Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:483] 
Bail Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 This bill is the first of a number of pieces of legislation in the justice portfolio that the new Government will bring to this House in its first 100 days in office. The overriding principle in taking these swift actions is the need to put public safety first. 
Unfortunately public safety was not always at the forefront of policy making in the last term of the Labour Government as the directive to reduce the prison population not only took priority but also often ran counter to the protection of the public. Last year’s changes to the then Bail Act were one example of this. As part of the Labour Government’s legislation to “arrest the sharp increase in the prison population” it increased the threshold for remand in custody from a risk that the defendant may abscond interfere with witnesses or evidence or offend on bail to a real and significant risk. This meant that even if a defendant had repeatedly breached his or her bail conditions in the past that defendant may not necessarily have been remanded in custody. To underscore this another provision was inserted that prevented the court from being able to remand a defendant in custody for breaching bail conditions unless this meant that the defendant was a real and significant risk. The New Zealand Law Society the Police Association the Police Prosecution Service and even a defence lawyer have all said that the 2007 changes effectively made it easier for people to get bail. 
The Bail Amendment Bill I have introduced today reverses those changes. Initial estimates from the Ministry of Justice suggest that changing the law will mean that another 50 to 100 prison beds will be filled. However the ministry has also signalled that this is likely to be an underestimate because repealing the 2007 amendments will send a clear signal to the judiciary that the threshold for bail has been raised. This group of accused represents the type of line calls on who is being granted bail under the previous Labour Government’s law when those people would previously have been remanded in custody. 
The Government recognises that a person charged with a crime has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty and has the right not to be arbitrarily detained. Everyone charged with an offence also has the right to be released on reasonable terms and conditions unless there is just cause for continued detention. However those rights must be balanced against the safety of the New Zealand public. In his previous spell in Opposition the Hon Phil Goff proposed legislation that would have limited access to bail for repeat offenders. He argued: “At a certain point the safety of the community comes before the rights of alleged offenders.” In our view the previous risk test drew an appropriate balance between these competing considerations. Labour’s test raised the bar for remand in custody. The people who will have benefited from this amendment are not low risk. They are people who would previously have been remanded in custody. In those cases giving the benefit of the doubt to the public rather than the accused will come at a cost. However that is a price we are willing to pay to keep New Zealanders safe. 
I want to make it clear that the Government will be implementing further campaign pledges regarding the bail system. We will be reviewing the Bail Act in order to improve compliance with bail conditions. In particular we are concerned with the number of people failing to attend court. Between 1999-2000 and 2007-08 the number of defendants failing to answer bail increased by 155 percent. As at 30 September 2007 more than 18500 cases were put on hold due to outstanding warrants to arrest. This suggests that many of those on bail already treat the system with some degree of contempt and the pressure this puts on an already overloaded court system is unacceptable. 
We will also be progressing work to make sure that bail is not granted in return for information that a defendant provides regarding a criminal investigation. This measure aims to preclude further abuse of the bail system as occurred in January 2008 when a gang leader was released on bail after negotiating the return of stolen war medals. 
Under this Government public safety is the priority and will not be sacrificed. As part of our work programme on gangs and P we will also assess whether it is appropriate for people charged with drug offences to be eligible for electronically monitored bail in addition to home detention. The public of New Zealand deserve bail laws that put their safety first. This bill is the first of a number of measures that will restore public safety to its rightful place as the paramount consideration in justice policy and I commend it to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 This is a serious issue and should be treated as such but on examination of the Bail Amendment Bill—and I will show it for those who are watching at home—we find it consists of one page plus the explanatory note on the front. It is four clauses long. This bill can only be described as a classic National Party hoax. Before the election National members talked tough looked tough and tried to stamp their feet. National stirred up as much fear in the community as it possibly could then it comes into the House and produces this bill its fourth bill which is a hoax and which is flimflam. When this bill is passed at the end of this urgency there will not be one New Zealander who is any safer in this country than he or she is now—not one. 
This is the level of in-depth analysis that National is engaged in. This bill of four clauses just creeps over the page with one line on the last page. That is it. National is trying to say to the people of New Zealand that by altering a couple of words they will be safer. This bill is predicated on a number of deliberately false and deceitful— 
Chester Borrows 
: If it’s so insignificant why didn’t you do it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I think the member is going to blow over there Mr Deputy Speaker; you might want to get the men in white coats. 
This bill is based on a couple of very false and deceitful premises. The first premise relates to the use in the Bail Amendment Act 2007 of the words “real and significant risk” which of course were put into section 8 of the Bail Act based on a body of common law precedents in order to give more precision and consistency—and later in this speech I will quote from a member of the judiciary to substantiate that point. National members say that this change made it easier to get bail and that it was done in some way to try to get the prison population down. 
Let us deal with the latter point first. Here are the remand figures and we know that the number of prisoners on remand went up by 30 percent between 2004 and 2008. I will give members some specifics. The remand prison population has continued to grow at a rate greater than the sentenced population despite of course the 2007 amendment to the Bail Act. In July 2007 the number on remand including prisoners held in police stations totalled 1733 and comprised 21 percent of the total prison muster. By July 2008 the number had increased by almost 6 percent and constituted 23 percent of the total prison muster so that puts the sword into the silly accusation National still tries to run out that this was some sort of sneaky way to get the numbers down. 
National’s second point is that the Bail Amendment Act 2007 strengthened people’s ability to get bail. The real and significant threshold was chosen after examining judicial decisions on previous risk thresholds. In its 2002 decision on  
R v Hines 
 the Court of Appeal implicitly agreed with the High Court that to amount to just cause for a defendant’s continued detention the risk that a defendant may interfere with a witness should be more than a nebulous and insignificant risk and should be a real and significant risk. That was the decision of a learned judge. 
The Kahui case at the High Court was one of the first decisions after the changes came into force. In that case Justice Heath stated that the change to a real and significant risk “does not seem to me to put the test any higher than was under previous legislation but rather to emphasise the need for a proper inference to be drawn from proven facts; as opposed to the Court engaging in speculation or guesswork about the possibility of a risk.” That is not from a politician or a political party. That is from a learned judge Justice Heath in a terrible case as we know the Kahui case was after these changes had been made. That puts the sword into the idea that the real and substantial risk threshold a form of words based on common law precedent somehow allowed a weakening in the bail laws. 
In its explanatory note on the National Government notes that the changes the previous Labour Government made were intended to clarify rather than make significant changes. This bill has been dressed up as a turbo-boosted effort. Simon Power is the hard man now it appears on law and order. I presume National will roll out Judith Collins at some point in the debate but maybe we have here the kinder and gentler face the baby-faced assassin on law and order who is here to soften us up. 
In December 2007 the Ombudsman put out a report which I am sure the honourable member Mr Power has. The Ombudsman conducted a review of the criminal justice sector at the Prime Minister’s request. He stated: “I express doubt whether this amendment”—this is the Labour Government’s amendment—“will have a major impact in reducing the number of custodial remands.” We know from the remand figures that it did not reduce the numbers; actually those numbers went up. The figures he obtained from the Ministry of Justice which is now Mr Power’s own ministry showed that in 2004 2005 and 2006 the percentages of custodial remand cases given a custodial sentence was 41 percent 43.8 percent and 44.3 percent respectively. 
That is what we have learned judges saying contrary to Mr Power’s spin and to the ACT Party’s tactics of trying to scare the living daylights out of people. I remember that during the election campaign Ms Wilkinson ran around the Waimakariri electorate saying that it was easy to get bail. Well Justice Heath and the Ombudsman disagreed with that and the remand figures show that it is not true but I suppose it was a good one-liner to try to scare ordinary New Zealanders with. In some respects I suppose it worked but we have to deal with reality. 
What is National’s big hit on its first law and order bill? This is flimflam this is propaganda and this will not make one New Zealander—if we pass it tonight—safer out there in the community. If the National Government was really serious and not just talking tough with Judith Collins wandering around like a latter day John Wayne it could do something that would not cost any taxpayers’ money. The Government could call the Governor-General and trigger by Order in Council our parole legislation of two-thirds and that would make people safer. That would make our communities safer. National would not have to bring it into the House because it has been done. It could simply ring the Governor-General ask for an appointment and ask him to trigger it through Order in Council. That would be a serious and substantial move because the legislation that Annette King and Phil Goff put through is ready to go. It sits there now raring to go. 
My question to Mr Power is why will he not trigger that process. He comes to the House with this four-clause one-page bill and he will stand up over the next few hours and try to convince the people of New Zealand that they will be safer in and out of their homes once this bill is passed. He will try to convince the people of New Zealand that Justice Heath was wrong that the Ombudsman was wrong and that his own ministry’s figures are wrong. He will try to say to the people that the remand population went down when the facts from his ministry show that is wrong and he will try to build a case around this. I look forward to this debate because it will be a lengthy one. This bill is flimflam. This is National talking tough stamping its feet yelling out scaring the community before the election and then trying to dress up a weak bill. 
I ask Mr Power why if this legislation is so good he does not drop it into a select committee. If he wants to turbo-boost it through then OK he could give it to a select committee for a couple of days because it is only four clauses and one page long. It would take only about 10 seconds to read it and maybe 1 minute to read the explanatory note. 
Chester Borrows 
: Oh come on you had help. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well maybe it would be 10 minutes for that member and that is just the first page. 
If those members are so proud of the bill then why do they not give it to a select committee and let it go through an examination? They could call in the stakeholders whom they say feel this is a good thing. They could call in the Law Commission and others and ask for their view on it. But oh no that will not happen because then I suspect we would start to see the overlocking being unpicked on this legislation. We would start to see the cloth beginning to unravel and fray legislatively speaking around this legislation because this bill is their big hit their big turbo-boost to be tough on law and order. I say again that if they wanted to be tough on law and order and if they wanted to make people safer in their homes tonight—and they could do it now; I am sure the Governor-General would make himself available—they could trigger the Parole Act through Order in Council in one hit. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition can scarcely be surprised by the Bail Amendment Bill coming as it does in the context of clear policies announced by National whilst in Opposition. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. It may have overlooked your attention but the previous speaker in his contribution in the House failed to tell Parliament or the people of New Zealand whether Labour would be voting for or against this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. There was no point of order in that. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Perhaps if I may I will start again. The Opposition can scarcely be surprised by the passage of this legislation in the context of urgency today because the National Party whilst in Opposition clearly telegraphed its position on a number of significant law and order issues and this was assuredly one. I am a bit surprised by the comments of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove when he suggested that somehow because this bill is short it might lack some element of merit. This legislation is a significant substantive change and that is to be so clearly seen by the apparent opposition of Opposition members. It is a reality in the criminal justice system that it is necessary to balance a whole lot of interests and they are the interests of justice in that broad sense and in the interests of victims offenders and issues relating to court process. It is scarcely surprising that this trial which the Opposition embarked on when it was in Government has lamentably failed. It lamentably failed because it was for an improper purpose and that purpose which was unsuccessful in the outcome was to reduce the prison muster. That is clearly not what this legislation is about. 
This is legislation that is substantially concerned with process and substantially concerned with public safety. If we look at the original provisions of the Bail Act 2000 it can be seen that if a person is not bailable as of right then there has to be just cause for continued detention. And what should that just cause for continued detention be? That is not a very difficult question at all; it is whether a defendant may fail to appear at court on the date to which he or she has been remanded whether there is the prospect of witness interference and whether a defendant may offend whilst on bail. We have seen this trial which the Opposition when in Government embarked upon fail. We have seen it fail I think for substantially the reason that it was based on improper purpose. It is important in the context of law and order policies having an effectiveness and substance that we have legislation of this type. That is why the Government has introduced it. That is why the Government is determined to see its speedy passage and its effective implementation. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 That speech had the length and substance of the Bail Amendment Bill; it lacked in both categories. But the member in his brief address got the situation absolutely wrong as did the Minister in charge of the bill. The Minister said Labour was about reducing the prison population. Well I will tell him the facts which are that under Labour the prison population went up by over 3000—the biggest increase in the prison population in this country’s history—and four new prisons were opened. But then both Mr Worth and Mr Power said the intention of the 2007 amendment to the Bail Act was to reduce the prison population— 
Hon Simon Power 
: That’s not what the explanatory note says. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The explanatory note of the bill says absolutely the opposite of that. It gives the lie to the Minister’s repeated claim that that was the purpose. Let me read to him from the explanatory note of the bill in his own name. It states: “The amendments were intended to clarify the law rather than make any significant changes.” If the Minister does not believe that why did he put that statement in his legislation? What he has put there contradicts in black and white what both he and Mr Worth have just said. 
The comment was made that this is a short bill. I have no objection to legislation being short; what I object to is that this bill is entirely without substance. I say to Mr Power that this bill is simply window dressing. The Minister may say that is a political comment from the Labour Party but no I am quoting from Professor Geoffrey Hall who is the expert in New Zealand on sentencing and criminal law. He was talking about the companion bill but that comment applies to both bills. He says the stuff is already there and “It sounds to me like it’s window dressing”. That is what Professor Hall the foremost expert on New Zealand criminal law says about this Minister’s effort to demonstrate that he is doing something. 
This bill is a pathetic effort to show that the Minister is being tough on crime when by his own admission and by John Key’s own admission this legislation will at best affect a handful of people. I ask Mr Power to tell me how many people will be affected by this legislation. He will not answer that question but John Key did. John Key said it might affect 75 people. Does Mr Power know how many people are remanded into custody each year in our system? Does the Minister know that basic fact? He does not so I will tell him. The number of New Zealanders who are remanded into custody each year rather than being given bail is 15000. Mr Key says this bill might affect 75 people but we were told in the justice briefing that this measure would affect 10 people—10 beds—next year. That is 40 people over the next 4 years. So here we have this legislation which Mr Power struts into the House with and says is his top priority in criminal justice to make the country safer and it is to affect 10 people. Frankly that is pathetic as is the fact that this legislation is being put through the House under urgency. 
We want to have criminal law that is carefully considered. That means law that is considered by a select committee. That happens with regard to all legislation relating to criminal justice. Every bill relating to criminal justice goes to a select committee because when it comes to criminal law we want to have proper scrutiny and we want to get the legislation right the first time around. Every New Zealander has the right to be heard on important legislation. This bill will affect 10 people in the next year but Mr Power as Minister contrary to what he has said in the speeches he has given in this House year after year is prepared to ram this measure through and to deny the opportunity for ordinary New Zealanders and experts like Professor Hall to have their voices heard. I know why the Minister does not want this bill to go to a select committee. It is because a select committee would reveal that this measure is flimflam that it is window dressing and that it has no impact. 
If the Minister wants to do something that has an impact then he knows he can go to the Governor-General today and ask him to bring into effect the 2007 amendment to the Sentencing Act which would require a minimum detention period of two-thirds of a sentence before parole is granted. Will the Minister do that? That would affect hundreds of people; it would keep criminals locked up for a lot longer than they are at present. The Minister does not need legislation to do that. He could do it tomorrow; he could do it today. But that would have substance and a cost so this Minister this show pony struts into the House to say this bill is his big deal in criminal justice and it will affect 10 people in the next year. Well frankly that is farcical. 
You see the problem is that the National Government has to be seen to be doing something in its first 100 days. It said it would make an impact. The difficulty is that after 9 years in Opposition National gets elected and whether one is talking about the economy or law and order it has no plan. It has no plan and it has no policy. So we get the show pony coming into the House with this piece of window dressing that does absolutely nothing. 
Now Mr Power ironically is changing the legislation to put back in place the legislation that I passed in 2000 which National opposed then. It opposed that legislation in 2000 and 2002. Now that legislation the bail law did toughen the situation up. It resulted in an extra 2000 people a year being locked up. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Hang on what’s happened since then? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I tell Mr Power since he has asked me that what has happened is that we have significantly reduced the rate of offending while people are on bail. The Minister’s own explanatory note sets that out. The Minister says Labour was soft on law and order and it did not make any difference in this area. I tell Mr Power that between 2004 and 2008 the latest figures that I can give the Minister the number of people who were remanded into custody went up by 30 percent. That Minister is trying to tell the House there was something inherently wrong with our bail legislation and we were soft on law and order. But the number of people who were remanded pending trial went up by 30 percent. That 30 percent figure is 2½ times more than the fast rate of increase in sentenced inmates. We did that yet this National Minister comes in and says National is going to make a real difference with legislation that will increase the need for remand beds in the next year by 10! 
