Little AndrewANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call on these the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. It is very easy on the presentation of the Minister of Justice's argument for both of these bills to say that yes anything that makes the administration of justice more effective more efficacious is obviously a desirable thing. But I have to say I do take some personal discomfort when I start seeing the language of greater efficiency" and "greater productivity" applied to the processes of justice and when I see that the language that is talked about includes "providing consumer protection" as well as greater access to justice. I have no questions or qualms about greater access to justice—but consumer protection? Can we just remind ourselves that most people who go to court—whether it is in the civil jurisdiction or the criminal jurisdiction—and most people who turn up to a tribunal are generally there not because they want to be there but because something has happened to them that they did not want to have happen or if they are answering as a defendant or a respondent they are there against their will but because they have to defend their position or their interests too.So let us not start regarding processes of justice as somehow akin to going to McDonald's and whether or not you get fries with that. That is not about a better consumer experience. When it comes to justice one thing is necessary and that is that everybody who appears before a judicial body or a body acting judicially or quasi-judicially goes away feeling—if not immediately then certainly within months—that they have been treated fairly that their voice has been heard and that the claim that they have advanced or that they have defended has been heard and treated justly. That is the only thing we ask of our expansive judicial system whether it is the formal courts or whether it is the more informal tribunals. In the end what matters most—and the reason we have a justice system—is public confidence in the conduct of our public officials and in the private transactions that we enter into. That is what we have a justice system for and that is what we must achieve here.So there are some things in these bills that clearly are worthy of consideration and that is why we will support these bills in this first reading so that they will get the close and proper examination by a select committee that they clearly need to have. When I have a look at in the Courts Matters Bills anything that would enhance the security of courts—particularly the District Court which is dealing with a vast array of different cases under different criminal legislation as well as some civil cases—it is important that those who turn out to our courthouses and our courtrooms know that they can do so without the fear of being molested without the fear of being interfered with without intimidation and without violence which does happen. So if the court security officers need additional powers to ensure that that happens then we will not stand in the way of that and we expect that what goes with additional powers to ensure the safety and security of our processes or the conduct of our court processes is that those officers will receive the appropriate training so that they can discharge those powers and ensure the safety and security of all those in the courtrooms and the courthouses appropriately.When I have a look at the changes to the Criminal Procedure Act again this is where I think the claims of the need for greater efficiency and greater productivity need to be measured against what is happening right now and users of the court system—the counsel the judges the staff and obviously those appearing as defendants or parties to claims—we need to hear from them as well. This is because what is one person's greater efficiency may well be another person's injustice and I have certainly seen plenty of that in my time too.The Summary Proceedings Act changes allow for the chief executive of the ministry to "approve automated decision-making for imposing attachment orders to collect overdue fines" and those sorts of things. On the face of it this sounds like a desirable thing but as somebody who has himself been the victim of an extraordinarily efficient system who got issued a parking ticket only a few years ago and the first I knew I about it was when the payroll office of Parliament here told me that I had an attachment order on my parliamentary salary I have to say that sometimes I think maybe the efficiency goes too far. The Wellington City Council which issued the ticket apparently could not track me down when it went unpaid. Although it knew the registration number and the address of the registration number of the car was the address that I was resident at it still could not track me down. But when it made an application to the court to have an attachment order it knew exactly where I was. So it did not reflect well on the Wellington City Council and I took issue at first with the court processes but they followed the rules. I was of course naturally happy to pay the fine although by that time it had been pretty much paid through the attachment order and there was not a lot more that I could do.So I just say that claims for greater efficiency have to be tested against the real lived experience of people who you know might have a parking ticket. Most people—and I am one of them; when I get a parking ticket I like to dispose of it as quickly as possible. When I say "dispose of it" I do not mean throw the ticket away but actually pay the fine. That needs to be reflected in the processes and systems that we have in our courts. So if the bill passes unchanged I will be asking the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice before he or she goes approving automated decisions for imposing attachment orders that they also have systems to make sure that people who are at the end of those attachment orders know that they are going to be treated fairly properly and of course justly.Other changes are assisting the assembly of juries to make sure that jurors who are called upon to act in that capacity—a very important part still of our criminal justice system and also of our civil system. Of course as we all know and I know through recent experience in defamation hearings it is up to the plaintiff and the defendant to decide whether or not they are heard by a jury and you do want to make sure that jurors when they are hearing the evidence are fully cognisant of it understand it and are understanding of the language in which the evidence is given. I think that is appropriate to make sure that jurors are properly equipped so that they can understand the evidence being given. That is a desirable thing to do. Again for all of these things the test ultimately is in not just greater efficiency but the interests of justice—that the interests of the fair treatment of people who are before the courts are going to be properly served.On that note I will say that for both pieces of legislation the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill—both of which are predicated on this need for greater efficiency greater productivity—we will support both. We will support both of them having that close examination of their content. Of course that will not happen now until after the general election and of course I fully trust that the House in whatever form it is in after the election and whoever is on the select committee whoever is chairing it and whatever members and whatever side of those committee tables they are on will give due consideration to it.It is very important that when this House is passing legislation relating to the administration of justice—because we are seen as you know the highest court in the land—when we are making rules about the administration of justice we must make sure that those rules give rise to effective justice that those rules are the best that they can be and that this House in making those rules and considering legislation that sets those rules acquits itself as if it takes seriously the administration of justice. And ensuring that every citizen who comes before our courts and our tribunals the most informal of our tribunals—that everybody understands that they will be treated fairly and properly and with the dignity that we would expect of every citizen in this our great democracy.As I say we will support these bills; we will vote in favour of them today. Making sure that our justice system is effective in administering justice is absolutely crucial to public confidence in all our systems and we want to see that achieved with these pieces of legislation."