Kuriger Barbara; Webb Duncan; Andersen Ginny; Goldsmith PaulLEGAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeClause 1 TitleCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the House is in committee on the Legal Services Amendment Bill. We start with clause 1; this is the debate on the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): You know it's traditional in amendment bills to be a little more descriptive than the Legal Services Amendment Bill". In fact I know there are a couple of Amendment Papers which suggest descriptions that might be more apposite. It may well be that simply removing funding for section 27 reports would be one of those because of course that's what it does and it would be good just for the legislative record for that.But if you want to have something a little more descriptive you would say what this bill really does. Of course it does a number of things but one of the things it really does—and I'm hoping to have perhaps a more substantive discussion with the Minister later—is it makes sentencing harder for judges. So my tabled amendment which is marked "B" actually identifies that by inserting it in brackets: "this legal Act is the Legal Services (Making Sentences Harder for Judges) Amendment Act".I say that because these section 27 reports—and in another speech in this House I pointed out that Justice Joe Williams of the Supreme Court said that context is essential. You can call these "cultural reports" if you like but what they actually are is just contextual reports placing the offending in the context of family of community of culture and importantly—and I'll come to this a bit later—of victims. If judges don't have that information it makes sentencing harder. Actually judges will still try and do their best. They will still try and glean the information that they can from wherever they can and that's going to be a challenge. The regulatory impact statement points out that in fact the likelihood is that this bill will have the exact opposite effect of the Government's intention in terms of sentencing being more effective and more efficient and more cost-effective. That's just another way this is making sentencing harder for judges. So my suggestion is that we just call it what it is. I'm hopeful. I'm not confident but I'm hopeful that sentences won't inappropriately increase but it's hard to say what will happen. I'll tell you what will happen is that sentences will bear less relationship with the identity of the offender and the offending because the judges won't know because it's going to be harder for them to get that information.So this is a situation in which the title of the bill the "Legal Services Amendment Bill" it's just not really good and I'm surprised the Parliamentary Counsel Office has it there. I'm loathe to criticise them but it would be nice to have had something a little more descriptive. Now the Minister may want to table his own amendment which doesn't have quite such a pejorative suggested addition but nevertheless gives the reader—someone flipping through the statute book as we all do—a much better indication of exactly what's going on. But I do think that my proposed amendment the "Legal Services (Making Sentences Harder for Judges) Amendment Act 2024" is an accurate description of what's going on now.Now I won't use my full time because I'll come back to a number of other amendments I have and questions I have for the Minister in the wider debate.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I'd like the opportunity of speaking in support of the tabled amendment made in the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's name. I do agree with the honourable member that the Minister of Justice might want to consider some alternative wording but it's important that he responds to the premise in the proposed change which is the fact that this bill should reflect what it does and that is: making the work of judges more difficult when they are weighing up how to deal with someone who has offended.I think it's really important to note that there have been some good comments made publicly in relation to this bill making it a lot harder for judges. One in particular is justice advocate Sir Kim Workman. He specifies that when a judge reads the report—this is the section 27 report—that they actually realise that this person is not only an offender but a victim and that the circumstances that they've been brought up in and have not been always within their control. The other aspect of it is that if you put a person in prison for an extended period of time you can almost guarantee they will emerge as more dangerous and more of a risk to public safety than they were beforehand. So those were the words of Sir Kim Workman specifically in relation to what the job of a judge is and the ability of that judge to have all of the information available to them when they make that decision. The problem that we are addressing with this amendment is that if we take away some of that information that is made available to judges then you narrow the scope of how the judge can weigh up what's the best way to not only prevent this person from reoffending but also prevent more victims from being created within New Zealand.So I think it's only right that we should hear from the Minister to understand his rationale for the fact that this bill narrows the scope narrows the availability of information that is laid before judges when they are making those very important decisions for our community.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Well I thank the two members for their suggestions about names for this legislation. The Government has named it the "Legal Services Amendment Bill" because it amends the Legal Services Act and we think that's appropriate."