Estimates Debate — Justice

Mr Chair, thank you. This year, the Labour Government has underpinned its commitment to building a robust and fair justice system accessible to all. To achieve long-term reform of the justice system, we need coordinated change consistent with New Zealand values and aspirations across the criminal justice system and connected to the social sector. This will involve improving the justice system’s response to victims and others who have been harmed, forming new and stronger partnerships with community and Māori, improving our current services across the justice sector, and providing a strategic pathway for future investment in the system.

Justice sector agencies are working together to ensure there is an agreement about the outcomes that are required for an improved justice system. Whilst further work is required to define success, we know it will include reduction in offending and reoffending, through both prevention and rehabilitation means; victims receiving cohesive and responsive support; early intervention for people at risk of offending or reoffending; and efficient and culturally appropriate justice processes to ensure people are not further harmed by their interactions with the justice system.

This year, for the first time, justice sector agencies came together to take a multi-year view of priorities across the sector, taking their already solid collaborative approach to another level. Budget 2022 showed the benefits of this cluster approach with a significant and potentially transformative investment in the justice system across a whole suite of initiatives. I’ll briefly outline some of those now.

The legal aid system has been under strain with settings largely unchanged since 2011 and the number of people eligible for legal aid decreasing. This year, we responded in Budget 2022, which contained an investment of over $148.7 million across four years to strengthen the legal aid system and ensure continued access to justice for New Zealanders who cannot afford legal advice. In short, the changes mean an additional 93,000 more people will be eligible for legal aid from January 2023. Ministry officials will help monitor the effect the changes have once they have been implemented—this will include provider monitoring to see whether the remuneration increases are having an impact on the retention of legal aid lawyers and the volume of legal aid cases that they take. In addition, the Ministry of Justice will also be starting engagement with the profession on provider coverage.

COVID-19 has meant that the ministry, the judiciary, and the legal profession have worked together to ensure the courts adapted through each of the COVID-19 waves, which has enabled more court events to proceed and more cases to be resolved. For example, in the District Court, during the first COVID-19 alert level 4 period in 2020, only 32 percent of normal court events were able to be completed; during the Delta alert level 4 period last year in August, this increased to 40 percent; and during the Omicron red setting this year, this increased to above 90 percent. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the courts, and note that the impacts of these delays have very real-life consequences for every single one of those court participants.

There is a considerable effort being invested into reducing court delays on a number of fronts. In addition, the courts have responded to the pressures the courts have been under, as a result of COVID-19, by funding over $76 million from recent Budgets to provide additional resources. Meanwhile, collaboration, as I’ve noted, between the judiciary, legal profession, and court staff, in terms of scheduling, has ensued to assist with cases progressing without unnecessary delay.

The Criminal Process Improvement Programme—or CPIP as it’s described—is led by the Chief District Court Judge. It’s a sector-wide effort to improve access to justice. This will be done by establishing best-practice in-court processes and reducing delay. Over time, this will reduce the amount of time defendants spend on remand. The CPIP objectives are to reduce the average time, days to disposal; reduce the number of events that do not proceed on any particular day; reduce the average number of events for a case from start to end; and reduce the number of days the accused spends in custody waiting for an outcome. CPIP received $11.1 million across the justice sector over four years in Budget 2022.

In addition, critical court and justice services received an investment of $59.5 million over four years, through Budget 2022, to help retain a stable and resilient workforce to support the court and prevent delays. It will fund—[Time expired]

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is an opportunity for the committee to question the Minister on the matters in relation to the areas that she is responsible for, so I am glad to have the opportunity to ask some basic questions. And if we start off with the question—

💬 Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Chair. As you explained in your introductory notes, it’s customary in this committee that, when we’re starting off into the Estimates, the chair of the committee is required to make some introductory remarks around the findings of the committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): In the first instance, the chair didn’t seek the call. The chair didn’t seek the call in the second instance either. So I’ll stand with the call I’ve given. I’ll get back to you next.

