Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCriminal Procedure Legislation Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9718. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Criminal Procedure Legislation BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise and take a call on the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. The previous speaker Mr David Clendon talked about a smooth and effective system and that is exactly what this bill is actually intending to do. The bill makes minor technical amendments—11 in particular—so that the legislative intent is clarified the operational efficiency is enhanced and the predicted benefits are realised. That is exactly what we are doing and I agree with Mr Clendon in that regard.I want to briefly touch on two submissions—in fact there were only two submissions—on this bill. One was from the Law Society and one was from Dr Don Mathias. Clearly their submissions were in support and generally there were a number of just minor changes that people wanted to make but in particular there was general support for this bill because of what it is intending to do. The proposals build on the changes already under way to improve the criminal justice system including removing oral deposition hearings legal aid reforms victims of crimes initiatives and the roll-out of audio-visual links between courts and prisons.I also just want to comment on a couple of things that will be achieved including the changes made in the Supplementary Order Paper. The reforms contained in this bill have the potential to free up 10000 court sitting hours each year by delivering benefits that include 31200 fewer court events 300 to 500 fewer jury trials and 6 to 9-week reductions in the average time to complete a jury trial. This is a good bill. We think it has got great support right across the House. I commend this bill to the House.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First supports the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. I would like to begin by congratulating the Associate Minister of Justice Chester Borrows on a good piece of legislation. I would like to congratulate the Justice and Electoral Committee on its work which it carried out in a constructive and non-political way. I would particularly like to congratulate the LawSociety and thank it for the quality of its contribution. It is fair to say that this piece of legislation would not be what it is without its input.The nature of the amendments this bill makes to various Acts is largely technical as others have said arising from the passing of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Although technical only in nature they are still important and necessary amendments to keep the criminal law and procedure up to date. Failure to do so of course may result in some very unfortunate results.The amendments fall into four categories. The first is a number of cross-referencing and other minor technical fixes which form the bulk of the bill and are pretty straightforward in nature requiring no debate here. Secondly there are amendments to ensure that the procedures and processes under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 can be fully implemented to operate as intended and these are also straightforward.The most important amendments are those with references to crime in several statutes due to the repeal of the definition of “crime” in the Crimes Act 1961. An example of those is clause 4 which amends section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and concerns interpretation. The amendment adds a definition of “imprisonable offence” and clause 32 amends section 11 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 which concerns the theft of controlled drugs. The amendments replace “crime” with “offence”.Clause 34 amends section 28 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 which concerns being found in a public place preparing to commit a crime. The amendments replace “crime” with “imprisonable offence”. Those are some examples of many amendments of that kind—simple in nature but very necessary and very important. So those are all measures that we can all easily support. They are good housekeeping amendments. Definitions in criminal legislation are of course of very high importance.Another amendment gives community magistrates jurisdiction to receive guilty pleas for certain category 2 offences being offences 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. These also are sensible and necessary amendments which will improve aspects of criminal procedure.The Justice and Electoral Committee—mainly as a result of the input of the Law Society—recommended the deletion of clause 15(3)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill as introduced which contained a “Henry VIII” clause under which there would have been a regulatory power for the Minister of Justice to change the definition of “crime” effectively amending legislation. Indeed Henry VIII would have been proud of such a power and no doubt would have used it to the hilt. New Zealand First supports of course the deletion of this clause which was unnecessary and improper.The bill makes many such sensible amendments all of which are really just good housekeeping. New Zealand First will therefore vote for the bill which as I have already noted is largely technical in nature. It makes some simple and technical changes in relation to the good operation of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): I rise to take a very short call in support of the second reading of the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. This bill is another step in our commitment to a more effective and efficient justice system. It has been described several times as “minor and technical”. I would have to say as a previous lawyer that when those words are used it actually leads to more scrutiny and invites more attention rather than less. Having said that it is somewhat minor and technical but it is important.The most debated provision was in relation to the “Henry VIII” regulation-making clause. The Law Society made a very compelling argument. My colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel has in her earlier speech well traversed the ramifications of “Henry VIII”clauses. I do not need to add any more to the debate than that. I merely say this is a good bill. It should be passed. I am pleased that it has got bipartisan apolitical support across the House and I support the bill.