Legal Services Amendment Bill

We come now to clause 4. Clause 4 is the debate on clause 4, amendment to section 99 of the principal Act. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

This may be the bit where the Minister stands up and gives a soliloquy.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I can do it again.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, I didn’t understand it the first time, so perhaps I would the second time, Minister. Who knows?

Look, Minister, I do know that you have the interests of the justice system at heart. I guess I really would like to understand from you how you think this will impact the wider justice system. Of course, we’re all grown-ups here. We’ve all read the regulatory impact statement and the disclosure, and we know that you’ve received advice which is contrary to the course of action that you’ve adopted: that the status quo was, in fact, as good as what you’re doing now, and other options were presented to you.

Look, this is essentially an introductory contribution in the sense that I would invite you to do more than say “It’s in our 100-day plan.”, because New Zealanders are not naive. They know that when you come to a question like this, it’s tough. You’ve mentioned the work of Kiri Allan before you and the fact that there was inconsistent quality and value in these reports. We agree that we need to make sure that the best possible advice is delivered to judges and that the best possible value for money is given to the Legal Services Agency for its legal aid spend. We agree.

But what we know is that what you’re doing here is a very blunt tool. I accept that you went to the hustings and you won—and you went to the hustings with a whole lot of proposals. But I put to you that you would satisfy your election promises by addressing the flaws which perhaps exist in the current system and not simply cutting out the entire liver of the legal system and not just the little cancer that was touching on it. Because that’s what you’ve done: you’ve taken out a fundamental part of our criminal justice system—just thrown it away—and it’s going to really affect people.

So I would invite you—I know there’s a little joke that you spoke a little earlier in a general sense when perhaps it was inappropriate. But I’d invite you now to just respond to that: why you feel the need simply to do exactly what you promised, where a more nuanced and kind of grown-up approach would actually be better for everyone, Minister.

Thank you, Mr Webb, for the opportunity. The broader context of this, of course, is in the election last year with—all members across the House were out talking to many, many New Zealanders; knocking on doors. The very clear message we got on the doorstep was the number one issue of concern was the cost of living.

Number two—consistently—around most parts of New Zealand was a concern around law and order, and that is why there has been a commitment in this Government to restore law and order as one of our key priorities. This bill forms one very small part of that broader agenda, and so there are many other pieces of legislation and Government decisions that are being made in that broader context. Such as changing the focus to reduce the prison population by 30 percent—which the previous Government focused on regardless of what was going on into the community—and switching our focus to reducing the number of victims of crime. A second one is the gang legislation that we’ll be discussing later, and there are many more to come.

This bill is a very focused one which is dealing with a small area of the legal aid spending and the judicial process where, through the sentencing part of the legislation, there are a whole lot of things that judges need to consider—and the background of the offender is very much part of that in a number of elements of the sentencing law. There is one particular clause, clause 27, which is talked about in the context of cultural reports. This was introduced in the early 2000s, and, for a very long period of time, it was supposed to be an oral report to give some background—generally from family members—on the background of the offender to be considered.

Then, about six years ago, it became available for legal aid funding and there has been a very steady increase. Just so people understand: in 2016-17, there was $38,000 spent on these reports, and then if I go every second year it just went continually upwards. So 2019-20, it was $1.5 million; 2021-22, it had gone up to $5.6 million; and it kept on accelerating. So 2023, it was up to $7.2 million and it was just taking off steadily. This last year, it’s dropped a fraction, and that is clearly a reaction to the public pressure that National and our coalition partners who were also concerned about this were raising. So what we were concerned about was an industry was developing whereby all these reports were being written.

Now, previous members have said, “Well, did you consider doing other things?” Yes, we did. You could consider regulating the industry, and that would be a very Labour Government thing to do: to regulate the industry and get some regulator in to decide whether these reports were good reports or bad reports, and probably requiring an MA in history or criminology or something for the report writers, and you could set up a system to regulate it and we didn’t think that that was a very clever thing to do.

Another thing you could have done was to repeal section 27, full stop. Some people were advocating for that and we decided not to do that. We have left the section on the book, but we have decided that our focus is not to allow this industry to keep on growing and growing and growing. Because of the fundamental cost—and $7.5 million might not seem like a lot to members on the other side of the House, but in the context of legal spending it’s quite significant and we think that money could be better spent elsewhere in the system. So that was the purpose that we’re trying to achieve.

Kia ora. My questions refer back to the Minister’s answers that he provided on clause 3A but were supposed to be for clause 4. I wanted to ask, firstly, whether the Minister could tell us more about who he understands to be preparing cultural reports? Because I didn’t get an answer to that. The Minister spoke specifically about Harry Tam preparing cultural reports, so my question is around understanding why that’s a problem. Why is it a problem that somebody who understands the cultural backgrounds that a lot of people who are being sentenced have experienced—whether they’re born into gang whānau. I would remind the Minister, you don’t get to choose which family you’re born into. If you’re born into a gang whānau, well, there’s nothing you can do about that. So I want to understand why is it a problem that Harry Tam is trying to make sure that people have more reasonable and more effective sentences that actually address the cause of the crime, as opposed to somebody creating these reports who has no concept, no reality, of what a majority of people who are incarcerated go through and what their backgrounds and upbringings look like. So what’s the problem with that?

The reason I want to know that too is because I’ve heard senior members of this Government talking a lot about Harry Tam, and it seems to me like there’s a real beef with him as an individual. To me, this bill is consistent with this Government’s approach to cracking down on gangs, but not actually speaking to the people who have mana in that area. You can talk to people who are leaders in that space who have been helpful in achieving the goals of this House. You look at the influential gang leaders who supported the Government in making sure that more members of their community were vaccinated during the COVID-19 lockdown. You can look at the woman chapter of the Mongrel Mob, who are working to address violence that has happened through the State system and addressing those. There’s a whole lot of good stuff that is also happening, and you could talk to them and ask them whether they think that some of these rules will actually be effective. Because you can’t make rules about people and expect them to follow those rules without actually talking to them in the first place.

My third question was just repeating the question that Willow-Jean asked around the accreditation system and whether you considered whether there could be a system whereby particular people were able to prepare these section 27 reports, as opposed to just throwing the baby out with the bathwater altogether.

Something else that you mentioned in one of your answers was that section 27 cultural reports are a very small part of the legal aid distribution. I wanted to understand a bit more why it’s being targeted under urgency. Is it because those reports are ones which support minority communities? Because it seems like this Government’s got legislation going through this week that targets gang members, again. That’s 8,000 in our country—8,000 people out of 5 million people. Again, this is a bill that targets a very small portion of the legal aid fund, and what I’m trying to understand is what is the rationale behind your approach to law and order when it affects such a small number of people? Particularly when the small number of people that are impacted are minority communities—communities that are already overrepresented in our justice system: Māori, Pacific people, poor people, and people who are born into gangs or are in gangs. Those are the people who are being targeted by these law and order moves. So those are my questions and I hope that you’ll be able to address them. Thank you.

