Statutes Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 30. This is the debate on clauses 121 to 123; amendments to the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957. The question is that Part 30 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. As a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, I have seen much of this, but a question has occurred to me about how we’re going to manage the change. During the pandemic times, it was OK to have the audio, and I think it’s correct to ensure that oaths and affirmations have the audiovisual. But it occurred to me that sometimes submitters to select committees are intending to do the video and we also have the audio as well, but, when the line is bad, they’re not able to actually use both, and they often turn off the video so that we can actually hear them properly. I just wondered, and, presumably there’s no intention to make exceptions, but they would just have to find a better connection somewhere else. I’d like the Minister’s clarification.

I thank the member Celia Wade-Brown for her work on the Governance and Administration Committee. There were some very good changes that were made to the Statutes Amendment Bill with cross-party help and support, so I thank the member for being on that committee. Yes, it’s really critical that we can modernise the way that people are heard, but when it comes to oaths and declarations, if we only have the audio—and this is what the select committee picked up—you may not actually be dealing with the right person. Having the declaration made where you can see the person and hear the person is what this change is all about—enabling that.

When it comes to bad connections, what we’re trying to do within the justice system at the moment is slowly upgrade—well, not slowly; I’m trying to do it quickly—the audiovisual connections within courts, for example. Other Government agencies will be looking to do similar. Just for the oaths and declarations, I think the committee made a very good point of saying, when you’re trying to verify who a person is, you need to be able to see them as well. That’s why it’s important that that change that the select committee made has only been made to the oaths and declarations and not to the overall presentation of, say, evidence that may be required, especially where there is mixed connectivity occurring.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This was, as the Minister has said, one of the substantive changes that was made at select committee, and our thanks go to the Minister for also agreeing with this change. I think that it does make this a wee bit stronger.

When we were originally analysing this particular change, we did have some concerns that it would lead to a situation where there could be more coercion. I was reminded of my early days practising law, when, as the most junior person in the office, I was always set out to do the oaths and declarations, and all of the other evidence and affidavits—and I can see that other lawyers in the House are looking, with knowing eyes, at me. It’s not the “funnest” job in the world, but it is a very important job.

One of the key aspects of it is ensuring that you don’t just go through the motions of an oath or a declaration but that you actually ensure that the person who is taking the oath or declaration understands what they’re doing and is undertaking that oath without coercion and actually has capacity—I don’t want to spend too much time going over this, because I think we’re all in agreement—to make that declaration. There are special roles under the Oaths and Declarations Act, which outlines who can undertake that particular type of work.

Obviously, technology means that things have moved on, but I’m proud that the committee agreed to make this particular change, and that the Minister also agrees, because I do think it upholds the integrity of oaths and declarations. They should never be something that can be done entirely online, and I don’t think this an area where we can think of AI making a substantial contribution. There are some legal tasks, and our society is really built on the ability to verify people’s ability to undertake an oath or declaration.

Although it can sometimes be quite a boring job to take these oaths and declarations, it is really important, and I think this has made it stronger. I wouldn’t like to see this further watered-down, and I think, probably, with the original proposal, it was too much of a substantive change. I don’t think we did get submissions from the New Zealand Law Society on this, but I hope, if they’re watching tonight—undoubtedly they are, as committed legal eagles—that they do agree with how this has been changed.

I don’t really have too many more questions for the Minister, but I just wanted to acknowledge that that change was made. I think this upholds the integrity of the Oaths and Declarations Act—I hope so—and I hope we don’t have to make further changes to it.

I thank the member Camilla Belich for her contribution there, and I totally agree. For the person who takes the oath and declaration, it is important to be able to see the demeanour of a person who takes a declaration, and not just to hear their voice but also to look at whether their eyes are moving sideways. This is why I think it was so important, the change that the select committee made. It actually strengthens that proposal, and, again, I just commend the committee for the work that they did there.

Part 30 agreed to.

Part 31 Amendments to Privacy Act 2020