Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill

2.1. Are there any publicly available inquiry, review or evaluation reports that have informed, or are relevant to, the policy to be given effect by this Bill?

NO

2.2. Does this Bill seek to give effect to New Zealand action in relation to an international treaty?

NO

2.3. Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill?

YES

The Ministry of Justice produced a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) on 19 June 2024: ‘Regulatory Impact Statement: Regulatory Systems (Justice) Amendment Bill’. A copy of the RIS can be found on:

·         the Ministry of Justice website: Regulatory Impact Assessments | New Zealand Ministry of Justice

·         the Ministry for Regulation website: Regulatory impact statements (RISs) - Ministry for Regulation

Only one proposal in the Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill was determined by the Treasury and Ministry for Regulation as requiring regulatory impact analysis. The other amendments were deemed by the Treasury and Ministry for Regulation as suitable for RIS exemptions, and as such, they are not analysed in the RIS.

2.3.1. If so, did the RIA Team in the Treasury provide an independent opinion on the quality of any of these regulatory impact statements?

NO

The RIS did not meet the threshold for requiring a quality review from the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) Team at the Ministry for Regulation. The Ministry of Justice’s internal RIA panel provided an independent opinion on the quality of the RIS. It concluded the RIS met the Quality Assurance criteria.

2.3.2. Are there aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill that were not addressed by, or that now vary materially from, the policy options analysed in these regulatory impact statements?

NO

2.4. Has further impact analysis become available for any aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill?

NO

2.5. For the policy to be given effect by this Bill, is there analysis available on:

(a)   the size of the potential costs and benefits?

YES

(b)   the potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial unavoidable loss of income or wealth?

NO

Where applicable, analysis on the expected benefits and costs for the amendments included in this Bill is available in the RIS, which can be found on:

·         the Ministry of Justice website: Regulatory Impact Assessments | New Zealand Ministry of Justice

·         the Ministry for Regulation website: Regulatory impact statements (RISs) - Ministry for Regulation

This information can also be found in the Cabinet paper ‘Regulatory Systems (Justice) Amendment Bill Package: Policy Proposals’ which is available on the Ministry of Justice website: Proactive-release-20240715-CAB-Regulatory-Systems-Justice-Amendment-Bill_Final.pdf

2.6. For the policy to be given effect by this Bill, are the potential costs or benefits likely to be impacted by:

(a)   the level of effective compliance or non-compliance with applicable obligations or standards?

NO

(b)   the nature and level of regulator effort put into encouraging or securing compliance?

NO

3.1. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations?

The Ministry of Justice has not identified any international obligations that conflict with the policies contained in the Bill.

3.2. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

The Ministry of Justice did not identify any inconsistency with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi during the development of the Bill and its policy. The criteria[1] that amendments were assessed against for inclusion in this Bill ruled out proposals with significant implications on constitutional arrangements, including the Crown's Treaty obligations.

3.3. Has advice been provided to the Attorney-General on whether any provisions of this Bill appear to limit any of the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?

YES

Crown Law has been provided with a draft of the Bill and has provided advice to the Attorney-General on consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

A copy of their advice is available at:

https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/constitutional-issues-and-human-rights/bill-of-rights-compliance-reports

3.4. Does this Bill create, amend, or remove:

(a)   offences or penalties (including infringement offences or penalties and civil pecuniary penalty regimes)?

YES

(b)   the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal (including rights to judicial review or rights of appeal)?

YES

(a)

Amendments to the Coroners Act 2006

The Bill amends the wording of the offence provisions in sections 117, 135 and 137 of the Coroners Act 2006.

The perjury offence in section 117 is being amended to include false evidence given under oath or affirmation to a Justice of the Peace taking oral evidence on behalf of a coroner under section 91. This addresses a legislative gap.

The offence in section 135 of providing false or misleading evidence to a coroner is being consequentially amended to include:

·         evidence that is not in writing and is not signed.

-          New section 79(3) will authorise Coroners to accept unwritten and unsigned evidence for hearings on the papers if the evidence cannot readily be put into writing and signed, for example, CCTV footage.

-          Section 79(3) currently requires all evidence to be in writing and signed by the witness.

·         reports provided by nurse practitioners.

-          Section 40 is being amended to authorise coroners to require nurse practitioners to provide reports on patients they were treating prior to their deaths.

The offence in section 137 of failing or refusing to provide a report required by a coroner is being consequentially amended to include the failure or refusal of a nurse practitioner to provide a report required under section 40.

(b)

New section 65A of the Coroners Act 2006 authorises a coroner to close an inquiry without completing it in specified circumstances.

Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act 2011

New section 198B of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and the amendments to sections 11A and 25 of the Courts Security Act 1999 clarify the powers of judicial officers to protect health, safety, and security in courtrooms.

