Dalziel Lianne: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7070. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 My colleague Charles Chauvel has highlighted I think one of the primary lessons that we need to learn from the fact that this legislation the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill is in front of the House so soon after the original legislation was passed. If we are to avoid bringing forward amending legislation such as this to correct what could have been anticipated at the time and if we are also to avoid the now ubiquitous unintended consequences of legislation once passed then we could do much by adopting a much more collaborative approach around these issues. I think that is what the Law Society was asking of us saying that a cross-party agreement really is needed on criminal justice. Instead of politicising issues we need to be looking for coherent policy where we can achieve that. I think that that is actually the approach that we have adopted on this side of the House and both in Government and in Opposition. I just want to reflect a little on where we have missed the opportunity of doing so because a cross-party accord on these matters has a lot to commend it but it is actually quite challenging I think in the environment that we find ourselves in when we are dealing with controversial issues. 
Taking it back a step when I was the Minister of Commerce I consulted with the Opposition spokesperson on commerce who just happened to be the former Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power. We worked together on a relatively collaboratively basis on issues that we knew were going to transcend electoral cycles and we felt that it was important that we were able to get as much cross-party accord on those issues as we possibly could. I think on commerce issues everyone would agree that they were relatively non-controversial that they were not the sort of things that excited passions and that people did not come down to the House and table-thump and do that sort of emotional attention-seeking behaviour that we sometimes see in this House—I cannot imagine why. But when I became the chair of the select committee I realised that there was a whole different relationship that you have to have with a Minister when you are an Opposition spokesperson and the chair of the select committee. It is quite a different relationship. I actually learnt a lot from having that role. I think maybe it was just the dynamics of having that role in that particular relationship on a relatively non-controversial area such as commerce and where I think everyone would agree there was a relatively seamless transition from one Government to the other from one Minister to the other and indeed from one select committee to the other. I think that we all respected each other’s roles and were able to gain a lot from that. 
We do not do that in the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think the reason that we do not do that in the Justice and Electoral Committee is that there are controversial elements that sit around things relating to criminal procedure—not so much the procedure but of course the “tough on crime” approach that one has to address as a politician as constituents obviously are wanting to hear from Governments what they are going to do to reduce crime. But I also think that this has been a really salutary lesson to all of us. If we do not actually find a way of achieving that kind of cross-party consensus on these kinds of issues then we do end up in a situation where we have to take up the time of the House and introduce amending legislation such as this. 
What I found interesting about this particular piece of legislation is that it could have been included within a Statutes Amendment Bill such is its lack of controversy. It is that straightforward that we could have put it in a Statutes Amendment Bill. But the reason that it is not in a Statutes Amendment Bill is that there is no guarantee that the Statutes Amendment Bill would be enacted by the date that it is required to be enacted by in order for this legislation to come into effect. Well I think we really do have to take stock of what that actually means. It means that we have missed a golden opportunity to sit down together and work collaboratively to find a solution to the problem rather than having to bring about individual legislation. I think that what we have ended up with is that sometimes we end up in this House debating legislation and then voting to support legislation because of the impact that we think our opposition to it would have rather than having a constructive debate about what the actual legislation should be. 
I just do want to mention the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act which is in place at the moment. When we passed that legislation I believe that we voted for it on our side of the House in good faith. I believe now that it is being implemented in a completely inappropriate manner. It is completely out of line. We are no longer in an emergency response situation. We no longer need urgent powers. It is 2 years since the first earthquake and nothing really major is happening in terms of what is happening in Christchurch. But we voted for that legislation because we were placed I believe under considerable pressure both within the House and outside the House in order to support the Government’s stated intention of facilitating the recovery. Everyone wants to facilitate the recovery in Christchurch but what we have ended up with is legislation that is now being used to browbeat people into accepting terms and conditions for the enforced sale of their properties which they really really have no alternative but to accept. That is unacceptable. So we have ended up in almost a breach of human rights situation which we would have ended up in if we had accepted the original legislation that this bill is predicated on as well. 
I just think that sometimes we need to have as a House the capacity to step back take stock. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act was legislation that was rammed through this House under urgency. I think that if we do that and the legislation has that kind of impact or potential impact beyond an emergency situation I believe we have to as a matter of urgent responsibility have a review period so that we can decide as a Parliament whether we reinstate the legislation after a particular period of time. I am deeply unhappy that that legislation sits there for 5 years without any opportunity to review the impact of what are very Draconian powers. At least in this instance the Government has taken the initiative to amend the legislation ahead of its taking effect. That is the appropriate thing to do. But I believe that the House should take warning from what we have had to confront with this particular legislation and think of it in the context of other legislation where it could actually be used in a much more appropriate manner. On that basis we are perfectly happy to support this to the select committee and we look forward to its early passage.