Thank you, Mr Chair. So we’re dealing with the issues around the justice sector. I look at the very significant sums in this Budget, in the Estimates—$17.6 million for crime prevention and community safety programmes, for example—and the question that I obviously have is: why are they not working more effectively, these investments? Because what we see, and what all New Zealanders see around the country, is a sharp increase in, first, violent crime, a 20 percent increase in violent crime over the last few years, and what the Prime Minister referred to today as a spate of ram raids and smash-and-grab crime in Auckland.

I don’t know what a “spate” is, particularly, other than to say that it was a 518 percent increase in the first six months of 2022. That is a big spate. It is a double spate or even a dozen spates, if that’s what the explanation was. There’s a lot and there’s been a huge increase, and the people who own the stores that are being ram raided in Auckland are in a terrible way and in a terrible plight. Just overnight, there were seven additional—in Auckland, a ram raid that smashed up people. First they steal a car, then they smash that stolen car into the shop, causing tens of thousands of dollars of damage to the shop as well as the car. Then, of course, they steal a second car in order to make their getaway and not to be chased by the police, under the current rules. And so a lot of damage is caused in that equation.

The Government’s response so far has been to say, “Oh well, they probably need to focus more on bollards or some kind of protection.”, as if it’s the victim’s fault in this case—it’s the victim’s fault that they are getting attacked and they should have better bollards! But the problem is, of course, that most of the councils won’t let them put the bollards in and they can’t get a resource consent to put the bollards in. Meantime, any fund that’s made available is very slow. And so the question I have to the Minister is why on earth she feels confident that the money being invested by the Budget to prevent crime is going to be put to better use than it has been in the past, given the Government’s very poor showing on that.

Also, related to that, the Government’s main response to the increase in violent crime that we’ve seen over the last little while, in the increased ram raids, has been to say, “Well, when we look at the justice sector as a whole, where do we see the priorities? Well, what do we see as the big issues? Well, it seems that the big issue is that we’re too tough on the worst repeat serious offenders. Therefore, we need to shorten the sentences for them by repealing the three-strikes bill.”! It’s a very convoluted, strange logic that nobody can quite understand. And I wonder why the Minister came to that point of view.

Now, also, in relation to the 40 percent increase in gang membership under this Government, I’d be interested to know from the Minister of Justice whether any of the $17 million in crime prevention and community safety programmes has gone to gangs, because we know that they’ve been funding some drug rehabilitation work. Part of the problem with this Government is that they have sent mixed messages about the role of gangs in our country. We see a very difficult and a dark contribution by many gang members in terms of violent crime in this community, but this Government has funded them in many ways. And I just want to get some clarity from the Minister: how much, if any, of the crime prevention and community safety programmes have been paid out to gangs and gang members, and how much support and assistance provided to the victim support and victims of crime has gone to gang members? Because that would be an interesting thing as well.

The final question in relation to youth offending, because many people are worried, in the context of ram raiding, that what we see is this catch-and-release approach. Nobody wants to see young people thrown into prison and us throwing away the key. And at the other end of the spectrum of potential responses is a group conference, a family conference, some sort of get-together where the young person, the 13-year-olds, the 12-year-olds, the 14-year-olds who are driving the cars that are doing the ram-raiding—and there’s no doubt that that is the case. These kids are patted on the head and told, “Well, naughty, and we’ll see you again next week when you do the same thing again.”, and repeat and repeat and repeat. I was talking to a shop owner who had had his shop smashed up and discovered that the young person involved had done numerous shops before. So I’m very keen to hear from the Minister as to what progress—what actual plans she has to reduce the number of youth offending.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to give a brief summary on the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill for Vote Justice and what the Justice Committee heard during that period. The four main areas that were touched on were: access to justice, outcomes for victims of crime, family violence and a new Government joined-up approach in that space, and, also, we looked at the effect of COVID-19 on the justice system.

In terms of access to justice, there are two main parts under this. The first is Te Ao Mārama, the new system that’s going through our court processes, and, secondly, the contribution and the expansion of funding made to legal aid and the legal aid system in New Zealand. The Minister told us that access to justice is a priority for this Government. In select committee, we heard about specific initiatives to that extent.

