Worth Richard: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10451] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 So we had the Budget and the estimates were referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. They were then allocated to various select committees for examination and have now come back to the Committee of the whole House. The estimates debate is a consideration of the appropriations being sought by the Government in respect of each vote. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Are you giving a seminar? 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: We are talking about Vote Justice for just a few moments. This of course is the flagship of profligacy. This is one of the great departments of State that is characterised by waste. 
I would like to talk about three aspects one of which Mr Power has already referred to—that is the amazing concept that sits in behind the Sentencing Council. This is one of the Government’s significant policies. One would have thought—and I certainly think—that when a punishment is meted out the sentence should fit the crime. Most New Zealanders would think that. But that is not to be the case here. We know in respect of the Sentencing Council which is a creature of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill that a significant purpose is to control the prison muster. So the Sentencing Council will give directives to the judges as to the sentences they will impose in order that we can increase or more likely decrease the prison muster. That has to be incredibly inappropriate. It is wholly lacking in what should characterise a strong legal system. 
That is just one example though. The Minister of course appeared before the Justice and Electoral Committee. I was not there but my colleagues on it said that it was a sorry performance. And of course the estimate Vote Justice has been reported back in scripted form to this Committee. One of the issues discussed then related to legal aid. There is a great saying that the courts are open to everyone like the Ritz Hotel which means really that only the rich can afford access to justice. That is why we have legal aid. That is why the legal aid system must work. That is why the lawyers have been saying to the Minister that legal aid rates must be increased and that eligibility for legal aid must be strengthened and extended. Yet we have this sorry circumstance that is referred to in the estimates report where virtually nothing has been done. 
The Minister reminded the committee that a review of remuneration rates was in progress but tellingly the report continues that he was not in a position to indicate an outcome. That is a shabby indictment of what is said on page 398 of the Estimates. These are not difficult issues. One does not need to be particularly clever to see there is a problem and move to a solution. Why are we pausing on this critical issue which damages the integrity of the justice system? 
I turn to another issue in the time remaining—that is electoral reform. The Minister was even dodgier on this issue. In 2005 when I was on the committee we carried out an inquiry arising from the 2005 general election. We made it clear that there was a need for reform in several areas of electoral law. The Government accepted that position. It also accepted that legislation needed to be enacted no later than November 2007. In the context of the Standing Orders that time frame is impossible. We need a Minister who really believes in the justice system. We need a Minister who is strong and I believe that New Zealanders have been badly let down by the present incumbent. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.