Look, the only thing I’d say to that member is, of course, Māori are disproportionately victims of crime as well, and they have as much interest as anybody else in society of ensuring that we restore law and order and that there are consequences for serious crime, and that people are held to account for their actions, because everybody in New Zealand has an equal interest in ensuring that we are able to live in a peaceful and safe community. So I don’t accept that different groups in society don’t have an interest in ensuring that we live safely and peacefully in our communities. In so far as this bill has an impact on any particular group of New Zealanders, it certainly is aimed to benefit all New Zealanders. So that is our focus there.

Members, the House is suspended for dinner and will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Members, the committee is resumed. We are resuming debate on clause 4, the amendment to section 99 of the principal Act.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I must say it’s a real privilege to be spokesperson for justice in the Labour Party and be able to speak on this. I saw my friends on the other side of the Chamber leap up, and I do hope they’ll have substantive contributions to make on this, because I’d be interested in the views of some of the backbenchers, who probably are struggling with some of the policies of this Government.

But I hope for an extended debate, because this bill, which is an important bill, has not been to select committee, and so the committee hasn’t had the opportunity to fully hear and consider the views of the many interest groups that would submit on it. One of those interest groups is the New Zealand Law Society. I would invite the Minister of Justice to consider what the New Zealand Law Society had to say on this bill and to respond directly to the point that it made. I won’t take long for this call, because I think it’s entirely appropriate for the Minister—because his officials can’t do what they would usually do in the select committee and go through a submission, analyse it, capture its essence, give options, respond to it, let the select committee decide which way to go and then present it back to this House. That all has to happen in the course of the next two or three hours here today.

So the New Zealand Law Society—the president, Frazer Barton, was very clear in their submission that they saw this as restricting access to justice for people who couldn’t afford these reports. And in the statement—because they issued a statement—that was made, he was very clear that this fundamentally undermined human rights in terms of equal treatment before the law. So, Minister, I say to you that the submission of the Law Society is that this results in unequal treatment before the law, it’s a breach of human rights, and it impedes access to justice for those who cannot afford these section 27 reports. What do you say to the Law Society?

Was that a bluff attempt to stand up, Minister, was it? Or are you actually going to engage in answering the questions? Because you were about to let it go to a closure motion. Yet, in earlier contributions, the Minister had disregarded points and questions that we were asking, saying that he would address them when we got to the substantive section, which, in case he isn’t aware, is this one. So now is the time for you to answer all of those questions that we asked earlier, which you didn’t address in the title clause, and it was deemed to be frivolous—the title or whatever.

I did jump to my feet because I could see that the Minister did a fake attempt to stand up and answer and actually invited a closure motion from the other side. Now I’ll get on to my actual contribution and the point that I wanted to make.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Got that off your chest?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh, would you like to answer the questions, and then I could quite happily carry on from that? No? OK. You know, that is the point of the committee stage—just checking—

Tim van de Molen: Get to the bill.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Excuse me?

Tim van de Molen: I said, “Get to the bill.”

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Get to the bill? Did you think that that was not a fair comment about what just happened there? Hmm. Anyway, Madam Chair, we do look forward to some engagement with the Minister on the details around what this bill is proposing to do, and I hope that we are going to get some of that engagement tonight.

I want to start with what we have heard the Minister describe as just a small change, just a small area within the legal aid system. The Minister said that in an earlier contribution, but I think that it is important that the committee understands the profound impact of this so-called small change of defunding section 27 cultural reports. My question to the Minister is—this is my first question of many—can he tell me how this bill, this amendment, is meeting our international obligations? I have read the regulatory impact statement and the disclosure statement, and in there it says they cannot see how this bill is actually meeting our international obligations. Has the Minister read the advice? Does he understand that? And can he, please, tell us how his change is meeting our international obligations and whether or not he’s concerned that we may be in breach of those and not meeting those.

Thank you. Thank you, and I can assure the member, Willow-Jean Prime, I have read the documents. Secondly, the previous member asked around how this bill affects access to justice and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues. Now, the difficulty is, of course, that we had a period of 15 or so—maybe 13 or 14—years when the legislation was passed and people didn’t have access to legal aid for writing these reports. I don’t think people said there was no access to justice or that we were failing the Bill of Rights. People had every opportunity to get a lawyer through the legal aid system if they needed to, and have access to a lawyer conducting their defence. None of that is being taken away by this legislation. What is being dealt with by this legislation is an additional cottage industry that had developed since 2017 and was gathering great momentum and speed with each passing year and costing more and more.

Now, it’s quite right and appropriate for the Law Society to make some observations on that. With respect to them, I don’t agree with their conclusions, and so the Government has made it clear that we were going to cease funding for this particular element of the defence spending, and it was well signalled. I think most New Zealanders would appreciate this focus on making sure that money in the legal aid system, which is under pressure generally—as every element of Government spending is under pressure given the deficits that we’ve faced for a long period of time and the very big increase in debt that this country has taken on in the last six years. I think everybody appreciates the need for careful spending, and this is one element of that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first opportunity to speak on this issue in the House and, certainly, I look across at our colleagues opposite and I do wonder about your past and your past misdeeds, perhaps, and your misspent youth. I can tell that some of you had fun, and perhaps—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s not referring to the Chairperson, is he?

SCOTT WILLIS: Sorry. To the Minister of Justice: some of your colleagues, perhaps, Minister, did have a bit of a misspent youth. I’m wondering about the need for tailored sentencing. Because, essentially, if we take everyone as simply a facsimile of everyone else, we cannot help people adjust to a life out of crime, or a life where they may become a parliamentarian—a life where they may live a good life and pass good legislation. Isn’t tailored sentencing to prevent reoffending good for victims of crime because of the reduced likelihood of reoffending? If we think how people have been able to turn their lives around, why would we not give them a chance? Why would we not look at the challenges that they’ve faced and start tailoring something to meet the requirement to reintegrate them into society? Why would we not do better than what is proposed here today?

So, for the Minister, I would like an answer, please: isn’t tailored sentencing to prevent reoffending good for victims of crime because of the reduced likelihood of reoffending? If the Minister could respond to that, please, and give us some insight into his thinking on this matter, I’d really appreciate it, because it really does matter that we keep people out of prison, that we don’t increase the prison population. It really does matter that we have people who are contributing members of society and are able to fix things that they may have done in their past. They might have—I don’t know; I don’t know what the Minister’s colleagues may have done. I don’t need to know, because they’ve made good, and we want everyone to make good. Kia ora.

Very happy to answer the member Scott Willis’ question, and thoughtful question. The first point I’d make, of course, is that this bill does not do away with the ability of the justice system and judges in sentencing to take into accountthe background of offenders; there are many opportunities—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: For those that can afford it.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —in the Sentencing Act—no, not just for those who can afford it—and throughout the justice system for people to take into account the background of the offenders, and that is appropriate.

