Goff Phil: Third Readings —Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Third Readings —[Sitting date: 28 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10472. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Not only do I together with my colleagues on the Labour benches want to support these bills but also I want to commend the Associate Minister of Justice and his predecessor actually for the way in which they have conducted the process of legislation through the House. In recent times we have seen so many legislative outrages. Going back to just the last week of this session we were pushing through under urgency things that never went to a select committee at all. They did not go to a select committee and they did not get the benefit of having ordinary citizens and people who are experts in their fields come in and have a look at the legislation to make sure that what this Parliament is intending to do is actually carried out in the form of the legislation.This criminal procedure legislation actually allows us to put into effect the primary piece of legislation the Criminal Procedure Act which is a very thorough overhaul of our criminal justice system. In fact the primary Act is a massive 426 pages long. It is a huge change and Scott Simpson was very supportive of that change and attributed it somehow to the National Government. In fact this came into effect as a result of a project set up in October 2007. In fact I recall working on it some years before that as Minister of Justice. It was a huge job to do and it was a really important job to do.I think that most people looking at the New Zealand justice system say that we have got a generally good system of justice. We have integrity we have an independent judiciary and we can rely on the quality and the principles of those who operate within the justice system both on the bench and in the Ministry of Justice and the people who support them. But there were some very obvious problems with the New Zealand justice system. It came down to about four different categories. There was excessive cost and that excessive cost was caused not by thoroughness but rather by inefficiency. Wherever we can within the Public Service we need to reduce inefficiencies. We need to make sure that things are done right and that they are done properly but also that they are also done efficiently and that we are getting value for money. Our court system was replete with problems that meant that court cases took longer and we have an obligation in this House to cut down on the costs that are involved.There was also excessive delay. Court cases were taking far too long from first appearance to the final disposal of the cases. You know when court cases are drawn out in that way you then create problems for everybody involved in the system. You create problems for the victim—most important—because the victim has that agony of the court case drawn out over a much longer period. You create problems for the defendant and all defendants are innocent until proven guilty so if the court case does not stack up then that person is again on tenterhooks for much longer than should be the case. It creates problems for the juries. These are people who are taking time off work who are being paid a pittance to do so but who are prepared to participate in our justice system—and the really good thing about our justice system is that it allows for peer evaluation—but they find that a much longer period of their time is required if you have excessive delays and if you have inefficiency.The third problem with the system was excessive complexity. This was very clearly the case with legislation being spread across several statutes and seven different categories of offence. The Law Commission actually went as far as describing the courts system as “an impenetrable maze”. When the Law Commission with the eminentjurists on it reaches that determination you can really believe that there is some credibility in that criticism.The fourth and last problem with the system was that it provided an outdated legislative framework.So what we have had was this very thorough process which involved the Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice going back to October 2007 under a Labour Government setting out to make some real changes in our justice system that will improve it considerably. I think an earlier speaker mentioned that this is likely to free up something like 10000 court sitting hours that there will be 300 to 500 fewer jury trials and that there will be a reduction of 6 to 9 weeks in the time taken to conclude a jury trial. Those are huge advances. That primary legislation has gone through and it is important that we pass this legislation so that the 2011 Act can come fully into force in July of this year.This legislation largely as has been mentioned makes technical changes. It amends the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and 18 other enactments in relation to criminal procedure matters. These matters are largely things such as cross-referencing technical matters amendments to allow procedures and processes to operate as intended and amendments to references to crime reflecting the repeal of the definition of “crime” in the Crimes Act 1961 to make explicit the type of offence that is being referred to where the context requires it. The legislation also clarifies the jurisdiction of community magistrates. So those things are technical but the primary Act has real and important changes.I want to go back to what I was saying before. A good Government—a Government that is not arrogant and overbearing—takes into account the criticisms made of the legislation as introduced. Too often that does not happen. Too often you see just straight-out arrogance: “We’ll ram this through. We’ve got the numbers. To hell with the principle.” It is almost a matter of principle for the National Government if the Opposition is opposed to legislation to not make any changes and that is really unfortunate because that is not how a good democracy works.In this case the primary legislation did involve a range of things that were quite controversial. They included things like the threshold for jury trials. It was going to be extended up to I think about 3 years before you could get a jury trial yet a jury trial is something that is a traditional right under our British system of justice. It is not something that we should give away lightly. The original bill required the defence to identify and disclose issues in dispute before the trial and that would have been at the jeopardy of the position of the defendant. It would have allowed courts to proceed in the absence of a defendant—this was really quite remarkable. Again a fundamental principle of justice is that no trial should proceed in the absence of the defendant. It also involved the right to silence and compliance cost issues.There could have been a huge dispute over this piece of legislation but quite sensibly the then Minister of Justice Simon Power decided that he would listen to the criticisms that were made. He took a step back from those issues and the result is that we have a piece of legislation before us that actually has the support of all sides of the House. That makes this a very powerful piece of legislation. It has been carefully considered. It has sought and achieved consensus.I have just got to say again if only in areas—I was thinking of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) which was rammed through the other night with the Attorney-General himself saying that it breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. You know that was appalling process. That was a Government that for no good reason forced things through under urgency. It did not follow good processand did not seek consensus. This legislation stands in contrast to that and therefore this legislation will be enduring.The other thing that I would like to finally add is that there was some controversy over this legislation in the sense that it provided a regulatory power that is commonly known as a “Henry VIII” clause which is a power to make regulations that amend statutes. Again to be fair to the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee and to be fair to the Minister involved Chester Borrows they agreed that this was inappropriate and this was taken out.So I think all in all we have a piece of legislation that has followed good process that has been properly researched that has been carefully planned and that will make a real difference. It is not a piece of rubbish like the gang patches bill. This is good legislation and we are supporting it.