Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill

I move, That the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill.

There has been a growing criticism of criminal procedure in New Zealand in the last few decades. It has been described as an impenetrable maze. It has been plagued by excessive delays and unnecessary hearings, and costs have been mounting. The Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and its 14 associated amendment Acts, which passed in October last year, modernised and simplified criminal procedure. In fact, they represented the biggest reform in the modernisation of criminal justice procedure in nearly two generations. These Acts consolidated criminal procedure law and introduced a comprehensive package of reforms to make the criminal justice system more transparent, understandable, and efficient. The reforms are expected to result in over 31,000 fewer court events per year. It is estimated that they will free up about 10,000 court sitting hours each year. The reforms have the potential to take up to 9 weeks off the average time of cases that go to jury trial. The overall reforms have the potential to increase the efficiency of the courts to the value of about $15 million over a 10-year period.

A small number of provisions, including those relating to the name suppression and sentence indication provisions, came into effect in March 2012. However, the majority of the legislation will commence in July 2013.

Since the enactment several technical issues have been identified in the Criminal Procedure Act and a small number of other Acts. Some may criticise the Government for needing to introduce this legislation, but, as members will know, the bill giving rise to the Criminal Procedure Act and its associated Acts was complex and well over 500 pages in length. There is a high degree of interrelationship between the relevant legislation. Given the sheer scale and scope of the legislation, some of the minor errors, although regrettable, are unsurprising. Further, the bill was amended at the select committee, and again at the Committee of the whole House, to address concerns raised about aspects of the reforms.

Some resulting minor cross-referencing and other technical deficiencies have been identified since enactment. The lead-in time from enactment of this legislation to its full commencement has provided for training and systems changes to implement the new criminal procedures, and it is in that context that the need for a number of these technical fixes has been identified. The amendments in this bill are of such a technical nature that they would normally be suitable for inclusion in a Statutes Amendment Bill. However, as the remainder of the 2011 criminal procedure legislation is intended to commence on 1 July 2013, these amendments must be in place by that date. This year’s stand-alone bill is not guaranteed to be enacted by that date, which necessitates this stand-alone bill.

The amendments fall largely into six categories. First, there are some purely technical drafting and cross-referencing errors in the Act for example, incorrect section references. Second, in a small number of instances the bill enhances certain procedural provisions to ensure that they will be fully implemented and will operate as intended. Examples include the clause 6 amendment relating to the period to file a summons, and the clause 7 amendments relating to the ability of a prosecutor to join charges without the court’s leave. Third, the regulation-making powers in the Criminal Procedure Act are extended so that terminology and procedures in other legislation can be aligned with those of the Criminal Procedure Act by regulations. This will reduce the need for the House to devote its time to unnecessarily considering minor technical amendments. Fourth, there are amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act to give effect to the intent that community magistrates have jurisdiction to receive guilty pleas for certain offences for which they will have sentencing jurisdiction. Fifth, other legislation will be amended to align with the terminology and procedures of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Finally, a small number of enactments are amended to replace references to the term “crime”, where that is required. Currently, “crime” is defined in the Crimes Act 1961 as an offence where an offender is proceeded against by indictment.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Oh, soft on the definition of crime.

Soft on crime, that is right.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: No, soft on the definition of crime.

Soft on crime and the definitions of crime—let us put it that way. The Criminal Procedure Act replaces indictments with charging documents—

💬 Charles Chauvel: Careful, Judith is listening from afar.

—she is away—and offences are categorised by penalty level, rather than by how they are proceeded against. Accordingly, upon commencement the definition of a crime will be repealed—the Greens will vote for it, no doubt. Several Acts contain references to a crime—for example, the Crimes Act 1961. It is an offence without lawful authority or excuse to have one’s face covered or disguised, with intent to commit a crime. The bill makes a small number of amendments to a few Acts to replace the term “crime” with a reference to the most appropriate offence type in the context of each Act. In the case of a person having their face covered or being disguised, the reference to a crime is replaced with a reference to an imprisonable offence. This will align with a change already made to the burglary offence in the criminal procedure reforms.

This bill is not contentious. It is a technical, non-controversial piece of legislation. It will clarify and give full effect to legislation that this House has already approved. It will ensure that the largest criminal procedure reforms in 50 years can be implemented effectively and coherently and that the benefits predicted are fully realised. The amendments will enhance operational efficiency. This legislation will provide greater clarity for defence counsel, prosecutors, and the judiciary, who will be required to apply the legislation. On that basis, I expect the bill will receive wide support from all parties, and I commend the bill to the House.

The Associate Minister of Justice consulted the Opposition about the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill and we indicated, on the basis of his undertaking that it would contain only technical amendments in the nature of a statutes amendment - type provision, that we would support the legislation, and we will do so.