We also, of course, share the desire of everybody in this House to improve the chances of people rehabilitating themselves and getting back into a productive life. For example, that is one of the reasons why my colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell this week announced the fact that this Government will be ensuring that prisoners on remand will have access to rehabilitation programmes, so there are many ways in which society and Government encourages people to rehabilitate.

What the issue is in this legislation is not taking any of that away, not removing any focus on the need for the sentencing judge to have access to the background of offenders, or the desire to rehabilitate; it is dealing with a particular little cottage industry that has developed in relation to these section 27 reports that we needed to deal with, and that’s what was set out to do.

Thank you to the Minister for explaining that, because it goes right to the point that I’d like to make, and maybe he could enlighten us. The bit that puzzles me is that in—it’s not called the regulatory impact statement now; oh, it is—the regulatory impact statement on this bill, the officials from the Ministry of Justice have identified five options, and what they consider is that they recommend option four, which is to introduce an accreditation system for section 27 report writers, to be the preferred option. So that was seen, when they weighed all of those options up, to meet the Government’s requirement to curtail cost but also to maintain the access to justice, which is also important, as identified by the analysis undertaken for the regulatory impact statement. The advice under option four says that “Whilst implementation costs would be greater, this option best satisfies the criteria of producing consistent and fair outcomes for regulated parties and of consistency with existing regulatory frameworks. A system of accredited report writers would improve the quality of reports. This, in turn, would be of greater benefit to judges using the reports, and would be fairer to offenders who rely on the reports to present their circumstances to the court.”

I’m interested, I say to the Minister, as to why—as in paragraph 48 of the regulatory impact statement—the Government directed officials to option two. The Government directed officials to ignore their own advice on removing the ability to fund the cost of section 27 reports from the Legal Services Act 2011 and to go ahead and remove the discretion of the commissioner to improve funding for this purpose. So my question, really, is that I wanted to understand from the Minister the rationale of pushing this through in urgency, without anybody affected having the opportunity to make comment and without paying attention to any of the detailed analysis provided by the regulatory impact statement, and to simply direct an outcome without what appears to be any consultation at all.

If the Minister just replies with “It’s in our 100-day plan.”, I’m sorry, but that’s actually not good enough. I want to know what the reason is. I don’t want to know that “We went and knocked on some doors during the election, and everybody said ‘cost of living’ and ‘We want to restore law and order to New Zealand.’ ”—that’s great; we’ve heard that. We want to know, and I think New Zealanders deserve to know, that if this is being pushed through under urgency, if the advice of the officials who know quite a bit about this area is being completely ignored, and if the Government is directing an outcome and ignoring that advice—I would love to know what the rationale is, what the thinking is, and what the reasons are for this direction to take away the legal rights of people to have their backgrounds heard as part of their sentencing.

The member is very smart and has worked out that the officials didn’t agree with this policy—and that happens from time to time—and the difference is that the Ministry of Justice officials were not the ones who were elected in this Government. So the primary reason why the Government has pressed ahead with this policy is that we campaigned on it, and the people expect us to do what we said we’re going to do. That is a pretty basic democratic principle: you go and campaign on something, you say you’re going to do it, and when you get elected, you actually do it. So that’s what we’ve set out to do.

It’s not a question of ignoring the advice of officials—we’ve read the advice and we considered it—but we didn’t decide that we wanted to go down the route of regulating the report writers and having a little team of officials running around and working out who is qualified to write such things. Should they be a sociologist, for example, opining on these matters, or do you need a history degree to do it, and how long you should be doing it for and what you should be covering—all that just seemed to us to be a fraught and unnecessarily complicated and expensive business. So that’s why we stuck with our intention, which is to take the funding away from these particular reports, recognising—recognising—that there are many opportunities for people’s backgrounds to be considered in the sentencing context. The original intention of this piece of legislation was for people to give brief oral accounts in the court—generally, family members—and for that to be considered, and there is nothing stopping that from happening.

I have a very short point, and I’m hoping the Minister will respond to it directly, because he has said there are other avenues in which this kind of information can come before the courts. We know that when a prisoner is put into the corrections system that reports are prepared by the Department of Corrections. I understand that the Department of Corrections has resolved that it will not provide its reports for sentencing in substitution of these section 27 reports. Is it the case that corrections reports, prepared when people are convicted but before sentenced—is it the case that corrections is no longer going to provide those reports to the court as, essentially, section 27 reports? Is the Minister prepared to respond to that now, otherwise I’ll proceed. Nope? Well, perhaps you could take some advice on that because it’s an important point. Because one of the very arguments you’ve made is that there is other information through other avenues, such as corrections reports, which will fill the void for poor people who can’t have these reports.

The other point is, I just do want to say there’s a number of Amendment Papers, and I will get to those, but, still, I’m kind of standing in the shoes of submitters who would submit to the select committee. The New Zealand Bar Association—so that is the association of litigation lawyers and barristers—has been very clear here that they are of the view that because this will lead to less informed sentencing decisions, the quality of sentences will be lower. And the knock-on effect of that is higher rates of reoffending. So that’s the first thing: how does the Minister address the fact that our preeminent association of litigation lawyers is saying that this will lead to higher rates of reoffending.

The other point—and this is not about the quantity of the sentence but the quality of the sentence. Because, with these reports, the judge can look at, for example, family circumstances—whether the home or mum’s home or uncle’s home is a suitable house for home detention. Whether it’s a kind of safe place or whether it’s not safe and is likely to have unsavoury influence. Of course, we know that if someone doesn’t go into prison and they go into a good residence for home detention, they’re much more likely not to reoffend and more able to effectively engage in rehabilitation as part of that sentence because they don’t have to use the prison system; they can use, essentially, the civilian system of psychologists, alcohol and drug treatment, all of those kinds of things. So rehabilitation without these reports becomes more challenging. So I’m essentially the mouthpiece for the Bar Association—that’s the view of the Bar Association.

If this was a select committee, and you’re standing in the shoes of your officials, Minister, what do you say to that? How do we fix this piece of legislation? Ultimately, the sum total of the Bar Association’s statement on this is that we’re making the life of judges harder. That it’s more difficult for them to do the job they want to do, which is to impose an appropriate sentence—what that Minister clearly wants—which is to mark out the offence appropriately as beyond the realms of what is socially and legally acceptable in society and striking the right balance with rehabilitation and reintegration. Now, that’s the job of a judge. It’s a hard job. It’s a job that they need every tool at their disposal. And the Bar Association is saying to you, Minister, “You’re taking away—in some of these cases, for poor people—one of the most important tools.” So what do you say to that?

And seeing as you didn’t stand up before, I will preface that what I want to talk about next is the role of the information about victims in here. And if the Minister wants to stand up and respond to what I’ve said already—I’ll pause there, but the Minister doesn’t seem to want to do that.

So I do want to then move on and, with some further time, talk about my Amendment Paper H, which is on the Table, if anyone wants to read it. I’m sure the Minister’s looked at it, but it does talk about the function of victims or information about victims in this context, because this is at the heart of what the Government is talking about: making the criminal justice approach victim-centric. So what my Amendment Paper does is it suggests that reports about the victim in the context of the offending should be put before the court and should be funded by legal aid—so a report about the victim context.

