Cosgrove Clayton: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8303] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Forgive me but in the din my colleague pointed out that Mr Clarkson may have wanted to take the call. I am happy to yield and take the following call. Unlike Mr Finlayson I am a humble and charitable member so I am happy to yield to Mr Clarkson if he would like to take a call. I am happy to follow him because I do not think he has had the opportunity to take a call in this debate; I have so I am in your hands Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for your generous thoughts but I made the call and I called the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am indebted to you Mr Chair. Part 3 is an exceptionally small part of the Criminal Procedure Bill. As other of my colleagues have said essentially the bill widens the jurisdiction of the District Court in criminal matters. There is the interesting term “middle banding” which I am sure Mr Finlayson as a learned barrister could elucidate for me as a non-lawyer. I invite him to take a call. The middle-band offences as set out in the schedule can be tried either in the High Court or in the District Court. 
The other aspect to Part 3 of course is that from now on changes in middle banding will be made by regulation rather than legislation. What that does is to make a far more efficient process both in the courts and in this House because if changes to middle banding have to be made we do not have to go through the exhaustive procedure of passing legislation. They can be made through regulation with the safeguard of course of the Regulations Review Committee scrutinising those aspects and keeping all parties honest. 
I would again say that this measure modernises our court system. It provides a more efficient regime for our court system and far more flexibility. Some people on the other side of the House have in earlier calls I believe argued against middle banding and expressed concern in respect of it. But changes as I said can be made through regulation. What is wrong with that? I would have thought that is far better than going right through a new consultation process with the public and trotting back to the House with legislation. I would think it is better than going through first second and third readings and a select committee process etc. and then trying to do it. 
If there are good ideas that come from learned judges the Law Commission or learned barristers and lawyers across the other side of the Chamber—and I see one has just come in; no I was looking at the wrong person—those can be assessed in a relatively swift manner. [ 
Interruption 
] I was looking at Mr Henare and thinking he was a barrister— 
Pita Paraone 
: A bush lawyer. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleague says Mr Henare is a bush lawyer. I do not think it is fair to say that Mr Henare is a bush lawyer at all. He is certainly not a lawyer. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What would you know about the law? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I probably know as much as Mr Henare although most people would know a tad more. Regulations can be used in a flexible fashion so that we can make our court system more efficient. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Henare seems to be arguing against— 
Tim Barnett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. A member opposite is heckling while standing in the aisle. I am not sure whether that is allowed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: You are absolutely right Mr Barnett. Members are not to speak or call out unless they are sitting on their benches. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Thank you Mr Chair. That is all right; I do not mind Mr Henare having a go. It adds to the colour and entertainment in this Chamber. I think Mr Henare is more akin to being a Porirua public bar bouncer. His profession should be as a doorman or doorkeeper or whatever one calls it rather than as a member of this Parliament. I can imagine Mr Henare standing in a public bar and head-butting the punters as they come in. He is more akin to that than to the style and honourable nature of this Parliament. We cannot get the thug out of some people obviously. 
I fail to see how the Opposition could argue against provisions that— 
Hon Member 
: We’re not arguing! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well we have convinced Opposition members obviously. Obviously the power of the Minister of Justice’s arguments has convinced the Opposition because now I am being heckled by members who say that they agree with the bill! So I commend the Minister of Justice for the persuasiveness of his arguments for the depth of his logic and for his progressive and innovative ideas which have obviously swung this debate round. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Borrows interjects. I acknowledge his interjection that he agrees with the bill and that he supports the bill. I think Mr Borrows has exhibited—at least with this legislation but not with some other bills—a degree of progressiveness that sadly is lacking in some of his colleagues in the National Party. So I commend Mr Borrows for that. He is obviously a leader or potential leader of the National Party because he has been persuaded by this bill. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.