The Minister told us that Te Ao Mārama was a response to requests to reform the justice system over many decades. We heard that Te Ao Mārama will be first implemented in Hamilton and Gisborne and will be expanded to all courts over time. Budget 2022 provides funding of $47.4 million over four years for Te Ao Mārama. Part of this funding will enable the ministry to continue their engagement with iwi and communities to design and deliver services that reflect the needs of each community.

In terms of legal aid, it was warmly welcomed—the fact that Budget 2022 had $148.7 million that was specifically dedicated over four years for legal aid. The Minister told us that the ministry will also remove barriers for people who are registering as legal aid practitioners. We heard that a decrease to legal aid funding in 2008 and the subsequent reforms did result in a decrease in the number of legal aid lawyers and that, hopefully, this additional funding will boost those numbers.

Number two, in terms of supporting better outcomes for victims of crime, Budget 2022 provides $45.7 million over four years for a sector-wide strategy to improve the outcomes for victims of crime. Funding for this initiative is held within Vote Justice and also in Vote Corrections as part of that cluster. This funding is used to establish a new Victims Operating Model, and we were told by the Minister that the Government’s priority is to analyse the gaps in the justice system; for victims of crime and their whānau to identify how the sector can change to meet the needs of victims.

I’ll briefly touch on the work being done with Te Aorerekura. I’d like to acknowledge that within Vote Justice, the Minister for Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence is responsible for the appropriation for elimination of family violence and sexual violence. Te Aorerekura is a new way of doing things, the committee was told, that really empowers our communities to start taking control and making more decisions in their own areas.

One of the main aims of Te Aorerekura is to help develop a skilled, culturally competent, and sustainable workforce. Budget 2022 provides almost $7.4 million over four years for the initiative of building workforce-capability to ensure the right response every time. We heard that the executive board believes that developing a skilled and culturally competent workforce is an important part of building the foundation for the work in the elimination of family and sexual violence.

There was some good work done. It was great to have all committee members engaged and talking about some of the initiatives that this Government is driving to provide better outcomes for not only victims of crime but our entire justice system. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Some more questions for the Minister, and I hope she will take the time to answer some of them. Following up on the matter around electoral law, one of the things in the Budget—dates back to the Supplementary Estimates—is the decision that Cabinet came to to increase the Vote Justice appropriation for justice policy advice.

Now, what was this about? Well, in the Budget, there was $39 million allocated for policy advice, because all Governments have to prioritise what they’re going to work on in terms of legislation. As I’ve said, one of the Government’s priorities this year—absolute priorities—was repealing the three-strikes legislation, because they thought that our main problem was that we were too tough on our worst repeat offenders and therefore we had to shorten the sentences for them, which is an odd priority, but there you go. They came along earlier this year and decided that electoral funding was a big issue—and they have an external review looking into it, but they wanted to get some legislation into the House before the election—and had to go to Cabinet and ask for $3.4 million extra, and another $3 million the year after, and another million, so about $10 million, in order to, what we on this side consider, skew the rules in favour of their particular party, which we think is poor form. I’d like the Minister to explain why she thinks that extra $10 million of taxpayers’ money should be spent in a way that doesn’t have broad, widespread support across the House, to change electoral laws in a rush before the election.

Then, on the matter of electoral law, I’d also be interested to know what confidence she has in the competence of the policy advisers in the Ministry of Justice that we allocate $39 million for in terms of policy response—and it may be another category that this comes from. But, in terms of policy advice, over a couple of pieces of legislation in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act review—two local bills introduced to this House, one relating to Rotorua and one relating to Christchurch, both of which moved away from the principle that we’ve had for a very long time in this country, which is equal voting rights for all New Zealanders. We’ve had Māori seats introduced, but they’ve been based on a proportional basis, on the number of people voting in a particular ward being the same, so that every New Zealander’s vote has the same weight at an election. Two bills were introduced, one on Rotorua, which was set to change that so that for those on the Māori roll their votes would have greater weight and lead to more people on the council than everybody else. The Ministry of Justice advice on that was that it breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because it treated people differently on the basis of race, and therefore the Government actually did decide to withdraw that.

