11. KATE WILKINSON (National) Link to this
to the Minister for Courts
Does he still stand by his statement in the House on 7 September disagreeing that justice delayed is justice denied; if not, why not?
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) Link to this
Delays in a hearing, or, alternatively, a delay in justice, may be for many good reasons. A defence lawyer may seek and be granted a delay in a trial that facilitates justice, not denies it.
Which answer is correct: (a) his response to question for written answer No. 11335 on 31 August, which shows that the total number of court staff in the South Island has decreased; (b) his answer in the House on 7 September, which stated: “… the number of staff in the Christchurch court has been increased.”; (c) his announcement on 31 August of the actual creation—even though not advertised yet—of six additional positions in the Christchurch District Court; or (d) the Ministry of Justice website advertising for just one part-time receptionist in the Christchurch District Court?
Which answer is correct: (a) his answer in the House on 7 September that he has put “$165 million” into the courts; (b) his statement on 29 August 2006 in the House that he has put a “massive injection of $156 million … into both the courts and justice,”; (c) his press release dated 7 September 2006 advising “an increase in total baseline funding of $156 million to Courts.”—not justice; or (d) is this just another $9 million bungle?
All of those statements are correct, because this Government inherited a court system with a collection of unreconstructed 100-year-old buildings. We had virtually no computer systems in our court system. Charles Dickens would have recognised our court system as being Victorian.
Madam SPEAKERI will ask the Minister to repeat his answer in silence. If anyone interrupts, I will be asking that member to leave the House.
No one can deny that this Government has injected a massive sum of funds into the court system, because we inherited as a legacy a court system that Charles Dickens would have recognised as Victorian. With hardly a computer in it, the court system had had a 20th century bypass. We have put in a case management system, we have put in videoconferencing, we have digitalised courts, and we have increased the numbers of staff. We have done a fantastic job in bringing the court system up to a modern standard.
Which answer is correct: (a) his answer in the House on 29 August “that an extra 44 courts have digital audio technology,”; (b) his letter dated 29 August, which stated: “There are currently 38 courtrooms that have digital audio technology installed.”; or (c) the same letter, which stated: “The first batch of courtrooms to be digital audio technology - enabled will be completed by February 2007.”; or (d) he has the equipment but cannot, or does not, use it?
The last option is not correct, and that is certainly for sure. I can say that we have done an enormous amount to digitalise the court system in this country, and I am reliant upon my staff giving me accurate information. I do not personally count it, but—[ Interruption]
Again, the Minister will answer in silence. The Minister will answer succinctly. If anyone interrupts, he or she will be leaving the Chamber.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the last two questions, my colleague has asked quite a specific question. The first one was about numbers; the second one was about the number of courts. You have insisted that we, on this side of the House, be absolutely silent, but you have not insisted that the Minister simply answer the question about which of the figures are correct.
I am sorry, members cannot prescribe the nature or the content of the answers. What the Standing Orders require is that the question be addressed. The Minister is to be heard in silence and he is to be succinct.
The last option put by that member is certainly not correct. But what I can say is that we inherited a court system that was very antiquated, and we have invested heavily in digital recording because that will ensure that the cases are heard more quickly and justice is sped up.
Sue MoroneyI have seen a report that states: “‘Mr Barker claims to be “doing heaps”, but how does increasing the number of judges to three, and then only in Wellington and Auckland, help the High Court in Christchurch …”. The report goes on to state: “In fact the median waiting times for High Court jury trials has increased in each and every South Island court”. Firstly, the Government has not increased the number of High Court judges by three; in fact, they have been increased to 33. Secondly, as of 30 June 2006 my staff advise me that there were no outstanding jury trials in Blenheim, Nelson, Invercargill, or anywhere in the South Island. The evidence, again, is that that member, Kate Wilkinson, picks her way through the facts and does not always tell the truth.
How can the Minister justify his answer in the House on 7 September that there are “substantial reductions in many, many registries”, when his boasted reduction of outstanding civil and High Court cases of 50 percent in Timaru amounts to a reduction of only one case, the 40 percent reduction in Dunedin amounts to a reduction of four cases, and the 22 percent reduction in Palmerston North amounts to two cases; and what would he not accept as being substantial?
That member occasionally plays with statistics and adds statistics up to make them look bad. What she did not say—
What the member did not say or acknowledge is that her general claim was that court waiting times have gone up substantially, across the board and without exception. Those examples show that waiting times have, in fact, gone down.
What explanation can he give, further to his press release to the Marlborough Express on 11 September, as to how the “modernisation of the reception [and] public waiting … areas” will help reduce the massive median waiting times for a hearing in the Blenheim Court of 372 days—the worst in the country—and surely the parties are not expected to wait in posh waiting rooms for over a year for justice to be delivered?
Delays in the courts can be many. There can be delays sought by either the defence or prosecution, there can be delays in getting expert evidence, and there can be delays in getting forensic evidence. There are many reasons for delays, not all of which are the responsibility of the court.
Hone HarawiraKia ora, Madam Speaker. When the member said on 7 September that justice delayed is justice denied, how many years would have to pass before the Minister would say justice delayed was justice denied?
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act gives every citizen protection from undue delays in court processes. I am pleased to note to the House that the number of cases that have been granted a stay of proceedings this year for systemic reasons is zero.
Would the Minister then agree that Te Arawa has been denied justice because of the delays since 1909, when they turned to the court for a ruling to determine ownership of the lakes; and how would that denial of justice be justly remedied?