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): It was interesting—just to pick up on a comment made by the last speaker the Hon Kate Wilkinson—to hear about the Government welcoming bipartisan support. I think it is good when the House can come together and overwhelmingly support a piece of legislation that people acknowledge will improve the functioning of the justice system. Indeed the Law Society in its submissions on this bill the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill made the point that in regard to criminal legislation you should try to take the politicising of it out and actually work to have a coherent policy that will serve the interests of New Zealanders of victims and of all of those who appear in the court system.I would hope that the Hon Kate Wilkinson and the National caucus as a whole actually take those principles and apply them more generally to the legislation in the House. Last night we spent hours debating legislation—when no member of the National Government got to their feet to debate it—that was rammed through under urgency. No attempt was made to build consensus. There was an absolute politicisation of the process. And then the Government wondered why it got powerful Government security legislation rammed through the House with the barest of margins—the barest of margins.So I say to Kate Wilkinson: take the principles that you have just stated now and apply them to what you are generally doing across the House and then you would get better legislation. You would have proper process and you would have good legislation. What the National Government showed last night was that it was not interested in process and was not interested in good legislation. It was not interested in protecting human rights against the most intrusive powers that the State can operate. Contrast that with this legislation. Suddenly peace and harmony Chester Borrows have broken out across the House. There is good reason for that. I agree with what Chester Borrows said in the House last night. These are the most important changes to the criminal procedure legislation in 50 years—in a couple of generations.We need to look at the process to understand why this legislation will be good. It began under Labour actually in 2007. The way we went about this—and I was Minister of Justice just prior to that—was that we got the Ministry of Justice to do the work together with the Law Commission. They spent thousands of hours in working out how we could get fundamental reform to deal with some of the issues that confronted the justice system. So the process was not rushed it was not rammed through and it was not designed to be a distraction from the embarrassment of the Government in another area like the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill was last night. It was proper process. The homework was done and the groundwork was laid.Then we got the legislation. The primary legislation for this bill was 526 pages long. It was an enormous piece of legislation and what it tried to do was address some of the critical issues that were facing the procedures in the criminal justice system. There were excessive costs and there were excessive time delays. You had a legislation process or a framework that was outdated and you had excessive complexity involved in it. In fact the Law Commission described the court system as an impenetrable maze for lawyers. Lawyers might like that because it creates work for them but actually when they think of the public interest they do not like that. You have got to think about serving society about serving victims and about protecting the interests of defendants in the right way. We were getting huge delays in the court system and justice delayed is justice denied. We have heard that many times over and it is absolutely correct.So the legislation that came in aimed basically at addressing these critical problems: excessive costs excessive delay excessive complexity and an outdated legislative framework. There was cross-party support for that broad reform but then the Government decided it wanted to put in a number of more contentious things. That included lifting the threshold for jury trials so you would not be eligible for a jury trial unless your maximum jail sentence was in excess of 3 years. It required the defence to identify and disclose issues under dispute before trial and that clearly would have worked against the interests of the defendant and would have been unfair. There was the allowance of courts to actually try a defendant in the defendant’s absence. That was an absolute turn-round on fundamental rights in the justice system that go back hundreds of years. There was the attempt to load compliance costs on to those involved in the process and there was the attempt to remove the right to silence.I want to give credit to a past National Minister of Justice Simon Power. Actually even though he put this in the original criminal procedures legislation when the submissions were heard before the select committee when the evidence was given and when Labour the Greens and other parties highlighted the inadequacies of this he listened and made changes—he listened and he made changes. There was proper process. The select committee worked. That is what democracy was about. That is why last night in this House we fought tooth and nail against the abridging of that process and the truncating of the opportunities for people to make submissions.If you want to get legislation right this legislation demonstrates absolutely clearly the importance of the select committee process. And we have just heard National members on this technical piece of legislation to bring the criminal procedures legislation into effect saying how important those submissions were. Today they say how important it is for the public to be able to make submissions. Last night they voted in the House to abridge the right of New Zealanders to have their voices heard on perhaps the most intrusive powers