Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill

The question now is that Part 2, which is debate on clauses 18 through to 34 and schedule 2, be agreed to.

I did want to make some brief comments about Part 2, in particular on clause 21, but before doing so I would like to say this. There was, I think quite recently really, a television advertisement for Mainland cheese. Of course, the best cheese does come from the Mainland and this company produced it. The theme in their advertisement was “Good things take time.”, and, indeed, their product was a superb product, and still is, and it did take time. They were very memorable advertisements and what they said, most people believed to be true.

In the case of this particular legislation it has taken time, it has matured properly, it has been considered properly, and we have got a good product. So good things take time—this took time and we get a good piece of legislation out of it, especially with regard to the input of the Law Society and, indeed, the other submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I would like to reiterate also what many others have said, that it is a shame that with the previous legislation we debated—the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill—we are not seeing that. We are not seeing the Government take time. We are not seeing the electorate having the time to make a good and considered submission on that legislation as it has on this. So that is a matter of considerable regret. We can easily agree to legislation of this kind, which has been well considered, and, of course, it cannot be expected that any of the Opposition parties would be prepared to support the sort of process we saw yesterday with the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill.

However, I did particularly want to mention one clause in Part 2. The reason I do so is because in the first reading I questioned clause 21, which amends section 8, and that concerns “Jurisdiction in respect of crimes on ships or aircraft beyond New Zealand”. This provision would replace section 8(2) with two new provisions. The first providing that “If a person does or omits to do any act to which this section applies, and that act or omission would, if it occurred within New Zealand, be an offence … punishable by imprisonment for life or by 2 or more years’ imprisonment, then … the person is liable on conviction as if the act or omission had occurred in New Zealand.” That is fine. The second, however, provides that “If any proceedings are taken by virtue of the jurisdiction conferred by this section, 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.” So that means that a New Zealand citizen would potentially be treated quite differently from the national or citizen of another country for the same offence in the same circumstances.

I questioned at the select committee stage whether that was appropriate, and it did receive proper consideration. The officials were able to satisfy me that this was not really a change at all, that it was, and has been for some time, a provision in New Zealand law and would be consistent with the legal systems of other countries, and that it would be unwise not to have such a provision in our own statute.

I just wanted to mention that, as I said at the beginning, these sorts of provisions need to be scrutinised. We need to get them right, we need to understand, indeed, what we are doing and make sure that they are correct and proper provisions. So, as I said, good things do take time. We have scrutinised that provision, along with the others. We have satisfied ourselves that it is the right law and therefore it deserves support. I just thought I would place on record, having raised my concern at the first reading, that that concern has now been allayed and I am satisfied that this provision is good and proper and should be passed.

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!

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?

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.

Schedule 1

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Chester Borrows to schedule 1 be agreed to:

delete the item relating to section 191.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill, the Auctioneers Amendment Bill, the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), the Criminal Disclosure Amendment Bill, the Evidence Amendment Bill, the Juries Amendment Bill, the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, the Sentencing Amendment Bill, and the Summary Offences Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 233.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.