Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I'm no longer a member of the Justice Committee but I've taken quite an interest in this piece of legislation. I think it'd be fair to say that no one in Parliament wants miscarriages of justice to occur. They are a blight on our legal system and of course it's important that we seek to minimise them and it's important that when they do occur they are dealt with properly and addressed as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.This bill is a strange beast in some ways because it doesn't replace the royal prerogative. Basically what it does is place a framework around it—bolsters it I suppose buttresses some of the things that are already there. I suppose the question for the Parliament is: has the case been made that the status quo is insufficient to deal with miscarriages of justice and we on the National Party side of the House do not believe that that case has been made.Take three examples that have attracted public comment in the last decade or so. Take the Bain case: controversial case tried and convicted in 1994 sent to prison. There was lots of doubt about—well there was lots of comment about the verdict and about the way in which the police investigated that case. Various books written particularly by Joe Karam—that then led eventually to Mr Bain appealing to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which ordered a retrial. That's the system working as it should. The retrial was ordered—2009 from memory—he was retried and of course found not guilty and walked free.Now that didn't involve a criminal cases review commission. It didn't require one. He appealed. The judicial committee ordered a retrial on the grounds of some of the inadequacy of the evidence. There was a real risk to the safety of the verdict. A retrial was ordered and he was not convicted at the second trial—no need for a criminal cases review commission. To those who say Well it should've happened sooner." I would say Mr Bain could and should have appealed sooner. He was imprisoned from 1995 from memory onwards and the appeal was only heard in 2009. At any stage he could've appealed. Of course there was an appeal in 2000 to the Court of Appeal and it was dismissed but that right of appeal to the Privy Council existed notwithstanding the passing of the Supreme Court Act in 2004—that preserved his ability to do that.Take the Pora case which has been dealt with in recent years including in this Parliament. Everyone has a huge amount of sympathy for Mr Pora but again that did not require a criminal cases review commission to be dealt with. Again that was dealt with through the normal legal appeals. Take a case that some people have commented on in recent years: the Lundy case—convicted in the Palmerston North High Court in the mid-1990s of the shocking murder of his wife and wee daughter and various writings particularly by journalist Mr White in the North & South magazine. There was lots of comment in public debate that the safety of the verdict was in question particularly about the time of death related to the McDonald's that the Lundy family had eaten and particularly related to the safety of the admissibility of the DNA that was later found at the retrial to be on Mr Lundy's—I think it was his T-shirt that was found in the car. Now that went all the way to the judicial committee as well eventually on appeal. That was sent back down to the High Court for a retrial. Mr Lundy was retried and he was found guilty. So it's not a case of someone innocent being in jail at the moment but that was dealt with through the normal process.I use these cases to illustrate the point that I don't see what is deficient about the status quo that would justify the establishment of a criminal cases review committee and my colleague Chris Penk has gone through some of the defects that we see in the legislation. In my brief contribution I just want to make the point that we have a very robust and effective system I believe in New Zealand of checks and balances in our judicial system right now and I do not believe the Government has made the case that we need a criminal cases review commission. I accept that other countries have done that. I accept that the United Kingdom has established one—they did that in 1997—but I do not believe that just because the United Kingdom does something we should follow suit. The United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. I suspect if New Zealand was part of the EU we would not be doing the same.Simeon Brown: Oh come on!CHRIS BISHOP: Oh well I don't want to get into a—DEPUTY SPEAKER: No and we won't.CHRIS BISHOP: He's outed himself as a Brexiteer. I don't want to get into that.Brett Hudson: He's a Rees-Mogg—a little Rees-Mogg!CHRIS BISHOP: I'm struggling to know how to compare Simeon Brown to Jacob Rees-Mogg. I really am struggling. That would be—Brett Hudson: Equally erudite and articulate.CHRIS BISHOP: He's certainly erudite. But may I say Madam Assistant Speaker you have been a more fair-minded and impartial observer than Speaker Bercow in the United Kingdom—but anyway I digress. I just make the point: the Government has not made the case for what will be quite a complicated model with a series of procedural defects.Just in closing I'll just make the point around the lack of requirement for commissioners to have any legal qualification. Only a third will be required to have a legal qualification. A third aren't required to have any experience of the criminal legal system and these people are being asked to consider essentially a legal question of whether or not the evidence supports a rehearing. We believe that that is a real defect in the legislation and therefore we do not support it. Thank you."