a Government has ever given itself to interfere in the privacy of individuals and to direct companies. I say those are double standards. We cannot say: “This legislation is good. Isn’t it great? We’ve got consensus good process good outcome.” and then do the opposite.When is this slow-to-learn Government ever going to pick up the message that if you want legislation that serves New Zealand properly then you do the proper process? You consult before you bring in contentious legislation. You try to embrace the Opposition and say that this is what you are trying to do. Before you tell telecommunications companies what to do in every aspect of their jobs talk to them first—talk to them first. We saw in the corrections amendment legislation which some of my colleagues from the opposite side of the House were on the committee for that the Government in that case did not talk to the telecommunications companies first. It got it absolutely wrong. It had to do a total U-turn. But did it learn that lesson? No it did not learn that lesson.The appalling thing about today is that this bill before us today highlights every rort every inadequacy every breach of process every attempt to truncate the ability of New Zealanders to have their voice heard and people to be properly consulted that occurred last night. When is this National Government going to learn? When are those backbenchers with their heads down now actually going to stop being lobby-fodder and challenge in their caucus the ridiculous decisions being made by their Ministers including the Prime Minister? People elected the Government members to the House to actually have their voice heard not to stand up on highly contentious legislation mumble some inane comment and sit down. That is not the job of the Government backbenchers and well you should hang your heads in shame at the behaviour of the National Party caucus and its acolytes last night in the House.This piece of legislation is actually a good piece of legislation. It supports a piece of legislation that had bipartisan support that went through proper process and we are celebrating that now. So for heaven’s sake if this is good and this was good process and this worked in the interests of New Zealanders apply those same principles across everything that the Government is trying to do including some of the obnoxious pieces of legislation that were compelled through the House last night by the narrowest of majorities. All that means is that actually we will be back in 18 months under a new Government to repeal that legislation. This legislation today is an example of how you should have done it and that is why Labour is supporting it.Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I am pleased to speak to the second reading of the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. As has been noted this bill is largely technical and contains non-controversial amendments to ensure that the intent of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 is clear and can be applied as it was intended.This bill has the support of the House. It is a good bill with very sensible amendments. It is another step in National’s commitment to make the justice system more responsive. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This will be a split call. Kris Faafoi 5 minutes.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Before I hand out a few brickbats let me hand out a few bouquets: first of all to the Justice and Electoral Committee; to Scott Simpson who is the chair; to Jackie Blue; to my colleagues Andrew Little and the Hon Lianne Dalziel; and to those who submitted to the Justice and Electoral Committee on this bill the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill.As Phil Goff said we have got a bill in front of us at the moment at the second reading that has been amended. It is a good bill and it is a perfect example of how the process works when good legislation goes through this House. It has cross-party support as the Hon Kate Wilkinson said. There has been a lot of consultation with Opposition parties to make sure that this very important piece of legislation will go through the House and have the wide support of this Parliament because it is a very very important piece of legislation in terms of our criminal procedures. We can contrast that as the Hon Phil Goff said with the pieces of legislation that we had before this around the Government Communications Security Bureau and the interception of telecommunications where the process has been an absolute farce and an absolute shambles.Those two pieces of legislation are very important in terms of oversight of our intelligence committees. You really do have to look at the way that the Government has put this piece of legislation through—in what I think was a very good manner and we have got a very good piece of legislation before us—and what happened before this piece of legislation in terms of those two bills the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill and the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill.We have also got the situation where last night we were debating the truncation of the select committee consideration of one of those pieces of legislation; again taking away the ability for the scrutiny that is absolutely needed when we are talking about the surveillance of New Zealanders’ telecommunications. Again this is in complete contrast to the process in the select committee with this bill the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill.I understand there were only two submitters to this bill the major one being the New Zealand Law Society. You have to contrast the ability of people who are aware of the situation in this criminal procedures legislation with the Law Society coming in and making a fulsome submission to the select committee. That select committee went awayand listened to that submission and made the appropriate changes in the appropriate length of time.But in the previous legislation that I was talking about here we have a truncated select committee period for a piece of legislation that goes to the heart of democracy and also the oversight of our security intelligence agencies. As the Hon Phil Goff has said you can hardly make