Little Andrew: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Little Andrew: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7076. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. This as my colleagues have pointed out is a technical bill. I am not quite sure what bill the last speaker Alfred Ngaro was referring to because I do not see a reference to the reduction in the number of prisons and the various other things he talked about. That is not provided for in this legislation. Indeed this Government is going in the opposite direction and building big prisons—very big ones—for example the Wiri Prison. The Government may have closed down a couple of older prisons but the prison population under this Government looks like it has a very healthy future ahead of it the way it is going. 
This bill is very technical as I said before. It does simple things like replace references to the word “crime” with the word “offence” because we now have offences under legislation and we do not have just crimes. That provides for some sort of flexibility. It also clarifies what an imprisonable offence is for a body corporate. This is potentially very important. If I am fortunate enough to have my Crimes (Corporate Manslaughter) Amendment Bill drawn from the ballot this week or at some point in the future— 
Charles Chauvel 
: A very well-drafted bill. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: A well-drafted bill. A well-crafted bill I would describe it as—it goes beyond just drafting. It has been crafted. If indeed this Government responds seriously as it should to the royal commission’s report on Pike River and itself introduces a corporate manslaughter bill then this legislation here when it describes an imprisonable offence and describes what it is for a body corporate will make sense. 
The bill goes on to clarify the requirements for charging documents which as I understand it used to be called informations. But for charging documents it has actually set out crimes or offences that are being pursued particularly in relation to private prosecutions brought by an individual as opposed to private prosecutions brought by a body corporate which at least of course can happen now under the Health and Safety in Employment Act because of the changes the previous Labour Government made. Where the Department of Labour declines to prosecute then either an individual or a union can take that prosecution. This technical legislation will assist that. 
It corrects a number of numbering errors in various pieces of criminal justice legislation. It clarifies the jurisdiction in relation to offences on aircraft and ships extending the jurisdiction but providing the defence that if you are a citizen of another nation and the offence is committed in that airspace or shipping space then you can have a defence if the New Zealand offence is not an offence in that jurisdiction. So it is very helpful in that regard. One might think that these are things that ought to have been thought about in the previous legislation which this covers were it more carefully drafted. 
This bill does highlight the need when we are considering criminal justice legislation in particular that we do get it right. If there is one thing that represents the high-water mark of what this House does in terms of taking away a citizen’s liberty in terms of giving judges in the criminal justice system the power to incarcerate to punish and to penalise—it is incumbent on this House performing those tasks and passing that sort of legislation to get it right. 
Two things are required in that regard. One is that we take the proper amount of time to do that. Legislation that punishes legislation that imposes penalties—whether it imposes fines or incarcerates—must be given the proper consideration and time by all parties and by all members both in this House and in the select committee process. The House must give due consideration to the submissions it receives from organisations and from citizens whether it is the New Zealand Law Society or whether it is those with a criminal record whom we hear from from time to time. This House must give proper consideration to what those interested parties have to say when it comes to this sort of legislation. 
 The second thing that it draws attention to is the need at least in relation to criminal justice legislation for a greater degree of bipartisanship—or multipartisanship. When we are discharging our responsibilities as parliamentarians and passing laws that have what can be described only as the most deleterious effects on citizens—that is to say effects that are about imprisoning and that are about depriving people of liberty admittedly under due process—that is something that there ought to be a high degree of collaboration on between parties in this House. That sort of legislation will come under intense scrutiny by the judiciary as it should and the judiciary will always be looking for the true and proper intent of Parliament and will be wanting to know that Parliament has taken that sort of legislation seriously. When it comes to passing sentence it is one thing to secure conviction under legislation that sets out offences but when it comes to passing sentence and putting citizens through the criminal justice procedures then the judiciary needs to know that Parliament has given proper and due consideration taken it seriously and understood the magnitude of what Parliament is doing what we are demanding of the judiciary and what we are subjecting citizens to. It is very important that we get that stuff right and we can do that properly and seriously only if we are working in a more collaborative approach to do it. 
There should not be the sort of party-political division that there has been in more recent years over this sort of stuff. We certainly do not want to see the types of knee-jerk reactions that we have often seen to issues that have been raised usually in the community. Yes there will be individual court cases—criminal cases—that will give rise to concern. That is a normal part of democracy. But it should not lead this House to respond piecemeal and in a knee-jerk way to those particular concerns as we have seen for example in the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. It deals with jury lists because in one case on one occasion a defendant saw or got access to the details of a jury list and made personal contact. We should not be seeing knee-jerk reactions to that sort of instance. 
So it would be desirable if as we have seen a greater degree of cooperation over this sort of correcting legislation—no pun intended—we could demonstrate that we are capable of working sensibly and cooperatively together to make sure that our criminal justice statutes are the best we can possibly do and are a model for all other legislation not just from this House but across Parliaments in the Commonwealth generally. 
The message is that we should never take criminal justice lightly because it is serious legislation and it has serious impacts on our citizens. When we come to deal with it as we do in this legislation and as we correct things that have been legislated for incorrectly—perhaps even imperceptibly—in the past we should be bold enough and big enough to correct those mistakes and to do so in a cooperative spirit. But we should learn the lesson that we can avoid having to do this kind of reworking if we actually get it right in the first place. We will get it right when we give ourselves enough time give it due consideration and work properly together in a proper process of collaboration and harmony that is fitting not only for the legislation but also for the season as well. Thank you.