Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Well where do I begin? Where do I begin? So I think the first thing to clear up is that for the record at no point in time did any party on the Opposition benches at any stage ever say that this was going to be taken away. We've always focused on the defunding. So if you want one of these reports professionally written and delivered in front of a judge you have to pay for it. That absolutely rules out a large proportion of New Zealand society who cannot afford to pay. Once again as with benefit cuts and as with increasing smoking this is a Government that is focused on punching down on finding those who are most vulnerable in our community and making sure that their lives are even worse than they are already. The sad part about that is the savings that are made for that punching down go in the pockets of those middle-income New Zealanders who are going to receive a tax cut at the Budget.Now that we've cleared up that bit the next bit I think I'd like to point out is in the regulatory impact statement. What's really interesting in this regulatory impact statement is it says: What is the problem?" I love it when they ask this. Officials are so honest; they just say "What's the problem we're trying to solve here?" And the problem it says is "the Government's 100-day commitment plan". That's the problem that we're trying to solve. So basically these guys have promised them stuff and we've got to go do it. So that's the problem we're trying to solve.Then they go on to talking about "Who are the stakeholders in this issue what is the nature of their interest and how are they [going to be] affected?" They list out who the stakeholders are. So "the court"—that's listed—is the first one. "The offender" that's the second one. The next one is "the legal aid provider". The next one is the "section 27 report provider". We haven't seen any Māori so far and we don't ever. And last on the list are "victims"—last on the list. They get four lines—actually three and a half lines. In the entire regulatory impact statement we get three and a half lines about the impact on victims. And let me read it: "The victims of crime have an interest in this issue"—Wow that's good!—"including the impact of section 27 reports on sentencing. Victims will continue to have the ability to have their views heard by the court through victim impact statements."—so basically victims lose their voice through section 27 reports; and the final sentence—"We do not have any information on the views of victims." So don't you lecture us on what we're doing for victims when your own regulatory impact statement—your own regulatory impact statement—states "We do not have any information on the views of victims." None. Not one consultation. So if in this House a member is going to stand and lecture on what's right for victims you might want to read your own regulatory impact statement which clearly states that not one single victim has been involved or consulted on the impact of taking away legal funding for section 27 reports.But it gets better—it gets better. It gets better because they put up some other options. And do you know what? I really like the other options. So option one: status quo. Option two is to remove the taxpayer funding for section 27 reports which is clearly what's going to be the outcome because they've promised it in the 100-day plan. But the next one's better. I like "impose a cap on the reports writers' fees". What about that one? Let's talk about that one. What about option four? That's quite good too—"Introduce an accreditation system for section 27 report writers." That's a good one. I wish I had thought of that. "The legal aid funding for section 27 report writers would continue but changes could be [made or] introduced to restrict [the] funding to report writers who had been accepted under an accreditation scheme."—that's a great idea—"The scheme would ensure [that] writers met [an] agreed criteria including qualities such as relevant experience and knowledge of the personal family whānau community and cultural background of the offender." Why aren't we doing that one? Because that would be better and that wouldn't have the impact of increasing reoffending increasing the number of victims and creating a two-tier justice system. So I like that one.To wind up I'd just like to point out the fact that if you're going to have a 100-day plan it would be great if there was some substance in it but all of these things are simply window dressing. They look good. They're a sound bite. They're an ornament. They tick your box. You're able to say "We campaigned on this and we did it." but if you can stand up hand on heart—hand on heart—and actually say "What is the solution? What is the solution to the problem we've identified?" No solutions are coming from those members opposite—not one single solution—because what this bill does is it actually makes the problem you're trying to fix worse. It makes it worse and all those who have commented publicly—whether it be the Chief Justice or whether it's the Bar Association or it's the Law Society the legal fraternity have come out and stated "What this does is increase reoffending." And when you increase reoffending you increase victimisation and what that does is make New Zealand society more fragmented it increases crime and it makes things worse. So for all the tough talk we hear there are no solutions for the problem that's been identified and the only problem that this bill fixes is addressing something in the 100-day plan and that's sad."