sense of the contrast between the process with the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill and with the legislation that this Government put through this House yesterday in terms of the changes that it is making to our intelligence agencies.As has been said before this is a bill that makes technical amendments to I think it is the Criminal Procedure Act which was put through this House in 2011. It has come out of work that was started by the Labour Government in 2007. I do want to just reiterate the words that the Hon Kate Wilkinson said—that although they may be technical amendments they are very important amendments that make sure that the Criminal Procedure Act actually works for those people who are going through the court system because there are some serious issues around delays in our court system the increasing costs of getting justice in our court system and also the complexity of the court system for those who are going through it and that is for victims as well as defendants.It is absolutely fundamentally correct that we should put through this legislation to ensure that the quality of justice that those victims and those defendants are getting in our justice system is as good as it can be. As I did say there was one major submission to the select committee by the New Zealand Law Society and that was basically around some concerns around the “Henry VIII” clause which has been well traversed around the definition of crime and the ability to change the definition of crime by regulation.I just wanted to congratulate the Justice and Electoral Committee on taking that on board and making sure that that part of this bill was removed because as I say this is a case where a select committee has listened and has acted and the process was good. But I reiterate that in other bills that are before this House on this day of urgency that has not been the case.JAN LOGIE (Green): I am happy to take a call in the second reading debate on the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. As has been mentioned by everyone before this bill is housekeeping and it is good housekeeping and that is an important thing. It is an indication for us—and I think this has been said before—that we can talk about housekeeping as if it is a very simple thing that is not very important but actually if we do not do the housekeeping properly terrible things can happen. That is why it has been good to see this bill go through this process—some potentially awful consequences have been avoided.We have had the submission the one substantive submission from the Law Society which has enabled us to avoid the Government being able to define crime through regulation. I am sure all New Zealanders will be very thankful for that in the future. I wish all bills in this House had the same scrutiny and when things appear very simple or very urgent or very important to this Government I hope it will remember that this bill which looked so simple so technical and was just a piece of housekeeping actually held within it a small clause that could have had terrible consequences.Without that proper scrutiny this bill would have just passed and we would have had those terrible consequences in place. So I am very pleased to be able to commend this bill to the House with the good housekeeping having being done. Thank you.MELISSA LEE (National): It is a great pleasure to rise to take a very short call to add my support for this bill the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill at its second reading. The problem with the current criminal procedures over the past 20 years couldpossibly be summarised as being that we have had excessive delay complexity an outdated legislative framework and excessive costs. A lot of members have traversed these matters over the time of the debate of this bill. National believes—and many other members have actually mentioned this—that justice delayed is indeed justice denied. This bill will ensure that timely justice is delivered for victims witnesses defendants and the community. That can only be good.The system is clogged and needs to be fixed. These amendments will reduce delay in the District Courts and free up judge time. We expect shorter trials fewer adjournments and less delay overall. As someone who has actually been a victim who had to turn up to court to face the offenders in a court trial and who knows the frustrations and the stress that happen every time a court case has been delayed I am very pleased that this is actually happening because it can only reduce the stress for the victims. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time.In CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Criminal Procedure Act 2011The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Mōrena. Kia ora tātou. Nō reira e te Whare e ngā iwi e ngā reo e ngā hau e whā tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa. Good morning honourable members. The debate is on clauses 3 to 17 and schedule 1.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): As we indicated in the second reading just a short while ago Labour supports this bill the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. This bill makes some very important and very necessary tidying-ups to a very substantial piece of legislation which has worked its way through this House in a very deliberate very careful very considered sort of way.This will be the biggest set of changes to our criminal justice system to our criminal procedures in many many years. It is always important when we are considering big change particularly to an area as important as the administration of criminal justice that we get it right and that we take our time to do so. That as my colleagues have pointed out in their second reading speeches contrasts with the approach taken to some other legislation by this Government but on this occasion the Government and the Minister in charge the Minister for Courts are doing the right thing and have actually in the process of this particular bill taken time to consider to listen to and to accede to the points made by not only members on this side of the House but those who have submitted on the bill.In this part of the bill there are a number of parts that I