Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Mr Chair indeed I do because I recall how utterly distraught all members were but particularly members opposite when I was interrupted in full flight when the House adjourned last night. So it is a great pleasure to resume.But before I recap I wonder if the committee would just indulge me for a moment as I send my best wishes to a young lady who I believe is listening to Parliament tonight on her radio in her hospital room in Auckland hospital. I would like to wish her well in her recovery and say Get well soon mum." And if the previous debates did put you to sleep well that's just fine too. But if you're listening we're thinking of you.I began my contribution last night on this Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill—which you've noted we are considering in one debate so that makes it a little bit easier—just by recapping some of the National Party's main concerns about the bill. I think in all seriousness it's worth restating those at the outset just to ensure that the public understands why it is that the National Party is opposing the measure. I won't go through all of them but the key ones are the fact that we are very concerned that the commission is set to open the floodgates to anyone who believes they may have suffered a miscarriage of justice because the standard for reviewing cases back to the court is so low. So I want to make it clear it's not because we are indifferent to miscarriages of justice. I don't believe there'd be any member of Parliament who's indifferent to miscarriages of justice but when the standard for reviewing the cases is very low as it is in this bill then there is a real danger that this is going to become an extremely expensive measure for the country with the floodgates opening and leading in many cases to delays which of course ultimately means denial of justice and in particular puts additional pressure on victims.We are concerned that the low threshold for referral back to court could see more pressure on court timelines. At the moment there is already a problem with timeliness in the court system. It's getting worse by the year. All members I think would acknowledge that. We should be looking to try to improve that situation not exacerbate it. But we are concerned that this measure will have the effect of adding to the problem and will see other disputes having to wait longer for resolution and that is in nobody's interests whatsoever.It will be an incredibly expensive commission. There's a current estimation of $2.3 million to establish the commission and $3.9 million—virtually $4 million—per year in operating expenditure. So that is a significant factor.We are also concerned as was well articulated in the second reading of the debate about the fact that two-thirds of commissioners will not be required to be legally qualified making untrained and unaccountable commissioners extremely powerful. Even the remaining one-third of commissioners who will be required to be legally qualified may not have any criminal legal experience. Yet without a doubt the vast majority of cases that are likely to be referred to the commission would be ones where there's a criminal aspect to them.So those are as I say some of the objections that we have and—Mr Chair I'm just a little bit puzzled by the fact that the clock's going up rather than down. It has me slightly discombobulated. What should I read into that Mr Chair other than the fact I'm seeking another call?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Tim Macindoe. Hon TIM MACINDOE: That is very very kind of you. I just was thinking well this call's going to go on and on and on. So let me turn now to the amendments in my second call. I'm so pleased that members throughout the Chamber are enjoying this contribution as much as they were last night. It's deeply satisfying particularly given the great compliment that Mr McAnulty paid me when he was speaking on the earlier bill. I haven't yet worked up to my finest state of outrage but I will do my best to reach that in this call because there's plenty to get outraged about.I want to note at the outset that the Minister the Hon Andrew Little in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 398 has introduced quite a number of minor and technical changes which presumably because the Government has the numbers will be carried through and adopted. They are of course consequential and consistency changes which I know the Minister of Health who is the Minister in the chair at the moment has paid particular attention to. So I'd be grateful if the Minister could just enlighten the House a little bit as to the nature of these changes and why in his view and the view of the Government they will improve the bill. But more importantly I'm asking the Minister to comment on why he or the Minister of Justice appears not to have consulted the Opposition about these particular changes. If I'm wrong about that I apologise but I understand that he hasn't yet done that. Also as I say—to enlighten the House as to how these changes will support the bill but then to move on to why he isn't willing to consider the very substantive measures that are being put forward by the Opposition. I mentioned last night how impressed I was by the learned member for Helensville who is the Opposition's courts spokesman. He has done a very fine job and I know he blushes when I mention this but I am genuinely appreciative of the leadership he has shown in this area. He's done a very fine job in putting forward some serious amendments and I do want to stress to the committee that I hope that they will pay attention to them because the common theme underpinning Mr Penk's amendments is the rights of victims and even though there's been a bit of jocularity I'm sure that members would appreciate the fact that the rights of victims should always be at the forefront when we deal with anything of this nature. In clause 4 in the interpretation clause he is requesting that after the definition of "specialist adviser" there should be an additional mention of "victims" having the meaning given to it in section 4 of the Victims' Rights Act 2002. I would be very interested to know if members are willing to consider that SOP 399 but particularly I say to the New Zealand First member who was here this evening: will New Zealand First support this SOP to insert the rights and interests of victims into this bill and if not why not? New Zealand First frequently likes to parade as the party for law and order and all the rest of it. Well here is an opportunity for them actually to put their money where their mouths are and to tell us if they are going to support this SOP. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government will support the SOP as well and whether the Government shares National's concerns for the implications of this bill on victims. In the little bit of time remaining I'd also like to lend my support to Mr Penk's SOP 400 which again is a very admirable suggestion. I genuinely believe that it would make a big difference to improving this bill. It seeks to amend Subpart 4 of the bill to recognise the rights and interests of victims—and this is where I could build up to my outrage Mr McAnulty because I am outraged that at the moment the Government is showing no interest in supporting this SOP. I hope that they will. I strongly encourage and request that all MPs should support it. I again put a question to the Minister in the chair: would he please address the SOP here because in clause 25 we are seeking to insert that "The Commission must as soon as practicable after making a decision under this section give written notice of the decision to investigate the conviction or sentence to any victim entitled to be notified". Clause 26 again refers to "any victim entitled to be notified". Clause 27: "If the eligible person does consent the Commission must as soon as practicable give written notice of its decision to investigate the conviction or sentence to any victim entitled to be notified". So in other words at various stages along the way this commission will have wide powers. It will have the power both to initiate inquiries and also to respond to requests for them. Please ensure that the victims are notified and taken into full consideration."