Estimates Debate — Justice

Thank you, Mr Chair. As the chair of the Justice Committee, I’d like to take the opportunity to briefly outline what the Justice Committee heard at the time the Minister appeared before us. We held a separate hearing with each of the three Ministers—so, with Minister Faafoi, Minister of Justice, but also with the Hon Marama Davidson as the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, and also with the Hon Aupito William Sio as the Minister for Courts.

One of the main issues that was addressed straight away was what was in the Budget, and that included a significant increase in the amount of legal aid. We heard that in the 2021/22 appropriations, $234.563 million was spent in terms of that, and that’s around 38 percent of all justice appropriations. Members were eager to understand why that had increased, and the Minister explained that it was largely due to the complexity of cases, as we see those come before the courts. We also heard about Hāpaitia te Oranga Tangata, which is the safe and effective cross-sector initiative overseen by the Ministry of Justice. A key part of this is to reduce family violence and sexual violence, and the appropriation within that for family violence equates to approximately $13 million.

The committee also heard of key pieces of legislation that are coming up, which included repeal of the three-strikes law, hate speech legislation, as well as banning harmful conversion practices. Out of interest, that will be concluding—those submissions, which have been coming in thick and fast, will be concluding—at midnight tonight in order for oral submissions to commence. The committee also heard about the effect of gangs and organised crime on the justice system. There were members concerned about the increase of gang members. The Minister outlined that the Government responses were multiple, and two of those responses were the introduction of firearm prohibition orders, as well as amending the proceeds of crime Act to make the seizure of assets associated with organised crime easier to be done.

We also heard about one specific police operation, which was Operation Trojan Shield, which was concluded in July of this year. That particular operation saw that more than 35 people, including senior members of the Waikato Comancheros, the Waikato Mongrel Mob, and the Head Hunters—and that also saw that a significant amount of money and contraband were confiscated under that. It was a good reminder, the Minister stated to the committee—to the public—of the action that the ministry is taking to address serious organised crime in a range of ways. He did reiterate also that the Government is not only concerned about the number of gang members but also the amount of harm that that causes and the proceeds of those illicit activities and how that’s targeted. He also stated that while New Zealand has always had a gang problem, the influx of “501” deportees from Australia had made the situation far worse in terms of the type of behaviour we’re seeing in those gang members.

I would like to wind up by asking the Minister a question in relation to the current time we are in right now under COVID, in level 4 and level 2, and particularly to understand the impact that has upon our court system when they are not able to operate. So my question to the Minister is: the current COVID alert level restrictions—what impact have they had on our justice system, and how has our system appropriately responded?

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question relates, actually, to the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations that were tabled with this Budget, and it’s this: it relates to Vote Corrections, Vote Courts, Vote Justice, and Vote Police—they are all in the justice sector. There were supplementary appropriations from the COVID response and recovery fund—$1.1 million last year, and then $1.5 million thereafter, plus $3.5 million of capital for a prison-based industry focused on the assembly of affordable kitset homes provided by Kāinga Ora. Vote Courts—$6.45 million last year, rising to $10.9 million in 2023/24. Vote Justice—$6 million every year, starting last year and going on. Vote Police—$1.2 million and $1.4 million this year and next for strengthening the Family Court, based on the recommendations of the independent panel on the 2014 family justice reforms.

My question to the Minister is: why was that not part of Budget appropriations last year or this year so that they could be examined for the quality of their spend, and why was it believed that they would be COVID-related, when indeed the Family Court recommendations are seven years old? It strikes me as extremely odd and, frankly, lacks transparency. It may well be good-quality spending, but for it to be appropriated in a supplementary sense, without the scrutiny that we should be putting it through now, including through select committee, I think is an example of where the COVID response and recovery fund has been used for things that it shouldn’t have been used.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I begin by—sorry, I’ll remove my mask—thanking members for their questions. To go to my colleague Ginny Andersen’s questions, I would like to thank the Ministry of Justice staff who have been able to make sure that certainly those necessary court hearings have continued. Foot traffic through the courts at the moment is 4 percent of normal levels across the country, but the District Court has continued to conduct priority proceedings, and, obviously, workloads have been affected. My understanding is that the court events yesterday were just over 1,000, which is 40 percent of what it would normally be expected to be on a Tuesday. So I think from those figures it’s clear to see that (a) the ability of the courts and judiciary to keep the wheels of justice turning is happening, obviously at a much reduced level, but I think it is important that that is able to continue. I think some of the investment that was put in after last year’s alert level 4 settings, around audio-visual links that were able to be put into court rooms and linked to police stations in order for basic hearings to be held, has helped in order to make sure that those proceedings can continue as opposed to having people wait longer because of the alert level settings.