think are very important. It highlights how when the House is considering large pieces of legislation and significant legislation even what might seem to be reasonably trivial aspects of the legislation when it is passing through the House in its stages can be overlooked in its first phase. But it is good that there is time to correct the mistakes that have been made.I want to acknowledge particularly in relation to clause 14A—and this was a change made as a result of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s consideration of the bill—the power of the judge or the registrar to waive certain fees imposed by the court particularly in relation to access to documents and also the provision in clause 14B for the arrangements and provisions for access to court documents. These are very important. These are very important not just for those in the course of a trial or the set-up of a trial—but actually often what happens is an aggrieved defendant considers they have not been dealt with properly is not sure whether it is appropriate for an appeal and wants to consider the matter and to get timely access to documents without theobstruction of the risk of fees and charges. With this change they can get access to them. It is good to see that that change has been made.Then of course there is the important provision in this part clause 15 dealing with the “Henry VIII” clause that was in the original legislation. That is now gone and this Committee is rightly saying that changes to other legislation particularly with reference to a term like crime should properly have the scrutiny and consideration of this House and its proper law-making function and that appears in here. So we welcome these changes.We welcome this bill. This is a good piece of legislation and it has been properly and well considered by the House. We only hope that the example given by this bill might be replicated in other pieces of legislation that are being promoted and pushed through this House by this Government. This stands as a benchmark to be observed and considered in other legislation. It is good that we are able to do that on this occasion even if it is in urgency and even if it is buttered up to more insidious legislation—legislation that poses greater risk to the liberty of the individual and citizens than perhaps posed by the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. The Government and the Minister in charge of the bill are to be acknowledged. They are entitled to have the credit of having managed this piece of legislation and this bill properly to the point that we are now finalising these aspects so that by 1 July we will have a good quality criminal justice system and legislation which ought to pave the way to reduce delays and provide people with the sort of fairness and procedural fairness that we expect to have in our system.I referred in my speech last night to the Rule of Law Index. New Zealand ranks seventh out of 97 countries that it presently measures for the principle of the rule of law. This legislation keeps us there. Let us not compromise our standing in the international community by rushed pieces of legislation that compromise the rights and liberties of our citizens.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I want to begin by congratulating the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Justice because I think this is a good piece of legislation the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. We intend to facilitate this legislation and Part 1 of the bill through the Committee because by so doing in the technical amendments that it is making the improvements and the picking-up on one or two things that were wrong with the original bill we will bring into effect the Criminal Procedure Legislation Act in July of this year. That Act will be of considerable assistance to New Zealand. It is designed to reduce excessive cost excessive delay and excessive complexity. It will bring in a modern and fit for purpose framework for criminal procedures.All of those things are important and I am particularly keen on the legislation going through because its origins came in at the time that I was legislation Minister and then my successors when we set up the Law Commission to work with the Ministry of Justice. I want to commend officials in both groups because they worked incredibly hard and I think by and large they got it right. Where the Government did not get it right the Government actually listened and made changes that enabled this legislation and this part of the bill to really attract consensus support.I just want to quote what the Law Society said about that. It argued that cross-party agreement was needed on criminal justice instead of politicising issues that require coherent policy. I think in this part of the bill we have got coherent policy. But the tradition of the Committee stage is that we ask questions of the Minister in the chair. I would not want the Minister to feel that he simply had to just sit there and rubber-stamp everything that happens so I have a number of questions for the Minister.The first question Minister is whether it was helpful that the groundwork for this bill was properly laid by proper process by thorough analysis and by careful consultation. Long before the original and primary piece of legislation the Criminal Procedure Act was brought in the homework was done. I think by and large people got it right and this was not a politicised piece of legislation designed simply to appeal and to win some popular support even though cynically the Minister or the Government knew that that was not going to make any change. So the first question was how important it was Minister that the groundwork was laid the research was done the analysis was clear and the consultation was had.I think Minister you will understand why I am asking that question. It is because I cannot help but contrast the way that this piece of legislation and its primary legislation has been done with the legislation rammed through by the narrowest of margins under urgency in the dead of the night last night. So I guess I am asking you Minister whether there are lessons to be learnt from this legislation that you would want to see your colleagues apply