Can I just say, we often think in terms of crime as stranger crime. The idea that we’re burgled by someone we don’t know, or a sexual offender is a stranger who prowls in the park. Well, we know—and I was, in fact, at Rolleston Prison at their sexual offending programme, visiting recently, and it was really interesting to hear that that—

Tim van de Molen: Getting off track here. Get to the bill.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I’m sorry, Mr van de Molen?

Tim van de Molen: Get to the bill.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: It was very interesting to hear that, in fact, stranger crime is extremely rare. The relationship between the victim and the offender is an important part of the sentencing process, and knowing what’s happened subsequent to the offending, knowing whether the offender has recognised the magnitude of their wrongdoing, whether, if appropriate, they have made some amends or sought to have some kind of reconciliation.

Of course, one of our most serious plagues is domestic violence. And we know there that someone who recognises the harm they’re causing and wants to work on stopping that kind of behaviour and healing the wounds that it’s causing in a family is really important. Now, if a section 27 report can say not only just what is the offending but what is the network of relationships between the actual victim—that is to say, the person who, perhaps, has been assaulted in a domestic violence situation—and the offender and the network of harm: the children, the wider family, all of those things, that information is of critical importance. So what my Amendment Paper H says is, “Look, OK, you’ve taken a point of view in respect of these reports, but let’s carve out this most valuable information which gives victims a greater voice and makes the sentencing process more victim-centric.” Now, this is utterly consistent with the Government’s position in respect of shifting the needle towards victims, and I endorse that. I think we do need to always have a clear eye on the impact on victims, the voice of victims, the right of victims to be properly heard.

It’s counterintuitive that the bill before the House is removing one part of a victim’s voice. I’m not going to pretend it doesn’t exist, because there’s such a thing as a victim impact statement, but you’ve got to remember what a victim impact is—the prosecution, essentially, taking from the victim what effect it had on them. It’s quite different to say, “What is the network of relationships? What has the offender done since the offending? What does the future look like in terms of your relationship with the offender?” And we love to think in black and white—we default to black and white—but I think we need to recognise that in much criminal offending, there is a very large world of grey where the offender and the victim are often in an intimate relationship, or even if they’re not there, they’re in some kind of family relationship, they’re members of the same whānau and they’re going to have to learn to live together, at least at some time in the future.

So, Minister, I’d ask you to carefully consider that Amendment Paper. It’s not trivial. It was carefully thought out. It’s about victims, and I hope you will support it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first opportunity to take a call on this bill, on what is the substantive clause—clause 4. So I have a few questions for the Minister in relation to this bill, and I also want to propose an amendment in clause 4; a new clause 4. I haven’t tabled it yet but intend to, and I want to get the Minister’s view on that as well.

Firstly, just some questions for the Minister. For anyone who’s ever had anything to do with the criminal justice system through going to the District Court or engaging with people who have been imprisoned, I think one of the most surprising things for people can be—and I’d be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on this—is the fact that when you go into a court, often you are confronted not with justice but in fact with the injustice that most members of our community suffer, and the reason that they’ve actually arrived there is to do with a great number of things which have gone wrong in their lives.

The reasoning for the removal of this particular funding, through legal aid, seems—from what the Minister has said in answer to his previous questions—to be based on because there was an industry surrounding these cultural reports and, therefore, we’re going to remove that. Well, I would ask the Minister to take that logic to its conclusion. I imagine when the first courts of justice were first held and when barristers were paid through little pockets in the backs of their gowns, that people thought of that as a cottage industry or an industry that has sprung up in order to represent—so that those charged with crimes can be represented in areas where they may not be able to articulate that for themselves.

Now, I haven’t had a long involvement in criminal law, but I did work as a duty solicitor for a short time, and I did that training in the District Court. From my experience, many offenders can’t even read their own name, let alone create anything like the type of articulate report which would lead to fairer sentencing or more thoughtful sentencing for them. So, in that sense, I would like to know from the Minister who is this—apart from saving money, which we can agree is important, apart from that, for what reason would the Minister take away the ability for people who can’t afford cultural reports to be able to have their case made out in court? What is the justification for the substantive part of clause 4 which takes away the ability of people who have less to articulate what their background does and what they truly need? Because in my experience, that is the very thing that is most lacking in our courts: the ability for those who have little to speak up and be treated equally with those who have the ability to pay for and articulate and get the type of legal representation that they really need. So I’d like the Minister to answer that question.

I did indicate in the beginning of my call that I have an amendment to make. The amendment is a review clause. We’ve heard from a number of eminent organisations, who are not politically motivated, that there are serious concerns around access to justice in this bill. I ask the Minister: does he take that opposition seriously? If so, how does he respond to those organisations? If he is certain that this bill will not impact access to justice, why doesn’t he agree with my proposed clause to include a review clause in this bill so that after six months the Government reviews, through the Ministry of Justice, the access to justice impact of the passage of this bill, and the Ministry of Justice reports to the Justice Committee who then reports back to the House on the impacts of it.

If it is correct that there aren’t going to be grave injustices, as we fear, caused by this bill then I’m sure that review in six months’ time will indicate that. If the Minister does not agree with the review clause, how can he be so confident—when he hasn’t received the advice he would normally receive, when this is going through under urgency, when there’s been no select committee process—that in fact there won’t be greater injustice caused by this bill?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really pleased that you have given me this call, because I have sat and waited and waited and waited for about four or five contributions for the Minister of Justice to answer my question, which he never did. He never answered my question, so I will just refresh his memory and give him an opportunity, while I’m making this contribution, to answer my question, which was around how this proposal fits with New Zealand’s international commitments, such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In the departmental disclosure statement, it says, “Māori are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and the funding change may exacerbate this disparity, as a higher proportion of Māori (and Pacific Peoples) offenders receive a legally aided section 27 report, compared [to] others.” So what steps have been taken to determine whether this policy meets our international obligations under that convention? That was my question; that has not been answered.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Do you want me to answer it?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: No, I’m not going to sit down; I’m going to do my next contribution in case it doesn’t come back to me again.

The Minister talked about a cottage industry, and what I want to put to the Minister is, in terms of the cottage industry, there were other options put in the advice to him that could address some of the concerns that he has outlined with the creation of this cottage industry. The Defence Lawyers Association are imploring the Minister to consider other alternatives to what he is proposing, to defund section 27 reports. The Defence Lawyers Association said that “If there is any concern about the cost or the quality of the reports then we don’t use those report writers, she said. Putting in place standards for [a report writer] was discussed as an alternative to cutting the funding” entirely, and that this would be preferable if report writers were actually the concern—and I’ve heard the Minister say this—but “To scrap the report funding completely is a retrograde step and if the information that was usually in those reports is presented to the courts it will blow out sentencing times and judge time[s]”. So this is the Defence Lawyers Association saying that she does not think that the Government has “anticipated the built-in costs associated with scrapping the funding.”

