Smith Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20047] 
6.  
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied that the justice system allows for all relevant facts to be considered when a case is brought before the courts? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Generally yes. But as the member is well aware there is nevertheless a range of limitations on what evidence may be placed before the court. That includes for example information that is subject to lawyer-client privilege and spousal privilege and the restrictions on the use of hearsay evidence to name a few. Some changes to the rules governing admissibility of evidence will be proposed by the Evidence Bill when it is brought before the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to point out that during my colleague’s question there was a great deal of background noise and I would like to enter a plea for his supplementary questions to be heard in silence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree. The level of chatter rises from time to time during some questions. I ask members to respect all questioners and give them silence when they are asking their questions. 
Murray Smith 
: Does he think it is acceptable for the New Zealand Army to hide vital evidence from a coroner’s court then present submissions that it knows to be lies as it did when it hid a report showing that defendants Keith and Margaret Berryman were not responsible for a bridge collapse on their property; if not will he give an assurance that he will act to ensure that all the facts of the case are brought to light; if so how does he plan to do that? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is a lawyer and he knows that the decision in regard to the admissibility of that evidence was made by the High Court. The way to change that is not by raising a question in the House or indeed by acting in contempt of the court; it is by appealing the court’s decision if he or any other member thinks that decision is wrong. 
Tim Barnett 
: Will the proposed Evidence Bill codify common as well as statute law and when does he expect to introduce it to the House? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes the Evidence Bill will do that. It has been 10 years in the making from the time that the Law Commission began work on it to the time of its report. The bill arising out of the Law Commission’s report has now been substantially drafted and I would hope to see it introduced before the middle of the year. 
Murray Smith 
: Does the Minister agree that it is only proper that a couple who have endured 10 years of legal battle and have lost everything including their health as a result of a decision based on an abuse of process by the New Zealand Army are properly compensated and vindicated; if so will he commit to the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the circumstances of the Berryman case in order to help that to occur? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That matter has been before an inquest and the High Court and it may well be back before the High Court. That is the appropriate way of dealing with the sorts of issues the member has raised. I would like to point out that although the member claimed that the Army has concealed the report the report in fact was made available to the Berrymans’ lawyers who at the time were Buddle Findlay. That is hardly concealing the report. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When will the Prime Minister show some leadership on this issue and direct the Minister of Defence to have that report published as is fully within her power to do so instead of ducking and diving around behind legal process which has cost this family a fortune already; when will she back up what she said back in 1998 in the Taranaki - King Country by-election?  
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would note that that is within the responsibility of the Minister of Defence but if the Minister of Justice has a comment he may make it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is just the obvious comment: the Prime Minister always shows leadership on every issue. That is why she is so far ahead in the polls above anybody else including that member. 
Murray Smith 
: Does he support a review of the Defence Force rules of disciplinary procedure to ensure that reports or other evidence such as the Butcher report on the Berryman case are disclosed in other relevant proceedings; if not what assurances can he give that the Berryman situation will not happen again? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I draw to that member’s attention that the High Court’s decision was based on the principle that the armed forces courts of inquiry are not intended to apportion blame but rather to establish the facts and what can be learnt from them for the future. The High Court made its decision on the basis that utilising evidence gathered in this way for proceedings that seek to establish blame would jeopardise the ability of future courts of inquiry to operate effectively. So the answer to the member’s question is no. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is he aware that in 1998 during electioneering in the Taranaki - King Country by-election Helen Clark along with MPs Mark Burton and Harry Duynhoven visited the Berrymans then went on the record as saying: “It is an issue of National having lost touch with its traditional constituency. These people were persecuted by the Labour Department. They have constantly sought some relief from the Government and they have never had it.”; and when does she intend to show some leadership and direct that the Minister of Defence have that document published? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I do note that the Government made the Berrymans a settlement offer of $150000 in June 2001 and that offer is still open for acceptance.