to the legislation that went through last night the legislation on the Government Communications Security Bureau and the telecommunications security bill.The second question I would like to ask the Minister—and I will just pause because the Minister is occupied at the moment. I do want him to answer these questions because they are important questions. Minister what consultation was done with key groups affected by this legislation before it was brought into Parliament? I assume Minister that this was not legislation done in ignorance of the views and the expertise and the attitudes of those who were going to be intimately affected by it. I presume that consultation with groups like the New Zealand Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association the judges and so on was done very thoroughly so that when you introduced this legislation you knew the realities on the ground—well the Chairman probably knew too because he is a very well-informed Chairman but I am referring to the Minister in this case Mr Chairman. The Minister knew that if legislation is to be good legislation then he would have to talk to the people who are most intimately affected by it and involved in it so I imagine that all of those consultations took place.Of course if the Minister did that in this bill can the Minister explain why his colleagues failed to do it in the legislation we had last night affecting telecommunications companies where they were not consulted and we do not know whether that legislation will even work? I ask this question drawing on the Minister’s experience on this bill because he is also the Minister of Corrections I think—no he is not. But he is—Dr Rajen Prasad: Shame. He should be.Hon PHIL GOFF: He should be. Who is the Minister of Corrections?Andrew Little: Anne Tolley.Hon PHIL GOFF: Anne Tolley—oh I thought she was still the Minister of Education. Judging from the utter chaos that is going on in the education area I thought she was still the Minister there. But I ask the Minister whether he is also aware of the Corrections Amendment Act which also affected telecommunications companies where consultation was not done and the Government had to do a total U-turn.So what I am really asking the Minister is whether he will use his knowledge and his reasonableness to talk to his colleagues and say: “Learn from this legislation and for heaven’s sake if we want to build coherent policy and consensus support for it and we want something that will work you’ve got to do it the right way.” I fear Minister that everything that you have done in this bill and all of the lessons that you have learnt in this bill have not been taken on board at all by your colleagues including your leader because if they were listening to this debate now and they were seeing that theOpposition was working cooperatively and constructively with the Government they would say that this is a good model in a democracy that this is how democracy should work.”So my next question is whether there was a full and proper select committee process or did the Minister decide to truncate it to try to ram the legislation through and make it as difficult as possible for experts and for members of the public to have their say on legislation which is a critical part of the democratic process. From recollection I recall that there was a full period for submissions that people were listened to with respect that the timing was designed to ensure the best possible outcome from the legislation and I commend you Minister for doing that. But I have to ask again why it is that for legislation that is critically intrusive in the privacy of New Zealanders and can open things up for the abuse of power the Government did not allow for that normal process of consultation last night when we moved the motion on the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation.What I am asking the Minister really is whether he will use his experience and his expertise and his proven ability to win the support of all of the groups that will be affected by it and all of the parties in Parliament to persuade his colleagues that they got it so hopelessly and dramatically wrong last night. My question to the Minister is whether he will pass on what his experience has been. My question is whether he will tell the Committee now that the process that he has followed has worked for good legislation has worked for the interests of the country and that this should be the model for all legislation that the Government brings through—in particular for highly controversial legislation where enormous powers are given to largely unaccountable agencies which can have huge implications for the privacy of New Zealanders and in the ultimate the establishment of a State that has powers over its citizens that contradict democratic processes and principles.Again to the Minister congratulations on this specific piece of legislation and listening to what the Law Society said about the need not to have “Henry VIII” clause powers so that you should not have the executive moving by regulations things that are substantive parts of the legislation. The Minister in this case listened to the Law Society and he made those changes. So not only in the primary legislation but also in this largely technical legislation we have seen exhibited time and again the benefits in a democratic society of getting legislation right of being fully consultative with groups and with political parties to listening to submissions—because officials are human; they do not get everything right all of the time. So we have got improvements even in this technical piece of legislation that will make the passage of this legislation easy and most important will make the outcome for New Zealand a good outcome in having legislation that will not be back before the House and will not be repealed by the new Government that will come in in 2014.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Taloha ni Mr Chairperson. