Little Andrew: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9730. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.