Amendment to the Senior Courts Act 2016

The amendments to sections 20 and 22 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 will enable Associate Judges of the High Court to case manage and decide interlocutory applications for proceedings in rem (directly against a ship) under the Admiralty Act 1973. Currently only High Court judges have jurisdiction in proceedings in rem, but Associate Judges have these powers for other admiralty proceedings.

3.4.1. Was the Ministry of Justice consulted about these provisions?

NO

The Ministry of Justice led the development of this Bill.

3.5. Does this Bill create, amend or remove any provisions relating to the collection, storage, access to, correction of, use or disclosure of personal information?

YES

The Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CPMIP) is being amended to ensure that health assessors who are fulfilling their legislative role to provide section 38 CPMIP or section 88 Sentencing Act 2002 reports can access previous reports submitted to court regardless of:

•     whether they are employed or contracted,

•     which agency they are employed/contracted by.

The Criminal Disclosure Act 2008 is being amended to clarify that information that identifies or could lead to the identification of the work address of a witness or informant cannot be disclosed to the defendant, except with permission of the court, unless the information is relevant to the charge or the case against the defendant.

Amendments to section 236 of the District Court Act 2016 and section 173 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 clarify that access to ‘court information’ is governed by those Acts and court rules. Access to ‘judicial information’ is prohibited. These sections are not subject to any other statutory provisions providing for access to information.

3.5.1. Was the Privacy Commissioner consulted about these provisions?

YES

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) was consulted and provided feedback on the Cabinet papers seeking policy approvals and the RIS. Their feedback is reflected in the final policy decisions.

The Ministry of Justice also completed a Privacy Threshold Assessment for the amendment to the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. This concluded that no Privacy Impact Assessment was required.

3.6. Has there been any external consultation on the policy to be given effect by this Bill, or on a draft of this Bill?

YES

The Ministry has of Justice undertook targeted consultation with key legal professional groups[2] over a two-week period to test our understanding of the policy problems, and the extent to which the proposed amendments addressed them. This consultation also provided an opportunity for these groups to highlight risks or suggest alternative ways to address the problems. Overall, the feedback received was supportive of the proposed amendments.

The Ministry did not formally consult on the Bill’s policy or draft text as the Bill does not make major policy or system design changes. The Ministry has engaged with the Judiciary throughout the process of developing the Bill, and on select draft provisions that directly impact court operations.

3.7. Have the policy details to be given effect by this Bill been otherwise tested or assessed in any way to ensure the Bill’s provisions are workable and complete?

YES

Some of the amendments to the Courts Security Act 1999, Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and the Juries Act 1981 were tested through temporary COVID-19 legislation and have been in place since 2022. These amendments were automatically repealed on 25 November 2024.

The amendments to the Bail Act 2000 formalise the judicial direction preventing registrars from granting or varying bail in cases involving family violence offences. That direction has been in place since 2021 and has shown to be workable in the three years since.

The New Zealand Law Society commented on some proposals at an early stage. Their feedback was that most proposals were workable. Where concerns were raised, these were considered in further policy development.  

4.1. Does this Bill contain any provisions that could result in the compulsory acquisition of private property?

NO

4.2. Does this Bill create or amend a power to impose a fee, levy or charge in the nature of a tax?

NO

4.3. Does this Bill affect rights, freedoms, or impose obligations, retrospectively?

NO

4.4. Does this Bill:

(a)   create or amend a strict or absolute liability offence?

NO

(b)   reverse or modify the usual burden of proof for an offence or a civil pecuniary penalty proceeding?

NO

4.5. Does this Bill create or amend a civil or criminal immunity for any person?

NO

4.6. Does this Bill create or amend a decision-making power to make a determination about a person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law, and that could have a significant impact on those rights, obligations, or interests?

YES

Proposals relating to the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 will amend decision making powers to enable Family Court Associates, in addition to Family Court Judges, to make decisions relating to living arrangements, attendance of institutions, and medical treatment of an adult who lacks capacity. This relates to section 10, 11, 12, 14, 30 and 31 of that Act. This engages the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment (NZBORA, s11), the right to freedom of association (NZBORA, s17), the right to freedom of movement (NZBORA, s18) and the right to justice (NZBORA, s27). Limitations to a Family Court Associate’s decision-making power in regard to these sections will ensure that a decision is appropriately made by a Family Court Associate and take account of the rights of the individual.

4.7. Does this Bill create or amend a power to make delegated legislation that could amend an Act, define the meaning of a term in an Act, or grant an exemption from an Act or delegated legislation?

NO

4.8. Does this Bill create or amend any other powers to make delegated legislation?

NO

4.9. Does this Bill contain any provisions (other than those noted above) that are unusual or call for special comment?

NO