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Part 1 of the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. I just want to begin where the Hon Phil Goff left off because the Minister in the chair the Hon Chester Borrows is someone who is a very good Minister and someone whom this side of the Chamber respects. I would like to just carry on what Mr Goff said and praise Chester Borrows for the way in which he has tackled this Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill because it has been absolutely textbook—absolutely textbook. You could not do it any better. If I were the Hon Judith Collins and the Hon Amy Adams I would be making an appointment with the Hon Chester Borrows just to discuss how the process should work in this New Zealand parliamentary democracy because the Hon Chester Borrows has done this textbook. He has gone out and he has assessed the situation he has consulted and he has put before this House a very good piece oflegislation. That went through the select committee scrutiny stage people submitted and gave their concerns he listened the select committee amended the legislation and that has been supported by the Minister and now this legislation is before the Committee being debated.As you have seen this is in contrast to the two previous pieces of legislation that were immediately before this Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. An outbreak of aroha has happened because of the way that this process has been put through this House. If you were watching the House roughly 15 hours ago you would have seen absolutely robust debate in fierce opposition to the legislation that was going through this House. But now because of the way that the Hon Chester Borrows has shepherded this legislation through this House in a textbook manner with cross-party coordination and consultation to make sure that this piece of legislation is fit for purpose you are seeing that this piece of legislation has very wide support. I did want to just commend the Minister in the chair for the way he has done this because I think that at least two of his colleagues—at least two of his colleagues—could certainly learn from the way he has shepherded this piece of legislation through the House.I did want to point to a section of the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill that I think will seriously address the issues that the bill sets out to address and I think Mr Goff pointed out those issues and that is the seriously excessive costs of the criminal procedure system the complexity of the criminal procedure system and also the serious delays that are happening within our court system at the moment. The Justice and Electoral Committee has inserted new clause 14A I believe which allows a judge or registrar to waive certain fees if they are satisfied that someone is unable to or should not be required to pay those fees. I think that is certainly something that will help in the process of equality of justice to help get those people where costs may be a hindrance to them getting a fair trial through the justice system through the criminal procedure system much much more easily. So I did want to commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for that change.Again it is one of those changes that have been made with cross-party support and again I did want to commend the Minister in the chair and the chair of the select committee Scott Simpson who is someone who should also get some praise for the way that this process has worked. Look at the way that has happened in that select committee process and the contrast of that in terms of what we are going to see through a truncated select committee process for the two pieces of intelligence legislation that are going through the House at the moment. There is also new clause 14B which is going to make it much easier for people to access court documents. I think that goes to the heart of addressing the issue of the complexity of the criminal procedure system where a lot of people who are going through that system were finding it very difficult to manoeuvre their way around the complexity of the system.Just before I finish I just want to reiterate again and congratulate the Hon Chester Borrows on this textbook manner in which he has done it. There has been assessment the drafting of appropriate legislation and the select committee has gone out and listened and made the appropriate amendments and we believe that the Hon Amy Adams and the Hon Judith Collins should take heed of the process that has been put in place here with the Hon Chester Borrows and look for some time in his diary.Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 Amendments to other enactmentsThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question now is that Part 2 which is debate on clauses 18 through to 34 and schedule 2 be agreed to.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I did want to make some brief comments about Part 2 in particular on clause 21 but before doing so I would like to say this. There was I think quite recently really a television advertisement for Mainland cheese. Of course the best cheese does come from the Mainland and this company produced it. The theme in their advertisement was “Good things take time.” and indeed their product was a superb product and still is and it did take time. They were very memorable advertisements and what they said most people believed to be true.In the case of this particular legislation it has taken time it has matured properly it has been considered properly and we have got a good product. So good things take time—this took time and we get a good piece of legislation out of it especially with regard to the input of the Law Society and indeed the other submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I would like to reiterate also what many others have said that it is a shame that with the previous legislation we debated—the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill—we are not seeing that. We are not seeing the Government take time. We are not seeing the electorate having the time to make a good and considered submission on that legislation as it has on this. So that is a matter of considerable regret. We can easily agree to legislation of this kind which has been well considered and of course it cannot be expected that any of the Opposition parties would be prepared to support the sort of process we saw yesterday with the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill.However I did