May I just take this opportunity to talk a little bit about the history of the legislation to which this amendment bill relates, because that is an approach to criminal justice that we have attempted to show in good faith in this Parliament and in the last Parliament also. The Minister referred to the history of the substantive legislation, the Criminal Procedure Act, and he made reference to the amendments that had been made in the select committee—he will remember those well because he chaired that select committee—but also in the Committee of the whole House. It is at the Committee of the whole House that I think the House needs to just remind itself of what was done with this legislation, because I think there are some lessons, and if Government members want to learn them, they can, so that we can avoid this sort of thing happening again and again, where we have to come back and repair legislation that was passed within only the last 12 months.

The history that I refer to is this. The original legislation was a big reform to criminal procedure. I am a little unsure of the grandiose claim that it is the largest reform to criminal procedure in 50 years, but I do not blame the Minister for making that claim—I see he was reading his notes and I have heard his predecessors make that claim. It certainly was, though, a major reform, and members of the Opposition agreed in principle that we could do better in terms of the processes of our criminal courts.

Where we were concerned was with the very sweeping nature of the original substantive reform proposals. In particular, we were worried about the restrictions on the right to trial by jury, and also to alterations to the presumption of innocence where, essentially, the original legislation would have required the defence to cooperate with the prosecution in a way that would offend that principle. I think it is instructive to remember that the Law Society was on board with those concerns, as was much of the legal profession and many of the civil rights groups, and eventually the opposition to the measure, because of those particular proposals, grew so great that the Minister of Justice at the time, Simon Power, lost his majority in the House as to the measure progressing. That was because the ACT Party in particular, which was better represented in the previous Parliament—at least as far as numbers are concerned—withdrew its support for the legislation. It was concerned about the jury trial and presumption of innocence erosions in particular. I want to pay tribute to Rodney Hide for the way in which he dealt with the matter. Once he realised the extent of the concerns and the erosion of those fundamental liberties that the original bill would represent, he did withdraw that party’s support and that did force the Minister to the negotiating table.

As a result of that negotiation, the changes that were mentioned by the Associate Minister of Justice were made in the Committee of the whole House. They followed on from some changes in the select committee process as well.

But if we had had a process from the beginning where the Government had been willing to sit down and say: “Look, this is the aim here. We want to reform criminal procedure. The current procedures are clumsy and we think we can do better.”, we would have cooperated. We would have talked about the principles, we could have avoided the excesses of the original bill, the Minister would not have lost his majority midway through the process, and we probably would not be in the position that we are in now.

I am not saying this because I like to get up and say: “I told you so.” I am saying it because I think that if we do want to achieve some certainty in justice policy generally, and in criminal justice policy in particular, then we ought to try to treat this legislation as a bit of a learning exercise. It was not as if this was not foreseeable. I want to read out to the House what the president of the Law Society said to the Justice and Electoral Committee, when the Associate Minister of Justice was its chair, at the time it was considering the substantive legislation. He said, first: “Cross-party agreement is needed on criminal justice instead of the continued politicisation of a matter that requires coherent cross-party agreement.” He went on to predict that the bill as introduced would last only around a year before Parliament would be required to review it again. So it was critical, in his view, that we give careful consideration to a very important piece of legislation and actually provide certainty going forward. That is pretty instructive when you think about the time that amending legislation of this nature requires to be devoted to it.

This is not a matter where there is particularly significant political disagreement. Speeding up the criminal process while maintaining basic human rights is not something that I think is taken issue with across the House, but because the Minister of Justice at the time was just determined to pursue his agenda, and did so until the very last moment, when he lost political support, we are now in the position where the hasty amendments that had to be made as a result are now having to be repaired.

If we are trying to learn some lessons from this, then we should also think about another thing that the president of the Law Society said at the time that he made his submission, and that is that we have got this process round the wrong way. We are dealing with procedure, which sits in the middle of any sort of ideal reform process, not at the start. There are two substantive Acts of Parliament, the Crimes Act 1961 and the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, that are ancient. They have been amended many times. They need re-enactment not only because they are a minefield to try to read and construe but because they are out of date with contemporary social conditions. Anyone would think that if a criminal law reform project were being pursued in good faith, if it were to live up to the claim to be the greatest reform for 50 years, a Government might actually start with the substantive legislation rather than leaving Acts that are over 60 years or 70 years in vintage on the book without reform.

They might even think about looking at the drivers of crime on a non-partisan basis. That was an invitation that my colleague and friend Lianne Dalziel made to the previous Minister of Justice, particularly in respect of alcohol law reform, to no avail. She received no positive response to that, and if we want to consider the whirlwind that is being reaped as a result of that, we need look only as far as the botched alcohol law reform exercise that this Parliament is scheduled to complete in the next 4 sitting days.

But, as I said, the Law Society said this: start with the drivers of crime, deal with the substantive statute, and then you might be able to get coherently and rationally to criminal procedure issues. You might even then look at the evidence rules and the other rules of court that are applied. But for some reason we had this process start right in the middle on the procedural points. We had, as I described earlier, the political fiasco that resulted when the Minister was not able to push through the erosion of fundamental rights that he wanted to achieve, and the resulting amendments, which were not made in a coherent fashion, which bring us back to the position that we are in tonight where we are having to do a rushed fix-up job in Parliament now.

