Prime Willow-Jean; Goldsmith PaulHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm glad the Minister of Justice was able to stand here and say he is confident that they are going to be able to provide these additional prison beds for those who are likely to have different sentencing outcomes in the absence of this report.The second point I want to make and question I want to ask is: is the Minister confident that the judiciary is prepared for these changes which are proposed in this section to be implemented to commence in just 14 days? Now the reason I ask that is that what we have heard from several who have commented on these proposed changes is that the lawyers and the judges still have an obligation to have this information but they would have to get it in more painstaking ways. They anticipate the filing of Oranga Tamariki medical school police national intelligence application records to detail a defendant's deprivation harm and disadvantage and so they'll have to engage cultural experts psychologists alcohol and drug therapists as well as engage with whānau and family who may have literacy deficits and are intimidated by the courtroom. Counsel will need to spend more time obtaining data and the courts may be given raw data which is voluminous and time-consuming to review. My question to the Minister is: is the judiciary prepared for this change to take effect in just 14 days' time? Retired District Court Judge David Harvey agreed saying judges had an obligation under the principles of the Sentencing Act to consider relevant background factors so would have to source information previously found in [the] section 27 report[s] in different ways."My question to the Minister is: what consideration has he given to those judges who are required under the legislation to give consideration to these things without the very tool that provided that to them in a more efficient effective and fair way? That is what we are debating this afternoon. Can he stand up and please give us the committee the confidence that he has given consideration to that that he believes that the judiciary are going to be able to efficiently and effectively and in a way that upholds justice for all deliver on their responsibilities under the legislation. What retired Judge Harvey is saying is it leaves the "question mark over the quality of rehabilitation given that [this is] a large focus of the section 27 report. The fact of the matter is … as a result of all of this the courts are going to be deprived of information which they could rely on in the past that would assist in a proper rehabilitative [and a] proper sentence that fulfils the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act."So I repeat again my questions are: do you believe can you tell us that you have confidence that in just 14 days' time the judiciary and our justice system are going to be able to provide fair access to justice for all and proper sentencing in accordance with the principles in the Sentencing Act? I mean the whole driver behind this Government's push for the removal of section 27 cultural reports is costs and funding—I'll get to that when we debate that in another section. This is about whether the system is ready for this change to take effect in just 14 days given it's being passed under urgency that there's been no consultation with major organisations and bodies that have known opposition to what is being proposed. We have those who have served in the judiciary saying it's particularly unworkable going to be more time-consuming and cost more. So can the Minister please answer those questions?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Very happy to answer the question. I am confident that in the 14 days after this bill is passed and before the Act comes into force the—I cannot speak on behalf of the judiciary of course but what I can say is that they will continue to have many tools available to them to understand the background of offenders and within 14 days. That is sufficient time for this change to be made."