particularly want to mention one clause in Part 2. The reason I do so is because in the first reading I questioned clause 21 which amends section 8 and that concerns “Jurisdiction in respect of crimes on ships or aircraft beyond New Zealand”. This provision would replace section 8(2) with two new provisions. The first providing that “If a person does or omits to do any act to which this section applies and that act or omission would if it occurred within New Zealand be an offence … punishable by imprisonment for life or by 2 or more years’ imprisonment then … the person is liable on conviction as if the act or omission had occurred in New Zealand.” That is fine. The second however provides that “If any proceedings are taken by virtue of the jurisdiction conferred by this section 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.” So that means that a New Zealand citizen would potentially be treated quite differently from the national or citizen of another country for the same offence in the same circumstances.I questioned at the select committee stage whether that was appropriate and it did receive proper consideration. The officials were able to satisfy me that this was not really a change at all that it was and has been for some time a provision in New Zealand law and would be consistent with the legal systems of other countries and that it would be unwise not to have such a provision in our own statute.I just wanted to mention that as I said at the beginning these sorts of provisions need to be scrutinised. We need to get them right we need to understand indeed what we are doing and make sure that they are correct and proper provisions. So as I said good things do take time. We have scrutinised that provision along with the others. We have satisfied ourselves that it is the right law and therefore it deserves support. I just thought I would place on record having raised my concern at the first reading that that concern has now been allayed and I am satisfied that this provision is good and proper and should be passed.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I want to take just a brief call on this point. I appreciate that this part of the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill deals with a gallimaufry of changes to a range of legislation.Hon Member: That’s unparliamentary!ANDREW LITTLE: The last time I used that word the Hansard transcribers got it absolutely correct so good on them. You will have to look in your dictionary. You can download dictionary apps on your iPhone very easily these days so there should be no excuse. It simply means a diverse range of things—a gallimaufry. A bit like this House—we are a gallimaufry Parliament. Some have described us in other terms but—Hon Phil Goff: Does that extend to Aaron Gilmore?ANDREW LITTLE: We are one less gallimaufry down.To go back to the point I was making before I was distracted by my colleagues this part of the bill deals with a diverse range of changes to other legislation. If I could put it in simple terms this is again part of the perfecting and refining of our criminal justice procedures. That is good and that is welcome. I note for example that clause 27C deals with witness anonymity. If there is to be a trial involving a witness that is the subject of an anonymity order then that trial is to be held at the High Court. That is entirely appropriate. It properly deals with the gravity of that situation.I said in a contribution yesterday on this bill that—and I know from talking to many lawyers—many members of the criminal bar are welcoming these changes. There is a sense of trepidation of course that goes with it but they think that this is a coherent set of measures.There is one set of lawyers who are not so welcoming of it and they are the ones who are having to travel further distances to court for their court matters and their trials because of the number of courts that have been closed down. In small courts in rural and provincial areas in what were once upon a time places where the local legal fraternity knew that there were sitting days and there were days when they could conduct their court matters—including in most of the cases affected District Court trials—that cannot now happen. Those lawyers and their clients are having to travel further distances as indeed are the witnesses including the police witnesses. So I simply make that point.It is good that we get our criminal procedures right but we need also to make sure that the fora the courts and the places where we conduct arguably one of the most important functions of our justice system—that is the administration of our penal code—are accessible to people and that people do not in addition to having to either defend themselves against accusations or if they choose to plead guilty put themselves before the mercy of the court have that compounded by the fact that the court now might be some considerable distance away. The Minister in the chair the Minister of Courts is entitled to significant bouquets for the way that he has handled this legislation but there are some brickbats concealed in those bunches of roses because of the fact that there will be some people who will find it more difficult to get access to courts to avail themselves of the procedures that we are correcting improving and brushing up on in this legislation.On that note I once again reiterate that we are supportive of the bill and of this legislation and of anything that will make access to and the administration of our criminal justice system easier.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Chester Borrows to schedule 1 be agreed to:delete the item relating to section 191.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.Schedule 2agreed to.Clause 1agreed to.Clause 2agreed to.The Committee divided the bill into the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill the Auctioneers Amendment Bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) the Criminal Disclosure Amendment Bill the Evidence Amendment Bill the Juries Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill and the Summary Offences Amendment Billpursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 233.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.