Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20894. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
8. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 on behalf of  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he agree with the Chief Justice that the scheme for disclosure by the defence in criminal cases contained in the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill is “inconsistent with the defendant’s right to have the prosecution prove its case beyond reasonable doubt” and with the late Chief District Court Judge that punishment at sentencing for procedural non-compliance “is conceptually incoherent and therefore arbitrary”? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No. The second part of the member’s question is mistaken because the ability to draw an adverse inference from failure to identify issues in dispute would occur at trial not at sentencing. Having cleared that up my answer to that part of the question is also no. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Does the Minister know whether his colleague the Attorney-General shares the concerns expressed by the judiciary about the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: My memory—and I stand to be corrected—is that the Attorney-General gave the bill a clear vet. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Does he know that the New Zealand Law Society the New Zealand Bar Association and the Criminal Bar Association continue to oppose key elements of the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Yes I am aware that two of those entities continue to have concerns. I have met regularly with the Law Society throughout the course of the legislation’s passage. The bill is the result of a decade of consultation with the judiciary and the legal profession three Law Commission reports 16 discussion documents and a draft bill plan which led to this bill. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Does he intend to continue to press for the enactment of the bill in light of the continuing opposition just to elements of it from the legal profession and the judiciary; if so why would he do that when there is an opportunity to pass it with the agreement of everyone in the House with those bits omitted? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: In respect of the first part of the member’s question yes; in response to the second part of the question I think the member will acknowledge that when a bill comes back from a select committee I would like to regard myself as having a reasonably open mind as to how matters can proceed. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table letters one dated 12 August 2011 from the New Zealand Bar Association one dated 15 August 2011 from the Criminal Bar Association and one from the New Zealand Law Society dated 8 August 2011 all of them concerned about elements of that bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And these are not letters to a select committee; these are letters— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.