Now, the second point that I want to make on that one is that the Bar Association wants the Government “to consider the evidence about the impact of [the] reports since their use, [and] to determine whether the cost / benefit justifies their continuation, when assessed against reoffending rates and rehabilitation gains made.” Will the Minister give due consideration to the submissions, to the points that the Defence Lawyers Association and the Bar Association are making about what could be a better way to address his concerns that this has created a cottage industry? The Government’s proposal to simply defund this, as we have heard in the debate tonight, is creating access-to-justice issues, serious ones—serious ones that disproportionately affect Māori in the criminal justice system. So my question to the Minister is: will you consider what the Bar Association has requested and what the Defence Lawyers Association has requested?

I want to make a different contribution about costs, because the Minister is saying that this is all about a cost-saving exercise. Now, in an earlier contribution, which the Minister said he would not address until he got to the substantive section—which is now this substantive section—I talked about the cost-benefit analysis of this report. Putting justice aside, which I think should be the primary consideration, this is a cost-saving exercise by this Government within the justice system, but what the evidence suggests to us is that there will be more costs to the justice system from this section 27 defunding proposal that we are debating tonight—and they are significant costs. Is the Minister aware of the costs that he is creating for the justice system, and are they going to be more than the costs that you think that you are saving, let alone the impact that you are having on people? So what we have here is that the cost of funding section 27—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a follow up, in the sense, to what the honourable member Willow-Jean Prime has been saying, further to the points made on the nature of circumstance into which people come. There but by the grace of God we go, in a sense; we don’t choose the house or the circumstance we’re born into or raised in—the deprivation, the poverty, the potential violence and the trauma that is suffered.

My question for the Minister of Justice relates to the opinion of judges on the matter of the value of the cultural reports, and I’m hoping that he will take it into account. But, for context, we know that often the perpetrators of crime have been themselves the victims of crime. There’s the beautiful Auden poem that goes,

I and the public know

What all school children learn,

Those to whom evil is done

Do evil in return.

Now, being a victim of crime doesn’t make you entitled to commit crime, any more than being the historic victim of genocide makes you entitled to commit genocide now. But is it right that we should understand the circumstances which have led people to where they are? Absolutely it is right. And if we want a right justice system, one that brings justice to victims as well as to those who in their history may have been victims, surely we need to know that history. Surely we need to know the context of that circumstance. And surely, for a judge to be able to rely on the basis of an expert report made by somebody who is a sociologist, perhaps, who knows the nature of how a person’s circumstances impact the way they behave, who knows the cultural context and the familial context of a family—surely it is more useful for a judge to have the confidence of the expertise in the author of that report, for them to be able to then take that into account in their application of sentencing, and appropriate sentencing, that can better enable appropriate application of rehabilitation. That rehabilitation is what is going to enable us to have a justice system that protects the victims, that minimises the number of victims in our society, which is surely the goal of our justice system, Minister.

So when judges say that they are concerned—sentencing judges have expressed that those cultural reports are helpful for them. Those sentencing judges say those cultural reports are helpful for them. Why is it the Minister does not take that into account?

Getting simply a family member, which is absolutely valuable to hear from, but a family member, alone, who may not have the ability to articulate in a language or in means that are meaningful to a sentencing judge, the nature of the background of the person who has been sentenced—then this is exactly why we do need expertise. This is exactly why, when any witness in a crime is called, the expertise of that witness is a major factor in the ability of the judge or the jury to take into account what has been presented in that information. And surely, on the same basis, the expertise of the author of that report is an important factor.

Here the judges are, telling us that those cultural reports are helpful for them. So how does the Minister take into account the importance of that cultural report? Because surely, if it is true that we want a society that is authentically trying to reduce the number of victims, we would want to break that cycle and we would want to understand that cycle. And surely understanding the cycle is the means to breaking it. That’s my question to the Minister. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The question was raised tonight, how does it fit within our international agreements? My answer is that it fits very comfortably with our international agreements and our focus on ensuring that all New Zealanders get to live in a peaceful and safe society. As we’ve outlined a number of times, Māori are more likely to be the victims of crime than other members of society, and so they benefit also from the wise use of limited legal aid resources and, you know, some discipline around the extent of discounts in sentencing, which is a broader issue that the Government is concerned about in order to have real consequences for crime.

Now, the issue that many of people have raised is the implication that the passing of this law will mean that, somehow, judges can no longer have any information around the background of offenders, which is complete nonsense. There are many opportunities for it, and—apart from the last five years, where all this money has been spent on these cultural reports under the previous Government—before, it didn’t happen like that and the justice system didn’t grind to a halt and people didn’t have no access to justice for decades.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Yes, they did. Listen to the inquiry on this.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: They did? I just got correspondence from a former probation officer, who had retired before these section 27 reports came in, and he said, “As part of my work, I wrote numerous reports, including victim impact reports, emotional harm reports, reparation reports, pre-sentence reports. These reports were concise and comprehensive, including cultural aspects, family life, employment status, lifestyle, physical and mental health factors surrounding offending, expressions of remorse, and suitability for rehabilitation,” and then went on to say, “I fail to see what more could be achieved by these very expensive, questionably credible, section 27 reports.”

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: So this is one probation officer emailing you, versus the Law Society, Māori Law Society, Bar Association, Defence Lawyers Association?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes—but the point is that there are many avenues in the legislation at the moment, through pre-sentencing reports and other reports, where people can understand the background of offenders. What we don’t need is this little industry developing what I think the previous Minister in the other Government referred to as “mini theses” being written about all sorts of detailed backgrounds, which is all very nice with the report writers but not helpful to the overall effectiveness of the regime.

We listened to the many comments from many commentators on this topic, and we treat them all with the respect that they deserve. But the Government has determined that we will stick with our promise and we will deliver this legislation, because we think it’s the right thing to do.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Being a nice person goes a long way! Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very much for this opportunity. A couple of questions for the Minister, and I think it’s important, especially given his most recent contribution about the advice that he’s taking. The first question I have with respect to this particular clause—because I’ve had a read of section 99, and it does give actually quite wide-ranging powers—

Tom Rutherford: Point of order. Sorry to interrupt the member, but the clock hasn’t been started.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve read section 99, had a read, and it’s got some quite wide, sweeping powers. From my initial assessment, I question whether or not this particular amendment was actually required, in that there is quite a lot of discretion for the commissioner to be able to make denials for those who claim for reimbursement. There’s quite a lot of power there for the commissioner to be able to, like I say, decline, deny—and there was another word; it will come to me very shortly! So my question to the Minister is, then, why exactly this particular one seems to be giving an overreach of power for the commissioner. I think it’s already got enough in there, and I question whether or not—just a little bit of an understanding from the Minister about why he feels new subsection (ca) is needed, given that there’s already lots of powers there.