This approach is not limited in the justice field to criminal procedure. I mentioned alcohol law reform. I could talk about legal services and legal aid, where the Opposition has always accepted that efficiencies and rationalisation should be made not on the basis of fiat, not on the basis of the Minister of Justice telling the profession and consumers of legal services that she knows best, but actually through sitting down and negotiating changes. We had the Family Court reform legislation read a first time today, and that is another classic example of a position where the family law practitioners came up with efficiencies and a plan to reduce costs in the Family Court. They were simply ignored by the Minister, who thought and still thinks that she knows better because she has the advice from the officials that she seems determined to bulldoze through.

This is not a coherent way to run justice policy, and if the Government continues this way, we will simply be back here again dealing with these fix-up jobs ad infinitum.

I thank the member who has just resumed his seat, Charles Chauvel, for that historical discourse and, in particular, for his confirmation that the Labour Party will be supporting this bill, the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. I also thank the Associate Minister of Justice for his very comprehensive overview of the purposes of the legislation. I have to say that I think he has left one or two of his colleagues who will be speaking later in this debate wondering just how much material is left for a fresh and exciting angle, but I am sure that they will rise to the challenge when the moment comes.

My friend and former colleague Paul Quinn once memorably thundered in this House: “Justice denied is justice not done.” Well, I have to say that it is very hard to argue with the logic of that, but I think the expression he was looking for was: “Justice delayed is justice denied.” And, of course, that wonderful “Quinnism”, which I and so many of us still wish we could occasionally enjoy, sprang to mind tonight as I was looking at the purposes of this bill, because it is about ensuring the timely delivery of justice and, all jokes aside, we know that that is a very important, vital feature of an effective and fair justice system.

There are many expected benefits to this particular measure, and, therefore, I am pleased, as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, to say that even though we have a very busy agenda over the next few months, we will do our best to work through this as expeditiously as possible. I do take on board the point the Minister has made, which is that although this might ordinarily be more appropriately dealt with through a Statutes Amendment Bill, in fact, there is a pressing need to get on with it. We will be doing our level best to ensure that that is possible, and I do hope that the cooperative spirit that we have had already indicated from Labour members will be indicated by others.

So at this point I just want to note that the changes in this bill do form another important part of the very significant pattern of justice initiatives that this busy National-led Government has been working on. We are determined to improve the criminal justice system. In particular, we have been working very firmly to put victims at the heart of the process, and their families, to ensure that they get a much better deal under our judicial system. These are all important components of it. I look forward to working on the bill. I commend it to the House.

My colleague Charles Chauvel has highlighted, I think, one of the primary lessons that we need to learn from the fact that this legislation, the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill, is in front of the House so soon after the original legislation was passed. If we are to avoid bringing forward amending legislation such as this to correct what could have been anticipated at the time, and if we are also to avoid the now ubiquitous unintended consequences of legislation once passed, then we could do much by adopting a much more collaborative approach around these issues. I think that is what the Law Society was asking of us, saying that a cross-party agreement really is needed on criminal justice. Instead of politicising issues, we need to be looking for coherent policy where we can achieve that. I think that that is actually the approach that we have adopted on this side of the House, and both in Government and in Opposition. I just want to reflect a little on where we have missed the opportunity of doing so, because a cross-party accord on these matters has a lot to commend it, but it is, actually, quite challenging, I think, in the environment that we find ourselves in when we are dealing with controversial issues.

Taking it back a step, when I was the Minister of Commerce I consulted with the Opposition spokesperson on commerce, who just happened to be the former Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power. We worked together on a relatively collaboratively basis on issues that we knew were going to transcend electoral cycles, and we felt that it was important that we were able to get as much cross-party accord on those issues as we possibly could. I think, on commerce issues, everyone would agree that they were relatively non-controversial, that they were not the sort of things that excited passions, and that people did not come down to the House and table-thump and do that sort of emotional, attention-seeking behaviour that we sometimes see in this House—I cannot imagine why. But when I became the chair of the select committee, I realised that there was a whole different relationship that you have to have with a Minister when you are an Opposition spokesperson and the chair of the select committee. It is quite a different relationship. I actually learnt a lot from having that role. I think maybe it was just the dynamics of having that role in that particular relationship on a relatively non-controversial area such as commerce and where, I think everyone would agree, there was a relatively seamless transition from one Government to the other, from one Minister to the other, and, indeed, from one select committee to the other. I think that we all respected each other’s roles, and were able to gain a lot from that.

We do not do that in the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think the reason that we do not do that in the Justice and Electoral Committee is that there are controversial elements that sit around things relating to criminal procedure—not so much the procedure but, of course, the “tough on crime” approach that one has to address as a politician, as constituents, obviously, are wanting to hear from Governments what they are going to do to reduce crime. But I also think that this has been a really salutary lesson to all of us. If we do not actually find a way of achieving that kind of cross-party consensus on these kinds of issues, then we do end up in a situation where we have to take up the time of the House and introduce amending legislation such as this.

