Evidence Bill

Having bored the Committee silly on Part 3, I will be very brief on Part 5. There is only one clause I want to address: clause 194A. An important issue arose in the select committee. The issue was how, once the legislation has been passed, we will ensure that it is kept up to date. That is an important factor, bearing in mind the legislative history of the Evidence Act, which was first enacted in 1908 then amended three or four times. The last real substantial amendment to the Evidence Act 1908 was the Evidence Amendment Act (No 2) of 1980. So periodic review of this kind of legislation raises important questions. Given the huge amount of work that has been done by the Law Commission over the years and, more recently, the excellent work by the ministry, it is important to ensure that the new legislation is kept up to date. On the other hand, we do not want to see regular amendments as soon as there has been a case on a particular aspect. In other words, the legislation will need to have time to settle down.

That is why we discussed how we would best go with periodic review and who should do it. I will briefly address that second question first: should it be the Law Commission, which was responsible for preparation of the report; should it be the select committee; or should it be the ministry? We took advice from the Law Commission and from the ministry. As a consequence of that, we decided that the appropriate body for this legislation would be the Law Commission. The next issue is how frequently it should be reviewed. Clause 194A(1) answers that question: “as soon as practicable after 1 December 2011 or any later date set by the Minister by notice in the Gazette,” and thereafter on at least one occasion during each 5-year period following that date the Law Commission will consider this legislation.

I commend this bill to the Committee as a good model for post-legislative review. I am not saying that it should be all legislation, but, certainly, with this kind of legislation we do not want those finicky amendments that sometimes bedevil legislation. It will be good for the body that authored the reports that gave rise to the legislation to look at this legislation after it has been in operation for 5 years, and in a principled way go through the various provisions to see whether the sorts of innovations we have been talking about this afternoon actually work and, if they do not, what changes need to be made. So I simply say that it is a good and workable clause, and it will enable this very important area of the law to be kept up to date, not in a piecemeal or an episodic fashion but in a principled way.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 79 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 5 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 79 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to schedule 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2