Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill

Mōrena. Kia ora tātou. Nō reira, e te Whare, e ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Good morning, honourable members. The debate is on clauses 3 to 17 and schedule 1.

As we indicated in the second reading just a short while ago, Labour supports this bill, the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. This bill makes some very important and very necessary tidying-ups to a very substantial piece of legislation, which has worked its way through this House in a very deliberate, very careful, very considered sort of way.

This will be the biggest set of changes to our criminal justice system, to our criminal procedures, in many, many years. It is always important when we are considering big change, particularly to an area as important as the administration of criminal justice, that we get it right and that we take our time to do so. That, as my colleagues have pointed out in their second reading speeches, contrasts with the approach taken to some other legislation by this Government, but on this occasion the Government and the Minister in charge, the Minister for Courts, are doing the right thing and have actually in the process of this particular bill taken time to consider, to listen to, and to accede to the points made by not only members on this side of the House but those who have submitted on the bill.

In this part of the bill there are a number of parts that I think are very important. It highlights how, when the House is considering large pieces of legislation and significant legislation, even what might seem to be reasonably trivial aspects of the legislation, when it is passing through the House in its stages, can be overlooked in its first phase. But it is good that there is time to correct the mistakes that have been made.

I want to acknowledge particularly in relation to clause 14A—and this was a change made as a result of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s consideration of the bill—the power of the judge or the registrar to waive certain fees imposed by the court, particularly in relation to access to documents, and also the provision in clause 14B for the arrangements and provisions for access to court documents. These are very important. These are very important not just for those in the course of a trial or the set-up of a trial—but actually often what happens is an aggrieved defendant considers they have not been dealt with properly, is not sure whether it is appropriate for an appeal, and wants to consider the matter and to get timely access to documents without the obstruction of the risk of fees and charges. With this change they can get access to them. It is good to see that that change has been made.

Then, of course, there is the important provision in this part, clause 15, dealing with the “Henry VIII” clause that was in the original legislation. That is now gone and this Committee is rightly saying that changes to other legislation, particularly with reference to a term like crime, should properly have the scrutiny and consideration of this House and its proper law-making function, and that appears in here. So we welcome these changes.

We welcome this bill. This is a good piece of legislation, and it has been properly and well considered by the House. We only hope that the example given by this bill might be replicated in other pieces of legislation that are being promoted and pushed through this House by this Government. This stands as a benchmark to be observed and considered in other legislation. It is good that we are able to do that on this occasion even if it is in urgency and even if it is buttered up to more insidious legislation—legislation that poses greater risk to the liberty of the individual and citizens than perhaps posed by the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. The Government and the Minister in charge of the bill are to be acknowledged. They are entitled to have the credit of having managed this piece of legislation and this bill properly to the point that we are now finalising these aspects so that by 1 July we will have a good quality criminal justice system and legislation, which ought to pave the way to reduce delays and provide people with the sort of fairness and procedural fairness that we expect to have in our system.

I referred in my speech last night to the Rule of Law Index. New Zealand ranks seventh out of 97 countries that it presently measures for the principle of the rule of law. This legislation keeps us there. Let us not compromise our standing in the international community by rushed pieces of legislation that compromise the rights and liberties of our citizens.

I want to begin by congratulating the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Justice, because I think this is a good piece of legislation, the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. We intend to facilitate this legislation and Part 1 of the bill through the Committee because by so doing in the technical amendments that it is making, the improvements, and the picking-up on one or two things that were wrong with the original bill we will bring into effect the Criminal Procedure Legislation Act in July of this year. That Act will be of considerable assistance to New Zealand. It is designed to reduce excessive cost, excessive delay, and excessive complexity. It will bring in a modern and fit for purpose framework for criminal procedures.

All of those things are important, and I am particularly keen on the legislation going through because its origins came in at the time that I was legislation Minister and then my successors, when we set up the Law Commission to work with the Ministry of Justice. I want to commend officials in both groups because they worked incredibly hard, and I think by and large they got it right. Where the Government did not get it right the Government actually listened and made changes that enabled this legislation and this part of the bill to really attract consensus support.