I first want to be reassured that the Government is not going to try to bring that back in some different way, but the question I have is that a second bill then came along, doing the same thing in a slightly different way in Canterbury, moving away from equal voting rights, because everyone gets a vote for the 14 councillors but Ngāi Tahu get to appoint two more, therefore altering equality for all the votes. But, on this occasion, the Ministry of Justice said, “Well, yes, it does breach the Human Rights Act, because it treats people differently on the basis of race, but it’s OK because the Treaty demands it.” So those two different pieces of advice were rather contradictory and hard to fathom—how one was not OK and one was OK. So I’d be interested to get some reassurance from the Minister as to whether she has any confidence that this advice that we’re spending $39 million on is any good.

Finally, another question I have for the Minister relates to the whole question—and she mentioned it in her introductory speech—around victims getting support, but I do want to point out that, in previous Budgets, in Budget 2020, the Government announced with great fanfare a cross-agency initiative, including justice, around helping victims of non-fatal strangulation. It’s seven times more likely to be murdered people who have suffered from non-fatal strangulation. Everybody’s very concerned about it. The Government brought in all this extra money in 2020, promised to support 870 cases a year, but only 38 victims have been supported to date. This was introduced in Budget 2020 as a matter of great urgency, and then this Budget increases that by another $8.2 million. So what confidence, if any, can the public have that the extra money allocated this year will lead to any better results?

First, can I just thank the member for his wide-ranging questions. If I’ve got them right I think the focus is on increased youth crime, focused on ram raids; the crime prevention fund of $17 million; electoral law and law reform; and local democracy issues, in particular section 7 vets. If I’ve missed any, please just re-raise them and I’ll try and get through them as best I can.

In respect of the youth justice issues that have been raised, first I just want to echo the sentiments about the concern that we as a Government have around this current spike in youth offending. I can say that I think many of us have been well engaged with police and others within the community to discuss a range of different ways that we might be able to address the issues. In particular, I think the first and foremost issue that’s come up in most of the discussions I’ve had with ministerial colleagues when we’ve been talking particularly about the youth ram raids, and when we’ve been talking with the relevant agencies etc., is that with the uplift in over half a billion dollars to police to ensure there are more boots on the ground, which is currently being rolled out and implemented up and down the country, there is a great deal of confidence amongst police. And I think that’s reverberating through to particular areas of the community when they can see a higher and greater police presence to be able to deter those young people that are committing offences.

In addition, I think it’s fair to note that over the past 10 years we’ve seen a gradual decline and a continual decline in youth crime. That said, the most recent statistics do show in Auckland, in the central Auckland area and out in the south of Auckland region, that in contrast to the national youth offending rate, which is about 4 percent downward, in those two particular centres there’s an increase. In Auckland Central it’s about 16 percent, and—

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: Under-reporting is a big problem there.

Yeah, that’s what I’m trying to say. There’s been a 4 percent national decline, but actually in the Auckland area we’re seeing quite an increase of 16 percent. So that was the concerning part that I was just highlighting.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: The problem is there’s a lot of under-reporting there.

Oh, under-reporting. Sorry, mate. I was trying to hear. I think what we’re trying to do is make sure that the policy settings are right by ensuring that we’ve got more boots on the ground. There’s a cross-agency approach that’s been taken between justice, police, and a range of other ministries to look at those drivers of crime. So we’ve been investing in initiatives, in those types of programmes that are aimed at bringing youth crime down. For example, we can see in this year’s youth justice indicators report, recently published by the Ministry of Justice, that a larger percentage of representation of young people that come through the courts identify as Māori, but in those aged between 14 and 16 who appeared in the Youth Court we’ve seen a reduction by 51 percent from 2016 and 2017 to 2020 and 2021. That aligns with other decreases we’ve seen in other ethnicities: 45 percent. Also one of the initiatives we announced in Budget 2022 was the funding from proceeds of crime to assist smaller retailers to implement crime prevention measures. Those have included but are not limited to things like fog cannons, physical barriers like bollards, and other things to help ensure that communities feel more protected.

