Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard
Question No. 11—Justice
11. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: What are her priorities for the Justice portfolio?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I thank the member for his question and welcome his support for our justice policies over the term. As that member may expect, I am proud to stand behind Labour’s 2020 manifesto and we are committed to working harder and smarter to keep our communities safe, break the cycle of offending, tackle the root causes of crime, and right historic wrongs. Key areas I will look to quickly engage in are: working to prevent and deter organised criminal activity, including progressing changes to the criminal proceeds legislation; advancing the implementation of the Government’s response to the Royal Commission into March 15; advancing electoral reform changes; building on the work of the previous Minister to provide greater access to justice through significant funding for legal aid; and working to continue to reduce case backlogs in the court. Alongside this work, I want to ensure a victim-centric approach to the portfolio so that all New Zealanders are treated fairly and appropriately within the justice system. There will be much more to do, and I’m looking forward to building on the work this Government has already undertaken within the justice system to date.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: While advancing electoral reform, will it be a priority for her to defend the principle of equal voting rights for all New Zealanders across all levels of Government?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Equal voting rights are critically fundamental to New Zealand’s democracy. And if I think about what we are doing across a broad platform of electoral law reform, the member will be well aware that we are taking some targeted measures before the next election to ensure that our electoral laws are fit for purpose. We also have established a bipartisan independent panel appointed to review our electoral law platforms, which I look forward to the member’s active engagement on in due course.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Then will she advocate, as Minister of Justice, against the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill, which explicitly moves away from the principle of equal voting rights?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As the member is well aware, that bill is not a Government bill and therefore I have no responsibilities. What I will say, though, it’s a stark contrast, or almost a bit of a situation of the pot calling the kettle black—in that member’s term of Government, of course, they removed regional councillors in 2010 and they established commissioners. What we are doing, sir, is ensuring that we support regional democracies, and that indeed is the role of central government. The regional council have come to—
David Seymour: The Minister explicitly said she had no responsibility for the matter, then carried on. Surely that’s out of order—
Hon Kiritapu Allan: I’m happy to answer the question.
SPEAKER: Yes, and the question wasn’t whether she had responsibility. The question was “Would she advocate?” and she is answering that question. It’s, you know, sometimes ministers do and they should be congratulated.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can I take it from her refusal to say she will advocate against the Canterbury bill that it is now Government’s position that the key constitutional principle of equal representation and a representative democracy no longer applies?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The member can take it from my answer that first, I do not have any responsibility for that bill. It is a local government bill. And what we do believe, on this side of the House, is ensuring that democracy is supported by us at a central government level. You have elected representatives from that region that have presented this bill to this House. We will be supporting that bill.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is it one of her priorities to uphold the rule of law; if so, has she reported herself to the Electoral Commission for breaking a law by electioneering on social media on the day of a by-election?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: That member will be well aware that I did not break any electoral laws and that I was not electioneering anywhere.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document. It’s a screenshot of a Facebook post from the Labour Māori caucus, including one Kiritapu Allan, on the day of the by-election, saying to support Jan Tinetti, Labour candidate for today’s by-election.
SPEAKER: Now, speaking to the—
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Point of order.
SPEAKER: It’s unusual before seeking leave, but I think, in this case, we can hear from the member.
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The screenshot that the member may have is not done by me, not done in my name, and therefore, to his original request, did I campaign on that electoral day? No, I did not. Therefore, it’s out of scope and it should not be tabled.
SPEAKER: OK. I can now put the question as to whether there is any objection. I’m going to ask the member: did the member describe it as being authorised by the member?
Hon Paul Goldsmith: No; I just said it’s a screenshot of a Facebook post.
Dr Duncan Webb: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Well, no, I am going to put the leave to the House. Everyone has heard—
Dr Duncan Webb: But it’s publicly available.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Sorry, I’ll just respond to that interjection by the member. Of course, it has been taken down; so it is not publicly available.
SPEAKER: Well, it just shows how unhelpful that was. Is there any objection to that screenshot being tabled? There is none.
Leave received to table document.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is she surprised that, when the Government carries on prioritising reducing prison sentences for the nation’s worst three-strikes offenders, at a time of rising violent crime, some people conclude that the Government is soft on crime?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I’ll reiterate remarks I’ve made previously this week: that framing is completely unhelpful, first and foremost. I will reiterate the remarks of their former leader that, within the criminal justice sector, there have been moral and fiscal failures throughout the criminal justice approach—by that previous Government, I might add. When we are removing three-strikes legislation, we are upholding the integrity of our constitutional fundamentals. When that previous Government introduced that three-strikes law, there was no evidence to support that Act as a deterrent. It was criticised roundly as having no evidential foundation, and we are upholding our 2020 manifesto commitment to ensure that we are removing that sentencing reform from this House. And it should have no place in any future Government.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Supplementary?
SPEAKER: No; the member’s used his supplementaries.
