Prime Willow-JeanHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Given that we've only got five minutes for this first contribution I want to start with the departmental disclosure statement Part 3 Testing of the Legislative Content: Consistency with New Zealand's international obligations". What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by the bill is consistent with New Zealand's international obligations? This says from the Ministry of Justice "it is unclear how the proposal fits with New Zealand's international commitments such as the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. Māori are over-represented in the criminal justice system and the funding change may exacerbate this disparity as a high proportion of Māori and Pacific peoples offenders receive a legally-aided section 27 report compared with New Zealand European and others. Due to the time constraints though no steps have been taken to conclusively determine the effect of this bill." Second: "Consistency with the Government's Treaty of Waitangi obligations". The ministry consulted with another ministry—Te Puni Kōkiri—and it says "who did not support the policy. But due to the time constraints under the 100-day plan no other consultation with Māori has taken place". Now today we have heard them saying that we are saying on this side that we are getting rid of section 27 reports. I've listened to the debate. Not a single person said that. You're all saying that on the other side of the House as if we—no the other side of the House the Government is saying that the Opposition has been saying this. None of us have said that. We are very clear that your intentions through the amendment and in this section is to take the funding away. What is the effect of that? What are the implications of taking that away? It means that there is going to be access to justice issues. Now Mr Meager who is a lawyer—Hon Members: Was was was. He's gone up in the world.Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: —should I tell you that the New Zealand Law Society says they oppose it. They oppose it right? Oh well they had a law degree right? So you know this the New Zealand Law Society not just the Opposition they oppose it because it significantly limits access to justice. Then Te Hunga Rōia Māori O Aotearoa also put out a press statement saying they "strongly oppose the Government's plans to withdraw funding for section 27 reports".Then we've got comments from the president of the New Zealand Bar Association. These people who work in the sector are saying that this strikes at the rights of all to equal access to justice—that was the Law Society. Further the Bar Association co-chair Rachael Reed says that the point of them is to consider the evidence about the impact of the reports since their use. This is what they are urging the Government to do. They are asking the Government taihoa—don't rush. You know rush according to this rush according to this; can't do all of the things that you would usually do when you're introducing new legislation in policy because rush rush rush. What they're asking for is that the Government consider the evidence about the impact of the reports since their use to determine whether the cost benefit justifies their continuation and when assessed against reoffending rates and rehabilitation gains made. But no. This Government doesn't want to take any advice on this. They don't want to do any analysis on this. They just want to punch down on those who use the section 27 reports. By dressing it up and saying "We're not taking them away but effectively we're removing the funding." which means that those who need to access them—who can get them? Those that can afford to. Who can't access them? Those that can't afford to. Who are those people disproportionately in the justice system? Māori. That's who it is Mr Meager: Māori. And so without doing any analysis without doing any consultation with anybody who knows anything about this this Government has just decided to introduce this bill tonight. Cost savings. What for? Tax cuts. Again are we going to have people serving longer and unfair sentences in prison because they didn't have access to this because they don't have the funding for it right? For a tax cut. That's what you stand for. Kia ora. We do not support this bill."