I tell Mr Power that that is a joke—an absolute joke. We will get to the sentencing legislation in the next bill and I say that is a joke as well because Mr Power knows that it makes no difference. Professor Hall said that. This bill makes scarcely any difference. Just as the Minister said that the 2007 amendment to the Bail Act does not substantially change the test for denying bail this bill does not change the test. So this Minister after the National Party campaigned on law and order and how big a difference it would make comes into this Parliament with no plan to do anything substantial. He refuses to implement the legislation that requires two-thirds of the minimum sentence to be served before parole is granted when he can do that right now and he brings us two pieces of flimflam that will not make a single New Zealander feel safer in his or her bed tonight or next year. 
That is a disgrace. That shows just how shallow the incoming National Government is. It has had 9 years to prepare for what it would do to make New Zealand safer and it brings into the House today two bills that by National’s own admission will not make a difference. The Government brings this legislation in under urgency denying the right of New Zealanders to examine that legislation because it knows that on any examination it will be shown to be flimflam. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Following the Leader of the Opposition’s speech I point out that he has once again failed to tell the House and the public of New Zealand how Labour will be voting on this legislation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; it is a debating point. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 Once again I find myself as a new member sitting here totally bemused by the Opposition’s position on a bill. What the Bail Amendment Bill does is return us to the status quo in 2000 after the Bail Act that the former Labour Government had introduced was passed. If one follows that logic the speakers on the other side are opposing this bill because they got it wrong in 2000. Is that right? That is the only thing they can be saying if they oppose this bill. 
Frankly we have had some quite silly comments about its length. Does the Hon Clayton Cosgrove write a 25-page bill when a 2-page bill will do? It is very short because all it does is remove the “real and significant” risk test and return us to a risk test—a test that was put in place in 2000 by the then Labour Government. 
The speakers on the other side referred to judicial pronouncements on the Act and I see in the explanatory note that as usual with judicial pronouncements they were divided. 
There is of course a need to balance the presumption of innocence with the risk to community. That is what bail is all about. There is a presumption of risk with all offenders—of course there is. But I say that any risk even remote risk is too much. The Hon Phil Goff has made much of the fact that only 10 people may be affected. Well Graeme Burton is only one person. Thankfully he killed only one person but he darn near killed three. Those 10 people whom the Hon Phil Goff has referred to are 10 potential killers. One gets bail these days unless there is a darn good reason why one should not. All this bill does is return us to Labour’s position in 2000. 
Numerous tragedies have arisen from people on bail being released when they should not have been. We have heard statistics and I am sure we will hear more in this debate but I prefer to talk about examples. Michael Curran murdered 2-year-old Aaliyah Morrissey while on bail for killing 24-year-old Natasha Hayden. At the time that Curran killed Mrs Hayden a young woman with whom he was having an affair he had 22 criminal convictions including two for indecent assault on a girl under 12. He was released by Justice Cooper who said that a strong case was not enough; a strong case was not enough so he was released on bail. Not long thereafter he killed a young girl. I am more interested in those kinds of examples than 16 percent of this or 10 beds there. Those examples are the things that concern me. The Michael Curran case is not a lone case. I can bring numerous examples to this House and I probably will do that in my next contribution. There are many of them sadly. 
This bill does nothing but return us to the status quo in 2000 a status quo created by the former Labour Government. Labour members in arguing against this bill are simply saying they got it wrong—they made a mistake. If they want to say that fine. I do not agree that they did make a mistake as it happens; I do not agree that they did. This legislation takes us back to the status quo in 2000 and nothing more. 
I come back to the risk test. It is quite true that some people who are remanded in custody—in fact quite a few—are later found not guilty. That is because the test under our law of “beyond reasonable doubt” is very high. But we must remember that despite what is said in the newspapers frequently being found not guilty is not being found innocent. There is no such verdict in our law. I am expecting to hear a lot of figures on how many people in remand were found not guilty. I simply make the point that there is a difference between being found not guilty and being found innocent. I say that where there is any doubt at all—and clearly this is what the Hon Phil Goff thought in 2000—we should err on the side of caution and protect children like Aaliyah Morrissey from predators like Michael Curran. That is all this bill does. It returns us to the status quo introduced by the former Labour Government in 2000. The ACT Party is very happy to support this short and succinct bill which does just that. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will oppose the Bail Amendment Bill although we will be supporting National’s— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Good on you for saying which way you’ll be voting. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: I thank the member. We will be supporting the Sentencing (Offences against Children) Amendment Bill which is due to be debated in the House some time today or maybe tomorrow. 
The amendments to the bail laws in 2007 I understand were simply designed to align that legislation with the common law. We supported that legislation at the time and we see no reason at this stage to change our view. In fact the changes to the bail laws were of such minor consequence that the issue was not really debated when the legislation came back to the House after its select committee process. It is unfortunate that there has not been a chance for this bill to go to a select committee so that we could discover whether there is a need to change and revert back to pre-2002 circumstances. We have no evidence before us that that is an important thing to do and without that evidence it is very difficult to argue that it is necessary. I understand from Labour members that in their view the impact of the amendments to the 2007 legislation was not necessarily significant. Again it is very difficult to judge this without there being a select committee process that properly looks into the matter. 
In our view bail should never be granted when there is a risk to the safety of the public. David Garrett has raised a very extreme case of where bail was granted and we absolutely agree that granting bail is absolutely inappropriate in cases such as that. In the past the judiciary has made mistakes that have resulted in terrible tragedies as outlined. No doubt further mistakes will be made in the future because no matter how good or strong the rules that we establish in this House are mistakes will always be made. But it is a falsehood to suggest to the community that those mistakes are the norm or that those extreme cases are the norm. It is our concern for the majority of cases that raises our objection to this legislation. 
We need to have rational evidence-based criminal law changes not fearmongering for political gain—and much of the dialogue around extreme cases is just that. The fact is that the vast majority of bail is given in the correct circumstances particularly to younger offenders first-time offenders and those charged with minor offences. In those circumstances it is absolutely correct to keep those people as far away from jail as possible in order to protect the community. We know that reoffending rates are much higher among young and first-time offenders who are in prison. If young people and first-time offenders are put into prison they are more likely to reoffend when they come out. That is a fact that is not often talked about in public during the rhetoric about law and order that goes on. If our aim is to keep our communities safe—or at least safer—from crime then we must make sure that those categories of offender are kept out of prison. It is also a fact that the longer a person spends in prison the more likely they are to reoffend when they get out. So these are essential considerations to bear in mind when we are looking at bail law. If being in prison is a contributory cause of reoffending then keeping non-violent offenders out of prison is the best way to keep our communities safer. 
There are other issues too such as the unjustified imprisonment of especially our younger people. I found the comments of Beven Hanlon the president of the Corrections Association of New Zealand to be compelling. In commenting on the bail amendments he said his main issue was where we would put all the prisoners. Although the Bail Amendment Act of 2007 freed up beds in our prisons he said that the estimate of 100 or more beds in prisons was far too high in terms of what this law provided and that New Zealand would go back to having prisoners kept in police vans and police cells. We know that there have been many cases of violence and indeed killings in police vans and police cells. 
That point of course leads directly to the earlier comments made by both the current Minister of Justice and the current Minister of Corrections about double-bunking in our prisons. Those who are obsessed with retribution will applaud the idea of this practice but double-bunking—which is in fact overcrowding in our prisons—and the practice of keeping prisoners in police cells and vans are causes of violent assaults against staff and other inmates and also a cause of suicide. Also such practices increase the culture of violence and abuse inside prisons and this will spill out into our communities. In effect these are predictable and predicted outcomes of the National Government’s policy. Such policies will increase violence in our communities and make our communities less safe not safer. This increase in violence has been premeditated by this House and by those who vote for this bill. They must share some responsibility for that inevitable outcome. These policies put Department of Corrections staff in particular at direct risk. Staff in any environment have the right to be as safe as possible. Corrections policies that elevate the risk for staff are grossly irresponsible and the Minister of Corrections should bear some responsibility for any incidents that might occur. 
New Zealand also has a very high rate of youth suicide. It is higher for those between 15 and 24 years of age than for any other age group. The Maori youth suicide rate is nearly double that of Pakeha. The suicide rate among young offenders in adult prisons is extremely high. I understand that there are after all only four youth offender units in New Zealand. Increasing the remand rate for young offenders where the only place they have to go is into adult prisons will increase the suicide rate for those young people and those offenders may have been charged with fairly minor non-violent offences. For some remand will be a death sentence. 
For Maori the impact is even greater. All the research proves that Maori are more likely to be stopped by the police searched by the police arrested by the police convicted in the courts and denied diversion—more so than any other population in New Zealand. The Maori imprisonment rate is extremely high because of the racist filters in the legal system that target and punish Maori simply because they are Maori. Any amendments to the bail legislation will exacerbate that racism. 
I agree with Simon Power that corrections policy is failed social policy. During this spell of urgency we have already passed two bills relating to social policy that will fail Maori and our communities in general. The tax legislation will take money out of the pockets of our poorest families. It is the extraction of wealth from the poor in order to pad the wallets of the rich. The rich become even more fearful and aggressive in their attempts to keep their wealth and continue to punish the poor simply because they are poor. The poor struggle to manage increasing State intervention in their lives in order to make some headway all the while moving one step forward and two steps back. The increase in income disparity will lead to social unease as it always does. This action is pre-meditated. This House is choosing to create a less fair and less safe society. 
The employment relations amendments will increase the numbers of disenfranchised and vulnerable young workers. Those workers will find the constant employment to benefit roller coaster to be one that forces them into greater debt unstable housing and illness. The 13-week stand-down period—which will still apply because the Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson has been too naive to figure out how to fix it—will mean that families will face long periods without work or income support. Their children will move from school to school as their parents try to find secure employment. This will lead to reduced educational achievement and despair with the education system. 
The increase in truancy fines that is coming up in the new education bill—which is yet to be tabled I understand—will simply suck even more money out of the pockets of families who are desperately trying to find some stability for their children but are having to make the unpalatable financial choice between whether to buy food to pay the rent to pay the power bill or to get warm clothes and shoes for their kids and still have their kids able to attend school regularly and successfully. Of course the move to standardised testing that is coming up shortly with league tables for primary schools will as has been proved in the US increase the gap between the educational outcomes of the wealthy and the poor—and between Pakeha and Maori—advance the privatisation of the education system and further lock out New Zealand children from their rightful entitlement to high-quality public education. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of this legislation. It is something that has been called for by a number of people who work at the coalface of our judicial system. I have been approached by policemen prosecutors Crown prosecutors defence counsel and judges sitting in the District Court and I have spoken to judges sitting in the High Court and to victims. Every one of them says they need to have this change. 
Members on the other side of the House have quoted Professor Hall and Justice Heath—two people. None of them have quoted those judges at the coalface who sit in the District Court every day and deal with those people who present a threat to their victims on a daily basis. It is hard too to work out what Labour will do with this legislation because it has not said as yet. If Labour members are going to oppose it will they be opposing it because in their view it does nothing or will they be opposing it because of what they did in 2007 which did nothing? Those members cannot call it flimflam and they cannot say that it does nothing now if it really changed something back when they altered the phrase “risk” to “real and significant risk”. This legislation lines up very much with some of the changes that the Labour Government made earlier in its tenure. One of the changes it made of course was to take the time threshold for parole down to one-third of the sentence. Recently in the last few weeks we have seen Mr Shipton and Mr Schollum released on parole after serving just over 3 years of an 8-year sentence. They follow long after Mr McNamara who was released after serving about one-third of his sentence. Mr McNamara was not a prisoner who showed exemplary behaviour. Members may remember that he was the prisoner who fathered a child while he was behind bars—sentenced under the Labour Government—and then used as the reason for his parole application the fact that he had a child and wanted to be released so he could be with his child. That is the way Labour views the judicial system and the way it should operate. 
We have to remember too that under Labour we ended up with a system that in the last 12 months has seen 79 people charged with committing murder while out on bail. Who in their right mind believes that the place for accused murder offenders is out in the community? We heard a salient example from the ACT Party—an extreme example but salient—of someone committing further crime while out on bail. The previous Minister of Justice said it is not easy to get bail but we know that just about every offender who appears before the court does get bail. In fact the vast majority of prisoners who apply for bail have it granted. We know that a significant number of those people go on to offend while out on bail. We know for instance that while accused murderer Chris Kahui—who was later acquitted before the court—was out on bail for murder he breached his bail conditions on four occasions. We also know that the five offenders accused of the murder of Navtej Singh are out on bail and they have also breached their bail conditions. We know as can any idiot watching the television screen that the nature of that offending was something that happened spontaneously; it was out of control. We now know that those people are out on bail and we now know that they have breached their bail conditions on several occasions. When we talk to the District Court judges the Crown prosecutors the police prosecutors and the police who have to enforce the curfew conditions of offenders out on bail they say: “For goodness’ sake change the law.” The National Party had the courage of its convictions to campaign on that and it will do it. 
I will finish with a couple more points. National members have been accused of jerking around with the rules procedures and conventions of this House by bringing this bill before the House under urgency. We want to look back at what the Labour Government did under urgency. I will never forget standing here and listening to Labour members put through the bill that retrospectively OK’d $800000 of taxpayers’ money that was taken away. As my colleague Simon Bridges will know I have spoken to and interrogated a hell of a lot of people who have told lies and porkies in front of me. I remember watching Dr Cullen and I remember thinking to myself that there was a guy—and all his body language indicated it to the House—who did not believe a damn word he was saying. He was wrong to do it. That showed that the Labour Party is prepared to pour scorn over taxpayers and over voters; it does not care. Well here is National which is listening to the voters. Here is National which is prepared to put its money where its mouth is. Is it good legislation? Let us hear Labour members give 10 good reasons why they are not going to support it. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to be able to speak on the Bail Amendment Bill while David Garrett is still in the House. The member’s speech in this debate was the first time I have heard him speak. I congratulate him on now being a member of this Parliament. Coming in as the spokesperson for the Sensible Sentencing Trust he has come in with an agenda; that is fair enough. But I listened very carefully to Mr Garrett talking before the election about the “three strikes and you’re out” policy—a very strong ACT policy. Up and down New Zealand people listened to what he said. Those who voted for ACT heard it. They did not hear what he said after the election: that this policy should it be implemented would have no impact on the number of people going into prison for another 15 years. I say to Mr Garrett that that was not an upfront truthful approach to the people of New Zealand. That was not what ACT candidates said on the hustings where I was. That was not what ACT candidates said. Not for one moment did they believe that if this policy were implemented somebody might be affected by it only in 15 years’ time. All I can say is that that is not a straightforward way to start one’s career in this place. 
I listened to Chester Borrows and I ask why he is not the Minister of Police. He should be the Minister of Police. He has a lot of information and a lot of knowledge. I believe he would be a very fine Minister of Police but he was shifted to one side. I have to correct him however on one thing he said; when it comes to the justice area perhaps he is not so well informed. He raised the issue of people offending on bail. I suggest he reads this bill. I point him to page 4 of the explanatory note of his Minister’s bill where it states that offending on bail under a Labour Government was reduced—not increased but reduced. I point him to page 4 and ask him to have a read. It shows the drop in offending on bail under a Labour Government. The impression the member left for the public was that offending was going up and was out of control. That is not what is in his own Minister’s bill. 
There is no doubt that law and order was a major election campaign issue. In fact a campaign to make it a major election issue started I think almost 2 years before the election. It seemed that the National Party had decided that if it could not buy the election then—along with its backers those who control the media and those who own the media—it would scare the voters into its camp. As so many commentators and academics have said whipping up law and order as a political issue is very much like using race as a political issue. We know how successfully the National Party used the race issue against Maori to lift its poll ratings: it almost won the 2005 general election by whipping up the race issue. Everybody on the National front bench—with the exception of Christopher Finlayson but including John Key—jumped on that race-based campaign. Those members had no qualms about taking the poll gains that Don Brash brought them with that campaign. Of course once John Key became the leader he then decided he needed to broaden his base so he popped down to McGehan Close and found a nice Maori family who became the poster for his now broadened approach to New Zealand. But National members banked the race-driven poll ratings; they never repudiated their basic assumptions and they moved on to their next target which was to whip up the same response on law and order for the 2008 election campaign. 