I will go to Mr Woodhouse’s question—I think certainly the last one. There were injections of funding that were necessary across the justice portfolios that he had mentioned in order to deal with some of the issues that came about because of the alert level settings of last year. A considerable amount of money was put into making sure that backlogs that came about because of the lockdowns were met in terms of judicial resourcing but also resourcing the administration to make sure that the cases I’ve mentioned that weren’t able to be heard because of alert levels were able to be dealt with in a manner that didn’t see those hearings protracted.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a few questions for the Minister. I note that these are questions from our justice spokesperson, Nicole McKee, who would like to be here. But I’d like to ask: will any of the $13 million budget allocated in the vote for reducing family violence and sexual violence be intended to be used on projects or programmes initiated by any known gangs, gang members, or gang affiliates?

Another question is about the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA). They received $5.7 million last year and are only budgeted to get an extra $47,000, or $5.745 million, to help people who might have complaints about the conduct of the police. There’s widespread reports that their workload has increased, and I wonder if the Minister is satisfied that the IPCA will actually have enough money for people concerned about police conduct, if they need to do investigations.

Finally, the New Zealand Council of Victim Support Groups, also known as Victim Support—they’re receiving a moderate amount of $9.5 million to assist with victims of crime. ACT believes that justice policy should fundamentally be centred around victims rather than offenders, and I just wonder if the Minister really fought for Victim Support and the amount of money that they received. They seem to do a very good job, but I just wonder if the Minister is satisfied that Victim Support and, indirectly, the victims have adequate funding there.

I have met with Victim Support. We spoke at an event that they held recently, and I think that they would quite happily tell me that they could use more funding. One of the focuses that I would like to have going into this Budget is supporting victims more, but I can’t make any commitments. I understand the pressure that the likes of Victim Support are under, and I believe that their budget may have been pretty steady for some time.

In terms of the Independent Police Conduct Authority, I think some of the work that they’ve done internally to triage some of the complaints within their own system is finding that they are having the ability to do the work that they think they should be focused on. So I think they’ve certainly done a lot of work internally to make sure that the case numbers or complaint numbers that are coming in can be dealt with in a way that they feel is fit, and having a better system of triaging is helping them out there.

To the first question, I’m sorry, but I don’t have that detail about the $13 million. But seeing the member has asked, I will find that out for him.

So can the Minister confirm, or is the Minister saying he can’t confirm that that $13 million for reducing family and sexual violence will not be spent on programmes initiated by any known gangs, gang members, or gang affiliates? Is he saying he doesn’t know if it will go to gangs or not?

No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying I don’t have the information available for him at this moment around the $13 million that he has mentioned. I’ve said I’ll go away and find out—to the question that he asked—if any of that funding has been allocated to those groups that he has mentioned.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister might be relieved to know I’m going to break up my questions this time rather than give you a full barrage of them. Firstly, I really want to acknowledge that usually when we’re talking about justice, it’s about a crime that’s made it into the front line, and it’s usually a really emotive issue. But people don’t tend to connect to the workings of our court system and our legal aid processes in the same way. But they are at the heart of our justice system, the rule of law, and our ability to access our human rights, and are, really, I think, undervalued or under-represented in our public discourse.

We know that still currently the wait times and the expense of accessing the courts remains a huge barrier for many New Zealanders. The Greens supported, of course, significant lifts to community law centre funding and the human rights tribunal last term. But we do know that this is still not meeting the needs of marginalised people in our country at the moment. In particular, I’d like to raise the access to justice issues for disabled people, where legal aid rates are low, hours are low, and accommodations for people with disabilities are virtually non-existent. While additional funding was provided for disabled clients in care-of-child cases in 2019, all of that funding amounted to $150 per case. That’s about a half-hour of a lawyer’s time, which clearly is not even a drop in the bucket when it comes to ensuring the rights of those people.