Turning to the questions with respect to the crime prevention fund and in particular that $17 million, I understand from the advice that I’ve received that the large focus of that funding has been for restorative justice providers, family violence providers, victim entitlements, and Family Court programmes. Gang members are not funded and have not been funded from that $17 million.

In respect of the local democracy issues and the two bills that the member raised specifically, he’ll be aware that for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vets for both of those bills, the responsibility sits with the Attorney-General. So I’ll allow him to direct his questions to him.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: They’re done by the Ministry of Justice.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vets are administered by the Attorney-General, so I’ll allow him to answer. [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! I remind members on both sides of the Chamber that you’ll all have an opportunity to take a call and ask questions at the appropriate time.

Well, look, as the Attorney-General oversees that particular aspect of this vote, I think it’s appropriate that he responds to those issues specifically.

Finally, on the electoral law reforms, I think the question was: what funds had been directly apportioned and where? Mr Goldsmith, do feel free to correct me if I’ve got that question wrong. There are a couple of things that we’re doing with respect to electoral reform and the independent review. As the member has mentioned, we’re looking at the changes to the donation rule, which I’ve already announced. We’re looking at the cost implications of the Māori electoral option and the eligibility of Māori voters and the impact of these changes to them. First, there was $1.64 million appropriated to Vote Justice for policy resource, public engagement, and specialist expertise to look at electoral changes before the 2023 general election. I can assure this committee that I’m confident in the work that has been done. I think that was the direct question of the member. I am confident with their work, and we’ve seen and will continue to see that work produced to the select committee and subsequently to the House.

We’ve also seen that the Electoral Commission has received $139.211 million of funding over the next four years from Budget 2022 for the delivery of next year’s general election and planning and preparation for the subsequent 2026 general election, and that does include delivery of the Māori electoral option changes. So that’s been incorporated into that bulk appropriation for both of those general elections. Mr Goldsmith, I’m happy to walk through this but I want to make sure I’m responding to your specific and actual questions. So please feel free to tell me if I’ve left some out. I’m happy to answer those as well.

Minister, I was looking at the Ministry of Justice’s Budget bid document, and they said in there that, if 100 percent of those eligible for grants under the Victim Assistance Scheme got one, it would cost between $60 million and $200 million. So does the Minister believe that setting aside $12.3 million over three years for the scheme is indicative of taking a victim-centric approach? And, further to that, does the Minister believe that $12.3 million over three years is enough to expand the Victim Assistance Scheme, given that the grants that are paid out, on average, are for only 4 percent of the 104,190 eligible victimisations reported to police every year? And, instead, would she support our newly announced policy of having the Crown pay for victims’ reparation, while the Crown also collects the debt that is owed?

I thank the member Nicole McKee for her question. I’m not in a position to announce any new party or Government policy direction today, but what I will say is that, with respect to the Victim Assistance Scheme financial grants, $12.3 million over three years has been—this is to enable an expansion of the current scheme. There are two other critical components, though, to funding that was provided to enable a victim-centric approach. The Victims Operating Model—this is one that has been widely the subject of numerous inquiry and has highlighted real deficiencies in the ability of the Crown to provide a victim-centric approach. That initiative there has received $45.7 million, the sole focus being to ensure that there is an upward provision of improving outcomes for victims of crime. It’s one thing to splash money at a problem you can’t really understand, and can’t necessarily see; it’s another thing to be able to do the work to identify the gaps which aren’t being addressed for victims, and this, indeed, is a large part of what will be done there.

In addition to that, there’s also the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey. I understand that this has been one of the most formative pieces of information to help assist and guide policy. Another $8.6 million over four years has been provided to strengthen reporting and the analysis of reporting. It’s a key source of directly measuring rates of victimisation; so it includes not just reported crime but it also goes a lot broader than that, and includes population groups with a higher risk of victimisation in the system.

