Little Andrew: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9711. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill and to confirm the Labour Party’s support for the bill. The project of overhauling our criminal procedure legislation started under the last Labour Government. It was overdue and it was a welcome change and this legislation tidies up the bulk of the work done under what is now the Criminal Procedure Act which is due to take effect on 1 July this year.I know from getting around members of the profession over the last couple of months that there is a combined sense of anxiety and also a palpable sense of thrill that the profession has about the coming into force of this legislation because there were problems—major problems—with the administration of criminal justice in this country. Foremost amongst those were the delays being experienced certainly at the District Court and also at the High Court level in many registries around the country and the profession was very keen to see changes made that would enable cases to be brought on and justice to be administered in a timely fashion as indeed it should be. As we all know justice delayed is justice denied or as it was quoted at one point last year in this House sometimes justice denied is justice delayed. The logic of that proposition of course needs no further explanation and will get none from me. So we welcome the legislation; it was the right thing to do.Now this Government has discovered there are tidy-ups required. That might call into question however the speed with which—even a piece of legislation that went through a very deliberate process can sometimes lead to flaws that have to be corrected.It was good that there was a considerable lapse of time before the implementation date for the legislation. It was 1 July this year—Hon Lianne Dalziel: Do you think they should do that to the family law?ANDREW LITTLE: —so there was time to review it. I can think of other laws where it would be entirely appropriate. In fact some legislation that had its first reading in the House only this afternoon could well do with a much more considered and deliberate time frame to make sure the Government gets it right. I can think of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill which is currently working its way through. It should have been given more ample time to have it properly considered rather than having it pushed through and becoming a great cause of anxiety to the profession. A submission period that encompassed 4 or 5 or 6 weeks of a Christmas break caused major problems for those who were offering their professional expertise and skill to assist the Justice and Electoral Committee and this House—but that is beside the point. So we welcome naturally any changes that will improve the administration of criminal justice.There is another important principle in all this which is a point that the Law Society made in its submission on this amending bill this tidy-up bill. It is that to the best extent possible criminal justice legislation—if not indeed all justice legislation—should be done in this House on a bipartisan or multipartisan basis. When we are talking about the administration of justice when we are talking about potentially imposing criminal sanctions on people depriving them of their liberty that is a matter that the House should reach agreement on for the benefit of all our citizens. It is good that this legislation has as indeed the Criminal Procedure Act had as it was being processed through the House the support by and large of the whole House. That is the way it should be. The criminal justice system needs to be robust and it requires the robust support of all parties in this House. It was good to see.Of course I speak on this bill not having had the benefit of sitting on the Justice and Electoral Committee at the time it was going through but the Government is entitled to credit for listening to the submitters and the other parties on the select committee when processing this bill. Changes were made. Although it is largely a technical bill changes were able to be negotiated and were indeed made. A principal change which the Hon Chester Borrows adverted to in his presentation just now was the “Henry VIII” clause that would have allowed changes to primary legislation and references to the term “crime” in that legislation to be amended through Order in Council. That has gone under this bill. That is the correct thing to do. The term “crime” whether it is in the Crimes Act or in any other piece of legislation is a sensitive term a term of art in many respects and if that term is to be changed in any legislation then it should have the proper oversight and scrutiny of this House. That will be the case with this bill as reported back to the House from the committee.There were other amendments made. The clarification of charging documents—we are no longer having informations laid in the criminal justice system. We are to have charging documents. The procedures and rules around the waiving of fees to access documents to clarify are improved and that is a good thing.The administration of criminal justice is a crucial aspect to the principle of the rule of law and it is our adherence to the rule of law as a principle and in practice that makes us a developed modern civilised nation. That must underpin what we do in criminal justice and indeed in any justice legislation that we pass. But I think it is timely to point out in this regard that in too many other cases we have a Government at the moment that is showing a willingness to ride roughshod over basic rights and principles and that runs counter to adherence to the principle of the rule of law. We have seen tonight inother debates exactly that risk being taken that threat being imposed in the debating and passage of other legislation.The rule of law is absolutely crucial. That is why the World Justice Project sponsored by the American Bar Association now has a rule of law index for every country in the world. New Zealand presently rates reasonably well in that rule of law index but it is the actions of this House and of Government agencies that will determine whether we maintain our high ranking in that register. We do not want to compromise our position. Having a good standing and a good rating on the rule of law puts us in good stead internationally not only as good international citizens of the world but also for our commercial and trading partners to know that this is a place where they can reliably do business. They must also know that when citizens of other States come here and they are subject to a criminal regime that criminal regime will also be subject to the basic principles of the rule of law.But that is not what we have seen in other situations. Only today and yesterday we have seen the Minister of Justice talking about as a knee-jerk reaction introducing a new register of deported offenders—New Zealand citizens deported back to New Zealand after committing offences in other countries—as a permanent record of their offending and with no scope for them to put their evil past behind them and embark on a good future. We have seen that the Family Court reforms launched on this House have now had to be changed because of some of the failures to observe basic principles of the rule of law—denial of the rights of counsel particularly to children which we know is a breach of our international obligations under international conventions. The rule of law remains important and that is why this bill is one of those bills where we see that when the House gets it right our standing and our place when it comes to measures of the rule of law are good and sit at a high level; it is the right thing to do. On that basis we are thankful for the Government taking the time and effort to listen on this criminal justice legislation and we support this legislation.