Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Madam Speaker thank you. I pick up where the Minister left off by noting that parties have unanimously supported the bill to this point and National continues to offer its support to the Government in legislating in this space which concerns not only fundamental human rights so far as they relate to persons in a courtroom but also in matters of national security. And I think one should not lightly depart from the convention that these matters are dealt with on a bipartisan nature. We've seen nothing that would indicate that we should.So I start as I say by advising the Minister and his colleagues that we will continue to support the bill. At the conclusion of his remarks the Minister also made a point of thanking the Justice Committee for its hard work in considering the bill. I would also like to acknowledge the submitters who took their time and lent considerable expertise actually to the question that the Justice Committee was considering. I'm not a permanent member of that committee but I take an interest in this particular matter—it's somewhat within my portfolio for the Opposition of courts matters—so I was pleased to be able to join colleagues from across the House on the Justice Committee for at least some of its consideration.The general context of what we're discussing I think is worth setting out because the technical detail important as it is flows really from those big picture questions of what we're considering. We're considering at a level the difference between the competing rights of the State and an individual and we're also considering on a level weighing up security interests versus civil rights—namely the right of a person to have at least minimum standards of criminal procedure observed and accorded to them. And to the extent that we are also interested in the openness and transparency of the justice system and justice—as has famously been observed—being not only done but seen to be done. To that extent we're also interested in the rights of society as a whole to know that there are robust procedures in a courtroom. So all these different competing interests do need to be weighed carefully. I think that the Justice Committee did a good and thorough job of weighing them but it's also worth noting of course that when we're talking about balancing rights where minimum standards of criminal procedure are concerned those rights are generally considered irreducible as far as they go. So it's not reasonable to make a trade-off and have a bit less of that safety of conviction so to speak when weighing these matters. So one has to take very seriously the fact that a person's right to a fair trial mustn't be reduced below that level.The access to justice aspect of the bill and what the legislative intent is is really important. Access to justice in this country is significantly under threat at the moment. Not—I will state bluntly—through any design or deliberate action I think but the sheer difficulty of reaching court having one's matter whether civil or criminal heard in a timely fashion and the cost involved. These are profound challenges to the rights of Kiwis to have access to justice in our time. And the access to justice issues should be seen as part of that overall mix; albeit that they concern particularly the ability of a person to be able to be represented by a lawyer or advocate" I think to use the phrase in the legislation. In fact a person who is subject to proceedings such as the bill covers actually will not necessarily be able to choose their own lawyers. That's a bit of a departure from the usual way of things and there are reasons for that. There are good reasons that are justifiable and indeed justified by the bill. And as the select committee has made clear in its consideration its report these things were indeed carefully weighed.I do acknowledge that submissions were made that emphasised that it was important not to treat lightly a person's right to be able to have good legal representation. And of course it's to be hoped or—more than that actually—expected and demanded that a person will have good legal representation and there are certain mechanisms in the bill that are designed to ensure that. But we should all be diligent as lawmakers and policy makers and those who care about the rule of law to ensure that that is the case as far as we can tell and certainly to maintain an active interest in the matter and to monitor the way that the bill is being used going forward.There's a bit of a theme of alignment in the bill and these themes again sort of ran through the select committee's consideration. There's on a level alignment between criminal and civil jurisdictions. Not strict or not exact alignment. And of course they are different types of matter that could come to a court but whereas often one would think instinctively of a matter that involved national security as perhaps naturally leaning towards the criminal side of the ledger—and an obvious example might be terrorism or espionage—in fact there might well be civil proceedings. There might be a dispute between a party in which it's relevant that there is a national security aspect or question over the behaviour or conduct of one party. So it's appropriate that civil and criminal proceedings are both covered in the bill and to the extent that makes sense given that they're different jurisdictions similar philosophy is applied to those big questions as I mentioned before of allowing access to information legal representation and so on.I think it's helpful for courts not to have to rely on the very general principles that as the Minister has read well do otherwise have to be employed by courts. So we've got something on the statute book that will provide at least a measure of certainty; albeit in the individual circumstance of any case they'll have to apply it as best they can and make those judgments in both sense of the phrase as they go.Finally to the Minister's point again about comparable jurisdictions. I think this is a worthwhile point in the sense that the Minister made it but also in another one. And if we say well we should derive some comfort here at the bottom of the world and literally as an island and somewhat potentially insular in our way of thinking at times to look beyond the horizon and say "Well are we doing things in the same way"—not that we should necessarily do things in the same way for the sake of it but if comparable jurisdictions that have similar legal systems are doing a similar thing in their respective courtrooms then that is probably as good a guide as any at least as a starting point that we're on the right track. But also given that often times these same nation states are our security partners—be it allies or friends or very very good friends or friends with military benefits or however we might describe them—it makes sense that we have alignment there too because it will mean that there's a degree of trust and confidence for the sharing of information maybe even transport of individuals in question interoperability intelligence and so on. So it all makes sense from that point of view. I will just note because I'm interested in the operation of the Criminal Cases Review Commission that the Justice Committee I think probably as prompted by the excellent advisers to that body thought it would be helpful to clarify whether the Criminal Cases Review Commission was in or out. The report of the Justice Committee says that whereas the bill is meant to apply to courts and tribunals the slightly different beast that is the Criminal Cases Review Commission could be considered as either. Well actually specifically they said that it has a primary function of investigating and reviewing convictions and sentences and deciding whether to refer them to an appeal court and that it carries out that function in an investigative manner rather than a judicial one. I'm not sure that wording's quite correct. If I'd thought about it at the time I probably would have suggested a wording that talked about investigative versus adversarial approaches. The function is judicial either way I think but in any case the right decision I think was made by the committee which is to say that for the sake of certainty the commission should be either in or out and it's out so the bill doesn't apply to that.So I haven't even got near the particular aspects of the way that the evidence could be determined prior to a trial whether it's again civil or criminal but my time approaches the end. So I will say probably at this point that I will look forward as I know you will look forward and everyone in the House will look forward to hearing what we will have to say about that. Well actually colleagues in the remainder of the debate might have things to say about that and they'll probably say it more sensibly than I would at this time of the week anyway even several coffees in. So I'll leave my remarks there except to say we continue to support the bill for the reasons we've said and look forward to hearing the rest of the discussion about it."