Do not get me wrong: safety in our community is very important. Every murder is a tragedy and every assault is wrong. Family violence in this country is a national disgrace. Street violence is unacceptable. The tools we use in this country like most other countries are a combination of legislation education and enforcement. We use these tools to try to combat crime in our society but the tools have to be effective. I say to Simon Power for whom I have great respect that this bill is not an effective legislative tool if it is intended to put more people in prison. That is the basis on which he has put up this bill—to put more people in prison. But this bill will do nothing of the sort. He is talking about a handful of people at the margin. 
David Garrett 
: 10 percent. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The advice I received as Minister of Justice is that we are talking about 10 more people— 
David Garrett 
: You got it wrong in 2000—what’s changed? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I tell Mr Garrett they would not have all been murderers or even have committed violent crimes. Ten more people by 2009 would have been in prison and 40 more people by 2011. 
You see the change to the Bail Act in 2007 was never about putting more people in prison. The changes made by Phil Goff in 2000— 
David Garrett 
: It was about remanding dangerous people— 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I tell Mr Garrett that I am correct. The changes made to bail law in 2000 by Phil Goff were real big changes. They were significant. The change made in 2007 was not about putting fewer people in jail—and I will go over that in a moment. That was not the purpose. 
This bill is just flummery and that distresses me. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Just flimflam. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is just flimflam as my colleague says. The 2007 amendments were about clarifying the bail law. They were never about remand beds. Mr Power has read his very short bill but I am surprised that he has not read the explanatory note. The explanatory note was probably written by the Ministry of Justice because it would have given him this advice. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask Mr Garrett whether he is listening. It states: “The amendments [of 2007] were intended to clarify the law rather than make any significant changes.” 
Why did we need to clarify the law? Well it became quite obvious. The ministry’s advice was that we needed to clarify what was considered a risk under the previous risk threshold. It came out of case law—out of a Court of Appeal 2002 decision the  
Queen v Hines 
. In that case it was stated that to amount to just cause to continue detention the risk should be “more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk”. On the basis of that and other decisions we decided on advice to use those words in the amendment of 2007. 
It was not about more people or fewer people going to prison. That is why it is flimflam to be making this change under urgency. I tell Mr Power that this bill makes very little difference to the status quo. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: We won’t be voting against it. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Therefore we will not be voting against it. It makes very little difference. It is flimflam. I believe that if the member had really wanted to make a difference then he would have picked up some of the tough measures that exist and are in law now. One of those is the two-third parole provisions. 
David Garrett 
: Pick up the phone! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Bail Amendment Act 2007 is passed I tell members of the House. I tell Mr Garrett that the law is passed. It need only be triggered by an Order in Council. It would make a significance difference. I say to Mr Garrett that the ACT Party as a coalition partner should put pressure on the National Government to implement that legislation. An Order in Council could be drawn up today could go through Cabinet on Monday and the Governor-General could sign it off in the afternoon. It would make a significant difference for the safety of people in New Zealand. But the National Government is not doing that. It wants this piece of flummery to be its flagship legislation. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is my great pleasure to rise in this House to speak in favour of the Bail Amendment Bill. It was good to hear the Hon Annette King say the Labour Party will support this bill. It shows quite clearly that Labour admits that it got the bail law absolutely wrong in 2007 when it voted to change it. Labour did not know what it was doing then and now it will not be opposing this bill which will change the law. I commend the Hon Simon Power for his courage in bringing before this House our first piece of legislation to toughen up the criminal law in this country and to bring it more in line with what the people want to see. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: This member’s easily pleased! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I tell the Hon Darren Hughes that I come to this House with a lot of experience in the bail laws. I have prosecuted and been involved in hundreds of bail hearings both before Labour’s law change and after and I have learnt a bit about this law and what it means with the life experience that I have. 
All I would say about the Labour Government’s amendments to the bail law in 2006 and 2007 is that they made it easier for crims. I say to the Hon Annette King when she talks about 10 cases affected that I have prosecuted at least 10 cases that were fine calls—where the judges made it very clear that because of this change made to the law in 2007 they were letting the people out on bail. I say also to this House that the measure by Labour when it amended the law was entirely fiscally driven. It was not about justice or about criminal law; it was entirely fiscally driven. 
I say to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove that I am glad he is still a member of the House. He shows that a little bit of knowledge is a very dangerous thing with his comment on Justice Heath in the Kahui case. Yes he was right; the learned judge did say the law made no difference. But what cumulatively the law is and what the various judges in this country have said is in fact expressed in the most influential commentary on criminal law in this country  
Adams on Criminal Law: 
 “Judges have expressed different views of the effect of the statutory amendment;”. It cites many cases that were in favour of the no-change position; but then goes on to say: “Others consider the amendment has set a higher threshold for refusal of bail.” That is actually what it did do in the District Court. The High Court judges did not know what the Labour 2007 amendment Act meant. This Government is changing the law back. I commend this bill to the House. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I believe that this bill should be renamed the “Wasting Parliament’s Time on Meaningless Legislation Bill”. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: In urgency. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: And we are doing it under an urgency motion. Again there is no opportunity for comment by the public. There is no ability to scrutinise this bill and say how effective or ineffective it is what it does or how it could be improved. There is no chance given whatsoever. This is another case of turbocharged legislation. It is a glowing example of the tough strong National Party. This bill has minimal effect but it is absolutely essential that it is rushed through under urgency. I want the Minister to take a call—certainly when we have more discussion in the Committee stage—to explain why this bill is being rushed through under an urgency motion. I think it is an insult. It is an insult to this Parliament but more important it is an insult to the good people of this country who are denied the opportunity to come to the select committee. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: “Sir Richard” shouldn’t treat us like this. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right. I am sure there will be people who support this bill; they should be given the opportunity to come to the select committee and make comment on it. 
But—and I think more important—people should also be able to come and say how they believe the bill could be improved: suggest things they think could be better and other actions this Government could take to improve the bill or to live up to the Government’s promises of getting tough on and cutting crime. I cannot wait to see the crime rate drop dramatically in this country in the next few months under a Labour Government—I am sorry; I meant under a National Government. It did actually drop under a Labour Government. That was a slip of the tongue but the crime rate did drop under a Labour Government. I cannot wait to see how under a National-led Government the crime rate will drop. This is a glowing example of the National - ACT - Maori Party Government having no substance and no style of doing things. A myriad of meaningful pieces of legislation could be before this House. We could be having a question time where we in Opposition could be fulfilling our role of holding this Government to account for all the terrible things it has done. 
Moana Mackey 
: That’s why they’re doing urgency. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right; this is why we are under urgency. Why do we have this flimflam piece of legislation before the House at the moment? Why are we going through every single stage at this point in time? What would we normally be doing? We would be having a question time. We would be asking the members on that side of the House why the Government has slashed KiwiSaver why the Government has provided tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of modest income earners and families and why the Government has brought in the 90-day bill without taking it to a select committee. Why has the Government done that at all? 
Hon Simon Power 
: I thought we were on to the bail bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Members will see how it all comes together. I thank Mr Power. If he follows this he will see that it will come together very soon. In response to Mr Power who is wondering why I will suggest what the National Government which is looking towards a brighter future could have done. It could have build on better legislation—on legislation introduced by the Labour-led Government. It could have built on paid parental leave. It could have built on 4 weeks’ holiday early childhood education apprenticeships KiwiSaver Working for Families and much much more. Instead it did not. 
When I chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee— 
Moana Mackey 
: The heydays. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That was in the heydays. I acknowledge that at times Chester Borrows was on that committee with me and I acknowledge that working with him now on the new Justice and Electoral Committee— 
Hon Dr Richard Worth 
: So lucky! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —he often makes pretty meaningful contributions. 
Moana Mackey 
: It’s nice to see Mr Worth awake. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Dr Worth is also on the committee and that is very good as well. I know that Chester Borrows as chair of that committee will comment on how impressive it is to see submitters come to select committees and be given—[ 
Interruption 
]. Well that is right. But I know that Chester Borrows would have liked and enjoyed people coming to select committees. The Law and Order Committee chair—who is the Law and Order Committee chair? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Sandra Goudie. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly. Under the expert stewardship of Sandra Goudie—oh that is why the bill did not go to a select committee; I get it now. I am sorry but I get it. The Government could have sent the bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee where I am sure Chester Borrows would have been happy to have it. I think that every chair of every select committee and any member of a select committee would acknowledge the committees’ robust debate and input—be it positive or negative—and how effective it is to have that submission process. To deny that process just because the Government has no confidence in the chair of its select committee is absolutely ridiculous. This bill should have gone to a select committee because I know that meaningful input from the public and from organisations would have only enhanced this bill. So why is the bill being rushed through? Why are the public organisations and the police not being given the opportunity to comment? 
In respect of Labour’s Bail Amendment Act 2007 which this bill seeks to repeal Justice Heath actually recognised that it did not raise the test; it was more a codification of what was practised. Remand figures—if I can talk about remand figures—show that the prison population has not decreased. In fact despite the 2007 amendment to the Bail Act—and I have some figures here that I will share with the House—the remand population totalled 1733 and comprised 21 percent of the total prison muster. By July 2008 remands had increased by almost 6 percent and constituted 23 percent of the total prison muster. So the Act certainly did no harm as the National Party is claiming; it really just shows that this bill is meaningless. And this bill does no harm. The harm as I said before is in its not going to the select committee and in the wasting of good time. The bill does not achieve anything. 
It is lightweight; it is a slogan—a slogan piece of legislation. It is a hoax on the public and it is another example of sloganeering where National is grandstanding on what is essentially just a repeal of the clarification of what is current practice. This is the National practice of smoke and mirrors. If National really wanted to get tough on crime it would bring into further effect the two-thirds parole law that Labour has already passed. 
Moana Mackey 
: When will the Minister do that? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I ask when the Minister will do that. Instead this bill is about the scoring of political points; it shows the wishy-washy sloganeering electioneering method of the National Party. National’s claims that this amendment will make it easier to get bail are not supported by remand figures. I look forward to members on the other side of the House in upcoming debates actually clarifying for this House what this bill will achieve. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I am surprised. I may be new in this House but I am surprised that the Labour Party seems to have forgotten that we have had the biggest submission from the public: it was called the election and those guys lost. Law and order was one of the major points on which New Zealand voted against Labour. 
I rise in support of the Bail Amendment Bill. The purpose of this bill is to put public safety first. Fifteen thousand people marched in South Auckland to say that it is not right that people like Navtej Singh Joanne Wang and Yin Ping Yang died at the hands of people who had been bailed. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
MELISSA LEE 
: I will reiterate what I said before the lunch break— 
Hon Members 
: No! 
MELISSA LEE 
: Perhaps you have short memories; I will just remind you. You keep saying that public submissions were not made— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday and the day before we had long dissertations from the Deputy Prime Minister interrupting speeches when the word “you” was mentioned. I think it is only fair that if the Government wants to play that game all through the urgency motion the Opposition will respond. So I am doing that now. 
Hon Simon Power 
: In reference to the member’s comments I remind him of course that we had the same problem with Ms Pillay as you will recall Mr Assistant Speaker because you were in the Chair at the time. The Opposition did not interrupt her speech at that point. The member knows that the interruption of another member’s speech needs to be for a significant point of order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Could I take this matter a stage further because at times when listening to these speeches and occasionally with some of the points of order there is a little bit of a problem about the ruling that has been given over many years on this matter which is worth exploring. 
There are two ways in which people use the word “you” in conversation and in speeches. There is the sense where we use the word “you” when it is referring to you and in the House that means you Mr Assistant Speaker. It cannot actually mean “you Mr Power” although if one says “you Mr Power” then that is actually slightly different. It is quite clearly not “you Mr Speaker”. However also in absolutely normal English usage the term “you” is meant as a substitute for “one”—in other words a general person who is not a specific person. I have listened to speeches a couple of times when people have used “you” in that respect. It is actually a bit trivial to raise a point of order when people have used the word “you” in that context or other contexts. “You did this. You said that. You you you …” is clearly referring to “yourself” but if it is used in the innate general sense of “one” or a person then it seems to me it is not worth pulling up the business of the House for interruptions. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Each member has made a very good point. It is not acceptable to use the word “you”. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen makes a good point—that in fact there are many uses of the word. I tend to be reasonable with its use because we have some new members here who need to learn the rules. But in response to the Hon Simon Power I say that simply because people do not object at the time it can only be taken to mean that they accept the rules. If people object they should say so at the time. An old pearl I learnt in history some years ago is “silence means consent”. 
MELISSA LEE 
: I support this amendment bill because we should never again allow the senseless killing of people like Navtej Singh. He was a hard-working father husband and son working at his liquor shop minding his own business behind his counter when people walked into his shop and shot him dead. Joanne Wang was run over while she was trying to stop the people who had snatched her bag. The bastards ran over her while her son watched her die. 
What about the Korean tourist killed in Nelson by Hayden Brent McKenzie? McKenzie was already serving a life sentence for murder when he killed Jae Hyeon Kim in 2003. Kim’s body was not even discovered until October this year. What anguish his family must have gone through not knowing and then to discover he was killed by this very hateful person! 
I would like Opposition members to read the victim impact report to see what kind of damage these criminals do to innocent families. Perhaps they do not actually have the emotions to understand what it is like to be a victim. I mentioned it in my maiden speech— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: That is very patronising. What would the member know about anything— 
MELISSA LEE 
: I have worked as a reporter and I have worked as an adviser for the police in Auckland. In my experience and from the things I have heard the police say and watch them do I know they are chasing the same offenders over and over again—offenders who have been bailed. That is a waste of the police’s valuable time. We need to protect the hard-working law-abiding citizens of New Zealand instead of protecting the rights of these criminals. 
As I said and as the Opposition keeps forgetting we did not have public submissions apparently. But as far as I am concerned we had the biggest public submission on 8 November. It was called the election and the people of New Zealand said no to Labour. One of the very very important things on which they voted against Labour now in Opposition was the law and order issue. More than 15000 people marched in South Auckland because they were sick and tired of 9 years of non-performance by the then Government. Has the Opposition forgotten that? We are here doing something instead of wasting the time of this House and taxpayers’ valuable money so those members should just accept it. We are here to do a job and we are doing it. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Getting tough on crime is always the hallmark of a new Government. If we roll the clock back to 1999 one of the baby steps of the new Labour Government at that time was the introduction of the Bail Act 2000. Eight years down the track we have amendments proposed to get even tougher on crime by amending that 2000 Act. The effect of the Bail Act 2000 was immediate and severe. Between March 1997 and March 2007 the sentence muster increased 35 percent from 4493 to 6053. During the same time however the remand muster increased a massive 214 percent from 550 to 1724. 
Seven years down the track conventional wisdom assisted by case law suggested that the original 2000 Act should be refined to clarify that the risk should be more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk. It is a sensible suggestion one would think to articulate a clear and concise interpretation of the law. So last year the 2007 change was made to better clarify the law in line with case law on the subject particularly the Court of Appeal’s decision in  
R v Hines 
. In introducing the concept of a real and significant risk this brought the legal consideration of bail into line with how the Department of Corrections currently does its risk assessment reports. Again it was a useful initiative one would think to see links being made between two justice sector agencies. 
Perhaps the most salient point of the 2007 legislation was the obligation it placed on the police to provide evidence to the court on risk. Why is that so important? The onus to show one’s evidence means there is a process to counter any possible bias or prejudice. Decisions about granting bail are therefore made on the basis of evidence and a robust process. The responsibility to prevent prejudice or bias being of undue influence is vital in order to counter the problems that have emerged when there have been any elements of discretion in the system at large. 