Legal aid disadvantages disabled people as it is at the moment, and combined with high rates of discrimination, very low rates of employment, and poverty incomes, and to coin a phrase from a lawyer I spoke to working in this area, it’s an absolute disaster. So the Greens are really interested to know if the Minister is planning to review the legal aid policy, which was found to be unlawful by the Court of Appeal under Judith Collins as the justice Minister but is still in place, and whether the Minister is planning to restore the full mandate of community law to provide legal representation and resource them appropriately to be able to do that.

One of the common arguments or issues that is raised with me whenever I’m engaging with stakeholders in the legal fraternity is the pressure that is on legal aid. We understand the pressure it is having on the legal workforce and also the pressure that it is putting on people who are seeking to access justice and get their justice heard in a timely and fair manner, which is why in the Budget we have put an increase of, I think, close to $48 million in the first year. I think the member may have spoken to that.

The likes of the Criminal Bar Association and the judiciary, whenever we meet, have been saying for some time, I understand, that the legal aid system is under pressure, and we continue to hear that. We were able to answer some of that call in this year’s Budget, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the call of the sector, and certainly those who are seeking to access justice, has been fully dealt with. So, again, it is one of the many challenges that we would like to deal with as we look at some of the long-term settings for access to justice, and making sure that timely justice has been given out as well.

I would also say that it’s not just legal aid issues that I think are causing delays in the system as well. I think there are some legacy IT issues within the court system, especially in the likes of the Family Court, which are causing delays to hearings and proceedings being brought to an end. And while there might be warring parents or guardians in those situations, we also have to be mindful that there are children in those situations. So it’s certainly something that, as the Minister of Justice, I’m taking a very keen interest in. That won’t be an easy fix, because something like scheduling and making sure we do have an IT system that can make sure we’re not just working on papers is not going to happen overnight within a system that has very much been reliant on papers in its operation for decades.

So it is certainly something that the sector would like to see, and, again, it’s one of the challenges that as the Minister of Justice I have at the moment—trying to get an opportunity to deal with that. But I certainly think making a start with those kinds of issues will help set a path for timely and effective justice.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Another area—and I do just want to acknowledge what the Minister’s saying. From having sat in a Family Court and watched a police officer say that somebody was low risk, because it turned out that they hadn’t picked up the last page off the photocopier and they had somebody of a very recent arrest, it is timely—past time—that we digitise that process and get all the information in one place, and that is work, absolutely, to be commended.

I am interested also around what’s happened with the Government’s work on the sexual violence legislation, which was announced in July 2019. I’ve had a very keen interest in this piece of legislation, because the need for it was clearly identified in 2009. We know that our courts, at the moment, are actively causing harm to victims of sexual violence. It is harm where people describe this as worse than the rape itself, and that we have legislation that could go a long way—not all the way by any means—to fixing that, and I do not understand why that has not been brought back into the House and passed into law. I would love to hear that that will be coming into the House very soon.

I’m also interested to hear how the second stage of that work that was agreed by Cabinet in July 2019 around looking at introducing more tikanga-based processes, non-adversarial processes, into the court process—more investigating how we can introduce alternative processes outside of the court, as well as changing of the definition of consent—where that work is up to and when we can see that work coming to fruition. And acknowledging the connection to this around the Law Commission’s most recent work around the Evidence Act and the recommended changes to the family violence reforms—recognising the same trauma is happening in the courts for many of our victims of family violence. So I’m hoping that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance that we’re making some progress.

Mr Chair, thank you very much. Just to the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill that the member has mentioned, it is still our intent to progress that as fast as we can. We’ve actually been having some discussions with her colleague about making sure we can make it as good a piece of law as we possibly can, and hopefully we’ll be able to deal with that issue there as well. I also think I’m contractually bound to mention that the legal fraternity—well, certainly the defence lawyer fraternity—has had some issues with that bill. I raised those at the Criminal Bar Association of New Zealand conference about a month and a half ago, and reiterated our principal position as to why we didn’t agree with their opposition to aspects of the bill. And I think that was a relatively respectful conversation that we had.