There are several initiatives that the ministry also already has which aim to provide more support towards victims of crime. So, in addition to, of course you’ll be aware, the court victim advisers—specialist court staff whose role is to help a victim throughout the court process—we’ve also included victim support workers, who assist and support victims at court trials and hearings. We’ve also included support workers—they’re trained to tailor support to the unique needs of victims and their families. And we’ve also ensured that the ministry is providing training seminars for lawyers to understand family violence dynamics and best-use practice techniques when dealing with vulnerable witnesses, such as sexual violence victims. You saw, last year, that we had the reforms to the sexual violence legislation, with, again, the focus there being on victims.

In addition, probably the least seen but most profound has been the way that currently—and with the backlogs as a consequence of COVID—the backlog of court cases has meant that there has been a substantive impact for victims of crime, and having their day in court, so to speak, and having their issues heard. This has been a direct focus of the ministry over the past year in particular, and I’ve noted already in my primary answer about the additional funding that we’ve provided to ensure that the processes are sped up and we can clear the backlog. In addition to that, I think, I announced the family court associates bill that’s been introduced to the House, which indeed, as well, will also aim and have a focus on reducing the amount of time that victims are left in limbo as a consequence of lengthy court procedures.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for answering some of my questions. The one that she might just come back to is around the strangulation support, a cross-agency initiative of $20 million, which was supposed to support 870 cases a year and has so far supported only 38, but this Budget has given another $8 million. The question I had was: how on earth could we be confident that this would help deal with what is a very significant problem and help victims, but also help prosecution cases, and why is there not much more progress being made? On the electoral law, my basic question there was why she thinks it’s a good idea that taxpayers should put in an extra $10 million for policy advice for the Ministry of Justice on a bill that is a partisan bill in our view, which doesn’t have widespread support in the House in relation to electoral finance, given the fact that that applies to all parties and usual practice is to try to make some attempt to be more bipartisan when dealing with these issues.

Some extra questions that she might also consider in relation to victims of crime—my colleague from the ACT Party Nicole McKee referred to the Victim Assistance Scheme. The real concern I had was that this initiative, which in this Budget has $9.5 million provided by Victim Support and victims of crime—the information from the Ministry saying that “By deliberately under-promoting the scheme, the Ministry has worsened access to services to victims who already face other barriers”. And I don’t think I’d ever seen, in my time in Parliament, quite so baldly expressed notes from officials saying that we have a scheme that we know is no way large enough to cover all those victims of crime that could use it. Unfortunately, there are a hundred thousand victims of crimes, and, unfortunately, right here, right now, there are more victims of crime being created. The best thing we can do for them is to have effective justice and law and order policies that reduce the number of victims of crime. But when they are victims, to have a scheme set up and then to underfund it, and then to deliberately under-promote the scheme as Government policy—to deliberately under-promote the scheme—I thought was outrageous. I want to have an assurance from the Minister that she will change that approach forthwith, if she hasn’t already, and that she will come up with a more effective way of ensuring that people are aware of the support that is available to victims of crime.

Another final point that I wanted to make in relation to justice was that I was disappointed that, out of the $39 million allocated for policy advice, there doesn’t appear to be any towards any review or update of the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA). Given that the Prime Minister announced back in 2017 in the Speech from the Throne that she was interested in strengthening transparency around official information, and we’ve traversed this earlier in the House, I think it’s relevant, for the Minister, to ask whether she thinks it is appropriate use of the OIA for Ministers to be saying that written material sent to them can lead to undesirable outcomes under the OIA and it’s better to talk rather than write things down. And then we’ve had the Chief Ombudsman, who’s responsible for keeping an eye on these matters, being concerned about media reports there. So my question there is—I do want to have some kind of assurance from the Minister that she is confident that the legislation currently in place is appropriate, and, if it is, is it really just a matter of practice that is the issue? And we could come back to that.

Finally, I was a little bit concerned about her response to my question around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vetting processes for the two bills, the Rotorua bill and the Canterbury bill, which both had moved away from that basic democratic principle of equal voting rights for all New Zealanders. Part of our problem has been that the Government has refused to really front on the issue and explain it—they’ll put out Rino Tirikatene, and a fine man that he is, but he is not a Minister—and it is the Ministry of Justice that writes those vets, and so I’d like some answers from the Minister of Justice as to how good she thinks they are.