The unintended consequences of the use of discretion in the criminal justice sector is an issue that has concerned the Maori Party but also is an issue of concern to many other commentators in the sector. The recent work undertaken by the former Government called Effective Interventions describes the fact that four to five times as many Maori as Europeans are apprehended prosecuted and convicted; six to seven times as many Maori are given a custodial sentence or were serving prison sentences; and 11 times as many are remanded in custody awaiting trial. To break the remand statistics down further in 2003 while 10 out of every 100000 European people were remanded in prison the figure for Maori was 110 out of every 100000. But it gets worse. Last year’s report by the Ombudsman Mel Smith which investigated issues involving the criminal justice sector revealed that there has been a marked increase in the volume of offenders who have been remanded in custody. Between 1991 and 2006 the number of remands as a ratio of all inmates grew from 9.7 percent to 20 percent. 
These statistics are all going in the wrong direction. Twenty years ago Moana Jackson in his groundbreaking research  
The 
Maori and the Criminal Justice System: a new perspective—he whaipainga hou 
 recorded that when all necessary variables have been considered Maori record instances where their sentences or the rejection of a Maori-based alternative can be attributed only to judicial insensitivity and prejudice. Ten years ago a joint Te Puni Kokiri and Ministry of Justice study found that the court system is meaningless to many Maori; too many Maori are receiving poor-quality legal advice; prosecution practices for Maori differ from those of non-Maori; lawyers court staff and the judiciary have been found guilty of culturally inappropriate behaviour; Maori offenders are receiving inappropriate sentences; and imprisonment has been proven to be ineffective. 
Less than one year ago the Ombudsman suggested that a royal commission of inquiry was urgently required to undertake a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system. The reason for his call for an inquiry is spelt out in black and white in the programme for action for Maori in the Effective Interventions programme pursued by the previous Government. In that report a specific recommendation was introduced to investigate the impact of the exercise of discretionary powers in the criminal justice system. The Ombudsman and the Chief District Court Judge have both publicly supported the value of the real and significant provision. Their argument is that without this provision too many people are remanded into custody unnecessarily and this is particularly of concern for people who are facing low-level charges or non-custodial sentences. 
Given all this background the proposal to remove the words “real and significant” from the Bail Act reverts the legal position back to that prior to 2007 and provokes further questions. Why would one want to remove specificity from legislation to deliberately return to the concept of risk and with it the attendant problem of loose interpretation? Why when the Ombudsman and key justice sector agencies all appear to agree that there is an element of discretion that works against Maori outcomes in the justice sector would anyone seek to take the risk to introduce the possibility around even more discretion? 
There is a very key issue that I believe every member in the House and every party represented would absolutely agree on. That is the fundamental importance of public safety. We must not expose the people to any element of risk and we must do all that we can do to restore a sense of peace within our communities. But we cannot agree to legislation that invites loose interpretation or an element of subjectivity or discretion when there is a real alternative in sight. That alternative was to tighten up the law and to make it more specific by defining risk as being real and significant as the 2007 amendments did. That was why when the amendment to clarify and tighten the provisions came before the House last year as part of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill the Maori Party supported the legislation. We supported that legislation then because we wanted to ensure that offenders are not unnecessarily remanded in custody rather than on bail. Our policy position has always been that we seek initiatives to lower the incarceration rate and to reduce the use of prison as a response to offending. We want to protect the public from harm and the clarification of real and significant risk does that in our estimation. 
But we are also keen to engage in a much wider debate around the Government’s law and order policy and we anticipate that Minister Sharples in his capacity as Associate Minister of Corrections will be an active participant in that debate. The debate must consider these three issues posed by the Ombudsman last year: the wide philosophical issue of what is the purpose of a remand and whether and when bail or custody is appropriate; that the increase in prison muster is undesirable in terms of the impact on offenders and families; and the demand for increased Government expenditure on prisons. The overrepresentation of Maori should be an area of significant focus. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 7 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a first time. 
Second Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I thank members of the House for their support for the Bail Amendment Bill despite some initial criticism from the lead Opposition party. I am pleased to see that sense has prevailed and that it has decided to vote for this legislation. Of course any position taken other than that one would be completely unsustainable in the medium to long term with the wider New Zealand public so in my view the right move has been made. It was interesting though that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and the Hon Phil Goff could not quite bring themselves during their first reading speeches to say how the Labour Party would be voting on this legislation. It was left to my good friend the Hon Annette King who was placed in the difficult position of being third speaker to have to declare after all that to-ing and fro-ing that “We won’t be voting against it.” I am delighted that sense has taken hold in the Labour Party and that it will be supporting this legislation. 
As the House is in urgency and this is a relatively simple bill I do not intend to talk for long at this point. But I will address one or two things that were raised by members opposite in particular during the first reading. In particular I will address Mr Cosgrove’s point about the length of this bill. I say to the honourable member Mr Cosgrove that the bill is short because it amends only one section of the Bail Act. That section is the main provision governing the decision as to whether to grant someone bail or remand that person in custody. I know that the member considers himself to be a bit of a fighter in this regard so I hope he will take the time to understand the legislation that he comments on from time to time when it comes before the House. 
As well as the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Annette King the member also raised the issue of Justice Heath’s comments and clarification around the tests for and provision of bail. [ 
Interruption 
] I take the Hon Annette King at her word; I refer these comments then to the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. The High Court has actually been divided over whether and to what extent the real and significant test changed the threshold for remand and custody. Members opposite were right to refer to Justice Heath’s comments on and discussion of that issue. However for example I am sure members opposite will know that Justice Gendall in the Crown and Williams 11 November 2007 granted the defendant bail “if only because of the rather more stringent test provided in the Bail Amendment Act.” This bill is designed to make it crystal clear what Parliament’s intention—not judges’ interpretation but Parliament’s intention—is in respect of the bail legislation. That is why I am pleased that such a large majority of the House has considered this legislation worthwhile to support. 
This bill does arise from a difference in opinion about what the law on bail is intended to achieve. As I said earlier although the members opposite have referred to the very honest explanatory note on the front page of this bill where it states: “The amendments were intended to clarify the law rather than make any significant changes.” what all three of the front-bench members of the Labour Party failed to do was to read the next sentence which states: “However the New Zealand Law Society the Police Association the Police Prosecution Service and a number of High Court judges have all said these changes have made it easier for defendants to get bail.” It would have been helpful if they had read the full passage. 
Bail is one of the cornerstones of our criminal justice system. It impacts on the safety of the community and the integrity of the court process. It goes without saying that it is important to get it right. That is why this clarification is so definitely needed. In a civilised society people charged with criminal offending as I said in the first reading have certain rights. They have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty and the right to their liberty. However as I said earlier there comes a point where an individual’s rights must give way to those of the wider community. In an individual case the court is in the best position to decide when the risk that a defendant poses to the community and the administration of justice outweighs the defendant’s right to liberty. The court receives a range of information about the defendant from both the prosecution and the defence. That includes information about criminal history any history of breaching bail or court orders any history of offending on bail and information about the defendant’s personal circumstances such as family and living arrangements and employment. 
The Bail Act as originally enacted recognised that the court is best placed to make the decisions on bail or remand. The Act gave the court a wide discretion simply requiring the court to consider whether there was a risk the defendant would abscond interfere with witnesses or evidence or offend on bail. It was up to the court to decide whether the defendants’ risk justified remanding them in custody. In 2007 as part of the criminal justice reform suite of changes to three or four Acts—legislation that had in its explanatory note a stated desire to contain the prison population and that included the changes to bail I say to Mr Goff—the previous Government limited the court’s discretion in two ways. 
First the previous Government prevented the courts from remanding a defendant in custody unless he or she posed a real and significant risk—quite different from the legislation that Phil Goff often proudly tells the communities of New Zealand that he was responsible for. He was responsible but since that time the legislation has slid well away from the tests and standards that he set as Minister of Justice during the third term of the previous Labour Government. Second the previous Government limited how the courts could take breaches of bail conditions into account. Under the 2007 amendments breaches could be taken into account only if they were relevant to assessing a defendant’s risk. The effect of those changes on judicial behaviour is unclear. In particular the High Court has been divided on whether the real and significant test reflected existing judicial practice or raised the threshold for remand in custody. However it seems clear from the statistical changes that the result has been fewer people being remanded in custody. 
This bill repeals the real and significant test restoring the court’s discretion to decide whether a defendant’s risk is unacceptable. We trust in our courts to make the right decision based on a full assessment of the relevant information. Equally significantly this bill also restores the court’s ability to remand a defendant in custody as a sanction for breach of bail conditions. As I have said before in the first reading of this bill this bill is not all that the Government is doing in regard to bail. We will be taking a close look at the bail system to make sure that it achieves the level of safety the public expects and deserves and that it contributes to an effective and efficient court system. 
I finish by saying that despite all the yelling and screaming by the Labour Party members in their objections through the first reading of this bill we are delighted that they have seen the error of their ways and learnt from their mistakes and that they will be supporting this legislation through its stages. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 The Hon Simon Power quoted a submission when he talked about the notion that High Court judges were split in their opinions. He quoted one judicial decision but I point him away from Justice Heath to the case outlined by colleagues the  
Crown 
 v  
Hines and others 
 where the Court of Appeal the higher court in the hierarchy implicitly agreed with the High Court that to amount to just cause for continued detention the risk that the defendant may interfere with the witness should be as stated: “more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk.” Those are the words of the Court of Appeal the higher court in the hierarchy. So whether or not there are different views on the High Court bench and the member—being a lawyer I am not—would understand the hierarchy of that court system the higher court in the hierarchy the Court of Appeal held the same view. 
The reason Labour will not vote against this legislation is that it makes no significant change. That is the truth; it makes no significant change to the legislation. When or if this is passed in the next hour day week or months—depending how long we are here for—I do not believe that New Zealanders as a whole will feel any more secure than they do today. I am pleased that Mr Power stated that there are other things the National Party is planning in respect of law and order; we will wait with bated breath. 
Hon Simon Power 
: You won’t have to wait long! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He says we will not have to wait long. We would not have to wait for any time at all if he and his colleagues would pick up the phone ring Government House and ask the Governor-General if he could pop down here to sign off the Order in Council to trigger the two-thirds parole provision. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Why didn’t you go? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: We are not in Government—you are! 
Hon Simon Power 
: It was there for 3 months. Why didn’t you go? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Power has forgotten that if he takes the pay and takes the warrant as Minister of Justice he also has to take the responsibility and ultimately the flak. I say to the Minister that he is in Government. I cannot ring the Governor-General and ask His Excellency to pop down and I cannot give the Governor-General an Order in Council. But Mr Power could do that without any bureaucracy and without any time at all not even impinging on the time frame or scheduling of this Parliament because the Act is passed. It requires mere triggering through an Order in Council. 
Now the two-thirds parole provision that would do something substantial today. 
Hon Simon Power 
: All in good time. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I ask the Minister how much time? When is it—today? We heard Melissa Lee who apparently has a monopoly on sympathy and concern for victims. I say that is arrogant; I say that is patronising. Maybe when she has spent more than 5 minutes here she will know that every member of this Chamber has empathy and concern for the victims of tragedies when they happen out there. When the member has been here for more than 2 minutes she might lose the arrogant edge. I note that even her colleagues would share with me a sympathy and concern for victims. She does not have a monopoly on that. I ask the Minister of Justice when we will get a substantive action from the National Government that is not political piffle and propaganda as this legislation is. 
This legislation is designed so that National Party members can beat their chests to the public and say that they have done something in their first 100 days in Government knowing that it is meaningless. I ask Mr Power when we will get to the parole legislation. When will he ring the Governor-General? The phone is on the hook and the telecommunications work. Mr Brownlee could pop down there between lunch and afternoon tea and knock on the door. He could immediately trigger that substantive legislation. I assume that it would be supported by the Sensible Sentencing Trust the ACT Party and most of the parties in this Parliament. It would be supported by us because we passed the Act. I would like to know when we are going to see something substantive come out of the National Party. 
This is not substantive legislation. When we talk about the length of it maybe I should explain in slightly more detail what I mean. There is no substance to it. There are four clauses. There is no meaning to it. It contradicts people like the Ombudsman and the view of Justice Heath and it contradicts the view of the Court of Appeal. If we are going to play knock for knock with the odd High Court judge then go to the Court of Appeal the higher court in the hierarchy we see that it contradicts their view. It contradicts the view of the many case law and common law precedents that have been set to provide more certainty more consistency and more precision around what “risk” meant. I fail to see how one could make an argument against the definition of “real risk”. Does that mean we argue for “unreal risk” or “substantial risk”? Does that mean we argue for a lesser risk? That does not make sense. 
This legislation is about Mr Power saying to the communities that bail was easier to get than before. The remand figures show that that was not true. Even his own bill as Annette King referred to shows that the number of those offending whilst on bail went down under the previous Government. This is a bit of political propaganda so National members can all go out to their constituents after they have had their Christmas feed and say that they have done something. Many constituents do not have a legal frame of reference or perhaps a legal qualification to be able to look in depth into legislation although judging by the simple nature of this bill from “Simple Simon” they could probably get it in 5 seconds. They may well be hoodwinked for a time that this is something substantial and gritty. I tell Simon Power that we will wait to see the practical results of this legislation and when the next set of bail figures come out and the next set of figures after that and beyond I will look forward to questioning Mr Power and his ilk and to Mr Power trying to justify what material difference this legislation has made. 
This legislation is a hoax. This is really a hoax and in many respects it is a tragic hoax. Indeed the election provided a vehicle where people voiced their concern on law and order matters. We saw victims in the media express and note the tragedies that had occurred in their lives. The National Party promised huge results and very quickly. Its members promised real substantial and gritty legislation. To kick off that programme we have this which is propaganda. It is absolute propaganda. Those victims are out there—perhaps some of the victims that Ms Lee seems to have a monopoly of all knowledge on— 
Chester Borrows 
: Mr Speaker— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: False start Chester. Not only does Mr Brownlee—who was shadow Leader of the House for 9 years—not know the rules and obviously Mr Power’s tutorials using Little Golden Books and visual aids for Mr Brownlee did not work but that legend in his own lifetime Mr “Burrows”— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Mr Borrows. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —Mr Borrows does not know the rules either. The victims that Ms Lee referred to were crying out for gritty and substantial legislation based on National Party promises. If those victims are listening I say to them that they can have that today. They can have that immediately with a phone call from Simon Power that triggers a two-thirds parole scheme. They can have that now. The question for Mr Power is why he will not do that. If he wanted to he still could ram through this piece of flimflam and piffle and also ring the Governor-General to put through the parole legislation. He could do that as well. He could say: “OK we are going to ram through this bail propaganda this political pamphlet. But I am going to go down and ring the Governor-General today and put the parole provisions in place.” I ask Mr Power if he will do that today. The silence is deafening. 
Ms Lee may wish to go back to telephone the victims she represents and tell them that Mr Power has the power to trigger that parole legislation today but refuses to do it. He refuses to do it. She may then want to explain to those victims why it is that Mr Power will not exercise his ministerial prerogatives and put through substantial law and order legislation as passed when Labour was in Government. I ask Mr Power to consider it again. He may want to take another call in the Committee stage. Will he ring the Governor-General now and pass the parole provisions? 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I want to make two or three points in respect of comments made especially by the last speaker. I think it was a real shame to witness what happened when a new member of the House was making some very salient points in respect of this matter. Ms Lee was referring to an incident she had referred to in her maiden speech which was about a home invasion. In her speech just before lunch she came to a point where she was referring to her own experience. She caught herself and it appeared to be from an emotive point of view. Straight away those three in the front row over there jumped in and tried to turn the knife and she was dissuaded from what she was about to say. They were saying: “Oh you have the market cornered on victims.” and all the rest of it. She was about to amplify that but they turned her away from doing so. 
We all bring something to this House. We all bring experience to this House so she intended to bring before this House her experience in relation to this matter. The lack of respect shown to a new member by members from that side of the House is completely indicative of where they are and it shows the shallowness of their understanding around these issues. 
At lunchtime I wandered across the road to the High Court and I listened to the returned verdict in the Jhia Te Tua case—a case that got right to the heart of provincial New Zealand of gang activity and of offending in this country. That particular case turned the former Government’s mind round in relation to gangs. Its gang strategy that had been abandoned at the end of 2004 was all of a sudden picked up again. Legislation was introduced to the House in a rush because those members wanted to be seen to be dealing with it. 