I just want to quote what the Law Society said about that. It argued that cross-party agreement was needed on criminal justice instead of politicising issues that require coherent policy. I think in this part of the bill we have got coherent policy. But the tradition of the Committee stage is that we ask questions of the Minister in the chair. I would not want the Minister to feel that he simply had to just sit there and rubber-stamp everything that happens, so I have a number of questions for the Minister.

The first question, Minister, is whether it was helpful that the groundwork for this bill was properly laid by proper process, by thorough analysis, and by careful consultation. Long before the original and primary piece of legislation, the Criminal Procedure Act, was brought in, the homework was done. I think, by and large, people got it right, and this was not a politicised piece of legislation designed simply to appeal and to win some popular support even though, cynically, the Minister or the Government knew that that was not going to make any change. So the first question was how important it was, Minister, that the groundwork was laid, the research was done, the analysis was clear, and the consultation was had.

I think, Minister, you will understand why I am asking that question. It is because I cannot help but contrast the way that this piece of legislation and its primary legislation has been done with the legislation rammed through by the narrowest of margins under urgency in the dead of the night last night. So I guess I am asking you, Minister, whether there are lessons to be learnt from this legislation that you would want to see your colleagues apply to the legislation that went through last night, the legislation on the Government Communications Security Bureau and the telecommunications security bill.

The second question I would like to ask the Minister—and I will just pause because the Minister is occupied at the moment. I do want him to answer these questions, because they are important questions. Minister, what consultation was done with key groups affected by this legislation before it was brought into Parliament? I assume, Minister, that this was not legislation done in ignorance of the views and the expertise and the attitudes of those who were going to be intimately affected by it. I presume that consultation with groups like the New Zealand Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association, the judges, and so on was done very thoroughly so that when you introduced this legislation, you knew the realities on the ground—well, the Chairman probably knew, too, because he is a very well-informed Chairman, but I am referring to the Minister in this case, Mr Chairman. The Minister knew that if legislation is to be good legislation, then he would have to talk to the people who are most intimately affected by it and involved in it, so I imagine that all of those consultations took place.

Of course, if the Minister did that in this bill, can the Minister explain why his colleagues failed to do it in the legislation we had last night affecting telecommunications companies, where they were not consulted and we do not know whether that legislation will even work? I ask this question, drawing on the Minister’s experience on this bill, because he is also the Minister of Corrections, I think—no, he is not. But he is—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Shame. He should be.

He should be. Who is the Minister of Corrections?

💬 Andrew Little: Anne Tolley.

Anne Tolley—oh, I thought she was still the Minister of Education. Judging from the utter chaos that is going on in the education area, I thought she was still the Minister there. But I ask the Minister whether he is also aware of the Corrections Amendment Act, which also affected telecommunications companies, where consultation was not done and the Government had to do a total U-turn.

So what I am really asking the Minister is whether he will use his knowledge and his reasonableness to talk to his colleagues and say: “Learn from this legislation, and for heaven’s sake, if we want to build coherent policy and consensus support for it, and we want something that will work, you’ve got to do it the right way.” I fear, Minister, that everything that you have done in this bill and all of the lessons that you have learnt in this bill have not been taken on board at all by your colleagues, including your leader, because if they were listening to this debate now and they were seeing that the Opposition was working cooperatively and constructively with the Government, they would say that this is a good model in a democracy, that this is how democracy should work.”

So my next question is whether there was a full and proper select committee process, or did the Minister decide to truncate it to try to ram the legislation through and make it as difficult as possible for experts and for members of the public to have their say on legislation, which is a critical part of the democratic process. From recollection, I recall that there was a full period for submissions, that people were listened to with respect, that the timing was designed to ensure the best possible outcome from the legislation, and I commend you, Minister, for doing that. But I have to ask again why it is that for legislation that is critically intrusive in the privacy of New Zealanders and can open things up for the abuse of power the Government did not allow for that normal process of consultation last night when we moved the motion on the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation.

What I am asking the Minister, really, is whether he will use his experience and his expertise and his proven ability to win the support of all of the groups that will be affected by it and all of the parties in Parliament to persuade his colleagues that they got it so hopelessly and dramatically wrong last night. My question to the Minister is whether he will pass on what his experience has been. My question is whether he will tell the Committee now that the process that he has followed has worked for good legislation, has worked for the interests of the country, and that this should be the model for all legislation that the Government brings through—in particular, for highly controversial legislation where enormous powers are given to largely unaccountable agencies, which can have huge implications for the privacy of New Zealanders and, in the ultimate, the establishment of a State that has powers over its citizens that contradict democratic processes and principles.

