unnecessary events, and the use of staff time and courthouse capacity will be optimized to ensure that money is spent more effectively.” Mr Power also made the point that “efficiency is important, but so is the right to a fair trial. The legislation achieves a careful balance between moving criminal cases through the court system more quickly and protecting the fundamental rights and safeguards that underpin our justice system. Changes made to the legislation by the Justice and Electoral Committee and during the Committee of the whole House stage have clarified beyond doubt that this legislation maintains, and even enhances, fair trial rights and fundamental justice principles”. The Minister gave as examples of changes the setting of the threshold for trial by jury at offences carrying a term of two years’ imprisonment and
appropriate to welcome the legislation”. He also agreed that the legislation was better for the amendments that had been made to it. For instance, Labour had “insisted on recording our objection to the proposal to severely curtail the right to silence. We also objected greatly to the proposal in the Bill that would have made it easier to try people in absentia”. Mr Chauvel accused the Minister of having a “closed mind on criminal law reform”, having vetoed other suggested changes, and said that the Minister agreed to the changes that were made only because of “raw politics” when other parties decided that Labour’s objections were right, and refused to give the Minister the numbers to pass the legislation without the changes. Mr Chauvel objected that the government had not dealt with the drivers of crime, such as alcohol, and that the
Mr Charles Chauvel
above—instead of three years as originally proposed—and amending “the clause giving the courts the ability to proceed in the absence of a defendant, so that the court’s discretion is limited to proceeding and procedural hearings where no determination of guilt or innocence will be made”. Mr Charles Chauvel
(Labour) agreed that “criminal proceedings need to be sped up. To that extent, it is
substantive law needed to be overhauled, saying that only when this had been done “might one turn to the issues of evidence and procedure that this legislation tinkers with. We will be back in this House in the next term trying to deal with the inefficiencies in the criminal justice system because of the failure of the Minister to follow the Law Society’s advice and to start at the beginning with root and branch reform, rather than in the middle by looking at procedure”.
Dr Kennedy Graham (Green) “paid tribute to Mr Power for his achievement with this legislation…[its] impending adoption…is generally recognized as a seminal moment in New Zealand’s judicial legislation, the kind that occurs every half-century or so”. Dr Graham explained that the Green Party reluctantly had to oppose the legislation because of the defeat of its key
352 | The Parliamentarian | 2011: Issue Four
proposed amendment for the retention of the three month threshold for the right to trial by jury.
The legislation passed by 110 votes to 10, with the Green Party and Mana Party voting against.
Review of Standing Orders On 5 October Hon. Judith Collins, MP, Minister of Police, on behalf of the Acting Leader
hours of House time by moving that sitting be extended to a Wednesday or Thursday morning, or by agreement of the Business Committee to a Thursday evening and Friday morning. Although this would not remove the need for urgency from time to time, it would provide a pressure valve for an Order Paper groaning under the weight of a busy government’s agenda. The Acting Leader of the House is also pleased to see the Standing Orders Committee give a more formal recognition to [the taking together of] cognate bills...concerning the Standing Orders Committee recommendation to reinstate the requirement to record and publish Members’ attendance at parliamentary
Hon. Judith Collins, MP
of the House, Mr Power, moved that the amendments to the Standing Orders in the Report of the Standing Orders Committee should be adopted “from the day after the dissolution or expiration of the present Parliament.” Ms Collins explained that in 2011, because of the election and the Rugby World Cup, there had been only 23 sitting weeks scheduled, compared with 29 and 31 in 2009 and 2010 respectively. “Although they were entirely appropriate responses, the early adjournments that followed the Pike River [coalmine] disaster and the February [Christchurch] earthquake also resulted in 26 fewer hours of House time— the equivalent of two sitting weeks. So from that
perspective, the Acting Leader of the House is very supportive of the committee’s
recommendations to allow the government to obtain extra
business…Members have an obligation to Parliament and the public to at least attend the House or other parliamentary business, if not actively participate, and the public have a right to know how their elected Members perform in meeting this most basic requirement.”
Hon. Trevor Mallard, MP, (Labour) considered that “…this report...very slightly tips the running of Parliament in favour of the government, but provides some safeguards to that”.
Dr Kennedy Graham For Dr Graham The recommendations … are good