Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. The Justice Committee is one of the busier select committees and we often operate in a very collegial way. We sometimes have some colourful moments. I feel that every time I've taken a call on a justice measure in the last three months I've begun with the same thing which is to say that I wasn't on the committee at the time that the committee actually dealt with this bill and heard from submitters and sadly that remains the case today. I've also acknowledged on previous occasions the previous chair Raymond Huo who was I think regarded as a very fair chairman. He's no longer with us but he will no doubt be taking a call later and he'll be able to tell us what I missed as far as the submissions go. I joined the committee after my appointment as shadow Attorney-General at the time that the committee was deliberating on the bill so I was part of the discussion and managed to pick up a little bit about what had gone on. I'd like to pick up on the contribution of my very scholarly and erudite colleague Chris Penk the National Party spokesperson for courts—who's given a very good outline I think of some of the key principles of the bill—not only to acknowledge his work but also our colleagues the Hon Mark Mitchell our justice spokesperson and the Hon Nick Smith who makes many colourful contributions to the work of our Justice Committee. I point out that although this is a bill that the National Party isn't supporting I actually think that it is something that we have had a very sensible and intelligent exchange on. I was encouraged to hear that the Minister in his second reading speech earlier tonight described all of the amendments that the committee has put forward as being very sensible. I'm not sure if he went as far as saying that meant that he will be introducing Supplementary Order Papers during the committee stage to implement those but if he does so I believe that this is a bill that probably would be greatly improved. So I do want to commend the committee for the work that they have done. Of course as had been indicated the point of the commission is to create an independent body that will review convictions and sentences where there is a suspected miscarriage of justice. People listening to this debate might think Well that sounds very fair and reasonable." but the problem with it—well there's several problems with it but the main problem—is that to some extent it duplicates things that are already in existence and which in many respects probably have more of a professional underpinning to them. It wouldn't be a body that would determine guilt or innocence but nevertheless we are fearful that it would be likely to open the floodgates because as Mr Greg O'Connor was saying before quite often you get the conviction and then immediately you get the article and the TV series and the film and all the rest of the things and several stages of appeal. Having this particular commission we fear will open the floodgates in a system that is already under considerable pressure. For that reason I hope very much that the Minister will be looking very carefully at the reservations that the committee had at the time that we failed to agree. If people are listening and wondering "Well how did that come about?" it's simply the fact that there's a 4:4 split on the committee: four Labour members; four National members. So unless there is a numerical agreement if we're split 4:4 we can't agree on anything. That doesn't mean therefore that we're dysfunctional; it simply means that—Lawrence Yule: Ha ha! Hon TIM MACINDOE: —Mr Yule obviously thinks we are dysfunctional—the mathematics mean that we can neither go forward nor backwards. But nevertheless we were able to report back. Let me just return to some of the things that we think are particularly important. We are very concerned that the low threshold for referral back to a court could easily put more pressure on court timeliness. It's that old saying—and I'd better get it right because I once mocked a former colleague who memorably said that "Justice delayed is justice not done". I think what he meant was "Justice delayed is justice denied". The point is that we already have a lot of pressure on our court system and this unfortunately we think is going to exacerbate that problem. We are also very concerned that two-thirds of the commissioners will not be required to be legally qualified making untrained and unaccountable commissioners extremely powerful in this aspect of the execution of justice and the remaining one-third of the commissioners will not necessarily be required to have any experience in the criminal justice system. So potentially you could have people reviewing cases that are of high public interest in the criminal field where few if any of them have any knowledge at all of the way the criminal justice system operates. We believe that the status quo—which effectively means where the Governor-General on advice from the Minister of Justice determines that there's a reasonable prospect that the court would uphold an appeal—is the appropriate and clearer way of dealing with it. So effectively we are saying stick with the status quo. We are also concerned about the cost. This will be an incredibly expensive commission. There's an estimated $2.3 million just to establish it and another nearly $4 million anticipated per year in operating expenditure. Let me just turn in the next few minutes to a few more of our particular concerns. As the Minister noted—and I was pleased that he did—when he was speaking one of the concerns that National members have is that there is a lack of consideration given in this particular bill to the rights of victims. Victims are frequently traumatised by their experience of passing through the criminal justice system. After all they didn't choose to be victims and many of them have suffered horrifically and it's not just the victims; it's their family who suffer with them and sometimes suffer great loss. The potential for this commission to retraumatise them and open them up again yet to further distress is very real. We don't feel that the bill makes any acknowledgment of the fact that adding appeal rights to convicted criminals does come at a cost to the victims who may be forced as I say to undergo the ordeal of providing testimony on additional occasions. They have done what is required of them. They obviously hope that the courts will respond appropriately to their needs. We don't want to see them having to suffer further distress. We do think that the select committee's consideration of the bill has been a useful exercise. As I say there are a number of amendments—I haven't really got time to cover them all—including to do with the commencement date the desirability of a knowledge not only of Te Reo Māori but of Te Ao Māori and tikanga Māori so that the cultural aspects that often are thought to be lacking in the criminal justice system will be given greater emphasis—and I certainly applaud that—and then there's a specific recommendation that clause 10(1) as it is written at the moment would allow the commission to appoint specialists to advise it in relation to scientific technical or other matters involving particular expertise. To avoid doubt the committee is advising the amendment of clause 10(1) to specify cultural expertise. We're also recommending in relation to clause 11 which states the commission's primary function that investigation of a conviction or sentence should be an inherent element of the commission's review function and that the bill should make this clear. We are therefore recommending the amendment of clause 11 to expressly recognise that the commission's primary function would include investigation. I have probably incurred the wrath of my whip who told me not to speak for this long. So maybe in the committee stage I'll have a chance to return to some of these matters but it is a significant measure. I'm sure that some other members to follow will comment on some of the other amendments. While we are not supporting the bill I respect the contribution that the Minister made before. I respect the work that all members of the committee have made on this bill. Let's hope that it will be amended to become something a little bit better than it is at the moment."