Today Labour members want to be seen to be supporting the Bail Amendment Bill but they have done nothing but scoff about it since it was introduced this morning. They have given every reason in the world as to why no one should support it but they will vote for this bill for political purposes. It is not for any other reason whatsoever. They know that if they do not support this legislation there is no way they can stand on a stump or in a public hall or speak to a policeman a defence counsel or anybody else and try to explain to them that they have their heads around criminal offending in this country. 
I look forward to seeing them support this legislation. I would love for them to support this bill for the right reasons but they will not do so because they do not know what the right reasons are. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I begin by picking up a couple of comments from Chester Borrows. The reason this side reacted as it did to Melissa Lee was that she arrogantly assumed that nobody on this side of the House could empathise with victims. I have had relations killed by people acting illegally. I can empathise and I do not need to be told by one of the member’s colleagues that I do not understand how a victim feels or how the family of that victim feels. 
We had this speech from Melissa Lee. It was straight off the campaign trail and it was exactly what she had told the people of New Zealand: tomorrow—with a National Government—these things will never happen again! The rhetoric was: “We will never again have to see a case like Navtej Singh.” As a former police officer Chester Borrows knows that that is rubbish. Chester Borrows knows that the laws we pass in this country do not determine when a homicide will happen. I tell Ms Lee to use the empty rhetoric for as long as she as a member feels that that is appropriate but to know that if she has been telling her constituency that they will hold her to the expectation that all of these crimes will disappear tomorrow. 
The member knows—if she knows anything at all and maybe she does not yet—that the Bail Amendment Bill will do not one jot to protect a single New Zealander from homicide committed by a person on bail. The member Chester Borrows knows and the Minister himself knows that this legislation will have the most marginal effect of anything that happens in terms of protecting the community from crime. It provides for 10 extra remand beds in the next year. Each year 15000 people are remanded in custody on bail and at any one time there are 1800 people. This will affect 10 of them. The 10 people if that figure is indeed correct will be those whose level of risk is the most marginal. That is what this bill is about is it not I ask Mr Power. It is about those grey areas the marginal areas the areas where we really cannot tell whether the person will be a risk. That does not include alleged homicide offenders. That does not include people who have committed serious crimes. 
Let me ask the Minister another question. We are supporting this legislation—or we are not opposing it—because it does not make any real difference. It actually reinstates the legislation that I passed in 2000. After 2000 the Court of Appeal decided that the word “risk” without any qualification was a little vague. Therefore the court decided that it would interpret what the law said. Mr Power as a lawyer knows that when we pass law the impact that that law has depends on the interpretation of the court. 
This is what the Court of Appeal said in 2002 in the Hines case: “… to amount to just cause for continued detention the risk that a defendant may interfere with a witness”—but it could also apply to committing another crime—“should be more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk.” So what the Government is doing in the House today is taking the law back to my law. The interpretation of my law is that of the Court of Appeal in  
R v Hines 
 and therefore we have exactly what we have now—that the interpretation of the court is that it cannot be a nebulous risk; it has to be a real one. 
I ask which member of this House would say that we should make a decision to put a person in custody based on a nebulous risk—one that we cannot determine. The Minister in charge of this bill who is a lawyer would stand proudly behind the view that people are innocent until proven guilty but we qualify that by saying that we must protect the safety of the community. That is what I did with the legislation in 2000. In fact Mr Power knows that I reversed what his colleague Mr Ryall put in the legislation. I said that we judge a person’s risk on what his or her track record has been. I stated in the legislation in 2000 that if a person has been a hard-core and repeat offender then the onus of proof should change. It should change I say to Chester Borrows from the police having to prove to the court that it is not safe to have that person in the community to that person having to prove to the court that he or she is safe to be in the community. That is what made the difference. That is the really important law on bail in this country. That is what saw 2000 more people being held in custody while they were awaiting trial. That was the hard legislation I say to Mr Garrett. That was the tough legislation not this flimflam that we have in front of the House today that does not change things one iota. 
I say to Mr Power that this bill is simply window dressing—the accusation made against Mr Power by the pre-eminent expert on sentencing and criminal law at Otago University Professor Geoff Hall. It is window dressing. Why are we sitting here under urgency passing legislation that is simply window dressing? If the Minister wants to do something then why does he not go to the Governor-General today—this afternoon—and say that he has the Bail Amendment Act 2007 which states that anybody serving a short-term sentence will have to serve that sentence in full and that anyone serving more than 2 years will have to as a minimum do two-thirds of the sentence? That will be tough. That will put a few more hundred maybe a few more thousand into prison I say to Mr Power. His Government can do that right now. If the Minister really thinks he wants to be tough then why has he and his Government not taken that action rather than coming into the House saying that the Bail Amendment Bill is his top priority? This bill will not make any difference. It does not change the law. It might put 10 marginal people or 10 beds into the remand system out of the 15000 who go through it. Why is the Minister wasting the time of the House? I will answer that question because the Minister has his head down—he knows the answer. This is all for show. He is the show pony of the House today. He is there to persuade Melissa Lee and his other colleagues that he is tough. He is tough on something that makes no difference. 
I turn my attention to ACT for a moment. I went through the election campaign and the ACT hoardings—all over Botany all over Auckland and all over the country—that were saying “zero tolerance for crime”. The ACT Party told us: “Three strikes and you’re out—25 years without parole.” and everybody said: “By God they are tough. Gee they will really sock it to the criminals.” Then the day after the election I was listening to Radio New Zealand National and heard David Garrett speaking. He was asked whether this policy would have a horrendous impact on the prisons. “Oh no” he said “because it is not retrospective. It does not come into effect for 20 years.” I wondered what I was hearing. This is electoral fraud like the country has never seen before. The ACT Party was saying how tough it would be and the day after the election admitting that its tough law would have no impact for 20 years. 
Mr Garrett has thought about this a bit further because I later read in one of the newspapers that it is not 20 years—that was a mistake—it is 15 years! There will be no impact for 15 years. Here we have a Government supported by a tough law and order party that has just committed the greatest electoral fraud this country has ever seen. The greatest electoral fraud this country has ever seen—the promise was “three strikes and you’re out” but the day after the election that all changed. There was not a word from Mr Garrett when we were on a panel together debating the issue during the campaign and not a word before the election but after the election he admitted that his law would have no impact for 15 years. 
I ask Melissa Lee whether her constituents would want to wait 15 years before this measure has any impact. Now that she has heard the argument does she understand that this failed bill is nothing more than flimflam nothing more than window dressing? 
I am serious about protecting the safety of New Zealanders. My track record can be seen—the Bail Act the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. They were opposed by Mr Power’s party. And when I raised the matter of the Bail Bill Tony Ryall said it was too tough. So those members opposed it and they opposed the Sentencing Bill and the Parole Bill. 
This Government was elected on a lie—that it would make a difference that it had a plan. It had no plan; it still has no plan. That is obvious from this legislation and the sentencing legislation—it is all a fraud. 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 Labour has reverted to its old form. When those members have nothing substantial to say what do they do? They launch a personal attack. 
Is it not strange that the Hon Phil Goff and all his colleagues are attacking this bill as being a showpiece with no substance yet they are voting for it? Why are they voting for it? They should show the true spirit of their position. Suddenly the Hon Phil Goff has come into this House and said that this bail law is not tough enough. Well after 9 long years—9 long years—in Government and after losing the election suddenly those members have woken up and they have come back to the House to say they would have done a lot better. 
I will share some personal observations. My hard-working knowledgable and intelligent new colleague Melissa Lee MP is a lot more in touch with the New Zealand public than the Hon Phil Goff is. At a public meeting during the election campaign the then Minister of Justice was trying to tell people that rising crime was a figment of their imagination. He was telling them that New Zealand is safe when none of the people in the audience were feeling safe. I am not too sure what mandate and what message he has that makes him feel he is in touch. I can assure him that Melissa Lee is really in touch with not just Korean and Asian people but the New Zealand public as well. 
Before I sit down I congratulate my hard-working and stick-to-his-promise colleague the new Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power. What did he do? He went out and campaigned on a promise to bring in a raft of legislation to fulfil the promise of our leader the Prime Minister to make safe communities a priority. I am so glad that today I have had the opportunity to take a short call to support this great start to the National Government’s promise to return safety to our community. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to respond firstly to the Hon Phil Goff because before the lunch break he and his colleague the Hon Annette King accused me of “electoral fraud” which is fairly close to that forbidden “l” word. It certainly needs a response and I will give it now. I have learnt that if not the “l” word then certainly looseness with the truth is the case around here. 
I did not speak the day after the election as the Hon Phil Goff said; I think it was a week after it. The reason for my comment about an impact being felt in 15 or 20 years was that I spent considerable time drafting the draft three strikes bill to avoid the injustices that have occurred in similar legislation in California and elsewhere. I went there last year specifically to look at what had been done in that state and in other states and to find out firstly if it was true that people were going to jail for life or 25 years for shoplifting burglary or whatever and secondly if it was true to find out why. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Who paid for that trip? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I did—and the Sensible Sentencing Trust. I thank the member for reminding me. I am told that to accuse me of representing the Sensible Sentencing Trust in this House is improper but I will respond to it anyway. I am an ACT MP. I am not the MP for sensible sentencing as I think the Hon Phil Goff described me. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I thought legally you were their representative. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I am a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust yes and quite proud of it. 
In California I found that the law in that state had caused injustice and I bent over backwards to draft a law that would avoid any possibility of that happening here. In the draft bill that will be referred to the select committee under our agreement with National it is simply impossible for somebody to go to jail for life for shoplifting. However right at the end of the campaign it was pointed out to me that I had gone a bit too far and had made the bill a bit too liberal. It was explained to me and I had not actually worked it out myself before that the reason for the comment about the impact being felt in 15 years was that if the three strikes bill was passed tomorrow and the day after that somebody became a one-striker—let us say for an aggravated robbery—under current law that person would get let us say 7 or 8 years in jail. If that person came out 7 years hence and did it again the day after that then he or she would get another 7 years or perhaps 10 years. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You never told the people this before the election though did you? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: No I say to Mr Cosgrove; I had not worked it out. I had been too liberal in trying to avoid the unjust consequences that have happened in California. The reason for my comment about an impact being felt in 15 years was that the first three-striker would not in fact come before the courts for 15 years but he or she would have spent the previous 15 years in jail. To that extent that comment is correct but it was an attempt to make the bill more liberal that caused it. 
I commend both the Hon Phil Goff because he is right and the previous Labour Government. A lot of what the Labour Government did—prior to 2002 anyway—was excellent stuff and that is a good reason for me to support our returning to the status quo Bail Act of 2000. The Labour Government lost it a bit after 2002 but prior to 2000 it did a lot of good things. I should also mention that during the lunch break one of the Labour members asked me whether I was planning to be National’s poodle in this House. I have been called all sorts of things and even compared to certain breeds of dogs but a poodle is not one of them so the answer to that question is no. I commend the Labour Party for supporting the bill although as Mr Power said it could hardly have done otherwise. 
Finally I will make a comment about the Hon Annette King— 
Hon Annette King 
: Be nice. Be sweet. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: —certainly—who made a comment about the decision in  
R v Hines 
 and the changes made in 2007. As I understand our constitutional arrangements it is not for Parliament to follow what a judge has done not even the most august judges in New Zealand. Under our constitutional arrangements Parliament is sovereign. It is not for Parliament to say that as the Court of Appeal has come out with a decision Parliament had better change the law—the reverse is the case. Parliament is supposed to lead the courts. Having said that I can do nothing other than congratulate the Labour Party on supporting the bill. I commend the bill to the House and may the House continue to pass it with the most possible haste. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Here we are once again under urgency passing through all stages yet another bill that the public of New Zealand will have no chance to scrutinise or debate. We have done a complete 180 because we have just finished debating two appalling bills that will cause serious serious damage to our economy and families. We have now done a complete 180 to a bill the Bail Amendment Bill that does absolutely nothing. I ask members to remember that we are in the 100 days of action! I am sure all New Zealanders are feeling turbocharged because we are in 100 days of action right now! Law and order was one of National’s key campaign planks on the election trail and what is the first law and order bill that comes before this House in the 100 days of action? What is the first legislation from this tough-on-criminals good-to-victims National Government? What is it? It is a bill that does nothing. It is a flimflam bill that does nothing. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Watch this space. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am watching this space I say to Mr Power and at the moment it is completely empty. That is a shame because the member could have been a very good Minister if he had been given more senior portfolios. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Steady on! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am feeling generous. We have been in urgency for a few days I am sleep-deprived and I am feeling generous. He should have been the Minister of Police. He would have been a good Minister of Police. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No that would have been Chester. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh Chester Borrows. Minister of Corrections would have been good for Mr Power. Chester Borrows would have been a fantastic Minister of Police. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Because he knew everything. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well of course. When we were in Government and Mr Power was in Opposition he knew everything about corrections. We knew nothing and he knew everything. So if he knew everything I ask why National did not make him the Minister. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Because he was too scared. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well that is right. I will come back to the bill. Some of the contributions from the National members were interesting. Apparently because they now form the Government we no longer need select committee processes. Craig Foss called it “the select committee of New Zealand”. That is an interesting constitutional change in New Zealand’s history. 
I welcome Melissa Lee to the House and I congratulate her on delivering her maiden speech. She is certainly an extremely eloquent and intelligent member of this Parliament and I welcome her here but again she suggested that somehow because National won the election no bills need to be referred to select committees any more. The people of New Zealand should be very worried about this new approach to open honest transparent inclusive Government. Apparently according to the new National - ACT - Maori Party Government “open transparent and inclusive” has meant shutting the public out of discussion on every single piece of legislation that has come through the House in its first week in office. If that is the way it intends to go on then I think this will be a very very short-term Government indeed. 
The reason Labour will not be opposing this bill—but we are going to have our say—is that during the election campaign law and order was an extremely hard-fought issue. National members of Parliament got up on the hustings and accused Labour members of doing nothing. They said we had done absolutely nothing. Let us look at that claim because of course it was the present leader of the Labour Party the Hon Phil Goff who made all the changes to our sentencing bail and parole Acts that toughened the law. Tony Ryall who was the Minister of Justice before Mr Goff said that our laws were too tough. Do members know that under Mr Ryall’s and National’s laws for preventive detention—the sentence given to our worst offenders those on whom we have to put a sentence saying that if at any point in their lives they breach it they will have to go back to jail; effectively a life sentence—criminals could be sentenced to preventive detention only on the second offence. They got the first one free under the National Government. But as we know that would not have been the first offence; it would have been just the first time they were caught. Who knows how many offences these people got away with before they were sentenced to preventive detention. 
It was the Hon Phil Goff and the Labour Government that said no that if preventive detention was to be an effective sentence it needed to be available on the first offence if that offence was serious enough to have brought that sentence down on the second offence. It was a Labour Government that did that. It was a Labour Government that got rid of Tony Ryall’s automatic release at two-thirds. Under the last National Government criminals were automatically released at two-thirds of their sentence and it was the Labour Government and the present leader of the Labour Party the Hon Phil Goff when he was Minister of Justice who said no it should be based on the risk to the community. 
The context in which we find ourselves having this debate is that of a National Party that consistently when in Government did nothing on law on order and did nothing to increase sentences against a previous Labour Government that stood up and made the tough choices because we do not like the fact that there are a lot more people in our jails. We think it is a failure of our society that we have so many people in our prisons. Every person in our prisons is wasted opportunity. But we stood up listened to the public and said we know that people want to feel secure. They want to feel that the sentences people are being given for the heinous crimes they commit reflect those crimes. We listened and we did it. 
If we compare that to this first law and order bill of the new National - ACT - Maori Party Government what do we find it does? It does nothing—absolutely nothing. Not one person will be safer because of this Bail Amendment Bill. Nothing will change and it just goes to show that here we are all over again facing the same tired rhetoric from the National Party. 
Why did Melissa Lee not draw the comparison or connection between the two bills we have already passed? One of those raises taxes for our most vulnerable families and reduces their income after retirement. The second was the 90-day probation bill which means that people can be fired for no reason—perhaps their boss does not like them—and they could be sent back on to a benefit. And she does not draw the connection with crime. She does not think that the policies in the legislation they are passing—policies that will whack our working families in the guts that will lower incomes for those who are most vulnerable and that will drive people into poverty—might be part of the reason that people commit crime in the first place. 
