Dalziel Lianne: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21422] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I particularly want to address a matter of process in respect of the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill which is probably not surprising given that it is a process bill. I think it is important that when we are reforming and modernising criminal procedures as this legislation does we are really careful about some of the underlying principles against which we measure our own system of justice. These principles have really stood the test of time. Sometimes I am concerned that there are those of us who have less of a constitutional interest in the law and we forget the importance of these principles. 
I think that the retirement of Sir Geoffrey Palmer as a sitting member of this House marked a transition in our history in that regard. With Sir Geoffrey we actually had somebody who was incredibly adept and knowledgable about our constitutional framework and was always alert to these matters. That is why I am so proud that my colleague Charles Chauvel has taken the lead role in justice matters on this side of the House. I believe that the way he has handled this particular matter to ensure that those principles are protected in the legislation going forward—not as reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee but by way of amendment by a Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister—is something that we owe him considerable thanks for. I want to sort of formally recognise that credit must be given where it is due. 
I have in my hand three items of correspondence which I believe really summarise the fact that this Parliament can do things well when we have a Minister and an Opposition spokesperson who are able to work collaboratively on such issues. The first letter is dated 8 September this year and it is from the office of the Hon Simon Power addressed to our spokesperson Charles Chauvel. The second letter is a response from Charles Chauvel dated 10 September 2011. The final letter is a response from the Minister back to Charles Chauvel basically setting out the detail of the collaboration that has produced the result we will deal with when we get to the Committee stage of this bill. 
The point the Minister made in his letter of 8 September was that he advised Charles Chauvel that in fact the Government had the numbers to pass the legislation. But he felt persuaded that it was important to obtain broad-based political support for such a measure and therefore he wanted to respond to the particular issues Charles Chauvel had raised on behalf of the Labour Opposition. I think that is an incredibly powerful message and one that I hope this House takes some recognition of. I have enjoyed a similar working relationship with the Minister in his role as the Minister of Commerce and I think that this has to be the way of such measures in the future. There is a range of issues on which we ought to be able to work much more collaboratively rather than leaving it to a negotiated agreement post the report back from a select committee. 
Large Supplementary Order Papers are always fraught as I found out with some of the financial advisers legislation I was responsible for but I also think that some of the issues that Charles Chauvel has raised which he will also be introducing by way of Supplementary Order Paper are important too. I hope that the Government decides to continue that whole approach on collaboration and looks at some of the issues that Mr Chauvel will raise. The one I wanted to comment on briefly was that of placing the judge’s sentencing indication on a legislative basis. I believe it is much more preferable for the judge’s obligations in that regard to be set out in statute rather than just relying on a case by case situation. 
I have a constituent who felt forced to change his plea to guilty when the judge said that he had no compunction about sending a tetraplegic man in a wheelchair to jail. The judge had made it absolutely clear that he felt that my constituent was guilty. I know the full circumstances of that case. I know that my constituent wanted to plead not guilty and that he had every ground for pleading not guilty but he felt he had no choice because of the degree of pressure he was placed under. 
I think it is important that that kind of issue is placed firmly in the legislative frame and therefore I think we would find fewer difficulties in the future. I hope that the Government looks seriously at the Supplementary Order Paper that Mr Chauvel will put forward on behalf of the Labour Opposition. Certainly on the basis of the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has indicated which has now been tabled in the House we will be supporting this bill.