Beaumont Carol: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — In Committee 
Beaumont Carol: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:676;Page:21603] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 This has been a fascinating process indeed. I was a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee which heard many of the submissions on what is a substantial bill and a far-reaching bill. The fact is that only 2 days ago when I was speaking on the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill we were still finalising negotiations on Labour’s position at that point and now we are supporting this bill. I have found the process to be a very interesting one as others have also commented. 
It has been fascinating for me as a still relatively new member of this House to watch a number of people operating to try to deal with what were quite fundamental concerns. On Tuesday when I spoke on this bill I referred to the role of Charles Chauvel. I again acknowledge the work that Charles has done on raising the fundamental concerns that the Labour Party had about the potential for the bill as it stood then to fundamentally affect the human rights of New Zealand citizens. So I am pleased to see that the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power has addressed those concerns and dealt with them in a constructive manner. 
There is no doubt that there are substantial problems with the current criminal procedure system. I will repeat what the Ministry of Justice has concluded because I do not think this bill despite how far-reaching and substantial it is deals with all of the issues of concern yet. I have to say that I was not aware that there was such a thing as the judishicature Act—terrible I cannot even say it! 
Hon Simon Power 
: Judicature. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: —Judicature Act—but now I know that there is that Act from 1908 which will also be part of this reform of our justice system. 
There is the issue of excessive costs. There is the increasing cost of operating the court system and the stress and inefficiency that is being placed on the court system. I think the Hon Rick Barker explained that issue with quite a deal of passion really as a former Minister for Courts. 
There is excessive delay. I have to say that excessive delay has negative consequences both for the defendant and for the victim of crime. As Labour’s women’s affairs spokesperson I am concerned about it from the point of view of victims of crime. We want a court system and a justice system that operate in a way that means that defendants and victims do not have to wait too long for justice. That is certainly a reason for reforming the system. This bill will assist with that issue as the Hon Simon Power has outlined in some detail when he explained where we will see improvements reduced delays and justice being served. 
As for excessive complexity certainly this bill has been a really major attempt to categorise different criminal matters and to try to simplify them. That is good I think. It is a positive move forward and the Judicature Act is clearly one of those outdated parts of our legislative framework. The issue for example of thresholds for jury trials was a fundamental part of our legal framework that we were very concerned about. 
I acknowledge the Hon John Boscawen in relation to his comments on the right to silence. These are cornerstone principles in our system. Quite rightly I think various parties have said that they would not support the bill in its previous form. 
There are a number of people who should be thanked for creating this monster bill—it is huge is it not—and those people first of all are the submitters. There were 72 submissions made and we heard 35 of those submitters. These people were submitting on very important technical matters. We had a number of members of the legal profession and the judiciary submitting because they certainly wanted to make these reforms more robust and to make sure that we were not threatening fundamental elements of our justice system. 
Then interestingly there were a number of submitters who specifically submitted on matters to do with suppression orders the internet and new media and so on. As others have commented we still do not have that sorted. We still do not have the fact sorted that some people who are using the internet and social media are getting around suppression orders so that matter will need to be dealt with in a future Parliament as others have said. 
The bill is large substantive legislation as I have said. It goes to 650 pages and has nine parts. I have already mentioned categorising of offences. There has been a simplification so we now go to four categories of offence which is a major step forward. Then in Part 2 we have the proceedings and preliminary steps. This is one of the areas where Labour’s Supplementary Order Paper would come into play. I agree with the member Phil Twyford that it would be very helpful to have the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice talk through the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Charles Chauvel. 
While I was talking about the people whom I wanted to thank I forgot to mention the people who really should be thanked for their massive amount of work and they are of course the officials who have worked on this legislation of great complexity and substance. They should also be acknowledged when we are dealing with this bill. 
Pre-trial procedure is covered in Part 3. We now have this issue of the jury threshold. I think it was very interesting and helpful to hear the comments made by the Hon Rick Barker about how sentences have changed and therefore the relative significance of thresholds. That was very helpful for a number of members here. 
It is worth noting that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is being amended as part of this legislation. We in Parliament need to be very aware of that and take a great deal of cognisance of that if we are looking at amending the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Certainly there were quite significant matters and concerns raised by the Attorney-General in relation to this bill in its form prior to the Supplementary Order Paper that will change it. He raised many concerns. 
Part 4 of course deals with the trial provisions and again Labour’s Supplementary Order Paper has some relevance there. As I said it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s comments. Part 5 “General provisions” also deals with proceedings held in the absence of the defendant. Part 6 deals with appeals Part 7 with provisions concerning jurisdiction of District Courts Part 8 with miscellaneous and transitional provisions and Part 9 with amendments to other enactments. 
So that is the scope of this huge bill. As I said I have been pleased and interested to watch and see how we have almost reached the point where this substantial change to our criminal procedures will be passed by the House. Thank you very much. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I shall put the questions of which there are a number and we will work through them chronologically. The first amendment is to clause 4. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 281 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit “of less than 2 years” and substitute “of less than 3 months”.