What I found interesting about this particular piece of legislation is that it could have been included within a Statutes Amendment Bill, such is its lack of controversy. It is that straightforward that we could have put it in a Statutes Amendment Bill. But the reason that it is not in a Statutes Amendment Bill is that there is no guarantee that the Statutes Amendment Bill would be enacted by the date that it is required to be enacted by in order for this legislation to come into effect. Well, I think we really do have to take stock of what that actually means. It means that we have missed a golden opportunity to sit down together and work collaboratively to find a solution to the problem, rather than having to bring about individual legislation. I think that what we have ended up with is that sometimes we end up in this House debating legislation and then voting to support legislation because of the impact that we think our opposition to it would have, rather than having a constructive debate about what the actual legislation should be.

I just do want to mention the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act, which is in place at the moment. When we passed that legislation, I believe that we voted for it on our side of the House in good faith. I believe, now, that it is being implemented in a completely inappropriate manner. It is completely out of line. We are no longer in an emergency response situation. We no longer need urgent powers. It is 2 years since the first earthquake, and nothing really major is happening in terms of what is happening in Christchurch. But we voted for that legislation because we were placed, I believe, under considerable pressure, both within the House and outside the House, in order to support the Government’s stated intention of facilitating the recovery. Everyone wants to facilitate the recovery in Christchurch, but what we have ended up with is legislation that is now being used to browbeat people into accepting terms and conditions for the enforced sale of their properties, which they really, really have no alternative but to accept. That is unacceptable. So we have ended up in almost a breach of human rights situation, which we would have ended up in if we had accepted the original legislation that this bill is predicated on, as well.

I just think that sometimes we need to have, as a House, the capacity to step back, take stock. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act was legislation that was rammed through this House under urgency. I think that if we do that and the legislation has that kind of impact or potential impact beyond an emergency situation, I believe we have to, as a matter of urgent responsibility, have a review period so that we can decide as a Parliament whether we reinstate the legislation after a particular period of time. I am deeply unhappy that that legislation sits there for 5 years without any opportunity to review the impact of what are very Draconian powers. At least in this instance the Government has taken the initiative to amend the legislation ahead of its taking effect. That is the appropriate thing to do. But I believe that the House should take warning from what we have had to confront with this particular legislation and think of it in the context of other legislation, where it could actually be used in a much more appropriate manner. On that basis, we are perfectly happy to support this to the select committee and we look forward to its early passage.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. Because this is a very non-controversial bill that makes a number of technical amendments and minor fixes, we have no problem supporting this legislation at its first reading. But I would like to, in this speech, raise two concerns.

When the initial Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill came up in the last term of Parliament, the Green Party had serious concerns about that bill, in particular because it reduced access to jury trials, in our view. What we have seen, I think, in the justice area from this Government is a pattern of restricting access to justice. Some of that was through the changes to the Family Court and the changes to legal aid. There is a definite pattern on the part of this Government to trade off core principles like fairness for cost cutting or efficiency. It is the Green Party’s view that it is simply not possible to trade off a core principle of democracy—fairness, access to justice—for the sake of efficiency. It is simply not possible.

Secondly, and which was highlighted by previous speakers, in particular Charles Chauvel, is the poor process that has been adopted by this Government time and time again with legislation. What we have here is a bill that needs to be passed quite quickly in order to make a large number of technical fixes. Of course, it is quite possible that we would not be in the position of having to take up the time of the House on something so uncontroversial and non-substantive if there had been a good process adopted in the beginning.

Of course, that is something that we have seen time and time again. One thing that has been great this year is we have not seen as much urgency as was applied in the last term of Government. But this idea that somehow you can take a heavy-handed, single-minded approach—a sort of “our way or the highway; we are going to rush in and impose our view and not take the time to consult properly and to work collaboratively with members across the House” approach—actually does not save time. It does not result in better outcomes. It results in the time of the House being taken up for non-substantive legislation.

Those would be the two concerns that I would like to highlight in speaking to this bill. The Green Party does not have any objection to the technical fixes, but we are certainly concerned about the pattern of poor law-making and of restricting access to justice that we consistently see from this National Government. Thank you.

It is a huge pleasure to take a brief call on this, the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. I want to acknowledge the support from across the House on this bill. It was Earl Warren who said that it is “the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive.” Although I would not want to gainsay the eminent jurist, I believe we cannot dismiss form of law in such a cavalier fashion. Justice must be delivered in an efficient and a timely manner. These integrated sets of reforms will address significant problems with current criminal procedure.

Criticisms of criminal procedure over the past 20 years can be summarised under four broad headings. The first of these is excessive delay. For example, the median time to dispose of a High Court jury trial is around 16 months—an increase of approximately 5 months in the past 5 years. Another problem is excessive complexity. The main laws for criminal procedure, the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 and Parts 12 and 13 of the Crimes Act 1961, have been amended numerous times over 50 years, resulting, as the Associate Minister of Justice said, in an impenetrable maze for most non-lawyers.

Outdated legislative framework is another problem. The current provisions were drafted on the assumption of a paper-based system, creating barriers to the use of modern technology. Another problem, of course, is excessive cost. It is estimated that there are approximately 43,000 unnecessary court appearances a year in the criminal jurisdiction, and more than two-thirds of court cases that reach a defended hearing fail to proceed on the day.