The next part is an extension of the Minister’s contribution about the kind of advice that he has sought on these matters. It was raised in particular through urgency last week, but I want to put the same question to this Minister. In the consideration of this particular bill, can the Minister share with us the conversations that he’s had with his Māori Cabinet colleagues? He’s talked about how he’s discussed it with a number of people. It’s important just to understand who’s representing the views of the Māori community to the Minister. So that one’s a pretty straightforward question, and I’m pretty confident the Minister will be able to come and stand to his feet and be able to answer that.

The second part is, given that the Minister has just read to us in the committee here an email from a former probation officer, if I recall the words correctly, this is where I’d like to express my support for the proposed amendment by my colleague here, giving it a bit of time. Good policy allows for a chance to review. And so, with respect to the kind of feedback that we’re looking for, I’m sure the Waitangi Tribunal, who’ve had challenges with the urgency and the legislation that has been passed through this House, would appreciate the opportunity to be able to look through and hear submissions from Māori communities on these matters, to continue to assist the Minister and this Government in making sure that we have good legislation moving forward.

Those questions to the Minister—they’re not overly difficult, but I’d really be keen to hear, given this seems to be a running theme across a number of bills and a number of Ministers who have been in his position. If he can answer those questions, that would be much appreciated.

Very happy to answer the questions of the member. In terms of why legislate for this change, it is that the commissioner, who’s responsible for the legal aid decisions, is statutorily independent. So for the Government to just send a message to him or her that we no longer want them to fund those reports would be to impinge upon that independence. So it’s appropriate for legislation to state that as the will of the Parliament. That retains the commissioner’s independence on everything else, apart from there’s a list of exclusions and this has been added to the list of exclusions. That’s why the legislation is required. In terms of the second question, what was the second question?

Hon Peeni Henare: Consultation.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Consultation—well, yes, we had wide-ranging consultation with many Māori over this, and of course, as you would fully expect, like in every section of society, there’s a wide divergence of views within many—

Hon Willie Jackson: Name one organisation.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Winston Peters, for one, has a very strong view on these matters, and I’ve had long conversations with him and many others. So there’s a wide variety of opinions across many communities.

Hon Willie Jackson: Tell Winston to come down here!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: You asked a question, and I gave you an answer.

Thank you, Madam Chair—thank you Madam, Chair. It’s off the back of what the Minister just said, because, as we all know, the Minister’s been very committed to partnership for some time—he actually said that to me on a TV interview, and he a person who is fixed, in terms of partnership going forward.

So the consultation—I come back to this consultation question because I want to ask this Minister: apart from Winston Peters, good man that he is, which iwi has this Minister consulted with? Because it’s really important—we always thought he was from Ngati Porou, and I think the National Party thought he was from Ngati Porou too, also, for a while. It’s really important that we bring, first of all, iwi into this because, at ground level, they are working with rangatahi, working with our young people. And this is incredibly important, and we’ve seen the relationships they had with Oranga Tamariki—they were exhibited in the last couple of years. We’ve seen major partnerships with Tainui that’ve happened, and our urban organisations. And I respect what the Minister’s saying about Winston Peters, I absolutely do, but I really would like to know, given the Treaty of Waitangi obligations in this, that when the Minister spoke with our agency—and I do say “our agency” even though we’re not in Government any more. Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) is a Government agency for all of us, for all Māori across the spectrum. National happen to be leading that at the moment and that’s fine, but it’s an agency that I trust—it’s an agency that I trust—having overseen the agency for the previous three years and the officials in there. Now, they gave clear advice that they did not support this type of rushed legislation.

So given the fact that we’re here, that TPK did not support the policy due to the constraints within the 100-day plan, I ask the Minister sincerely: which iwi did you consult, which organisations in the pan-tribal area did you consult? Given that I still chair our marae at Nga Whare Waatea in Māngere and I’ve been the chairman there for a number of years—I never ever stopped being the chair, because it’s not anything I get paid for; it’s just something that I oversee because it’s been a lifelong job for me, working at ground level with our people and with our communities. So was there any consultation with our marae, Nga Whare Waatea Marae? Which, incidentally, bars gang patches—I just thought I’d add that in just so everyone knows that we know how to manage those types of problems. So was there consultation with Nga Whare Waatea Marae? Has there been consultation with the Waipareira Trust, which is the biggest, as the Minister will know, Māori provider in the country?

James Meager: Who runs that trust?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, we all know who runs that trust. I can’t—you know, we know on this side, I wouldn’t imagine anyone on that side knows, because they don’t know many Māoris and they don’t consult Māoris, but they do consult Winston Peters. So I’m bringing up the Waipareira Trust, a huge provider for us, that oversees Whānau Ora contracts, our Manukau Urban Māori Authority—we’ve had major restorative justice panels that are in place—Manurewa Marae, that is there, Papakura Marae. Any marae, Minister—any marae. Please, put on the table tonight—just name one marae or one iwi grouping who you’ve consulted with, because that would then fulfil some of the Treaty of Waitangi obligations that, surely, any Government has to go through. What was the Treaty critique here? Surely it wasn’t just talking with David Seymour and Winston Peters? Surely there must have been some grouping, some people with people—and I’m serious here. So I would like the Minister to stand and tell us, rather than this sort of casual response: “Oh, we spoke with Winston.” Please, Minister, you’re better than that. I’m sure you’ll be able to tell us so that we can feel comfortable, because we know all the Māoris out there—the groupings—on this side. So if you could give us an example, we would be comfortable. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I’d like to thank the member the Hon Willie Jackson for his lifelong service that he’s referred to. And I do note that that member, of course, is famous for his comment that “democracy has changed” in this country. Nobody was quite sure when they voted for the referendum where the democracy had changed, but, nevertheless, he stated that it had. As far as I know, the basic principle of a Government standing for an election and saying they’re going to do something and then doing it still remains part of the democracy that I understand. Given the urgency with which we’ve moved on this, there has not been formal consultation with different groups—with the legal community or with iwi—but it is something that we’ve flagged very carefully and clearly in our election campaign. We said we’re going to do it, and, lo and behold, we are going to do it.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. I’ve got a couple of amendments that I would like to speak to.

First of all, I’d like to speak in support of the amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, and that’s specific to enabling the victim’s voice to still be carried through. So we appreciate that the Minister has made election promises to get rid of section 27 reports, but in those same election promises there was a real commitment made—and it is on record—that there needs to be a greater focus on victims. That was carried quite strongly and it’s something that we agree on, on this side of the House. So it’s a good point in common: that there’s been some very specific words stated by key Ministers of this Government that there needs to be a focus away from offenders and on to the victims of crime.

In fact, there’s even been statements made that the funding cuts made in areas like these section 27 reports will be transferred into funding more services for victims and more responsiveness for victims. So while I don’t tend to agree with that transfer, we do support it. So we would be very interested to hear if the Minister is prepared to support the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s amendment that enables just those reports that include a victim’s voice to be funded through legal aid in the section 27 reports.