Yeah, thank you to the member again. Look, whilst he might not be satisfied with the way that the process works, it is a fact that the Attorney-General is responsible for New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vets; therefore, it’s appropriate that he responds to that question, and I’m sure you’ll have the opportunity to ask that of him, and I’m sure he will oblige.

The member also raised a series of questions. Turning first to the Official Information Act (OIA) issues, one of the things that the Prime Minister did say is that we would be ensuring that there are further and additional transparent processes by which the Government reports and ensures accessibility of information. I provided a range of different sums to the House during question time, which I won’t go over, that do show that there has been a substantive uplift in terms of responsiveness, and that, in terms of timeliness, I think it was in excess of 97 percent of questions that have been answered. Very few are coming back from the Ombudsman or have been found to be deficient. That’s been a real focus of this Government, and I went through a range of the different measures.

With respect to that question on whether it’s appropriate that a member of a parliamentary party who has dual roles, ministerial and member of Parliament, speaking with colleagues about how the OIA works—I consider that completely appropriate. There are times when members of Parliament, caucus colleagues, may not understand the delineation of ministerial and legislative roles. I don’t think that that’s an issue that’s confined to either this individual Minister, who is also a member of Parliament, who is also a caucus colleague. I don’t think that’s a different position than any other party takes. That was confirmed by Nicola Willis this morning, but I don’t think we need confirmation of those types of things.

I do think there is a genuine—from this side of the House, and, I think, from both sides of the House, but I know definitely from this side of the House, that principle of accessibility for people to access information is a very genuine responsibility that each of us undertakes to uphold. It’s certainly one that I’ve hoped that I’ve diligently upheld; it’s something that we ensure that we do very diligently across Government. So I would not like to think that there were any aspersions cast upon correspondence to colleagues saying “Come and have a yarn if you don’t understand how things work.” And I don’t think that is an issue to snigger at; I think that that’s an important—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I’m not sniggering at it.

I’m just saying, I don’t think that that would be refuted in any political party. Come and have a yarn, let us help you understand how things work, because it’s a genuine fact: not everybody understands what to do. That is our role, as senior colleagues, to assist others.

With respect to—oh gosh, I think it was the question you raised; you’ve asked me lots of questions and I’m taking poor notes—the political issue, the $10 million for policy advice with respect to electoral law reform. One of the questions you asked was whether it was appropriate to allocate funds for electoral law reform where there wasn’t unanimous agreement within the House. This particular reform has been the subject of Electoral Commission advice over many, many years. We think it’s completely appropriate where constitutional issues have been found, where there has been a lack of any Government that’s been willing to address those issues of access and equity for the reform of these electoral laws. I think it’s a pity that the other side of the House aren’t supporting these particular reforms, because they do, and will, ensure that there is greater accessibility for people to participate in understanding the transparency of our political donations and those laws. And I would have thought, particularly on the back of the member’s questions about transparency of the way that we operate, that there would have been greater consensus and agreement on these issues.

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question again to the Minister: Minister, do you think that $45 million spent for advice and promotion services from the Human Rights Commission, Independent Police Conduct Authority, the Law Commission, and the protective judiciary service from the Public Trust are more deserving of funding, when 96 percent of those 104,190 eligible victimisations reported to police each year did not receive a grant? The Ministry of Justice’s own Budget bid document said—and I’m going to give the full quote that my colleague Mr Goldsmith gave earlier—“victims are being deliberately excluded from accessing support they are entitled to receive. If this is widely known, it would erode public confidence and undermine the stated ethos of access to justice.” Also, the Wellbeing Budget summary of initiatives states: “Financial grants are a simple and effective way of easing the burden of victimisation by paying for unexpected costs.” Does the Minister truly believe that they are simple and effective; and, if so, why do so few victims actually receive a grant? And, lastly, why do so few victims actually receive financial support, either through these organisations that have been set up to assist victims or through reparations from offenders? Thank you.