Broadly speaking, these changes will lead to an estimated 37,000 fewer court events, 200 to 450 fewer jury trials, a 6 to 9-week reduction in the average time to complete a jury trial, and potentially millions of dollars of savings. I commend this bill to the House.

New Zealand First supports the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. It is not one of those earth-shaking pieces of legislation that will mark the 50th Parliament, nor is it a bill that the Associate Minister of Justice will be remembered for, and nor is it a bill that the National Government will be hanging its reputation on. Indeed, it is hanging itself perfectly well in a number of other ways.

The nature of the amendments this bill makes to various Acts is largely technical, arising from the passing of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The amendments fall into four categories: firstly, a number of cross-referencing and other minor technical fixes, which form the bulk of the bill and are straightforward; secondly, amendments to ensure the procedures and processes under the 2011 Act can be fully implemented to operate as intended, which also appear to me to be perfectly straightforward; and, thirdly, there are references to crime in several statutes that need to be amended, due to the repeal of the definition of “crime” in the Crimes Act 1961. Examples are clause 4, which amends section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and concerns interpretation. The amendment adds a definition of “imprisonable offence”. Clause 32 amends section 11 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, which concerns the theft of controlled drugs. The amendments there replace “crime” with “offence”. Clause 34, which amends section 28 of the Summary Offences Act 1981, concerns being found in a public place preparing to commit a crime. The amendments again replace “crime” with “imprisonable offence”. So it is all pretty simple, straightforward stuff.

The fourth category of amendments gives community magistrates jurisdiction to receive guilty pleas for certain category 2 offences, being those in respect of which community magistrates have sentencing jurisdiction. The opportunity is also taken to clarify with greater specificity other aspects of community magistrates’ jurisdiction. Those are also sensible amendments. And there are powers, as we have heard, to use expanded regulating powers for all of these sorts of purposes.

The only substantial change that I can see appears to be in clause 21, which amends section 8 of the Crimes Act 1961. This concerns jurisdiction in respect of crimes on ships or aircraft beyond New Zealand. The amendments replace section 8(2) with two provisions. The first provides that if a person commits a criminal act on a New Zealand ship or aircraft to which section 8 applies, and that act or omission would, if it occurred within New Zealand, be an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or by 2 years’ imprisonment or more, then the person is liable on conviction as if the act or omission occurred in New Zealand.

I have no problem with that, but the second provision provides that if any proceedings are taken against a foreign citizen by virtue of jurisdiction conferred by section 8, in relation to a crime on a New Zealand ship or aircraft, it is a defence to prove that the act or omission would not have been an offence under the law of the country of which the person charged was a national or citizen at the time of the act or omission, if it had occurred in that country. There is no explanation given as to why this apparently new defence is to be allowed. Perhaps the Minister could advise us about that, because as far as I could see it would simply mean that a New Zealand citizen committing a crime under New Zealand law on a New Zealand ship or aircraft would be liable for prosecution, but a foreign citizen committing the same crime would have a complete defence if he or she could show that it is not a crime under his or her country’s law. Why would that defence be allowed for an offence on a New Zealand ship or aircraft? It seems to me to be inappropriate for New Zealand citizens and foreign citizens on New Zealand ships and aircraft to be treated so differently. Presumably there is a good reason, but I would like to hear an explanation of it.

With that reservation New Zealand First will support the bill, which, as I have already said, is largely technical in nature and simply makes sensible and practical changes in relation to the operation of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

It is my pleasure to take a call on the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill tonight. I am going to take just a very brief call. Obviously, this bill has got the support of all the parties in the House. There are very straightforward amendments in this bill.

We have had Charles Chauvel speak about the history. We have had people talk about criticisms of the current criminal procedures. We have discussed tonight the four categories of the amendments. We have also discussed the main provisions in the bill. This is a very simple and straightforward bill.

The previous speaker, Denis O’Rourke, talked about maritime issues, and we will debate those in the Justice and Electoral Committee, I am sure. And I am sure we will be inundated with hundreds of submissions on that point you have just raised. The bill will come back to the select committee, we will have a discussion around it, and I am sure we will get that sorted out for you and get some clarification for you around those issues you raised.

It is my pleasure to support this bill in the House tonight. Thank you.

As previous Labour speakers have indicated, we will be supporting this piece of legislation, the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. It is a small, technical bill. It is not controversial. It is not contentious. It does remedy technical deficiencies in the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill, which went through just last year. I tend to agree with the Minister who introduced it, Chester Borrows. We are not going to make a big deal about those deficiencies. It was a substantial bill. It was 520 pages. Sometimes Governments get those things wrong, or draftspeople get those things wrong.

But what I want to say is that this is also a bill that does not address some of the huge problems that we are seeing in criminal justice procedure at the present time. This bill, for example, does nothing to remedy the disastrous situation in Auckland with the new system of processing Family Court cases. That system is a system that lawyers and judges alike have said is an absolute shambles. The quote in the media was that affidavits were going missing, judges were not being given complete files, there were delays of several months in hearing dates, sealed orders were not being sent, and emails and voice messages were going unanswered. That—as Mr Borrows knows well because he was the Minister in charge of that failed experiment—has proven to be an absolute disaster. There is nothing in this bill that remedies that mess, which is a mess of the Minister’s and the Government’s own making.

