Evidence Bill

I think I have really said my bit and will therefore be very brief. I do acknowledge the huge help of the ministry officials. I think Chelly Walton and Boris van Beusekom have done a superb job working with the Justice and Electoral Committee, as has Robert Fisher QC. I think the legislation that is about to emerge from the Committee is a good piece of work, and that work was done in a bipartisan way by various representatives of parties in this Chamber. So I am delighted that the bill has come through in this shape.

I have no doubt at all that in due course amendments will be needed, but I sincerely hope for the Minister’s and the ministry’s sakes we have not made any howlers in the body of the legislation such as will necessitate an urgent amendment bill before the end of the year. If that is the case, I certainly do not intend to be around. I simply emphasise that this is new legislation—

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: All care and no responsibility.

All care and no responsibility, as Harry says—which is fair enough. I simply emphasise that once the bill is passed it will be a new day, and I certainly hope the passage of this legislation will result in us seeing a real raising of standards in the High Court.

It was interesting when I asked a member of the Legislation Advisory Committee in the select committee whether he thought the standard of knowledge of the law of evidence was particularly good in this country, and he said that, no, it was not. This legislation gives the practitioners and the judges a chance, really, to master the rules of evidence. They will have the key rules of evidence available to them in a coherent form and readily available, and in my opinion there will be no excuse for not ensuring that standards rise. That in itself will help the just, speedy, and efficient dispatch of both civil and criminal proceedings.

I recall being in the gallery many years ago when I was watching the passage of the Evidence Amendment Bill (No 2) and listening to Sir Geoffrey Palmer go on about such cases as Hollington v Hewthorne, and so on. The debate on that bill all those years ago covered only three or four matters, whereas this bill covers a huge variety of matters. So I am delighted it is about to be passed, and I must emphasise the huge contribution made by the Minister’s officials and the very pleasant and productive team that worked on this bill.

I echo the sentiments of the member who has just resumed his seat. Indeed, we should again put on record the outstanding work undertaken by the officials. But that work did add to the decade-long, as one member referred to earlier, work of the Law Commission.

It is interesting, as Chris Finlayson just noted, that Sir Geoffrey Palmer not only featured in the House’s earlier efforts in this area but, as President of the Law Commission, continues to feature as we progress this legislation. I believe, as I said earlier, that by drawing together common law and statutory provisions into one comprehensive scheme, and dealing with many of those ambiguities and inconsistencies that have accumulated over many years, the law book is being well served, notwithstanding the member’s warning to us all that as a new day begins, with it comes new opportunities to add confusion!

But I think this measure is a good example of the benefit of this institution and the others I have referred to working at their best. The Justice and Electoral Committee and its subcommittee considered what was already, I think, a substantial and good piece of work. In my view, the further amendments they made to it improved it. I think that we have before us the best efforts of many good minds and intentions, and that we are the better for it. I look forward to taking a call in the third reading of the bill in the not too distant future and seeing it enacted.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.