plea discussions. At the moment it does seem that perhaps there is some concern that there may not be clear privilege in respect of communication on plea discussions. There is this view, and certainly the Law Commission held a view and recommended reform in the area, to ensure that the defence and police can go through full and frank plea discussions in a means that may help to encourage early disposal of cases. That will also have an impact, a positive impact, on perhaps removing witnesses from a need to testify and, therefore, reducing the stress that may be placed upon them. So I think this is an extremely sound, very welcome bill to be introduced to the House, and I commend it to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be—

Paul Foster-Bell: Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Paul Foster-Bell.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I am sorry, Mr Speaker; I was a little bit slow off the mark there. It is a pleasure to rise and take a call in this first reading debate of the Evidence Amendment Bill, a very important piece of legislation being introduced in the name of the Hon Amy Adams, our assiduous and hard-working Minister of Justice in this National-led Government. Evidence in our legal system is incredibly important, and it is a matter that this House does take—and I am sure all members are of this view—with the utmost seriousness, given its important part in ensuring we have a fair and reasonable system for justice in this country.

I was fortunate enough 2 weeks ago to be in Runnymede in Surrey for the 800th anniversary of the sealing by King John—and it is a myth that King John signed the Magna Carta; he did seal it. Over that 800-year period since that momentous event, our legal system has developed many protections, checks, balances, institutions, and traditions that provide for fairness. One of the very first times that it was actually put down in writing and became the law of the land that people were to be judged by their own peers was contained in the Magna Carta. Thinking of that, I think that the way in which people are judged by their peers, by juries, comes down to how the evidence is admitted and the veracity of the evidence, but also how fairly that evidence has been obtained, and these reforms contained in this bill do make a significant contribution to modernising the way in which evidence is treated in our legal system to ensure that fairness.

Just to go back to a general background, the New Zealand courts do follow the common law adversarial traditions in litigation, although there are exceptions, including the mediation process in the Family Court under the Family Proceedings Act 1980. The evidence that is required to establish either a civil claim or to prove a criminal charge is presented to the court by the parties, and this usually done through the calling of witnesses and the questioning of either the party’s own witnesses or the questioning—the cross-examination—of witnesses on the other side of the case. The very serious criminal charges tend to be tried by a judge sitting with a jury, as are a very small number of civil cases. Other cases, generally the more minor ones, whether civil or criminal, are tried by a judge sitting alone, and the judge’s function in that particular regard is to preside over the hearing, to decide on the case according to the evidence, and to rule as to the admissibility of that evidence. In a trial with a jury, however, it is the jury’s function to determine the facts and to give the verdict, and the judge’s task is to direct them about the application of the law, to rule on the admissibility of the evidence, and to assist them with the summing up of the respective cases at the end of the trial.

In neither civil nor criminal trials may the judge or jury go beyond the evidence placed before them or accepted by the parties, or embark on an independent inquiry of the facts. This is a very important point and it has been accepted. It was established most recently, I think, in the case of Jayasena v The Queen, a 1970 case, which referred to section 3 of the Ceylon Evidence Ordinance and which stated—and I do think this is relevant in this case—as follows: “A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought under the circumstances of the particular case to act upon the supposition that it exists.”

So having established this background as to the nature of the law of evidence and where it comes from, I think the technical changes proposed by the Minister’s bill, the Evidence Amendment Bill, make very good sense in modernising what has become a system that exists now in a very different world to that in which that 1970 case was heard, and certainly a massively different world to the one in which Magna Carta was sealed 800 years ago. So the purpose of this bill is to better protect vulnerable witnesses and to ensure that evidence is handled appropriately and securely and sensitively in the complex and technologically sophisticated world in which we live today.

No Government can ever legislate away the pain and suffering faced by the victims of crime, but this is a bill that will allow the more vulnerable victims and witnesses to be better supported through the judicial process. It is part of a wider set of outcomes that this Government is hoping to achieve that put victims at the heart of the justice system through some of the new legislation that this Government has stewarded through the House. The main provisions of this bill improve the court processes for vulnerable witnesses. We have actually brought in a presumption that child witnesses will be able to give evidence in alternative ways and will have the right to a support person. I think this is incredibly important for our smallest and most vulnerable citizens who have been the tragic victims of some of the worst offending you can imagine. It does strike me as odd that a judge would have to give permission that a child would be allowed to have a support person during the time in which they were giving their evidence to the court. It is also out of step, I think, with the world in which we live today—that those alternative ways of giving evidence were not automatically available to children.

This bill, replacing that former state of affairs in which the judge had the call, introduces a presumption that all child witnesses will have access to those alternative ways of giving evidence—for example, via the video recordings of a police interview or via closed-circuit television, which is recorded from behind witness screens in the court. In adding the right to have a support person, we do genuinely believe that this will reduce the stress on those children who are giving evidence who may be the victims of some of that appalling offending. We also think that this will help give more reliable and accurate evidence during the judicial process.

There are some restrictions we are introducing to take into account the changing world in which we live, including restricting defence counsel’s access to the police videos of witness evidence in sexual and violent cases and all child complainants’ evidence. The idea behind this is to reduce the risk of those video records being misused or misplaced. It is around the security, and one can only imagine how upsetting it would be for a young victim and their family to find that a video recording of their evidence had been accidentally left on a device—for instance, a laptop or a recording device—that was disposed of by the court and somehow ended up in the wrong hands. But even worse, if there was a malicious case—and I think my respected colleague Brett Hudson, the list member based in Ōhāriu, referred to the horrific case of Clayton Weatherston, where a vindictive defendant actually used evidence that was provided in a cruel attempt to harass the family. I think in those particular circumstances it is appropriate that the actual recordings are not left in the wrong hands. There is an offence that we will be introducing in relation to the unauthorised possession, use, and distribution of video-recorded evidence in court.

We are changing the notice requirements for evidence of previous sexual history, and I think this is only fair that when we are talking about bringing in someone’s sexual history with another person other than the defendant advance notice is given. This is a change that was recommended by the Law Commission, and I do believe it is uncontroversial in this House. It is very sensible and should be, I think, moved through. In terms of privilege, we are changing the privilege rules around plea discussions. We believe that extending privilege to plea discussions—this is the sort of privilege that already applies to settlement negotiations and mediation in civil proceedings. We think it will enable a full and free plea discussion and encourage the earlier disposal of the case. This is a very good bill, and for that reason I commend it to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): We have had a very busy week this week in the House, and so I seek leave to lift the House early.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that particular course of action. Is there any objection from any member? There is none.

The House adjourned at 5.19 p.m.