Sadly, there is nothing in this bill that remedies another serious problem that the Minister alluded to before about justice delayed being justice denied. The Minister will know that there is a backlog of 900 jury court cases in Auckland—900. I want to know from the Minister when he is going to bring in a piece of substantive legislation, or put the resources in, or make the changes necessary to address that other disaster in Auckland. So we have got a disaster in the Family Court system where procedures simply are not working, because the Government has botched it. We have got a disaster in a growing backlog of jury cases in Auckland, where we are denying justice.

We had a near-disaster caused by the Government introducing legal aid legislation that would have stripped the system completely of equity. Because the other way of denying justice is not simply delaying it, Minister; it is making justice inaccessible to people because of a user-pays system. The Minister knows that the threshold level for income that the Government was intending to introduce would have stripped access to justice from a whole cross-section of New Zealanders. New Zealanders, regardless of whether they are rich or poor, are entitled to have access to the justice system. What sort of justice system is it that is based on ability to pay? Sadly, in an earlier bill today we saw more of that coming in, with a proposed $1,000 fee for people to have access to family dispute resolution processes. That access used to be free. It will not be free now.

So we have this little piece of legislation, it does make technical amendments, but it leaves untouched the disaster that is happening across our justice system in each of the four areas that I have just talked about.

I want to pick up some of the points that Lianne Dalziel made, because I thought they were well made, and one is that in a proper Parliament justice issues should be handled, wherever possible, in a bipartisan way. They should be evidence-driven. They should be well researched. Changes being made should be properly trialled. But, sadly, once again, earlier this afternoon we saw a piece of legislation that did none of those things—that did none of those things. I think the Law Society—the President of the Law Society, Jonathan Temm—was right in saying it is incumbent upon Parliament to pick up these issues and work to try to find a resolution to problems that are afflicting our justice system, rather than being dog whistle, as too much of the legislation in this Parliament has been. It has not been actually about improving the justice system. It has been about trying to scratch an electoral itch, appealing to a concern in the community, and that is inherently dishonest, because what the Government is doing is pretending to implement a solution, quite cynically, that it knows will not be a solution to the problem, at all. That leaves the safety and the well-being of New Zealanders at risk.

The other part of what the Government has done wrong is that too often it has rushed stuff through. I cannot say that about the original criminal procedure legislation. That actually had its origins under Labour in 2007, in the simplification project. It was a good concept. We needed to make the procedure more efficient. We needed to make it more effective. We worked on that. The legislation was ultimately carried through by the National Government, but, even then, it brought in things that were inherently controversial and unacceptable. We all wanted a more efficient system, but too much, in terms of longstanding human rights, was under threat in the original criminal procedure legislation.

I have got to pay tribute to Charles Chauvel and what the Labour Opposition did in bringing in a minority report that was persuasive to other members of the Opposition, but also persuasive to the Government’s support parties, the Māori Party and the ACT Party. The Government had to reverse some of the controversial measures that it was putting up there. It had to bring back the threshold for a jury trial, for example, from the 3 years that it was proposing, to 2 years. It had to reverse its proposal that a person could be tried in their absence. God, since the Magna Carta that has not been allowed anywhere else in the world, and this Government was trying to do it.

So a lot of mistakes have been made by the National Government, yet the Labour Party stands ready as a constructive party of opposition not only to exercise proper scrutiny over what the Government is doing but also prepared to assist and to help to improve the legislation, as we did with that Criminal Procedure Act. Without the Labour Party and the stand that Labour took, it would not have been improved in the way that it was. So we certainly lifted the Government’s game in that respect.

The amendments that we are looking at in this bill are essentially technical. It provides cross-referencing and other minor, technical fixes. It ensures that processes and procedures that are necessary to implement the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 are actually in place. It deals with the repeal of the definition of crime in the Crimes Act, and makes consequential amendments there. It gives effect to changes in the jurisdiction of community magistrates. There is nothing in this bill that we are opposed to inherently.

I want to use this bill as an example that where a Government brings in a piece of legislation that does the right thing, we are not going to oppose for the sake of opposing. But the Government itself needs to show the same sort of flexibility. It is sad that we are going to be looking at an Alcohol Reform Bill in 2 days’ time where National members of Parliament will be forced to vote against their own preference and their own best instincts, because they are being forced to toe the party line. A little thing like having proper regulation for ready-to-drinks is something that is cross-partisan. I have talked to my colleagues across the other side of the House, and they think it is necessary, but they are being prevented from voting for it, and that is wrong. I mention that because it is an example of a Government that is ideologically driven, driven by the power of vested interest groups, and does not take a sufficiently bipartisan approach to get the best out of this House to get the best legislation for New Zealand. Labour will be supporting this piece of legislation because it does the right thing. It opposed the legislation earlier today because it was ill-thought-out, half-baked, and bound to be a disaster in terms of its implementation, and we have a requirement on us to expose the deficiencies of the Government in that regard.