Again to the Minister, congratulations on this specific piece of legislation and listening to what the Law Society said about the need not to have “Henry VIII” clause powers so that you should not have the executive moving by regulations things that are substantive parts of the legislation. The Minister in this case listened to the Law Society and he made those changes. So not only in the primary legislation but also in this largely technical legislation we have seen exhibited time and again the benefits in a democratic society of getting legislation right, of being fully consultative with groups and with political parties, to listening to submissions—because officials are human; they do not get everything right all of the time. So we have got improvements, even in this technical piece of legislation, that will make the passage of this legislation easy, and, most important, will make the outcome for New Zealand a good outcome in having legislation that will not be back before the House and will not be repealed by the new Government that will come in in 2014.

Taloha ni, Mr Chairperson. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Part 1 of the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. I just want to begin where the Hon Phil Goff left off, because the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chester Borrows, is someone who is a very good Minister and someone whom this side of the Chamber respects. I would like to just carry on what Mr Goff said and praise Chester Borrows for the way in which he has tackled this Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill, because it has been absolutely textbook—absolutely textbook. You could not do it any better. If I were the Hon Judith Collins and the Hon Amy Adams, I would be making an appointment with the Hon Chester Borrows just to discuss how the process should work in this New Zealand parliamentary democracy, because the Hon Chester Borrows has done this textbook. He has gone out and he has assessed the situation, he has consulted, and he has put before this House a very good piece of legislation. That went through the select committee scrutiny stage, people submitted and gave their concerns, he listened, the select committee amended the legislation and that has been supported by the Minister, and now this legislation is before the Committee being debated.

As you have seen, this is in contrast to the two previous pieces of legislation that were immediately before this Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. An outbreak of aroha has happened because of the way that this process has been put through this House. If you were watching the House roughly 15 hours ago, you would have seen absolutely robust debate in fierce opposition to the legislation that was going through this House. But now, because of the way that the Hon Chester Borrows has shepherded this legislation through this House in a textbook manner, with cross-party coordination and consultation to make sure that this piece of legislation is fit for purpose, you are seeing that this piece of legislation has very wide support. I did want to just commend the Minister in the chair for the way he has done this, because I think that at least two of his colleagues—at least two of his colleagues—could certainly learn from the way he has shepherded this piece of legislation through the House.

I did want to point to a section of the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill that I think will seriously address the issues that the bill sets out to address, and I think Mr Goff pointed out those issues, and that is the seriously excessive costs of the criminal procedure system, the complexity of the criminal procedure system, and also the serious delays that are happening within our court system at the moment. The Justice and Electoral Committee has inserted new clause 14A, I believe, which allows a judge or registrar to waive certain fees if they are satisfied that someone is unable to or should not be required to pay those fees. I think that is certainly something that will help in the process of equality of justice to help get those people, where costs may be a hindrance to them getting a fair trial through the justice system, through the criminal procedure system, much, much more easily. So I did want to commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for that change.

Again, it is one of those changes that have been made with cross-party support, and, again, I did want to commend the Minister in the chair and the chair of the select committee, Scott Simpson, who is someone who should also get some praise for the way that this process has worked. Look at the way that has happened in that select committee process, and the contrast of that in terms of what we are going to see through a truncated select committee process for the two pieces of intelligence legislation that are going through the House at the moment. There is also new clause 14B, which is going to make it much easier for people to access court documents. I think that goes to the heart of addressing the issue of the complexity of the criminal procedure system, where a lot of people who are going through that system were finding it very difficult to manoeuvre their way around the complexity of the system.

Just before I finish, I just want to reiterate again and congratulate the Hon Chester Borrows on this textbook manner in which he has done it. There has been assessment, the drafting of appropriate legislation, and the select committee has gone out and listened and made the appropriate amendments, and we believe that the Hon Amy Adams and the Hon Judith Collins should take heed of the process that has been put in place here with the Hon Chester Borrows, and look for some time in his diary.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to other enactments