That goes to the heart of the whole idea of trying to stop people reoffending and to stop more victims being created in New Zealand. So it’s really difficult to try and really comprehend, if you’re focused on increasing victim voice—if you’re focused on reducing the numbers of victims in New Zealand—why would you not agree to an amendment that enables the voice of the victim to be taken into consideration from all of those aspects and put before the court when the sentencing of that offender is being considered. So I would really encourage the Minister to take a good think about how we can do that, because we want to see better outcomes for victims as well.

The second amendment that I would like to speak to is in my name, and it’s for a new clause that would enable—in certain circumstances, when the judge thinks it necessary—the court to order a section 27 report. So this hasn’t been taken into consideration. It would provide it to be at the discretion of the judge, so if there are certain aspects of the case that is being heard before the courts; if the judge felt that a section 27 report would provide additional information that is necessary; and if that presiding officer can see that there is real financial obstacles to the person accused before the court, then the judge would be able to make an order for there to be legal aid funding for that.

This may go some way towards curtailing the Minister’s concerns around a cottage industry springing up and there being unnecessary use of section 27 reports. So it would strike that balance of being able to have all of the information available to a judge at sentencing, yet while still having some curtailing of the level of public spending happening in this area. If the judge had that discretion, then in those instances where the judge has information that the accused—there are particular factors that haven’t come to light and the judge considers that those factors are essential to enable the judge to be able to make an appropriate sentence that stops that person from reoffending; that stops more victims from being created in New Zealand.

That, to me, sounds like a really sensible pathway forward, and I’d be really interested to hear from the Minister if he’s prepared to consider my amendment that would enable, at the discretion of a judge, a court order for the section 27 reports to be able to be funded.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I see the friends on the other side of the Chamber are jumping up, but obviously there’s a number of Amendment Papers that haven’t yet been discussed. To date, we’ve been discussing some of the general points. I do want to ask directly—and I’m happy to sit down if the Minister indicates he will answer this question, but it’s the question about Corrections documents which have been prepared within the corrections system being used. The Minister has suggested that these wider documents can kind of be funnelled into the sentencing process, and my question was a very precise one: is it the case that Corrections have stopped preparing documents that can be used? Not as—yes, thank you.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I have no information on that.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: OK. Thank you for that, Minister. If I may just continue, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mm-hmm.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I thank the Minister for being so responsive on that. And that is the purpose of my Amendment Paper entitled “E” to make it absolutely clear that documents prepared for another purpose, including in the Department of Corrections, can be put in front of a judge for the purposes of section 27 so that you can get, you know, kind of double duty from those documents. But the Minister doesn’t have any information on that so I’m hopeful he’ll support that.

The other Amendment Paper that I’d like to then talk about is my Amendment Paper—and I think it’s “I”, although the Clerk’s handwriting is sometimes worse than mine!—that’s just to address the issues that the Minister has identified. It essentially says that these reports can’t be legal-aid funded unless they have met a couple of criteria. One is they’re less than $2,000, or such other sum as the commissioner sets, and it’s provided by a person approved by the commissioner. This isn’t some big regulation, this is pretty straightforward stuff. Legal-aid providers are approved by the commissioner, and there’s absolutely no reason why the legal-aid commissioner can’t simply—on the basis of evidence—you know, historical reports, the quality of the reports that they provided to date—say, “You know what you’re doing, and you don’t.” Or on the basis of perhaps a little bit of consultation with the Bar and judges: “These reports have been helpful to the court; those ones haven’t.” So that would be a very, very easy way to address much of the ill that the Minister has identified in these reports—that they’re too expensive and that they’re not value for money.

Now that number in there—$2,000—well, it might be too much, who knows. The Minister, or the Legal Services Commissioner, who’s independent from the Minister, as he rightly notes—I see he’s texting him now, so good on you. See what he thinks—I’m pretty sure he’ll be happy with this. So perhaps that’s a really useful—unless he was tweeting, of course, because it’s such a good idea he wants a bit of feedback! That’ll be the most consultation the Minister’s done so far on this bill, would be a good tweet. But anyway, so it’s a very simple proposal but it does address the ills. And I know that sometimes in this House we get a bit positional and if the Labour Party puts it up, the National Party votes against it. Now look, it’s not the approach we in the Labour Party take, we—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Ha!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No, no, no. That’s simply not true. You know we’ve supported legislation that you have introduced into this House, and we would hope that there would be a little bit of reciprocity there, that you would look at these Amendment Papers—we only saw this bill goodness knows when. So we have worked hard to come up with—all of these are constructive, you know. Admittedly, the title ones, I didn’t think I was going to get those through calling it the, you know, the “Bash the Poor”—I didn’t call it that, but, you know, the “Legal Services (Removing Access to Reports for Poor People) Amendment Act”. It was a fair point, but these are serious amendments that—and you’ve got your official behind you, and I can see why they might not be too keen on this bill. But this is something that they can no doubt assist you with in saying, “That’s a goodie; go with that. That Duncan Webb, he knows what he’s talking about.” So this one here is a good one, Amendment Paper I: cost of the report is less than $2,000, excluding GST, or such other sum as may be set by the commissioner from time to time; and the report is provided by a person or entity who was approved by the commissioner for that purpose. I recommend that one to the Minister. I’d be interested to hear what he says.

I have a quite simple and specific question for the Minister. There’s a repeated pattern in the House that we find from the Government, and we heard it from the Minister this evening, which uses the argument that, because they won an election on it, therefore the legislation is good and solid. Now, I do not believe that the Minister seriously thinks that is a legitimate justice argument for this piece of legislation, because it utterly speaks to the tyranny of the majority. When we know, as the Minister has articulated, that Māori are more likely to be the victims of crime, and when we know that there are shameful statistics about the disproportionate and the unjust treatment of Māori in our justice system, such that we have prisons that have disproportionate representation of Māori, it would be very concerning that decisions that impacted the rightful justice applied to citizens that were not in the majority would be made simply by the dictate of the majority.

So I just wanted to get clear from the Minister that when he makes that argument he is not seriously suggesting that this House should accept that as a credible argument for a piece of justice legislation. Justice, by definition, must be outside the rule of the majority; that’s why we have a bill of rights. That’s why we have a justice system that says all of us are entitled to basic precepts of care and a right to a voice and a right to be heard—habeas corpus, the likes, he knows well.

I’m sure the Minister would welcome the opportunity to correct the misperception that may have been created by the suggestion that the majority can dictate how our justice system works, and particularly in a context of a Government that is so willing to articulate the overriding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi; so willing to say that it is prepared to take, potentially to a referendum, the question of whether we should uphold a constitutional commitment made in the founding of our country in 1840. That surely is something that the Minister would be concerned to clarify for the purpose of the House and the public, that they are not suggesting that the majority can decide this.

I’m concerned to hear the response to Hon Willie Jackson when he said there was no consultation with iwi and there was none with justice experts. So you have not consulted with iwi; you have not consulted with justice experts. Are you saying that only by dint of the fact you campaigned and won an election, you are going to change this law to make it less just, in the opinion of this side of the House, certainly?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, come on. No.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do apologise for my mouth having said what my brain was thinking there. It was probably not appropriate to preface your own decision.