Thank you to the member, Nicole McKee. And I apologise, sorry, to the member Paul Goldsmith, because I did omit to answer this question and it is a really important one. The demand for the victims assistance scheme in 2015 and 2016 led to an overspend of the appropriation. I think that that’s been well documented. And, actually, I do also applaud the Ministry of Justice for what the member Paul Goldsmith described as baldness in their assessment. It was a very bald, and therefore bold, I think, assessment that in order to manage that overspend, they took decisions to decrease the information available for that victim support. That’s something, of course, that we, I think, collectively find to be abhorrent, which is why in Budget 2022 you saw a shift in the way that this Government approached that particular scheme and ensured that there was an uplift and a direct uplift. But I’ll be very clear that the demand for the victims advice assistance scheme—it was back in 2015 and 2016, which is when that policy to decrease the amount of discussion about that scheme was enacted, and therefore it was something that we’ve turned around on its head, making sure that victims do indeed have the support that they require. That’s something that I’ve always made very clear as the Minister of Justice: victims are first and foremost at the forefront of my mind.

I want to come back, though, because it does link back to that Victims Operating Model. That was where the lion’s share of the spend has gone, because we want to ensure that across the whole system—and the member is just as aware as I am; the whole system, really, in my view, and the way that we deal with victims is very ad hoc and there are a lot of holes. I don’t want to just chuck all of our money in the same thing that has worked sometimes but there’s also the feedback that we get that it misses a lot. We need to make sure that the system, from the day that that person has a harm incurred upon them and the day that they become a victim—that, at every stage of the process, there is support available, and the right support, which is why, again, that’s where that lion’s share of that Budget 2022 $45.7 million has gone. I think that that responds to all of the questions that I have before me at the moment.

I call on Chris Penk. And I understand that the agreement prior is that this session ends at 4.07 p.m., so just keep that in mind.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ll speak as fast as I can—the Hansard folk won’t thank me for that, so I’ll try and make it a good time, if not a long time. I’m interested—

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, you’ve wasted about 20 seconds of it!

I’ve wasted time talking about it—I wasted time talking about how little time I have. Oh dear.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: He still is wasting it!

Madam Chair, Mr Goldsmith’s had his chance—I’m going to seek a point of order to get my own colleague to stop!

Access to justice is a massive problem in this country, as I think we’d all acknowledge—no doubt even the Minister would acknowledge that. Huge delays in our court system, but including not only the courts proper but also the Criminal Cases Review Commission, as set out by this Government, having been operating since July of 2020. And I understand, via written parliamentary questions answers from the Minister—or perhaps her predecessor, to be fair, but in any case, the Minister of Justice—that the average time taken to dispose of a case is 290 days. Two-nine-zero days, which seems to me an extraordinary period of time. In particular, when we note that one of the costs of the system is the fact that victims of crime are re-entered into this debate and engaging even without, for example, a reason for appeal—leave to appeal to be given by a court; that was one of the design flaws that we highlighted at the time. So I ask the Minister to respond to that fact—that acknowledged fact—about the huge amount of time it takes to dispose of a case, and ask: has a single case been referred to a senior court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission?

I thank the member for his question. Yeah, look, it’s been an interesting process to see how that review commission has unfolded over the last couple of years. They are a new entity; they were established, there were appointments, they’ve had to develop processes to ensure that they can get up and running and up off the ground. The biggest point—because I did ask this myself to them, and they’ve been in to see me a couple of times—is a huge oversubscription, and in terms of the work required to unravel the layers, I think that that the amount of work required has been voluminous. So I think that what we’ve seen now—yes, there have been a couple, I think. I’m sorry, I don’t have the number; I don’t think it’s in my books with me at the moment. But I think there have been a couple of referrals—it’s not many, but there have been a couple of referrals to the higher courts. I know that they’re watching with a close eye on how those will go in terms of the way that they might improve processes, etc., and as you rightly pointed out, there are many cases that have been referred to them that they are working their way through.

Local Government