Beaumont Carol: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Beaumont Carol: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21641. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the third readings of the 15 bills that were divided from the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill in the Committee of the whole House. I will follow on from the comments of my colleague Charles Chauvel who played a very important role in getting this legislation to the point it is at now where it has the ability to pass through the House with reasonably broad support. I will also comment on the wider implications. 
But before I get into that matter I say that the legislation was an attempt to overhaul criminal procedure in New Zealand and it is the legislative result of the Criminal Procedure (Simplification) Project which was established in October 2007 by Labour to review criminal procedure in New Zealand and was undertaken by the Ministry of Justice in collaboration with the Law Commission. I make that point to a couple of members opposite who said that Labour had not done anything about this issue. We actually set in place a process to do precisely this. 
The Labour Opposition voted for the referral of the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I was a member of that select committee. We gave careful consideration to this very large bill of 526 pages. The select committee received 72 submissions and heard 35. Many of those submissions were very technical and detailed and were made by practitioners who were very very concerned about some of the human rights implications and about some of the changes that would have denied those defending themselves the right to justice. So we heard some very serious submissions in the course of hearings on this bill. 
The bill then was stalled really because a number of parties in the House—Labour Maori ACT and the Greens—were all concerned about features of the bill and those real threats to people’s rights to justice and a fair trial. I have to put all of that on the record but just before I move off the process we went through I acknowledge as I have done earlier the work of officials my fellow select committee members and indeed the chair and the Minister of Justice. We have reached this point because the Minister finally listened to those concerns. As my colleague Charles Chauvel said that was probably a political reality for the Minister: he had to listen because there were such significant concerns. But at least he has done that—he has considered those objections—and we now are in a situation of being able to support this legislation. They were serious objections around issues like jury thresholds and proceeding in the absence of the defendant which were changed during the Committee stage of the legislation. 
The Minister talks about a careful balance and that of course is very very important in anything to do with criminal procedure. We are balancing the quality of justice and the right to justice for defendants with the rights of victims. None of us benefits from undue delay in the process. None of us benefits if the system is outdated unwieldy or overly costly. It is important to get the balance right; certainly the legislation is more balanced than it was. That is a positive thing. 
It is disappointing that the Supplementary Order Papers put up in the name of my colleague Charles Chauvel were not picked up by the Government. I think that is a real mistake. Some of those amendments were very very sensible provisions codifying or formalising the processes around sentencing indications for example. Why would we not do that? I do not understand why not. 
The reality is that there is more to do and there is no doubt that this House probably sooner rather than later will be doing more work around the criminal justice system. There are a number of reasons for that because there still remains outdated legislation. There will always be the need for amendments that result from changes in society or changes in technology. One of the things we grappled with in the select committee and really did not get sorted was the whole issue of name suppression and the internet and who was accountable and liable for that issue. We have not nailed that. If we are honest we will have to deal with that issue in the future. 
More important the reasons that Charles Chauvel gave are the reasons that we will be dealing with this matter again sooner rather than later. The issue of crime is complex and has a number of dimensions to it and we must deal with the whole issue. A number of submitters made that point. We have to look at these things in context and clearly looking at the drivers or causes of crime is a fundamental part of criminal justice reform. We need somebody with a real reforming zeal in this area and I hope that in the future that person will be my colleague Charles Chauvel. It is really important that we address these issues. 
Recently I had the experience of visiting Arohata Women’s Prison with Charles Chauvel and it was very very informative. I had not been to a prison before. We were able to speak with a number of the women in the prison and the issues of the context in which crime happens and what we need to do were very clear to me. Many of the women there talked about the violence that they had suffered. Many of the women there have alcohol and other addictions. Fortunately they can deal with them at Arohata Women’s Prison unlike the other two women’s prisons in New Zealand. There are no drug and alcohol treatment facilities in Auckland and Christchurch but at Arohata Women’s Prison there are and many of the prisoners were dealing with those addictions. 
When we talked with them about what would make a difference when they had served their sentences we found it was things like being able to get a job lift their skill levels see a future for themselves and get on a different course. Those are things that this Government is performing very very badly on. This Government has not focused on jobs has not focused on an economic plan that delivers jobs for New Zealanders and has not addressed the issues of skills and lifelong learning opportunities—the sorts of things that would make a difference to those women in Arohata Women’s Prison. 
We need to look at the criminal justice system from one end to the other. I absolutely concur with Charles Chauvel on that point. This bill of course will make some positive changes will save money and time and will therefore have benefits for all of those involved in the criminal justice system. But it is one piece and it is probably the wrong piece to have started on. I leave my comments there.