David Garrett 
: Wrong! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: “Wrong!” says Mr Garrett. Apparently poverty has nothing to do with crime! When are we going to have a law and order debate in this country that deals with the causes of crime? Do members know why we do not? It is because there is no immediate political pay off for doing that. We are not going to see the benefits of the last 9 years of a Labour Government that poured money into early childhood education into at-risk families and into dealing with children in the first 3 years of their lives which we know is when they are set on a path that it is very difficult to bring them off without huge resources. We are not going to see the benefit of that for perhaps another 5 10 or 15 years. 
Let us look at where we are now. We are dealing with 17 and 18-year-olds who are committing heinous crimes. These are the 17 and 18-year-olds who were born after the 1991 “mother of all Budgets”. These are the children whose families were plunged into poverty overnight by a National Government whose slogan was “going for growth”. What was the slogan from Mr Key in the Speech from the Throne? It was “going for growth”. If we never learn anything in this country if we are going to drive our poorest families into poverty if we are going to remove people’s rights at work as the National Government has just done today if we are going to raise taxes on the lowest families and cut KiwiSaver if we are going to cut growth because we have just got rid of research and development tax credits—which the rest of the world has—just like the National Party has done today if we continue to do these things we will be here in 20 30 40 or 50 years’ time having exactly the same conversation and passing legislation that will do nothing to prevent crime. It might make victims of crime feel better afterwards—this bill will not—but we pass legislation to make the victims of crime feel that there is appropriate punishment for what has happened but none of this will prevent there being victims of crime. 
Ultimately that should be what all legislation in this House is about. All legislation in this House should be about preventing more victims of crime from being created. How do we bring these young people off the path to crime and when will we give up the short-term reactionary knee-jerk responses—those responses that do nothing to actually lower the crime rate those responses that do nothing to bring those young people who are on that path off that path and into a productive life those responses that do absolutely nothing to reduce our crime rates and keep our communities safe? I say to this National Government that it is on notice because the last time it was in office it plunged families into poverty and everything we have seen in this urgency motion shows that its intentions have not changed that its colours have not changed and that it will do exactly the same thing again. And it will take a new Labour Government to mop up its mess again. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the 1991 so-called “mother of all Budgets” which came 5 months after that lot got the boot in direct response to the state it left the country in. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 The heart of what we are debating today is public safety. As someone who has returned from London I say that the previous Labour Government has made New Zealand less safe. I say as a young woman who walks the streets of central Auckland that New Zealand is not the place it once was. That is why I stand to speak today and am proud to support this legislation. 
I want to deal with a couple of things. The first is that at the heart of this Bail Amendment Bill we are dealing with risk—the level of risk. Phil Goff stood up before and said that this bill is just window dressing. I make the point that clearly he did not think that in 2007 because why else would he have passed legislation changing the law? So yes he is reversing his position and I think he needs to stand up and explain why he is doing that. 
The second point is that a number of reputable organisations believe that as a result of this law change it has been easier for people to get bail and we need to acknowledge those organisations’ concerns. The New Zealand Law Society the Police Association the Police Prosecution Service and a number of High Court judges have all said that it has been easier to get bail as a result of that law change. I stand here and say that we should be listening to those organisations. They know what they are talking about. The Labour Opposition might not but they do. We should be listening to those organisations that believe that the law passed by Labour in 2007 has meant it is easier for people to get bail. 
The third point I want to make today is to ask those members opposite that if they do not believe this legislation is making any change whatsoever then why are they supporting it? 
Hon Annette King 
: Because it makes no difference. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: Exactly—why are they standing here supporting the legislation if they think it makes no difference? I will tell them why. They know very well that they changed the law and made it easier for people to get bail. New Zealand is a less safe place as a result of 9 years of a Labour Government. 
I am proud to stand here and to be part of a Government that believes in making New Zealand a safer place for all New Zealanders—like my constituents in Auckland Central—so they can walk the streets. New Zealand will be a safer place and I am proud to be part of a National Government that is serious about protecting the public. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 The second reading of the Bail Amendment Bill has been a very robust debate which is how we like it on this side of the House. I am sure many members on the other side of the House have enjoyed the debate as well and that is healthy for democracy. 
I congratulate Melissa Lee on her election to this Parliament but I say to her that one of the mistakes one can make in this place is to assume that other people have not had the same experience that we have had. People from all walks of life are in this Parliament whether they are in the National Party the Labour Party or any other party and we have all had different experiences. She should never assume that because we are in the Labour Party and therefore the member’s natural opponents people on this side of the House have never experienced sorrow despair or tragedy because that is not true. We have all had such experiences; let us respect that. When someone says “You won’t know what it is like to be a victim” that is not true. Everybody in this House at some time has probably been a victim of something so when someone says that it brings out the worst in people. That would be my advice to the member. 
The member also said the change to bail that we are making today will mean we will never again see a tragedy like the murder of a dairy owner in South Auckland. Well after this bill is passed today the Royal assent is given on Monday and it becomes the law when somebody is then murdered tragically in a dairy or on the street what will the member say to her constituency? National will pass the legislation and in 6 months’ time a tragedy may happen again but National will have passed the legislation. In a year’s time it may happen again after the legislation is passed. You see passing this legislation will not stop mindless senseless violence by people one cannot control. One has to have good law; I agree with that. But to think that the law itself will stop that kind of mindless violence is not correct. I think the member will grow to regret that comment because what is said in this House unfortunately becomes the record of this House and then is used over and over again—and we have all been victims of that. That comment will come back to haunt Ms Lee and the National Party because the Minister knows that when this legislation is passed it does not mean the end of mindless violence in New Zealand. I wish it did but it does not. 
Then we had Chester Borrows speak. He said National was supporting this bill because it wanted to be seen to be doing something. Well actually I tell him we are supporting it because it does not make any difference to what is happening now in terms of people going into prison. 
I tell Nikki Kaye that when I was the Minister of Justice I got the briefing papers as well. Our change in 2007 to the Bail Act was never about putting fewer or more people into prison. It was about clarifying the law. So it was not about suddenly seeing a whole lot of people going into prison or not going there. The 2007 amendment was designed to clarify the law because it was not clear and judges had made it clear to us that the law was not clear. In fact the estimate was that by 2009 there would be 10 extra people on remand in jail because of the change and they would not necessarily be 10 murderers or suspected murderers. They could be people charged with any crime for which they could be remanded on bail. The advice I got was that by 2011 there could be as many as 40 people affected by that amendment. So the issue was never about putting more people in jail or fewer people in jail; it was always about clarifying the Act. 
Pansy Wong said it took us 9 long years and we did nothing. Well for the information of this House I say the bail laws of New Zealand were toughened in 2000 by the Hon Phil Goff as Minister of Justice. That is quite clear and I listened to Rahui Katene’s speech where she pointed out what had happened since the bail laws were toughened up. She does not agree with what happened actually and that is fair enough. She thinks the bail laws became too tough. That toughening-up happened in 2000. The National Party members voted against the toughening-up of the Bail Act then. They did not agree with that. They said we were being too tough on people who would require bail. That was done in 2000. Then we looked at the need to clarify the law when the 2007 amendment was brought in. 
I now turn to David Garrett. He honestly said he had researched his “three strikes and you’re out policy”. He said he did the homework went to the United States at his own expense and that of the Sensible Sentencing Trust came back and did the work and then just before the election found he had got it wrong— 
David Garrett 
: Just after. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Just after the election. I do not know when the work finished then. So in the middle of the campaign the policy had been announced the billboards were already up and the member had made it clear that that was the policy—and just after the election he found out that he had got it wrong. It is good that the member did the work; that is very good indeed. I am pleased about that. But that is not the issue. 
The issue is that before the election the people of New Zealand were not told about the impact or the lack of impact of the very policy they went and ticked. They were not told that. So when my colleague says that this bill is an electoral fraud one has to admit that when the public is not told about the impact of a policy until after an election—just like the National Party has not told the public of the impact of the changes to KiwiSaver or the impact of its taxation changes—then one has to say that if it is not electoral fraud people were hoodwinked into believing that something was going to happen when something totally different from that is to happen. In fact we are on a go-slow on the policy that ACT campaigned on. 
David Garrett 
: It is going to the select committee. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I presume by that comment that when the member gets to the select committee he will change the measure and make it become retrospective because that is the only way he will be able to bring it in to do what he wants right now. 
Then we heard about how Parliament does not follow judges. The member is right; Parliament does not follow judges. Judges interpret the laws that Parliament makes. The reason why the amendment was brought in in 2007 related to the way judges were interpreting or thought they should interpret the principal Act. It was difficult to interpret and Phil Goff read out the comments that the judges made. So the aim of the change was to make the law clearer. That is our job: to make the law clearer so the judges can make the judgments that we require of them. 
As Minister of Justice I faced on a daily basis a barrage of questions on justice from the very effective then Opposition member Simon Power. I really look forward to being told what he is going to do with the justice portfolio. Of course there was the Ombudsman’s report into the criminal justice system. Of course that report is now with the Government and he is in the Government. I am going to be very very interested in that matter. In fact I have a whole series of questions to ask the Minister about what he is going to do with the Ombudsman’s report. I know that the Minister thought a lot of that report. He believed in that report and thought it was an extremely good report. Is that correct Minister? 
Hon Simon Power 
: Yes. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Is it a wee while since the member read it? 
Hon Simon Power 
: No. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think maybe it is because the Ombudsman said about the bail change of 2007: “I express doubt whether this amendment will have a major impact in reducing the number of custodial remands.” 
That is what the Ombudsman said of our change and the reason why we will not vote against this bill is that it returns the situation to what it was before that change. It was only ever going to have a marginal impact in terms of the number of people in custody. It was about clarifying the law so it makes very little difference at all. If the House wants to make the law less clear that is fine. It does not make much difference in terms of the beds in prisons. That however is the argument that the National Party went to New Zealand on: that the change we made had made it easier for criminals to be in society and that we did it in order to save prison beds. That is not true on the basis of the evidence given to the member as the Minister. It is not true according to the comments made by those who understand the 2007 amendment including officials judges and people in the Law Society. That is not the reason why the amendment to the principal Act was done. 
This bill is a piece of puffery and flimflam. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I respect the sentiments of the Labour members. They had 9 years to amend the law yet crime has increased. In those 9 years they did not do anything but National which has been in office for only 1 month has introduced this bill. I respect the sentiments of the Labour members and understand that that is why they are upset. 
There are really big concerns in the Indian community because over the last few years that community has faced three murders. Hard-working people hard-working Kiwis have been lost while working in their shops to earn bread for their families. In the case of Navtej Singh his family does not have a breadwinner right now and is really struggling to make a living. 
I support this bill because it is a great step. Within 1 month of becoming the Government National has introduced this amendment bill and the main objective of it is to protect the public and to give rights to the police and the justice system. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 It gives me some pleasure to rise to speak to the Bail Amendment Bill. The bill is interesting in that it deals with an important issue but in the end really does nothing about it. I think that is the essence of what the Opposition is arguing. 
Obviously the issue is important. I do not think there is anybody in this House—even the most liberal on penal policy—who regards seriously violent crime and indeed other serious forms of crime with anything other than abhorrence. Anybody here who read the material about the Nia Glassie case for example and many other cases over the years simply fails to grasp or understand how people can be so evil so cruel and so thoughtless about the actions they engage in. It is beyond the comprehension I think of anybody in this House to think about what kind of mind can bring itself to do that kind of action. Equally much less serious forms of crime can impact seriously upon people. Minor forms of burglary feel like a form of invasion for the individual. It is a disruption of one’s life. It is an invasion of one’s privacy. It can result in the removal of things that are perhaps of little material value but of great non-tangible value to families. 
People want to see those responsible for crime punished not least because the traditional reason why the State punishes crime is in part to prevent other people from punishing crime. It is to ensure that the Crown—the King or the Queen—keeps unto itself a monopoly if one likes on retributive power; otherwise we descend into a state of mutual retribution and endless cycles of retribution. We would also like to see more effective rehabilitation within the penal system yet I suppose we can say that successive Governments have failed to achieve as much in that respect as we would all like to see. I wish the new Government well with its plans for drug and alcohol rehabilitation within prisons. I hope it can get that kind of money for penal policy out of my successor as Uncle Scrooge. 
That is all well and good but there also is a lot of rhetoric on these issues that bears not a great deal of relationship to reality. There is an idea that simply by having ever stronger penal policy ever longer sentences ever more difficulty in getting bail and ever more difficulty in getting parole somehow or other these crimes will go away. I think Ms Lee fell into that mistake quite badly by arguing that this particular change—which as one can see if one stands not very far back at all is a very marginal change to the provision of bail—will somehow prevent people from committing serious crimes. Well it is most unlikely to do so. It is certainly most unlikely to prevent any first offender from committing a serious crime because the first offender is most unlikely to have the kind of record or the kind of experiences that will alert a judge to the possibility that he or she is likely to commit a serious crime if let out on bail. It will not necessarily prevent people from committing crimes after they are released from prison—prevent them from being second-time offenders—unless we say that for every kind of serious offence people are locked up for life and we mean life. If we mean that we had better start building an awful lot of prisons very quickly. That would create an awful lot of difficulty. 
All of those things really are true. As Annette King wisely said—and I think the Government would be wise to listen—making bold promises within a matter of weeks of becoming the Government that these kinds of actions will mean we do not have any more horrendous attention-grabbing headline-grabbing crimes that revolt the nation merely exposes one to enormous risk in the future. It means that even if we do not choose to visit those words back upon the Government the media will certainly choose to visit them back upon the Government at some point in the future particularly during the dead news season over the Christmas holidays and the new year when crime dominates the headlines on television and in other media because not a lot else is going on. That is why crime dominates in that period. It is not necessarily because there is more crime; it is because there is no other news for the media to cover. 
So what does the bill actually do? It basically is the equivalent of pressing the circle button on one’s Sky TV remote. It moves one back to channel 23 from channel 24 if one was on channel 23 previously. It simply removes a change and goes back to the previous law in terms of bail. What does that mean in practice? On the one hand it might mean slightly more confusion in that the changes introduced in 2007 were merely an attempt to clarify the intention of the law given the fact that certain members of the judiciary had arrived at certain views that did not seem entirely consistent with the law. But on the other hand there is a great deal of case law and many statements from judges already that can be taken as a guide and by and large the statements from judges on cases since 2007 have indicated that in their view the 2007 changes made very little difference to the interpretation of the law. In other words if we are to go by what the judges have said so far based on the 2007 changes we cannot expect the judges to make much of a change in interpretation based on this particular law. So again I say to Ms Lee that she should be very careful. 
Let us also remind ourselves of one quite fundamental point. Our system assumes that people are innocent until proven guilty. The presumption is that bail is given unless there is good reason in terms of the interests of protecting the public not to give bail. Otherwise one ends up with an increased risk of people who will be found innocent having spent considerable periods of time in jail. That of course is not a desirable outcome. People are innocent until proven guilty. 
Hon Annette King 
: 30 percent of them are not found guilty. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes 30 percent of them are not found guilty. That does not mean they are innocent of course; it means the Crown has not proven its case. 
But it is also very clear that sometimes people get it wrong. Sometimes people who should not be found guilty are found guilty. In the United States in particular a rather alarming number of people convicted of the most serious crime of all—murder—are subsequently cleared on the basis of forensic evidence. If they had been executed which is the law in most states in the United States the situation would have been particularly serious because it is rather hard to reverse an execution. It is a case of saying: “Sorry about that. We locked you up for 10 years which was bad enough but we’ve also actually topped you in the meantime so we can’t do very much about it at all.” 
We have to recognise that any of us in this room any of us in Parliament could find ourselves on a charge—not necessarily a serious criminal charge but even that is possible. Mistakes are made. Mistakes are made in the system. People are charged. If we have a system that does not provide bail at all then any one of us in this House is also exposed—seriously—to the risk of imprisonment perhaps unfortunately there is often quite a long time between charges being laid and the case actually coming to trial. People in New Zealand have made lots of money out of writing books about the injustices of the New Zealand criminal law system and people being wrongfully convicted. In some of those cases I am not always convinced by those books I might say but I will not go any further into those particular matters in case I commit an indiscretion—being a previous Attorney-General. 