This bill will pass. It will pass with our cooperation. But the lesson that the National Government should learn is to make sure its legislation is evidence-driven, make sure it is not driven by the power of vested interests, make sure it is not simply ideological, and make sure, most of all, that it is not dog whistle. Far too much of the legislation in the justice area before Parliament has been all of those things, and that will be the legacy of this Government when it goes in a couple of years’ time. It will be a large percentage of justice legislation that changes nothing and does nothing. This bill, however, is technical. It is non-controversial. We will be supporting it.

I rise to take a call on the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. The last speaker, the Hon Mr Phil Goff, ended his speech with the words “changes nothing” and “does nothing”. He talked about us being a shambles, and said this was rushed legislation. Well, I just need to remind him that the crime rate in New Zealand is at a 30-year low. You will not hear him say that. There has been an average 15 percent reduction across all crime over recent years, since we have come into office. Those sorts of statistics he does not choose to share and to talk about. But the general public have confidence now because they are seeing that there is safety, for the concerns that they have had in our communities.

The issue around the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill is dealing with some of the problems that many stakeholders have been concerned about over a number of years—in fact, over 20 years. They have summarised them in a number of ways—people have talked about them, and we are just reasserting them—in the sense that there have been excessive delays. National believes—and it was talked about—that justice delayed is justice denied, and this bill will ensure that timely justice is delivered for victims, witnesses, defendants, and the community. I know that those are some of the issues that we were wanting to put forward.

Excessive complexity—for example, the main laws for criminal procedures, the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 and Parts 12 and 13 of the Crimes Act 1961, have been amended numerous times over 50 years, resulting in a very difficult system for non-lawyers to proceed with. The proposals build on the changes already under way to improve the criminal justice system, including the removal of oral depositions hearings, legal aid reforms, victims of crime initiatives, and the roll-out of audiovisual links between courts and prisons.

The other challenge that is in the system at present is the outdated legislative framework. For example, the current provisions were drafted on the assumption of a paper-based system, creating barriers to the use of modern technology. Over the last 10 to 20 years the law relating to criminal procedures has attracted increasing criticism. The principle statutes governing criminal procedures are out of date and inflexible.

Excessive costs—for example, it is estimated that there are approximately 43,000 unnecessary court appearances a year in the criminal jurisdiction, and more than two-thirds of those cases that reach a defended hearing fail to proceed on the day. We cannot continue to mask the delays and inefficiencies in criminal procedures by simply building more courthouses and appointing more judges. Reforming criminal procedure makes the justice system more responsive to the needs of victims and witnesses. I commend this bill to the House.

It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. This, as my colleagues have pointed out, is a technical bill. I am not quite sure what bill the last speaker, Alfred Ngaro, was referring to, because I do not see a reference to the reduction in the number of prisons and the various other things he talked about. That is not provided for in this legislation. Indeed, this Government is going in the opposite direction and building big prisons—very big ones—for example, the Wiri Prison. The Government may have closed down a couple of older prisons but the prison population under this Government looks like it has a very healthy future ahead of it, the way it is going.

This bill is very technical, as I said before. It does simple things like replace references to the word “crime” with the word “offence”, because we now have offences under legislation and we do not have just crimes. That provides for some sort of flexibility. It also clarifies what an imprisonable offence is for a body corporate. This is potentially very important. If I am fortunate enough to have my Crimes (Corporate Manslaughter) Amendment Bill drawn from the ballot this week or at some point in the future—

💬 Charles Chauvel: A very well-drafted bill.

A well-drafted bill. A well-crafted bill, I would describe it as—it goes beyond just drafting. It has been crafted. If, indeed, this Government responds seriously, as it should, to the royal commission’s report on Pike River and itself introduces a corporate manslaughter bill, then this legislation here, when it describes an imprisonable offence and describes what it is for a body corporate, will make sense.

The bill goes on to clarify the requirements for charging documents, which, as I understand it, used to be called informations. But for charging documents it has actually set out crimes or offences that are being pursued, particularly in relation to private prosecutions brought by an individual as opposed to private prosecutions brought by a body corporate, which at least, of course, can happen now under the Health and Safety in Employment Act because of the changes the previous Labour Government made. Where the Department of Labour declines to prosecute, then either an individual or a union can take that prosecution. This technical legislation will assist that.

It corrects a number of numbering errors in various pieces of criminal justice legislation. It clarifies the jurisdiction in relation to offences on aircraft and ships, extending the jurisdiction but providing the defence that if you are a citizen of another nation and the offence is committed in that airspace or shipping space, then you can have a defence if the New Zealand offence is not an offence in that jurisdiction. So it is very helpful in that regard. One might think that these are things that ought to have been thought about in the previous legislation, which this covers, were it more carefully drafted.