In terms of some of the alternative methods of being able to offer or process justice in the community—just realised I’ve got my mask on again. Sorry, Mr Chair. I think, for some years, actually, to be fair, and more recently with some more momentum, the setting up of alternative courts is looking like it’s really a way of the future. And I would like to pay homage to the judiciary, who are playing a leadership role in that as well. The member will know, because of where she’s from, that there is a pilot at the Porirua District Court around a youth list court, which I have attended a session of earlier this year. And the way that that operates and allows those people who are going through the court process, but also who may be taking someone or have been a victim during that court process, is much more grassroots and allows people to understand what they’re going through.

The procedures within the court, which can be foreign to most people in New Zealand, unless they’re there on a regular occurrence—and the aim of those courts is to ensure that people aren’t there on a regular occurrence. And instead of just being purely punitive, to also find alternative ways to make sure that they can get people back on the straight and narrow. The one example that I saw at the Porirua District Court really enthused me about what could happen when the court is made as understandable as possible. And I want to take my hat off to the judiciary who are leading it in many ways, as well as the Chief District Court Judge around Te Ao Mārama. I think it’s a great initiative that we have to try and put our best foot forward to try and find a way to support it.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s good to be back in the justice realm. I have a couple of questions for the Minister; the first is in relation to three strikes law. Is it still Government policy to repeal the three strikes legislation and, if so, how’s that tracking? Can we foresee a bill in the House at some point in the next year or so? That’s the first question.

The second is in relation to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill, which colleagues have already raised, and that’s whether or not he is considering any further amendments to the bill, outside of what has been part of the select committee process when the bill comes back to the House and, if so, what are they?

Then the third question is in relation to alcohol law reform. I note—from looking at the members’ bills in the biscuit tin—there are, I think, now four pieces of legislation or four bills in the ballot that deal with various aspects of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. One is to do with cellar doors and issues there; one is to do with restaurant off-licences—that’s my bill; one is to do with racing festivals over the New Year period—that was drafted by me but it’s actually in Ian McKelvie’s name; and I think his colleague Kieran McAnulty has a bill around Anzac day and Easter sales and things like that. So he’s previously said to me, as Minister, that he’s intending to review the Act. Is that part of the work programme for justice in the next year, and, if it’s not going to be a part of a wider review of the Act, is there potential for Government to pick up some of the very sensible suggestions that are in the members’ ballot around small but sensible changes to alcohol law?

To the member’s first question: yes, and it’s going well. You may have noticed that at that Criminal Bar Association conference about six weeks ago I mentioned that we were hoping to bring in some legislation soon. That has obviously been affected a little bit by the House, but hopefully that can be done soon.

To answer his third question, yes, a review of the alcohol laws is planned for this term, so some of the issues that he has traversed with a number of the members’ bills that he has authored in the last term may get dealt with in that respect. The member will know the last time that piece of legislation was substantially amended, it was somewhat of a conundrum or a vortex of amendments, also. So we understand how much of a challenge it is in this place to amend those laws, but we fundamentally understand some of the concerns in the community around the harm that alcohol is causing as well, which don’t necessarily go to issues that are raised in the members’ bills that he has mentioned.

In terms of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill, I believe that the select committee is going to be reporting back on that later this week. There are some issues that may have arisen out of the event on Friday that may be looked at in terms of amendments to the bill, but no decisions have been made on that yet.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Before I go into the questioning, I would just like to give the Minister the opportunity to clarify that the sexual violence legislation wasn’t held up because of what I have to describe as hyperbolic and wildly inaccurate concerns raised by the defence, in contrast to two Law Commission reports; a pile of academic research, including in-court experience analysis; and decades of work. I really do hope that is not what the Minister said, particularly when the legislation is bringing in the broadening of the access to communications assistance that the Minister was talking about so positively. But I will get on to my next point, which was about the system and concerns around Māori being disproportionately targeted, and our evidence—though, actually, no, I will sit down and let the Minister respond, because he seems very keen. I’ll get to mine next.

No, that wasn’t the intent of the comment. I will draw the member Jan Logie to the other half of the comment, where I said that we are working to make the bill the best it possibly could be. Ha, ha!

