Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Chair. I do acknowledge the chair of the Justice Committee Meka Whaitiri. She's made a good-faith effort to outline the views at least of the Labour members—I don't know if they speak for all the Government parties. I suppose we'll find that out in relation to New Zealand First soon enough.I mention particularly the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in my name that I spoke on partly yesterday which the Hon Tim Macindoe has picked up and run with tonight so to speak and which as I say the Hon Meka Whaitiri has also addressed at least from the perspective of Labour MPs.We've been consistent on this side of the House in relation to the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill. I feel that the reward for our consistency will be brevity. I don't intend to traverse old ground except to the extent that that would be helpful within perhaps the current five-minute call that I've been awarded by you. I point out first that our preference would be that the Government move to reform the criminal justice system if there is a perceived difficulty with miscarriages of justice that aren't able to be rectified within the current system—the existing avenues of appeal courts and the royal prerogative of mercy. Second we would like to see that the Government if concerned about access to justice issues which might reasonably be said to exist has the opportunity again to do that under the existing structures and frameworks as opposed to creating a whole new body. Third as the Hon Tim Macindoe has already mentioned we have some issues with particular aspects of the design. We have discussed those in the select committee. Some of those have been addressed and we acknowledge that that process is one that we've been able to contribute to and we've supported the amendments made at select committee with the purpose of improving the bill notwithstanding that we continue to oppose it for the reasons that I have outlined briefly now.Turning to the SOPs in my name—I'll let the Government speak to its own if it feels the need to do so. We haven't had the benefit of such explanations of their own proposed changes yet. We look forward to that whether from the Minister in the chair or perhaps some other member of the executive who can speak to this authoritatively for the record. As far as the SOPs in my own name: the first requires that as a mandatory relevant consideration the commission take into account the potential impact on victims; second that they be notified at every step of the process; and third and this is within SOP 400 which we've touched on previously but not this particular aspect is a proposal in relation to legal aid. The rationale for this is simple but before I proceed to explain our thinking behind this I'd like to acknowledge the advocacy of the Sensible Sentencing Trust on behalf of victims everywhere. They have made a very sensible suggestion which we're happy to give voice to in this Chamber tonight particularly around the fact that wherever a victim has been dragged into the criminal justice system as we would say by circumstances almost invariably beyond their control they have a considerable cost already exacted upon them. That cost might be emotional it might be physical and in some cases—an obvious one might be an assault—it would be a physical cost but there are other costs too. One of those costs is financial. A financial cost unless covered by ACC and even then to a limited extent might extend to rehabilitation from injuries whether physical or mental. The financial cost might also come in a reduced ability to perform one's ordinary work as a victim which is an aspect of unfairness that the State is not involved in creating. Of course we're not suggesting that but the State should have a role to play a constructive role in at least seeking to mitigate or reduce that harm caused by financial costs as soon as possible.So it is that we make a practical suggestion along these lines which is simply to make available legal aid for victims who are re-entering the criminal justice system as required by the operation of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. We can see no good reason that a person who is placed in that situation again by the acts of others that are by definition criminal or at least are found to be criminal notwithstanding any overturning that might be the case—so we put forward for that reason this suggestion. We hope that it will be supported by all Government parties.