O'Connor Greg; Webb Duncan; Andersen Ginny; Goldsmith PaulClause 2 Commencement CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come now to clause 2. This is the debate on clause 2 Commencement". The question is that clause 2 stand part.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well I must firstly—but briefly—express surprise and dismay that those two tabled amendments were ruled out of order because they were very descriptive and very apposite. They might have been firmly worded but they were not joke amendments; they were serious. So I'm actually very surprised and disappointed about that. But I have also suggested an amendment because—I'm assuming the Minister believes in access to justice for all.Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Well I'd hope so being the Minister of Justice!Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: You'd hope so—that's right Willow-Jean Prime. I'm sure he knows his Magna Carta and the clause that's still in force in New Zealand: that the courts will do right by all rich and poor alike. So I'm assuming that he'd be happy for this little amendment bill of his to be deferred from coming into force until we have finally reached that goal of doing right by all regardless of whether you're rich or poor. He is smiling at me. I do believe he's nodding and that is at last we are at one!My proposed amendment which I think has been marked by the Clerk as "C" says "Let's defer this for Order in Council and once this Minister who has such lofty goals of equal access to justice for all can certify that there is equal access to justice in New Zealand for all regardless of means that's a great date on which to bring this into force because this bill this funding won't be needed." In fact you could probably put a Legal Services Repeal Act in and if we got to that lofty goal we'd probably vote in favour of it. It's a wee way off to be fair but we're happy to wait.So my proposal is that we don't set a fixed commencement date. It's a little unusual to have a deferred commencement date. I'm familiar with the caution that the Clerk and the Parliamentary Counsel Office have around executive powers being able to wait. But if the objective here is to get rid of something that's not needed let's wait until that day arrives when everyone if they do find themselves in a bit of strife and are needing one of these reports can in fact get it. I'm sure the Minister can't want a world in which some people who have wealth will get a better justice outcome than those that don't have wealth. And if that's the case I'm sure he doesn't want this in just now. I must say—putting it in within 14 days—I am a little concerned that this is just a little bit of posturing around getting stuff done and being able to say "Look what I've delivered to you."—a kick in the guts for the poor because that's what it is. And if that's the kind of delivery this new Government wants it's really disappointing because rushing it through and having a 14-day commencement clause is just really unseemly haste. It reflects very poorly on the Government. And of course I do want to say this because this hasn't gone to select committee. I'm saying what a lot of other people would say: taihoa; just hold your horses; there is no massive urgency here. And certainly the papers that I've read from the department give that sense: let's just slow this down a bit because there are other options; there's a whole lot of administrative abilities that the Minister and the Legal Services Commissioner have which could equally easily be used to ensure that quality reports are given by qualified people at reasonable prices when they're required. You don't need legislation for that. That's one of the first rules.So let's not get this coming into force in 14 days from essentially today if the Minister has his way with the legislation as it appears on the Order Paper. Let's just wait a little. Let's wait for the day when we reach the goal that he and I agree on: that we have equal access for all whether rich or poor regardless of means. So I hope he will support that amendment.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I'd just like to make a brief comment in relation to clause 2 on the commencement. The point I'd like to make is the fact that 14 days is just not enough. It's a sweeping change to access to justice and that period of time after Royal assent for this to become law in New Zealand is just undemocratic. There is simply no opportunity for the people directly impacted by this bill to be able to have their voices heard. So my suggestion to the Minister is not only to take a look at the amendment that has been tabled in the name of the Hon Duncan Webb but also to think about what additional consultation should be undertaken as a Treaty partner and also as the Government doing right by the people of New Zealand.In particular I'd like to point out that we know through written parliamentary questions that the Ministry of Justice has not undertaken commissioned or received any research about the impact of section 27 reports on reoffending. So given the fact that there has been no evidence base to demonstrate that what is being done through this passage surely that warrants a slowing up of the passage of this legislation. Surely as part of a fair democratic process and as good lawmakers we should have some understanding about the impacts that this law will make in our community. How can we even possibly understand what that impact is when the very ministry responsible for doing this work has come back and publicly stated through the written parliamentary questions system that there has been no research done to demonstrate what the impacts of section 27 reports are on reoffending.So for that reason I think it is really important that we hear from the Minister what the pressure is here what the huge rush is to make this bill law immediately to bypass public submissions to bypass any kind of thorough or rigorous assessment as to what it's going to do. It kind of looks like it's just a tick box for the 100-day plan. It kind of just looks like this Government wants to look tough and say they're doing some stuff. But really when you go to that next level and say "Why are we bypassing a public submissions process? Why has the ministry not had the ability to do any rigorous research or assessment of the impact of this law change?" it does kind of look like window dressing to me. So really for the Minister to speak to the point as to why this bill is being pushed through so quickly under urgency—why is it being enacted 14 days after the Royal assent? And what is the rush to bypass some of the fundamental facets of our democracy?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you Mr Chair and for the contributions of the two former Ministers. We're debating the clause about when this Act would come into force which will be 14 days after the bill is passed. That is to give people some notice and to have a process for applications or requests for approval for funding for these reports to be approved by the commissioner before the two weeks so that people have some time to get the applications in if they are currently under way and they can be approved up until two weeks from when this bill is passed. So that's the two-week period.In terms of people being prepared well I'm sure all members of the House are conscious of the fact when we talk about democracy that this was something that was very well flagged during the election last year and throughout the year—widespread concern about the increase in money being spent on this going from $40000 to $7.5 million in a short period of time. Mr Webb suggests that we should never bring in the commencement of this legislation—and that doesn't surprise me in terms of a Government that was prepared just to sit on their hands while all this money was spent and other legal aid meantime struggled.In terms of the debate it isn't about the urgency in the House or the select committee process but I would make the point that the cultural reports were introduced in the early 2000s about 20 years ago. They were supposed to be oral reports. At some point around six years ago a change occurred and they started to be funded out of legal aid. There was no select committee process or Government decision around that change—it just occurred—and the funding went up very very substantially. So that is why we are keen to make that change in a timely fashion in order to deal with the issues that we are concerned about in this bill."