Worth Richard: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16603] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 As the Minister has just noted this is very far-reaching legislation that has been delayed for a very substantial period in this House. It was first introduced in June 2004; it had its first reading in that same month and year. It went off to the Law and Order Committee but since it came back it has languished in the Committee stage. So I am certainly pleased to see the legislation being advanced. 
In the context of Part 3 the part we are talking about there are clearly two strong underlying themes that are core elements of policy. The first relates to transparency and the second really relates to management processes in the courts. The reality of the present is that there are very significant delays in the courts with consequences for accused persons facing trial for the courts themselves and of course for those who give evidence. I will make some particular comments on Part 3 reflecting some of the points that the Minister has made. 
Part 3 is concerned only with amendments to the District Courts Act 1947—old legislation. In general terms the Minister made the point that the District Court is being given jurisdiction to try all indictable offences except those listed in new schedule 1A inserted by schedule 3 of the bill. That may not significantly increase the jurisdiction of the court but as the Law and Order Committee made very clear in its commentary on the bill changes to the schedules are to be made by regulations. In constitutional terms that is generally undesirable. It is not appropriate for subordinate legislation to make changes to the work of this House—for delegated legislation to change primary legislation. That is why the issues that arise in Part 3 were considered by the Regulations Review Committee. It was because two of the clauses clauses 62A and 92A contained regulation-making powers. It was certainly the view of the Regulations Review Committee that new clause 62A raised a fundamental issue of principle in respect of the delegation of law-making powers by Parliament. In constitutional terms we are in a world known as “Henry VIII” clauses where the involvement of the executive trespasses on the work of this Parliament. 
I think that with some degree of sophistry the Law and Order Committee sought to get around that constitutional difficulty because it argued in the report it made to Parliament that the decision as to where a case is committed for trial will have no bearing on the rights of the person charged or on the sentence that may be imposed. Doubtless it was buttressed in the belief it took by dint of the support it had from the Chief Justice. I guess a better answer with regard to those issues might be that the Regulations Review Committee—because those changes will be made by regulation—will have jurisdiction to look at the issues and I hope that those who are at present on the committee and those who in the future will be members of the committee will take up the challenge to look at the regulations in a critical way. 
It gives me no pleasure to say that under this Government the courts have become truly choked. We have seen sadly a number of cases where accused persons have been able to walk free by dint of the substantial delays because they have succeeded in persuading judges to grant stays of proceedings. I hope that Part 3 with the other parts contained in this legislation will substantially ameliorate the delays that are occurring and that now that the issues between the major parties have been resolved we will see this legislation be put in place at the earliest opportunity. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 3 and the following amendment in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 60 be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (ii) of section 28A(1)(c) in clause 60(1) “to any” and substitute “for any”. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.