Thank you, and I will go back to the Minister and just point to the very, very solid research base that went into that paper or went into the legislation as it was. But to my point around Māori being disproportionately targeted in the justice system, knowing that that’s at every step—they’re more likely to be spoken to by police and arrested, to be charged and convicted, then imprisoned at disproportionate rates for similar behaviour that Pākehā may engage in—Māori make up, as a result of that, 50 percent of our prison population, and wāhine Māori are now the most imprisoned indigenous women in the world. We know that this has huge repercussions for whānau and our entire communities, causing intergenerational harm. So I’m really interested to hear how the Government will be supporting Māori-led justice solutions and how these solutions will be resourced.

A recent victims of crime survey also found that Māori are disproportionately likely to be victims of crime, as well. So it’s not just in the offending where there is overrepresentation; there is also overrepresentation in terms of victimisation.

I think it’s fair to say that off the back of the Hāpaitia conference last year in Porirua it was clear that there needed to be a circuit-breaker, and I’d like to acknowledge the work of my predecessor, the Hon Andrew Little, in that respect. I think it’s shown in some of the ways that we are working with groups, now, around the likes of criminal justice reform, where we know we really have to find solutions that are targeted for Māori to assist Māori to take some ownership of not just the reformation around being offenders in the court system but also having systems that ensure education, housing, other factors that go into a young Māori person’s life don’t point them towards a life that will find them in a courtroom. I think this is borne out by the relationship that we have with the likes of the Iwi Chairs Forum that we meet with on a regular basis. We want to see their lens across any policy, making sure that they understand and we understand their perspective, to make sure that there is that circuit-breaker for that decades-long overrepresentation around offending and, also, victimisation.

I guess it’s also reflected in some of the not necessarily Government-led but judiciary-led ways of working. Again, I would like to point out Te Ao Mārama, which is in its infancy, but also working with the likes of iwi to understand different ways of justice within communities where there is a focus on making sure that young Māori aren’t repeat offenders and are not repeat people within the justice system and coming back to courtrooms. I think the judiciary itself has noticed that there’s an issue and has taken a leadership role in that sense, and I would like to thank them for doing that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do note the irony of the Minister lauding the iwi leaders forum. Various members of his political party have spent much of the nine years prior to the Government coming to office slamming the iwi chairs, but I do welcome his endorsement of them.

A couple of questions, following on from what he’s just said. Firstly, in relation to hate speech legislation, I do feel a little bit sorry for the Minister in terms of having to have passage of this. Where is that at? Because things seem to have gone suspiciously quiet in relation to it, since the big announcement two or three months ago now. So is it still the Government’s intention to proceed with legislation in relation to banning hate speech, or at least amending the existing law we have relating to hate speech, and, if so, what is the process and the time line in relation to that?

Secondly, just while I’m on my feet, a question in relation to alcohol and other drug treatment courts—completely separate from hate speech. One of the things that I think there is universal agreement in the House over is different treatment pathways for people with addictions. And as someone who has been to see one of the existing courts in Auckland—actually, alongside the now Prime Minister, when she was a member of the Justice Committee, four or five years ago, something that we were all impressed by, across the select committee, all parties on the committee. And I think there will be universal support across the Parliament for the expansion of alcohol and other drug treatment courts. In particular, can I put in a plug, Minister, for expanding something into the Wellington region or the Hutt Valley region, where meth is a real problem and where we could really do with some alternative pathways to deal with people with serious drug addictions like meth?

Sorry, again, in terms of hate speech, I believe that submissions have recently closed or are about to close on the discussion document for the hate speech proposals. The Ministry of Justice, I believe, is assessing those submissions as we speak. I understand there has been plenty of contributions from the public around that. So we’ll take a look at that information around the submissions and progress, as it is the policy of the party, that legislation.

In terms of alcohol and other drug treatment courts, I think you’ll probably have universal agreement around the effectiveness of them. I think maybe two or three months ago we were at the launch of the alcohol and other drug treatment court in Waikato. Resourcing allowing, we’d love to be able to roll them out in other areas, and I’m sure there’ll be a number of people in this Parliament interested in making sure that there were such resources available in the capital city.