But I do want to talk about my Amendment Paper G, which is about youth offending, because this is—and the Minister for Children was talking about her initiatives today in the House, and it is a focus of this Government. There’s nowhere where it’s more important, because we know that the earlier the intervention and the highest quality intervention, the highest likelihood of there being a change of direction. So there are real concerns that when you get someone who’s being sentenced for serious offending who is under the age of 18 years, that you’ve really got to use every effort to make sure that all of the information is in front of the judge.

Of course, we know for a fact that a young person, a person under the age of 18 years, isn’t going to have their own means. It’s unlikely that they’re going to be employed in any high-paying role or that they’ve got savings tucked away or anything of that nature. So my suggestion is that we make it clear that whilst this Government is going to defund these reports by and large, there’s a carve-out, and there’s a carve-out for kids, because anyone under the age of 18 years at law is a child. They can’t vote; no change there. So this is what this proposal would do.

We know that those kind of whānau connections are particularly important, and putting a child into a custodial setting, even though—and I have been out to, on a different occasion, Christchurch Men’s Prison, which has a youth wing, but it’s still a prison, right? Call it what you like, but those 16- and 17-year-olds are in concrete cells, and they’re in concrete cells with other young people who are serious offenders. It’s not a great place to put yourself on a track towards building a meaningful life outside of crime.

So really good information about family, about context, about background, if you can remember what it’s for, it’s not just—and this is the really important thing. It’s not just interesting background; it’s about the triggers for the offending and how we can address that on the way forward. That nexus—and Justice Whata has been very clear about the usefulness of these reports, that if they don’t tie the offending to the context, they’re not useful.

But for a young person, that family context and the context of their wider network, their cultural background, what’s happened to them in a family or other upbringing setting—that is a critical importance as having a nexus with the offending. So if we just carve it out just for young people, so that where these things are the most valuable, they’re preserved; where they’re most deserved, they’re preserved; and where they’re most needed, they’re preserved.

So, Minister, your Government’s got a programme around youth offending—serious youth offending in particular. You know that the previous Government put some good initiatives in place around youth offending with significant interventions. You’ve got a Minister for Children who’s talking about military academies, as well as, at the same time, today I see on the Beehive website, seeking further advice on serious youth offending. So here’s an idea: let’s keep one of the tools in the toolbox for judges so that we can help young people who do find themselves offending to mend their ways.

Thank you. Just wanted to respond to the questions around urgency. Of course, most of the legislation in the justice space that the Government’s going to be introducing will be going through the full select committee process, such as the gangs legislation coming up and the firearms changes, and that’s appropriate that they should be considered.

But ultimately, it is the majority of the Parliament that passes the legislation, and that member is part of a party that was part of the Government in the previous term with a clear majority that passed a whole lot of things against the wishes of a whole lot of people. That’s just how the system works, and if you do it to the extent that the majority of New Zealanders aren’t happy with the direction that you’ve taken, you get thrown out. That’s how our system works, and so that’s called democratic accountability.

So in terms of getting this legislation through, it’s worth noting that the change whereby legal aid was used to fund these reports was not the subject of consultation or legislation or any democratic process—it just happened through a change of process. We are unwinding that, and we think it’s a straightforward change that should be made swiftly, and that is why we’re doing it in this way.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. I would like to ask the Minister a few questions, and it’s really in relation to the lack of analysis that’s been undertaken in terms of why this bill is taking place. We’ve already heard those arguments around the regulatory impact statement and the fact that officials have provided some advice; that was ignored and they were directed to take an option. But Newsroom wrote an incredibly good article, and it’s worth taking note of.

Emma Hatton has put together a great article which asks some additional questions on that. And it was a very thorough report. It points out quite rightly—and the Minister might want to speak to the advice that they refer to, because it was in December last year that this report said there are going to be additional costs. So, overall, when we look at this, this will cost the taxpayer more than actually scrapping section 27 reports. When you look at the forecast—and that’s what’s done in this article very well; they’ve broken it right down—for those currently serving a sentence of over two years, an additional 136 prison beds will be required; for those currently serving a sentence of two years in prison or less, an additional 120 beds will be required; and for those currently serving a sentence of home detention, 124 beds will be required. So the average cost of imprisonment being $193,000 a year—it can be as high as nearly $5,000 a day for those super maximum extreme risk units—that’s about $1.8 million a year.

I’m interested to know: has the Minister taken this into account on top of the 6.5 percent budget cut that Corrections, Justice, and Courts are all having to find in their baseline? With promises such as these kinds of window dressing - type promises that the Government’s doing, there clearly hasn’t been adequate time to do that level of analysis, to say how much this is actually going to cost the taxpayer at the end of the day. And furthermore, how will these additional costs you’re putting on the taxpayer be funded given the fact that all those departments that are now required to do this work—how are they going to be able to do this with a 6.5 percent budget cut? I mean, some of that funding for Courts alone will mean that some of the administrative work just can’t even be done.

It’s in a cost of living crisis, and the Minister himself has said that the two key issues that he heard back at the election, when talking to people, was the cost of living and also law and order. So if the number one issue that came back after the election—and that same argument that, when you’re elected to do something, you need to do it. If it is the cost of living, why are we passing a bill under urgency that is going to increase the costs on taxpayers, that is going to increase the financial burden on taxpayers? What is the rationale for doing that in a cost of living crisis, if that was the number one issue that people wanted to know about? If New Zealanders don’t get the opportunity to comment on this, if they don’t have the right to submit at select committee or have their voices heard, how is it fair that they have to pay for something that looks flash in a sound bite, that gets a great tweet, that ticks a box on your 100-day plan? They’re the ones who have to stump up and pay when you can’t pay the bills, when your Budget doesn’t meet the requirements. Because the long-term forecast of what this is going to cost the justice sector cluster is actually an increase to the amount that’s already allocated.

It’s not rocket science that you can’t reduce the budget of the justice cluster, increase the costs that are required to the justice sector, and then champion yourselves as heroes of the cost of living crisis. Something has got to give, and there needs to be some serious analysis done at some point. No doubt they’re doing this now in the lead up to the Budget. But the Minister needs to come clean with New Zealanders and tell us what the real cost of this bill is to taxpayers. What is the actual cost that we’re going to have to stump up? While a tweet looks good for a few seconds, and while it might be good to tick your box, the actual outcome for us as New Zealanders is increased costs to the justice sector. I’ll be very interested to hear how he plans to account for that.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 4, to not limit the court from using any document prepared for another purpose for the purposes of section 27, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 4, creating an exception for reports costing less than $2,000 and prepared by approved persons, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 4, creating an exception where the offender was under the age of 18 years, be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 4, excluding where the report provides information relating to the relationship between the victim of the offending and the offender, be agreed to.

The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 4B, proposing an amendment to the Sentencing Act 2002, is ruled out of order as proposing a substantive amendment to another Act, which would change the bill into an omnibus bill.

The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 4B, inserting a new section 116A into the principal Act, is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of this bill.

Clause 5 Schedule 1AA amended