There is a balance that always needs to be struck. The balance cannot be that we lock people up as soon as they are charged because that is to make assumptions that should not be made. Yes we have to somehow find better means of preventing crime. We are still putting far too little in the way of resources into trying to cut off crime at its roots. We need some very hard conversations in this country about what is needed in terms of the use of the power of the State in terms of early intervention and the power of State-supported community groups and other groups in terms of early intervention. I am not sure we now have that balance entirely right. 
But let us not rush off into rhetoric that somehow or other very minor changes of this sort will suddenly lead to a crime-free New Zealand. There was no past golden age when we had a sense of peace and community if I can quote Miss Katene nor was there a past golden age when there was no serious crime. Those ages have never been; they never were. We have had serious crime with us always and societies that have an extreme punitive approach do not have no serious crime at all. It is true that if we execute all criminals the rate of recidivism is quite low but beyond that nobody has found the perfect answer in these areas. 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 This is a new Government now getting on with the job in the first 100 days and rolling through legislation that is vitally important in order to keep our communities safer. The main objective of the Bail Amendment Bill is about making communities safer. It is about protecting the public from defendants who— 
Hon Annette King 
: For goodness’ sake stop reading the research notes. They are just rubbish. 
NATHAN GUY 
: No no; I am not reading the research notes I say to Mrs King. The objectives of this bill are actually very important. They are about making communities safer and about protecting people from defendants who are out on bail and who might be absconding or interfering with witnesses or evidence. That is why this Government is getting on with the job of making communities safer. It is vitally important. That is why members on this side of the House are supporting the bill and it looks like we have a great deal of support from across the whole of Parliament. That is why we are endorsing the second reading of this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 7 
Green Party 4; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Because this bill is such a small bill—both small in nature and small in substance—in addressing this clause I want to pick up on something that Mr Garrett said in relation to his party’s stance on law and order that I found astounding I must say. 
I think it was Mr Goff who challenged Mr Garrett in respect of his “three strikes and you’re out” policy. He said it was the biggest electoral fraud possibly in New Zealand’s history. People were told that after three strikes somebody would be inside for 25 years with no parole. The ACT candidate in my electorate Mr Aaron Keown rattled around the electorate with great aplomb and made that point. Mr Goff pointed out that after the election Mr Garrett who I am told—I ask the member to correct me if I am wrong—was at that time the legal adviser to the Sensible Sentencing Trust— 
David Garrett 
: A legal adviser. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —a legal adviser and a learned lawyer by his own admission I think. 
David Garrett 
: I didn’t say that. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well by Mr Hide’s admission. After the election he unveiled what the policy really meant which was that it would not apply or have any impact at all for 15 long years. That bowled everybody over including I suspect even the Sensible Sentencing Trust. Maybe the Sensible Sentencing Trust might want to ask for Mr Garrett’s salary back as a refund because then— 
David Garrett 
: I never got paid Mr Cosgrove. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh he never got paid—OK. He got paid to— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: They got value for money then! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes they got value for money. It was pro bono all right—serious “bono”. He then went on to tell us why he had told the people of New Zealand one thing before the election and another thing after the election and I wrote it down. It was he said because he had not worked it out. He had not worked out that the legislation is not retrospective. I will go through the same example he did. If somebody commits a crime and gets say 7 years then comes out commits another crime and gets 5 years and so on eventually he gets 15 years. He had not worked that out and he was a lawyer advising the Sensible Sentencing Trust! I am sorry but I do not accept the explanation. I suspect he is a bright guy. He has a law degree—I do not so I bow to his experience knowledge and expertise—he was working pro bono or otherwise for the Sensible Sentencing Trust and I see that its magazine that came out a couple of days ago was trumpeting this position. I do not accept his explanation. We worked it out in about 30 seconds. I think even National Party members worked it out. 
I say to Mr Garrett that he will regret that attempt to hoodwink New Zealanders. New Zealanders clearly read the billboards. The position was clearly enunciated by ACT. If it took him 3 months of an election campaign to get out the calculator and go 5+5+5=15 that says a lot about him. Maybe he ought to be a little quieter in this Chamber. His integrity is intact of course—no one would ever question that. But certainly one would now question that man’s judgment and certainly one would question his leader’s judgment in co-opting a person who made such outrageous claims to the New Zealand people simply to get votes who is here in this Chamber on the basis of what he had told people and who then broke that promise knowingly—in my view—after the election. If he could not hit 5 on the calculator then + then 5 then + then 5 and work it out— 
David Garrett 
: What promise are you talking about? What promise was that? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The promise on ACT’s billboards that this would happen now that there would be an immediate impact. At every candidates meeting that I went to people stood up and asked the ACT candidate whether that would happen and he said “Yep we are going to make it happen asap.” I invite that member to poll New Zealanders and ask them because that is the impression the ACT Party created. 
Hon Annette King 
: The candidates. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The candidates created it. Mr Hide created it Mr Garrett created it Sir Roger Douglas probably created it—every member of that party created the impression that almost the day after the election ACT would get some legislation up and bang it would come in and have an immediate impact. Then he says on radio and in print that actually it will not have an impact for 15 long years. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 During the first and second readings of this bill one of the common things that was said about its effect was that the community would be safer once it was passed. The bill will be passed today. No doubt the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power will have it ready for the Governor-General on Monday and it could be signed into law as soon as that. So what I really want from the Minister is an answer that defines for this House how the community will be safer after Monday. What difference will the passage of this bill make once the bill has the Royal assent? I ask the Minister to define for this Parliament so we can have it on the record of the House how the community will be safer. I think that is very important. Will we see after the passage of this bill fewer murders? Will there be fewer assaults? Will there be less violence? We need that definition because members in National have been programmed from new members through to experienced members like Nathan Guy. Those members who have just concluded their speeches have said that with the passage of this bill the community will be safer. 
That is a big claim; it is a major claim and New Zealanders will want to know how we can measure it. How can we measure the claim that when this bill is passed the community will be safer? That is a very important question I say to the Minister and I would like on the record how he will define that so we can measure his performance. That is not unreasonable because the National Party has made much of what it will do in the law and order area—how much tougher it will be and how it will ensure that the streets of New Zealand are safer for New Zealanders. We need the measurement of such a change because it is only by having that definition and that measurement that people will know whether what was said—and the rhetoric—on the campaign trail was right. That is the first thing. 
I wonder whether the Minister will also tell us how this bill will stop murders in the family environment. You see we heard from people today that this will stop murders on the street. Melissa Lee believes that this will stop murders in dairies and on the street and it will stop street violence. We have already asked for that definition but I would like to know how it will stop murders that happen in the family environment. Almost half of our murders now happen in a family situation and most of those people who commit murder have not murdered before. In fact about 16 women are murdered every year by a partner and about six men and 10 children are murdered in a family environment. So about 32 of the murders we have each year are committed in that family environment. The rest we would consider to be committed in a street or public violence situation. We have about 60 murders a year and have had for the last decade. There has been very little change in that time in the number of murders in New Zealand. So how will this change make a difference to that situation? One of the worst situations we have in New Zealand is family violence. How will the change in the bail law affect that? 
The next thing I want to know from the Minister is whether he believes that the streets of Auckland are less safe than the streets of London as Nikki Kaye said in her speech. She said that in London where she lived it was safer than it is in Auckland. I presume we could compare K Road with Soho for example. Well I do not know whether Nikki Kaye ever met the police in London but I certainly did. I went to Soho and I watched their video recordings of what happens on the streets of Soho and I can tell members that every few seconds there is a robbery an assault or a stabbing. That is not the profile of New Zealand so when extravagant statements like that are made they need to be backed up by evidence. So I want to know from the Minister whether he agrees with his member and whether he believes that the new bail law amendment will make K Rd safer than Soho. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to thank Opposition members for recognising me. My name is indeed Melissa Lee. I thank them for the lessons they have decided to bestow upon me in respect of my inexperience in this Chamber. However I remind those members that I have the right to comment on the issue and I was neither delusional nor arrogant in pointing out that we have a problem with criminals in this country. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You didn’t say that. 
MELISSA LEE 
: If members listened very carefully they would know that I did not say the bill would stop murderers. I said I would support the bill if it stopped another senseless killing—like the killing of Navtej Singh Joanne Wang and Madam Yang. Madam Yang was an 80-year-old woman who was murdered in her home. 
I also talked about my experience of home invasion. Yes Chester Borrows was right: I became rather emotional. This is the first day I have spoken in the Chamber since my maiden speech and I became rather flustered by members opposite—great! I thank members for making me nervous—I have subsequently been shoulder-tapped. I was the victim of a home invasion. When I spoke earlier I was not arrogant enough to think that I represented everybody in New Zealand; I was speaking from my experience. Two guys wearing black balaclavas came to my house and followed me into my garage. Those people were on bail when they committed that crime. If this bill can stop them from committing another crime then I will support it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 There are a number of questions I would like to put to the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power. The Minister ought to be quite well informed in this area; he shadowed it for 9 years or something close to that. So I presume that unlike his predecessor in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson he will actually take calls. 
My first question to the Minister is whether anything in this bill would have had any prospect at all of influencing the outcome of any of the cases raised by Melissa Lee. Were any of the cases raised by Melissa Lee ones that involved people on serious charges who were out in the community on bail where the marginal impact of this bill would have made a difference? I think that question is important because we are talking about this bill. I do appreciate the need for any New Zealander to feel safe in his or her home. A home invasion is a terrifying thing and I have sympathy for anyone who has gone through that experience. I am not knocking the previous speaker’s experience; I am just pointing out that her saying none of us knows what it feels like to be a victim is presumptuous arrogant and patronising. All of those things are fair criticisms. 
Secondly can the Minister explain why this bill is a priority? Yes New Zealanders are concerned about law and order but why does this bill need to be rushed through without a select committee hearing? Is the bill a priority because it will have an immediate and important influence on making the community safer? If that is the Minister’s argument can he explain to the Committee and the country how this will happen when the advice given to my colleague Annette King just a matter of months ago—by the same Ministry of Justice officials who are sitting at the front of the Chamber now—was that this might involve about 10 remand beds over the next year. Will this be really significant if as the law states at the moment the people whose cases might be influenced are those that involve less clear and significant risk than nebulous and insignificant risk? So is the nature of the people whom we are talking about—those who may be remanded into custody—such that a reasonably clear risk would be presented to New Zealanders and if he believes that can he provide the House with some evidence to sustain that argument? 
Does the Minister accept that the impact of this bill will be to take the law on bail back to where it was before the 2007 amendment? If so the case law that applied under the previous law will apply now. Does he therefore accept that that case law is set out clearly in  
R v Hines 
 in the Court of Appeal? That judgment says that the risk that the defendant may interfere with the witness should be “more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk.” If that is the case how will the law now change in its interpretation from what it was before given that this bill will take us back to exactly the same law that we had and presumably the same case law? 
Were the Ministry of Justice people actually being really generous when they suggested that this change might involve the need for another 10 remand beds? And are 10 remand beds very significant when the number of people remanded into custody at any one time is over 1800? We are talking about well over 15000 people each year being circulated through the system and remanded into custody. 
Given that the bill states that the Law Society said the changes have made it easier for defendants to get bail can the Minister explain why this remark is not qualified by what the Law Society actually said. I think it was on the  
Close Up 
 programme that Jonathan Krebs who is the convener of the Law Society’s criminal matters committee said: “the threshold of the bail test has been reduced a little bit.”—a little bit. 
Hon Simon Power 
: So it has been reduced. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: A little bit. I am happy to take my seat if Mr Power indicates a willingness to answer all or even any of those questions. That would make a change from the other Minister who was in the chair. 
On the bill the Minister says that High Court judges have said these changes made it easier but he actually quoted very selectively. Justice Priestley—hardly a Labour-oriented judge given his background as an office holder in the National Party as the Minister in the chair will be aware—said it is clear that the threshold criteria when considering section 8(1) have not changed significantly. However of course Justice Heath said it “does not seem to me to put the test any higher than was under the previous legislation”. So there we go. A couple of High Court judges say there is not much change and those who say there is change say that there has been a little bit. 
Will the Minister acknowledge to the Committee that he is into window dressing rather than reality as he has been accused of by a professor at Otago University? Given that this legislation is patently window dressing will he acknowledge that it really does not change things? The Minister knows that in his heart; he will probably not admit it in the Chamber today but he knows that is the case. Why did he choose this legislation—as he said in the  
New Zealand Herald 
—as his top priority? 
I ask the Minister to explain something to the Committee—and to Melissa Lee because she will want to know this. The Minister has the immediate power through Order in Council to bring in legislation that has already been passed—after having gone through a select committee process—and that makes the minimum period before parole can be considered for any serious sentence at least two-thirds of that sentence. That means that people serving short sentences will have to serve the whole time so if he was going to be tough and really make a difference—actually this is a question that Mr Garrett should be asking him and maybe he will—why has he not chosen that as his priority? I say to Mr Power that it is sitting on the statute book now waiting to come into effect. Mr Power has said that this is really important and that the law is too lenient. I ask him why he has not done that as his priority. Secondly if that is not his priority I ask when he is considering doing that and what the reason is for his delay. 
I think members would agree those are all legitimate questions. I am happy to resume my seat and listen to the Minister’s answers on those questions. 
I emphasise that as this bill is not going to a select committee the only accountability the Committee actually has is what the Minister answers in the Chamber to questions legitimately put. I think members would agree that none of the questions I have asked are frivolous that all are pertinent to the impact of this legislation on the country and on community safety and that the Minister should be able to justify how this will make a difference to community safety. He has said that publicly but we know from his briefings that it will have a very marginal impact and a marginal impact on cases that were themselves very marginal. So if there was any real risk that would already be covered by the legislation. So we are talking about perhaps nebulous and insignificant risk as set out by Justice Heath. 
Why is this legislation the priority? Is the Minister misleading the country in suggesting that it will make the community safer? Were any of the cases raised by Melissa Lee relevant to the legislation passing through the House right now? I would really appreciate the Minister having the conviction to stand up and answer those questions. I give him now the opportunity to take the call. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 The Opposition is actually largely right: this measure will not reduce homicide by 50 percent or even 10 percent. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Or even 1 percent. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Or even perhaps 1 percent—that is right. I think I could even agree that the test was made a little bit more liberal; I can even accept that. 
I would like to give the Committee a few figures. Twenty-five percent of violent offenders reoffend while on bail. They do not necessarily kill anyone; probably almost none of them do. The reoffending rate for those whose previous major offence was rape unlawful sexual connection or attempted sexual violation is even higher: 27.4 percent 30.4 percent and 31.2 percent respectively. I am not a great numbers man—I do not have to be—but that means that out of every 100 people released on bail 20 to 30 reoffend depending on their offence or their past. If we can prevent even one of those who is released—who would otherwise not have been released as a result of the stricter risk test rather than the “real and significant risk” test—from killing someone or even raping someone is that not worth doing? 
Members should look at the case of Dean Wickliffe. He was a long-time loser. He was locked up in 1972 for murder. Later on retrial the crime was found to be manslaughter but significantly the court never let him out—the life sentence remained. Life sentences are available for manslaughter but are almost never used. Wickliffe finally got out in 1987 but within a very short time he was back again: a year later he was convicted of murder. He spent years and years arguing that he had been wrongfully convicted of murder in 1972. Finally the parole board said that he was right. One year later he killed someone. Sorry I should say that he was retried and acquitted. But as the Hon Phil Goff said quite correctly no one gets found innocent in this country. Acquittal is quite a different thing. 
Now Wickliffe is out again. He is out again “to care for his terminally-ill partner”. He is certainly not a nurse. He is not a hospice worker. Even his people in Maketu in the Bay of Plenty are “ambivalent about Wickliffe’s pending return. One said the community had done a lot to help Wickliffe settle into life outside prison but he had turned his back on them. ‘He likes to be a big hot-shot.’ ” I believe he is known as the “Big man” although he is about 5 feet tall. I hope I am wrong—I absolutely hope I am wrong. But Wickliffe is out there now and that frightens me. He is out there now on bail. If this proposed tightening of the test meant that some judge somewhere said “Well no—there’s a slight risk there; you’ve got to stay there.” I would feel a lot happier. So even if this measure reduced violent offending by a little bit—even by 1 or 2 percent—it would be a change worth making. 
