O'Rourke Denis: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7072. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. It is not one of those earth-shaking pieces of legislation that will mark the 50th Parliament nor is it a bill that the Associate Minister of Justice will be remembered for and nor is it a bill that the National Government will be hanging its reputation on. Indeed it is hanging itself perfectly well in a number of other ways. 
The nature of the amendments this bill makes to various Acts is largely technical arising from the passing of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The amendments fall into four categories: firstly a number of cross-referencing and other minor technical fixes which form the bulk of the bill and are straightforward; secondly amendments to ensure the procedures and processes under the 2011 Act can be fully implemented to operate as intended which also appear to me to be perfectly straightforward; and thirdly there are references to crime in several statutes that need to be amended due to the repeal of the definition of “crime” in the Crimes Act 1961. Examples are clause 4 which amends section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and concerns interpretation. The amendment adds a definition of “imprisonable offence”. Clause 32 amends section 11 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 which concerns the theft of controlled drugs. The amendments there replace “crime” with “offence”. Clause 34 which amends section 28 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 concerns being found in a public place preparing to commit a crime. The amendments again replace “crime” with “imprisonable offence”. So it is all pretty simple straightforward stuff. 
The fourth category of amendments gives community magistrates jurisdiction to receive guilty pleas for certain category 2 offences being those in respect of which community magistrates have sentencing jurisdiction. The opportunity is also taken to clarify with greater specificity other aspects of community magistrates’ jurisdiction. Those are also sensible amendments. And there are powers as we have heard to use expanded regulating powers for all of these sorts of purposes. 
The only substantial change that I can see appears to be in clause 21 which amends section 8 of the Crimes Act 1961. This concerns jurisdiction in respect of crimes on ships or aircraft beyond New Zealand. The amendments replace section 8(2) with two provisions. The first provides that if a person commits a criminal act on a New Zealand ship or aircraft to which section 8 applies and that act or omission would if it occurred within New Zealand be an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or by 2 years’ imprisonment or more then the person is liable on conviction as if the act or omission occurred in New Zealand. 
I have no problem with that but the second provision provides that if any proceedings are taken against a foreign citizen by virtue of jurisdiction conferred by section 8 in relation to a crime on a New Zealand ship or aircraft it is a defence to prove that the act or omission would not have been an offence under the law of the country of which the person charged was a national or citizen at the time of the act or omission if it had occurred in that country. There is no explanation given as to why this apparently new defence is to be allowed. Perhaps the Minister could advise us about that because as far as I could see it would simply mean that a New Zealand citizen committing a crime under New Zealand law on a New Zealand ship or aircraft would be liable for prosecution but a foreign citizen committing the same crime would have a complete defence if he or she could show that it is not a crime under his or her country’s law. Why would that defence be allowed for an offence on a New Zealand ship or aircraft? It seems to me to be inappropriate for New Zealand citizens and foreign citizens on New Zealand ships and aircraft to be treated so differently. Presumably there is a good reason but I would like to hear an explanation of it. 
With that reservation New Zealand First will support the bill which as I have already said is largely technical in nature and simply makes sensible and practical changes in relation to the operation of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.