This bill does highlight the need, when we are considering criminal justice legislation in particular, that we do get it right. If there is one thing that represents the high-water mark of what this House does in terms of taking away a citizen’s liberty, in terms of giving judges in the criminal justice system the power to incarcerate, to punish, and to penalise—it is incumbent on this House performing those tasks and passing that sort of legislation to get it right.

Two things are required in that regard. One is that we take the proper amount of time to do that. Legislation that punishes, legislation that imposes penalties—whether it imposes fines or incarcerates—must be given the proper consideration and time by all parties and by all members, both in this House and in the select committee process. The House must give due consideration to the submissions it receives from organisations and from citizens, whether it is the New Zealand Law Society or whether it is those with a criminal record, whom we hear from from time to time. This House must give proper consideration to what those interested parties have to say when it comes to this sort of legislation.

The second thing that it draws attention to is the need, at least in relation to criminal justice legislation, for a greater degree of bipartisanship—or multipartisanship. When we are discharging our responsibilities as parliamentarians and passing laws that have what can be described only as the most deleterious effects on citizens—that is to say, effects that are about imprisoning and that are about depriving people of liberty, admittedly under due process—that is something that there ought to be a high degree of collaboration on between parties in this House. That sort of legislation will come under intense scrutiny by the judiciary, as it should, and the judiciary will always be looking for the true and proper intent of Parliament, and will be wanting to know that Parliament has taken that sort of legislation seriously. When it comes to passing sentence, it is one thing to secure conviction under legislation that sets out offences, but when it comes to passing sentence and putting citizens through the criminal justice procedures, then the judiciary needs to know that Parliament has given proper and due consideration, taken it seriously, and understood the magnitude of what Parliament is doing, what we are demanding of the judiciary, and what we are subjecting citizens to. It is very important that we get that stuff right, and we can do that properly and seriously only if we are working in a more collaborative approach to do it.

There should not be the sort of party-political division that there has been in more recent years over this sort of stuff. We certainly do not want to see the types of knee-jerk reactions that we have often seen to issues that have been raised, usually in the community. Yes, there will be individual court cases—criminal cases—that will give rise to concern. That is a normal part of democracy. But it should not lead this House to respond piecemeal and in a knee-jerk way to those particular concerns, as we have seen, for example, in the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. It deals with jury lists because in one case, on one occasion, a defendant saw or got access to the details of a jury list and made personal contact. We should not be seeing knee-jerk reactions to that sort of instance.

So it would be desirable if, as we have seen a greater degree of cooperation over this sort of correcting legislation—no pun intended—we could demonstrate that we are capable of working sensibly and cooperatively together to make sure that our criminal justice statutes are the best we can possibly do, and are a model for all other legislation, not just from this House but across Parliaments in the Commonwealth generally.

The message is that we should never take criminal justice lightly, because it is serious legislation and it has serious impacts on our citizens. When we come to deal with it, as we do in this legislation, and as we correct things that have been legislated for incorrectly—perhaps even imperceptibly—in the past, we should be bold enough and big enough to correct those mistakes, and to do so in a cooperative spirit. But we should learn the lesson that we can avoid having to do this kind of reworking if we actually get it right in the first place. We will get it right when we give ourselves enough time, give it due consideration, and work properly together in a proper process of collaboration and harmony that is fitting not only for the legislation but also for the season as well. Thank you.

I am pleased to take the last call on this Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. I largely agree with the last speaker, Andrew Little, and I think it is fair to say that there is fairly broad support for this technical—but very necessary, none the less—piece of legislation.

When we look at the whole criminal justice pipeline, if you like, there is a bottleneck, a very small junction, when it comes to the delivery of that justice, and the measures within this bill largely go towards addressing that. As a former police officer and detective, having been in front of courts and taking victims through what is a very, very arduous process, with stays of proceedings and difficulties with witnesses getting into court and their recall, I can say that the drawn-out nature of the process is often causing added hurt and delaying healing. It is a convoluted and diluted justice system, in many ways, in the eyes of those who are subjected to it, generally through no fault of their own.

One of the key areas in this bill is about addressing the justice delayed, justice denied notion. The key area, really, is about amending an Act that goes back some 60 years, that has its origin some 60 years ago, and that has been subject to many ad hoc additions, reforms, and so forth. Arguably, a lot of what we do in this criminal justice space could fit into that category. It is somewhat a balloon that is full, and when squeezed it bulges in different directions. It must be addressed in a pragmatic fashion.

This bill is very much in line with a number of the other changes that this Government has been committed to right across the criminal justice spectrum that go right through to the way in which our police are engaging with our communities and making them safer places, and their focus on prevention. It goes to a lot of the changes that have been very much a part of the last few years in terms of the criminal justice system, how it operates, its expediency, and its focus on victims, right through to the other side to where we deal with matters around corrections. It is all about getting the balance right across that spectrum. Right at the centre of it is very much what this bill is about—very technical but very necessary. Certainly, as someone who worked in the field, I can vouch for the fact that it will make a difference in the lives of many New Zealanders. I think many professionals across the spectrum would share with me in supporting this.

It is a technical bill, not a sexy bill, but it is pragmatic and common sense. I think that says a lot about what we see on this side of the House. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.