Goff Phil: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9725. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I want to begin by congratulating the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Justice because I think this is a good piece of legislation the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. We intend to facilitate this legislation and Part 1 of the bill through the Committee because by so doing in the technical amendments that it is making the improvements and the picking-up on one or two things that were wrong with the original bill we will bring into effect the Criminal Procedure Legislation Act in July of this year. That Act will be of considerable assistance to New Zealand. It is designed to reduce excessive cost excessive delay and excessive complexity. It will bring in a modern and fit for purpose framework for criminal procedures.All of those things are important and I am particularly keen on the legislation going through because its origins came in at the time that I was legislation Minister and then my successors when we set up the Law Commission to work with the Ministry of Justice. I want to commend officials in both groups because they worked incredibly hard and I think by and large they got it right. Where the Government did not get it right the Government actually listened and made changes that enabled this legislation and this part of the bill to really attract consensus support.I just want to quote what the Law Society said about that. It argued that cross-party agreement was needed on criminal justice instead of politicising issues that require coherent policy. I think in this part of the bill we have got coherent policy. But the tradition of the Committee stage is that we ask questions of the Minister in the chair. I would not want the Minister to feel that he simply had to just sit there and rubber-stamp everything that happens so I have a number of questions for the Minister.The first question Minister is whether it was helpful that the groundwork for this bill was properly laid by proper process by thorough analysis and by careful consultation. Long before the original and primary piece of legislation the Criminal Procedure Act was brought in the homework was done. I think by and large people got it right and this was not a politicised piece of legislation designed simply to appeal and to win some popular support even though cynically the Minister or the Government knew that that was not going to make any change. So the first question was how important it was Minister that the groundwork was laid the research was done the analysis was clear and the consultation was had.I think Minister you will understand why I am asking that question. It is because I cannot help but contrast the way that this piece of legislation and its primary legislation has been done with the legislation rammed through by the narrowest of margins under urgency in the dead of the night last night. So I guess I am asking you Minister whether there are lessons to be learnt from this legislation that you would want to see your colleagues apply to the legislation that went through last night the legislation on the Government Communications Security Bureau and the telecommunications security bill.The second question I would like to ask the Minister—and I will just pause because the Minister is occupied at the moment. I do want him to answer these questions because they are important questions. Minister what consultation was done with key groups affected by this legislation before it was brought into Parliament? I assume Minister that this was not legislation done in ignorance of the views and the expertise and the attitudes of those who were going to be intimately affected by it. I presume that consultation with groups like the New Zealand Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association the judges and so on was done very thoroughly so that when you introduced this legislation you knew the realities on the ground—well the Chairman probably knew too because he is a very well-informed Chairman but I am referring to the Minister in this case Mr Chairman. The Minister knew that if legislation is to be good legislation then he would have to talk to the people who are most intimately affected by it and involved in it so I imagine that all of those consultations took place.Of course if the Minister did that in this bill can the Minister explain why his colleagues failed to do it in the legislation we had last night affecting telecommunications companies where they were not consulted and we do not know whether that legislation will even work? I ask this question drawing on the Minister’s experience on this bill because he is also the Minister of Corrections I think—no he is not. But he is—Dr Rajen Prasad: Shame. He should be.Hon PHIL GOFF: He should be. Who is the Minister of Corrections?Andrew Little: Anne Tolley.Hon PHIL GOFF: Anne Tolley—oh I thought she was still the Minister of Education. Judging from the utter chaos that is going on in the education area I thought she was still the Minister there. But I ask the Minister whether he is also aware of the Corrections Amendment Act which also affected telecommunications companies where consultation was not done and the Government had to do a total U-turn.So what I am really asking the Minister is whether he will use his knowledge and his reasonableness to talk to his colleagues and say: “Learn from this legislation and for heaven’s sake if we want to build coherent policy and consensus support for it and we want something that will work you’ve got to do it the right way.” I fear Minister that everything that you have done in this bill and all of the lessons that you have learnt in this bill have not been taken on board at all by your colleagues including your leader because if they were listening to this debate now and they were seeing that theOpposition was working cooperatively and constructively with the Government they would say that this is a good model in a democracy that this is how democracy should work.”So my next question is whether there was a full and proper select committee process or did the Minister decide to truncate it to try to ram the legislation through and make it as difficult as possible for experts and for members of the public to have their say on legislation which is a critical part of the democratic process. From recollection I recall that there was a full period for submissions that people were listened to with respect that the timing was designed to ensure the best possible outcome from the legislation and I commend you Minister for doing that. But I have to ask again why it is that for legislation that is critically intrusive in the privacy of New Zealanders and can open things up for the abuse of power the Government did not allow for that normal process of consultation last night when we moved the motion on the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation.What I am asking the Minister really is whether he will use his experience and his expertise and his proven ability to win the support of all of the groups that will be affected by it and all of the parties in Parliament to persuade his colleagues that they got it so hopelessly and dramatically wrong last night. My question to the Minister is whether he will pass on what his experience has been. My question is whether he will tell the Committee now that the process that he has followed has worked for good legislation has worked for the interests of the country and that this should be the model for all legislation that the Government brings through—in particular for highly controversial legislation where enormous powers are given to largely unaccountable agencies which can have huge implications for the privacy of New Zealanders and in the ultimate the establishment of a State that has powers over its citizens that contradict democratic processes and principles.Again to the Minister congratulations on this specific piece of legislation and listening to what the Law Society said about the need not to have “Henry VIII” clause powers so that you should not have the executive moving by regulations things that are substantive parts of the legislation. The Minister in this case listened to the Law Society and he made those changes. So not only in the primary legislation but also in this largely technical legislation we have seen exhibited time and again the benefits in a democratic society of getting legislation right of being fully consultative with groups and with political parties to listening to submissions—because officials are human; they do not get everything right all of the time. So we have got improvements even in this technical piece of legislation that will make the passage of this legislation easy and most important will make the outcome for New Zealand a good outcome in having legislation that will not be back before the House and will not be repealed by the new Government that will come in in 2014.