Thank you, Mr Speaker—just interested in terms of following up on the reform work that started last term, and acknowledging the Minister in the chair, Kris Faafoi, making the link to that as the pathway forward. Just taking off from the quote from the previous Minister in acknowledging that the old ways in terms of justice have failed us, that they’ve resulted in too little rehabilitation and therefore more crime while not doing enough to support victims. The Green Party would be really interested to hear from the Minister and whether the Minister will commit to law change with a focus on the Sentencing and Parole Acts that allows for alternatives to prison, using evidence-based alternatives to prevent recidivism, rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders far more successfully than our current system does.

I’d more than welcome an opportunity to sit down with the Green Party to discuss such alternative methods around sentencing. I think I’ll reiterate the point that I made earlier: there does need to be a circuit breaker around the overrepresentation of some communities both in offending and victimisation. I think we’re slowly getting there. I fear that it will be, again, a political football, but speaking quite personally as someone who has either had family members or people he’s grown up with find themselves on the wrong side of the law, I think it’s high time that this place found the sweet spot that made available alternative methods and also other ways to make sure that drivers of crime are dealt with so we don’t see our courtrooms log-jammed with people, and we also see New Zealanders live the best and fullest possible life. I think for many generations that hasn’t been possible because of some of the raruraru that happens in this place, and I would like to see us move beyond that. Quite genuinely, I think, certainly at the Criminal Bar Association Conference earlier, I think, last month, there was a vein of that come through as well. So I think it’s not just politics. I think people have seen that there’s an opportunity here to deal with these issues.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I guess I’d just ask the Minister if he’d like to take the opportunity to connect that to the work—the connection between his work and the work that Minister Marama Davidson is doing around reforming the system in relation to family and sexual violence. Acknowledging that traditionally we’ve had a justice-based response to family and sexual violence, which has left things to the really last minute, until things have gone horribly wrong, before we’ve stepped in as a Government, and has also just created—like, that the system being adversarial is not acknowledging that those crimes are deeply relational, which provides a barrier for people reporting and people being sent to prison, while being protective in certain cases, actually can just amp things up and can be a disincentive in other cases. So I’m really interested in that talk to that broader work and the role of Justice in the work that Marama Davidson is doing.

Can I also acknowledge the work that that member, Jan Logie, did as under-secretary for that issue in the last term of Parliament. Having been a participant in many of the meetings that Minister Davidson has had around that project, I agree. I think what I have found welcoming and also positive, as that member will know, is the multiple agencies that are involved in that project. Again, I think to discuss and have options and remedies available for people in these situations, because they often start out as one thing and then turn into another—I think the best example that, I think, both of us would agree with is making sure that people have a good and safe home available to them, and making sure the likes of Kāinga Ora are part of those situations. Also, the likes of Corrections to make sure that if someone from a family is leaving a Corrections facility, they have somewhere safe to live, as well, to decrease the stress of reintegrating back into the community.

So, again, I acknowledge the work that Minister Davidson is doing. I think it is complex and complicated work, and I think she’s very soon getting to a point where that is going to become a real game-changer for some of those families. So I acknowledge the work that has been done to this point.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. My question to the Minister is in relation to the Te Korowai report, which examined family justice reforms. One of the key recommendations in that report-back from 2014 was in relation to child wellbeing. So my question to you is: how is the Government working to improve the experience of children and families as they go through the New Zealand justice system?

Look, I think one of the things that I’d really like to highlight is that a number of—well, most—people who are going through the Family Court process find the whole experience absolutely foreign. So they’ve got a high-stress situation within their family and then they get thrown into a courtroom situation where you’ve got legal speak and it can move at a pace where some people don’t necessarily understand what is going on right in front of them. And I’d like to thank the Minister of Finance for the funding that he has given in recent Budgets for the likes of Family Court navigators to help marshal people through, and those families through, and understand what the process is, and to make it as efficient and effective for those families as possible. This service is relatively new. I think, if I recall correctly, some of these navigators have only recently been appointed but will make a rather large difference to the Family Court process, which has deteriorated since the changes that were made in 2014. But the report that my colleague mentioned, Te Korowai, highlighted ways and recommendations in which we can make that process more effective for those going through that process. And, to date, we’ve been able to respond to some of those recommendations, and we hope to be able to do that more fully over time.

The question is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2021-22 stand part of the Schedules.

Motion agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.

House resumed.

I report the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill without amendment.

The question is that the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill is set down for third reading presently.