Wilkinson Kate: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8294] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I continue my call on Part 2 of the Criminal Procedure Bill. I have already outlined the two-page diagram and the four-stage disclosure requirement which do seem somewhat convoluted and complex. I was halfway through relating the situation of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research which in its submission advised that it provides forensic services and that it has major concerns over the potential implications of the time frames as a result of these disclosure requirements. In fact it stated in its submission that it was “bemused by the apparent lack of consultation” with the institute. There are times when the findings of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research are pivotal to the charge and summary of the facts yet under the regime proposed by this bill the current turn-round times are incompatible with the time frames envisaged. The institute admitted that part of this was due to its capacity actually to do the work but more important it is a matter of the inherent time it takes actually to process certain types of forensic work. If there is not enough time in which to undertake the proper forensic processes and they are going to be affected and jeopardised by this disclosure regime which is complicated then I would like the Minister in the chair Mark Burton to take a call and explain firstly what consultation he had with such forensic experts as the Institute of Environmental and Scientific Research and secondly how he thinks the process time frames will be able to meet the convoluted time frames that have been prescribed in Part 2. 
The commentary on the bill states that the recommended changes to this fourfold disclosure regime aim to “clarify or augment the obligations on the prosecution to reflect current practice and reaffirm an accused person’s right to fair process and to make the legislation more workable.” It specifically states that the objective is to make the legislation more workable but it cannot be workable if the institute does not have time to process its forensic projects. The legislation cannot be more workable if it so convoluted and complicated that an overview diagram of the disclosure provisions is actually included in the bill. The use of diagrams in legislation is not a common practice and I would have thought that the drafting of this bill could be simplified so as not to need to describe the provisions by way of a diagram. 
I do not believe that this legislation is very conducive to maximising the efficiency of the criminal justice system. I fear that rather than making access to justice quicker and more efficient it appears to do the exact opposite by complicating the process especially in relation to these disclosure requirements. If something is not broken then we should not be attempting to fix it. It has been suggested that the current system works well. The New Zealand Law Society says that it works well and those within the industry say that it works well. So we have to ask ourselves—and I would like the Minister to answer this one as well—why we are trying to fix something that works well with a complicated fourfold disclosure requirement that then needs a diagram to explain what is intended. On that note I seek the Minister’s response to those queries and I certainly look forward to hearing from him.