Criminal Procedure Bill

I rise in respect of clause 1, which is the title of the Criminal Procedure Bill. As has been said several times in the last few minutes, this legislation is going to change significantly the way the courts do business in respect of matters going to trial in this country. It is obviously a step that is not taken lightly by any of the parties in the House. Over the last 2 years we have had discussion after discussion in relation to what is going on here, and we have sought to make accommodations at various times.

I guess what really drew matters to a head in the last few weeks was comments made by the Chief High Court Judge, Judge Randerson, in respect of this bill and the fact that it has, in his words, languished before the House. It was disappointing for me to find out today that New Zealand First was actually voting against the transition of Part 5 of this bill, because previously when I spoke to its members they indicated that they would not be supporting my Supplementary Order Paper, now withdrawn. Over the last 2 years there has been a cross-party understanding on how this legislation would proceed, so one had an unusual example of the Green Party, the National Party, the Māori Party, United Future, Taito Phillip Field, and Gordon Copeland all supporting the premise that depositions should remain in situ as they were. The ACT party had not declared its hand at that time, and as far as we knew New Zealand First was voting for the bill in the form as it was presented. It is interesting to note that of all the parties within the House, in the circumstance as it was before we knew how voting was going to go today, in fact it would have been Labour and Jim Anderton voting against it.

I think it is a bit of a shame, really, that it has taken as long as this to have the sort of measured debate that we could have had. We tried to have the debate, and when the judge made his comments he was talking about banding of methamphetamine trials, because this bill—or Act, as it shortly will be—allows for methamphetamine trials to be run in District Courts and go through the court process a lot quicker than they should, because they are not horribly complex, they just have serious consequences, and that does not necessarily mean that they are complex.

Then we had the argument around double jeopardy, which also came up in the last couple of weeks, and the speculation, for instance, from the Prime Minister that if National would only get off its bum and vote for this legislation, then the double jeopardy rules would be in it and they would be relaxed, so if evidence could be found against someone previously found to be not guilty, then he or she would be able to be tried again. Neither of those issues had anything to do with depositions at all.

Then we had an example played out on television of a lady who had witnessed a tragedy—the murder of her daughter in horrifying circumstances—and she made the point that if depositions were to be only in written format, then she would not be retraumatised. But I think it is only fair to point out in a very measured way that in that particular case neither the prosecution nor the defence required her to give evidence. In fact, quite bravely, she chose to give evidence so that she could do good by her daughter, and to nail home the strong evidence that they had against the killer. In that case she took the opportunity to give the evidence that she very dearly wanted to give, and I believe it was her right to do so. If I were the officer in charge of that case I would be very proud that she did. But I do not believe that one incident should create the law. I believe that in the jurisdiction that we have, which is about justice, justice should also be extended to those who do not deserve it, because the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in our country actually extends to everybody. It extends to the most despised and the most hated, and to the least deserving within our community, just as it extends to those who deserve it the most. Thankfully, that is something we can bask in, in this country—that we actually live in a country with a justice system that allows us to have all the privileges and freedoms that a Western democracy can have.

But it is interesting to point out that one should not bend the law on emotions. As much as we can relate to the emotions, and as much as we can try to understand, thankfully most of us will never have to undergo the sort of tragedy that Mrs Elliott had to witness, which she then bravely gave evidence for, or the point that Louise Nicholas made when she made the same call. Hopefully, our loved ones will not be involved in those traumatic events. The fact is that one should change laws because it is right to change them. One should not be swept along on some tide of wanting to speed up a court system because it is expensive, or because it reflects badly on a ministry, or because it reflects badly on those who are administering it. I believe—and I am sure members of this House believe this in their heart of hearts—that if we are going to change something as fundamental as the criminal law, we should do so because it is right to do so.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 3), the Criminal Disclosure Bill, the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 5), the Juries Amendment Bill, the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 4), and the Victims’ Rights Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 205.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.