Borrows Chester: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — Second Reading 
Borrows Chester: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21422] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I start by congratulating the Justice and Electoral Committee and those members who engaged fully in respect of the consideration of the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill particularly on the way that there was cross-party debate and engagement in respect of these matters by the Labour team led by Charles Chauvel and supported by Carol Beaumont and Carmel Sepuloni and the New Zealand Green Party represented by Dr Kennedy Graham. The National members—the deputy chair Simon Bridges Paul Quinn Kanwal Bakshi Hekia Parata and then Amy Adams—contributed well too. It is great to be part of a committee that has worked well together over 3 years and has processed a large amount of legislation. I think those members can be pleased and satisfied to see their fingerprints all over the various legislation that we have transacted in. It is legislation that is better for the time it has spent before the committee. 
I believe that from time to time the law needs reforming and that conventions need questioning. I do not believe we have a situation where the rule of law will stay the rule of law for ever and it should not because the circumstances of those appearing before the court on either side and of those presiding over the court change. It was interesting to note for instance that a submission made by the late Chief District Court Judge was that we should extend the sentence threshold for jury trials to 5 years which ran at odds with a number of other submissions. Certainly it was at odds with where the bill has ended up. 
There were also speeches given by the judiciary. I am thinking of Justice Bruce Robertson and a speech he made that talked about the need for and the sensibility of identifying issues. However it is a fact in making criminal law that there is a need to have some consensus not only because of the numbers in this debating chamber but also because of the need to have an enduring criminal law so that people understand the law they have to live under. It is not a branch of the law that can be chopped and changed with changes in Government. So I am pleased to see that we have come to a place now after the debate through the committee the changes made through the committee and the negotiations that have gone on since then in order to bring the bill to the place where it is today that has seen some changes and some concessions made by parties on both sides of the House. 
Whereas I agree that justice delayed can be justice denied I do not agree that justice sped up is necessarily any form of justice at all. I agree with the previous speaker Charles Chauvel that we need to ensure that cases are explored and that people are given the opportunity to present cases in the way that they wish to in cases that are fair to them. It is the sad case that quite frequently the question most asked in courts by the defendant of his counsel is in the order of: “What just happened?”. That should not be the case. 
But I am pleased to see that a number of these provisions will expedite justice. The bill will ensure that provision is given for cases to be heard for them to be well considered and at the same time for them to be able to proceed in a timely manner. I commend this bill to the House.