Andersen Ginny; White Helen; Williams Arena; Goldsmith PaulHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Just in relation to the commencement of this bill I note that in the very brief legislative statement that we have received it specifies that this bill supports the Government's priorities to restore law and order. I was just wondering if the Minister of Justice would like to say: is he relying on this bill alone to be able to restore law and order to New Zealand or are there some other things that he's doing? In particular—CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can I ask the member to relate this to the commencement date please.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Yes. Yes. So is he expecting law and order to be restored to New Zealand 14 days after the commencement of this bill?HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I'd like to ask the Minister of Justice about the practical implications for those involved in these cases because you've not only got the judiciary but you've also got lawyers involved in the cases who if you're bringing this in in 14 days have already been well on the way down a case. So what they will have done is made decisions about how they're going to run that defence or that case or that plea. This presents a situation from what I can see where the information's still relevant to the court finding but the written report that they would usually use as the way of achieving this won't be something that is available to them unless they're willing to pay or their client is willing to pay for that. So they will have to look at other means and they will have to structure that. What I would expect the Law Commission the Law Society and the various law societies to do is to actually talk about the role that the judges and the lawyers would play and the way they would do this in a structured and fair way to everyone. So everybody needs this time to adjust to a different system because they still need to take into account these factors.Now one of the concerns I have is that it seems like we're replacing a report which is seen as expensive with oral evidence. Oral evidence is not cheap. It is often something that is going to require costs on behalf of the witness—it may be an expert witness which is going to really blow out the costs. You also have to consider the cost of the judge themselves and the staff around that because they're going to have to consider it in the way that the case is being heard and they're going to have to decide how involved they get. So in many of the jurisdictions the courts will take a more active role if in fact that isn't being done by anyone else.So has there been any consideration of running a trial in this where you could just do this in one place and set it up against the other system and look at the consequences so there weren't unintended consequences. What I'm concerned about is the blowout of cost the delay the impact on the various players—including actually the victims of this. Because what we have very clearly in the provision itself is an issue over really looking at that rehabilitative nature—what is the situation like for that individual? It's not just about culture in the narrow sense; it's about community it's about the placement of those people it's about the chances of reoffending in those alternatives.So if in fact we're going down this pathway has the Minister considered doing a trial—which I'd be in favour of a lot of legislation doing—extending out this for a little while while that trial took place? I'm sure you could get more cooperation across the committee to look at that kind of scenario. So like do a trial of this—don't do the whole thing—and measure those consequences but also give a chance for the lawyers themselves and the psychologists perhaps who are involved in this work and the judiciary to make plans as to how to provide justice in the situation where these reports are no longer relied upon. Thank you.ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr. Chair for the opportunity to ask a question about the commencement date to the Minister of Justice—and I thank him for his engagement on this clause with my colleagues. But this is a significant clause of the bill because it is so swift to make a change which will have a deep impact on people's access to justice particularly access to justice for Māori who are most impacted by the section 27 changes that the Minister is proposing.My question about the date is: has the Minister considered transitional and savings provisions in this bill that relate directly to this very fast commencement date? The Hon Peeni Henare touched on this earlier: there is no provision in this bill that the Minister has proposed and so it relates to the commencement clause because it would be inserted usually after a commencement clause and that is when an amendment would be relevant there. For example with changes to the extent to which the disbursements are incurred in relation to a report or a statement whether they are written or oral statements presented in court of a person called by an offender under section 27 of the Sentencing Act—if there are those in train now can the Minister give the committee some assurance that those will remain in train and that those will be funded? How many of those are in train now? How many witnesses or expert witnesses do we have appearing at the moment who will be affected in the next 14 days? And is it relevant to create a transitional provision to save those processes which are before the courts now that are sub judice that are being considered now and should therefore be saved?Also has the Minister considered extending the commencement date specifically for those situations which are already in train now where reports are being written given that those are something which a judge has overseen has had an involvement in asking for that counsel have also been involved in asking for that Parliament should respect the convention of not interfering in? And given that those have already potentially been ordered does the Minister know how many there are that are in train and will he make a provision for those that exist now so that Parliament isn't unduly interfering in business before the courts that exist currently? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): No I haven't considered extending the period beyond 14 days. But what will happen is the two-week time frame is to allow for legal aid providers to be advised of the change. Requests up until commencement could still be approved by the commissioner. Requests approved before the date will then be paid in the date. So requests that have been approved by the commissioner within the 14 days will be paid. Requests can be considered up until the 14 days.