But the Opposition is correct: in itself this measure will not reduce violent offending by a huge amount. It is very difficult to measure how much this will reduce it at all. A negative cannot be measured—it is very hard. But I would be much happier if Mr Dean Wickliffe was behind bars rather than in the community and if this change achieves that for others like him then it will have done something positive. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the member who has just resumed his seat David Garrett. I think he has put his finger on the nub of the issue which is that in itself the Bail Amendment Bill will not do a lot. In fact the very case he outlined—the kind of situation he outlined—is the exact reason why the last Labour Government changed the bail laws as soon as we became the Government and is the very reason we changed the Sentencing Act and parole laws the moment we became the Government: because we recognised the inherent unfairness and the danger to the community of existing legislation. But as I said none of us likes presiding over rising prison populations. It is a waste but at the end of the day the safety of the community and the safety of the public have to be upheld. It is important that when people come up for bail their previous history can be considered as an indication of the kinds of risks they might pose to the community if they were to be released. So strangely enough there is not a lot there that we disagree on and I think that the Hon Phil Goff who passed those amendments into law had that in mind when he passed them. 
But I say to members again that we cannot forget the other side of the equation which is that if we are constantly—to use a very overused cliché—the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff rather than the fence at the top then parliaments in 20 30 40 50 or 60 years’ time will still be having these debates. There will still be far too many victims of violent crimes and nothing will change. 
I appreciate that this is not a large bill: it is fewer than 50 words I think if we take out headings and the contents page. It did not really need the contents page but that is all right—it is standard. I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power which clause in this particularly short bill will prevent crime. I ask the Minister which clauses in this legislation will prevent family violence. I reiterate that this is the first law and order legislation we are seeing in National’s 100 days of action; it is the top priority for the new Government in terms of law and order legislation in its first 100 days of action. It is significant: as a Parliament and as a country we can look at the first bill that comes up as an indication of the way that we will go forward. This is the bill that has come up first. I ask the minister which clause in this bill will prevent family violence and will encourage people to report family violence. I ask him how many crimes this bill will prevent. If this bill as he says will result in a large number of people being held in remand how much has he budgeted for that increase? How many extra beds has he budgeted for? 
I ask how he reconciles this legislation with the legislation his Government passed yesterday and today which increased taxes on the most vulnerable families and which took away the rights of workers in their first 90 days of employment to appeal against being sacked even if they were sacked simply because their boss did not like them or their partners. How does he reconcile that legislation with this? Does he agree with his colleague Tony Ryall who said in 2000 when Labour passed the Bail Act to toughen bail provisions that bail is a very important constitutional right and people should not have to be held in prison? The rhetoric that I heard on the election campaign certainly did not support that point of view. I think it is only right that as an Opposition party we come into this Parliament as a minority hold the Government to account for the rhetoric its members gave us during the election campaign and compare it with the reality of the legislation before us—the first law and order legislation of this new National - ACT - Maori Party Government. 
After going through an election campaign of fire and brimstone of hell to pay for criminals and of hell to pay for offenders this is the first piece of legislation we get. It really does not do much at all. It will not make a single person safer; a number of people have said that. We can play tit for tat over which justice said what and which academic said what but the fact is that this bill will not make anyone safer it will not live up to the rhetoric we heard during the election campaign and it is the role of the Opposition to hold the Government to account. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to address some of the questions that have been raised. I appreciate that although the Bail Amendment Bill is a short bill it is appropriate for the Minister to have a say on one or two things. I also appreciate the fact that my predecessor in this job often made the effort to respond to questions that were put to her when she was sitting in this chair so I am happy to do that. 
First of all I say it is our hope that Parliament will realise that it is its job to clarify the matter in respect of the interpretation of bail laws. It is important that this Parliament sends a message about any ambiguities that could be interpreted by different members at different levels of different courts. That is why I am pleased that the Labour Party has decided today to support this legislation: because if nothing else some of the issues of different interpretation that have been outlined by some of the Opposition members will hopefully receive some sorting out. In the end the matter of whether or not changes to bail contribute to the reduction in crime even in a modest way would have to be helped by clarification of and an end to confusion about the test that is to be applied in this area. 
The Hon Phil Goff made some comments in respect of the New Zealand Law Society’s criminal law committee spokesperson Jonathan Krebs who told the  
Press 
 on 20 November 2007 that changes to the Bail Act in that year had made it easier for people to get bail— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: A little bit. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No. Actually the quote I have here is “made it easier” for people to get bail; I tell Mr Goff that is the version I have in front of me. Yes the bar had been lowered a little bit he said but the safety of the community was still paramount and if a judge was concerned that an applicant might present a risk bail could be refused. That is why clarification is needed in that area. 
On the issue of the number of remand beds I say yes I have seen the advice that members are referring to around the figure of 10 or so beds. In fact I think I may have raised it in the House during the last Parliament. And just so that Mr Goff knows this I tell him I have been National’s spokesperson in the law and order area for only 3 years not 9 years. I know it feels like 9 years to members opposite but I have been there for only 3 years. But those members may be interested to know the latest figures I have available. As I said in the first reading initial Ministry of Justice figures talked about an extra 50 to 100 beds—maybe more. So we are talking about a reasonably significant change—well a change that is significantly more than the numbers that were indicated— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What percentage would that be of all bail remands? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Well I tell Mr Goff that he wanted me to answer questions and I am doing that in respect of matters around the number of beds. I hope that clarifies that issue. 
The other thing that I am concerned about is the practicality of the situation for individuals like members of the police and the Police Prosecution Service who on a day-to-day basis deal with the upfront implications of previous laws in this area. We know that it is the view of the police that in fact the law change did make life more difficult for them when it came to bail applications. We know for example from the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 21 October 2007 where this matter was written about that police prosecutors were shown a slide by Kelvin Campbell the legal adviser to the Police Prosecution Service. It stated that the Bail Act and Sentencing Act amendments were to ease concerns over prison numbers create new sentences short of imprisonment and make it harder for the police to oppose bail as a result of that. 
Frankly this is a time for us to tidy this issue up. That is why I am pleased that just about every party in Parliament has decided to support this legislation. It will make for a clarification of the issue. I think Dr Cullen’s contribution to the second reading debate was a helpful one. These are big issues and they are difficult issues; no one is saying they are easy. But at the end of the day if we can keep people off the streets who would otherwise have got bail by clarifying that test—thereby hopefully enhancing public safety—that cannot be a bad thing. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is not in the business of being in Parliament to make law that makes David Garrett feel better. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That has got to be a shock to him. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Ha ha! That is not our sole reason for being in Parliament. 
Moana Mackey 
: That’s not what you campaigned on. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: It is not what we campaigned on. Nor is it our business to be making law to make anybody feel better; we are here to make law that makes real change. There is an argument here as the debate goes on as to whether this legislation will do anything whatsoever. We are hearing from one side of the Chamber that it will do nothing and we are hearing from the other side that it might do a little bit. Either way it is an appalling way to approach legislation. We should not be wasting an extra day of taxpayers’ money on a Friday afternoon in having the whole House here to debate legislation for which there is no evidence of any description that it will actually do anything to keep people safer to make significant changes to the prison muster to keep dangerous offenders in prison as opposed to out to reduce crime under any circumstances or to impact at all on recidivism and reoffending. On that basis this is an absolute and utter waste of taxpayers’ time and money. Through this debate absolutely nothing will change and nobody knows—not even the Minister—whether this legislation will make any change anytime in the future. 
This is disgraceful behaviour and a disgraceful reason to be using the kinds of precious resources that our community needs when the community does need to be kept safer and the community does have real fears. Much of that fear has been driven up by political fearmongering during the election campaign. Law and order has been used for that purpose for quite a number of years but there are real concerns in the community and they should be addressed. 
So how will we deal with those concerns about reoffending reducing the amount of crime in our community and trying to keep people out of prisons? In many ways prisons are holding cells for the potential capacity of enormous development in this country particularly from a Maori point of view. Too many of our Maori people are in prisons for all the structural racist reasons that I set out earlier in my first reading speech and that Rahui Katene set out in hers. It is a huge waste of potential to have people trapped in our prisons but the law and order debate that is being held at this high level in Parliament and therefore filtered out into the community is one of doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results. Of course as we all know that is the definition of insanity not rational evidence-based legislation and lawmaking. 
We need to change the debate and we need to change what we do to make this community safer. We know that if we keep people away from prison they are less likely to reoffend. We know that for a fact so surely there is room here for a serious discussion and serious debate and for legislation that looks at ways of keeping people away from jail because we know that if they stay away from jail they are less likely to reoffend. That is a means by which we can reduce the recidivism rate; it is a means by which we can keep our communities safer. But instead of dealing with legislation to keep people away from prisons we are debating legislation that will put more people in prison and we are somehow expecting despite the evidence to the contrary that this will keep our communities safer. 
It is of some interest—at least to me I guess—that this issue is not faced by New Zealand alone. New Zealand suffers from the problem of a failure both of the imagination and of rational evidence-based legislation in terms of finding the real solutions and of enacting and putting in place the real solutions to reducing offending and reducing reoffending. Australia is dealing with the same issues. It has recently had a number of law changes that have made it much harder to get bail over there and as a result its prisons are absolutely bursting at the seams. It is a particular issue in New South Wales. They are talking about having to build a new prison in New South Wales every 2 years just to keep the growing population of prisoners in jail. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am glad that the Minister took a call but I urge him to take another call and give a more comprehensive explanation to the questions he was asked. I acknowledge Metiria Turei’s speech because she made some extremely valid points in terms of the politicising of this really important issue the knee-jerk reaction and the going for the populist line on things. National has claimed that it would be tough and that this bill would be a really really important tool in terms of its commitment to dealing with crime. I actually think that National has almost committed itself to stopping crime in New Zealand—is that right—but by its very presence this bill implies that Labour’s 2007 amendment legislation had a detrimental effect on remand. By its very presence that has to be the case the Minister and the National Government are putting up. 
Labour knows that the figures show that that is simply not the case—that the remand prison population has continued to grow at a rate greater than the sentenced population despite the 2007 amendment to the Bail Act. In July 2007 remands which included prisoners held in police stations totalled 1733 and comprised 21 percent of the total prison muster. By July 2008 remands had increased by almost 6 percent and constituted 23 percent of the total prison muster. I agree with Metiria Turei that the measure of our effectiveness in crime prevention in New Zealand should not be in terms of the numbers of people on remand. But the Government’s argument is that this bill is so important—and this is what I still want the Minister to explain—that it has to be pushed through in urgency. 
I would very much like Sandra Goudie to take a call. As chair of the Law and Order Committee I believe that it would be very appropriate— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The law and order “tsar”! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Sorry the member was not listening; I will say it again: I would like Sandra Goudie to take a call on this bill. I am sure that she as chair of the Law and Order Committee—and I have sat very occasionally with Sandra Goudie on committees—like all other members values the input of submissions and the select committee process. I think everyone in this House would acknowledge that that process is a very good idea. We see that it is a very effective process. We see bills go to that committee that are at the very most thrown out that do not go forward. They may be unchanged but often and more appropriately they are changed because we get constructive ideas coming through. Those are not always criticisms; they are often technical points. Yes I hope Sandra Goudie is speaking to the Minister and I am hoping she can take a call. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Where is she going? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am not allowed to say what is happening now but I do hope she will take a call. 
I do not think the Minister has answered the question. In fact I made a note of one of his responses which was that part of the reason for the bill was to tidy up this issue. But I take Metiria Turei’s point. If we are tidying an issue up why are we in urgency depriving the public of a say and pushing through a bill that National and ACT it seems to me have acknowledged will really not have very much effect. 
I have not heard the Maori Party take a call on this. 
Hon Member 
: They did! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Sorry it did earlier. But if that is the case I am still completely perplexed as to why the Bail Amendment Bill is being pushed through in urgency. Given Labour’s 2007 amendment which was to clarify the law promote consistency in decision making and respond to judicial decision I would like to hear the Minister again explain how this bill will achieve that or improve on that. I think those are very important points. The Minister has talked about ambiguity and surely that scrutiny should have been made at a select committee. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Minister of Justice for taking one of what will be quite a number of calls I hope to answer questions put to him by members on this side of the Chamber and by the Green Party. I hope that David Garrett takes a call; I am quite enjoying his contribution here today. I believe that he is probably his own man but he might have some questions he would like to put to the Minister. He may even have some luck in getting some answers to them. 
I say to the Minister that he is certainly being a better role model than his colleague Kate Wilkinson who failed to get out of her chair hour after hour to answer questions. I think it is probably because the Minister knows that when a bill is taken through the House under urgency where there is no scrutiny then it is important that the members of this House have the opportunity to question the Minister and to get answers. 
One of the answers the Minister gave was I think partially in response to the question I asked: would he please define for Parliament and for New Zealanders how the community’s safety would be measured? The Minister said that the bill sends a message. But I say to the Minister that I do not think it is good enough for the bill just to send a message. I remember Clem Simich whom I am very very fond of say in 1993 that he would take a message to Parliament and 15 years later we still had not had the message even by the time he left. So for the Minister to say that the bill is sending a message is not a strong enough reason to have brought in this bill under urgency. I ask the Minister to tell us how we will measure the success of this bill because his members have been programmed to say that when it passes the community “will be safer” not “may be safer”. Examples have been given of how it will be safer; most of them did not relate at all to the bail Act changes. But National members have put those reasons up so I have to assume that the Minister or the research unit gave them the information or that it is what they said on the campaign trail. I believe that the Minister needs to tell this House and New Zealanders how we will be able to measure whether the community is safer because this bill will be passed by Monday. 
I also ask the Minister to table for us the advice he got from the Law Society the judges the Police Prosecution Service and the Police Association saying that the changes to the Bail Act in 2007 “have made it easier for defendants to get bail.” I have not seen the advice but it is quoted in the explanatory note on the bill. What I have seen and what I do have are the comments made by Jonathan Krebs on  
Close Up 
 on 19 November 2007. I do have that verbatim. He said: “The threshold of the bail test has been reduced a little bit.” That is different from what the Minister said that Jonathan Krebs had said so I would like the Minister to table that information. We will not be able to question the Law Society the Police Prosecution Service the judges or the Police Association because there is no select committee ability to do that. Therefore to back up what is written in the bill I think it is important that that advice to the Minister is tabled in this Parliament. I have only what is in front of me but the Minister obviously has more. 
I am not at all surprised at the Police Association. I understand the police. The police in most cases oppose bail; that is part of their job. They have gone out and done the hard graft. They have found somebody whom they believe is responsible for the crime and they are very determined to get that person into court. So I understand where the Police Association comes from but I have not seen that advice provided. I ask the Minister whether it is possible for him to table that information today or is it a collection of things sent to him that are hear say and not actually fact? I think that is important because in effect this will become our submission. The basis of the change that the Minister is making today according to the explanatory note is because of those comments made by those people. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I am just following on from my previous discussions. I was talking about the fact that in New Zealand the debate about law and order is stuck on retribution and punishment as opposed to dealing with the real consequences in terms of safety for the community and the real need which is to reduce reoffending and the recidivism rate. What we know of course is that what we are doing now—which we continue to do in this House—does not reduce the recidivism rate; it increases it and there is no debate in this Chamber or amongst the broader community to look at the alternatives the changes that we need to make to reduce reoffending and to keep our communities safer. 
In Australia and in New South Wales in particular they suffer from exactly the same problem—a massive increase in the number of prisoners due to toughened bail laws. Thousands of people are being held on remand as they await trial and that is blowing out the costs of the prisons. Over there they talk about holding a prisoner at a cost of about $200 a day. There is nothing in the prison process particularly for those who are held in remand to help them to deal with their reoffending whether it is in terms of rehabilitation or drug and alcohol treatments particularly in terms of treatment support. 
As is the case here very little is spent on rehabilitation or support for those who are on remand or even those who get bail. This is where there is a huge hole and others with more experience in the portfolio may want to make a contribution about that—that there is no real support for those who are bailed. A young person with a first offence may get into some trouble and run with people who are more dangerous older and more involved in crime then get caught for some kind of offence and get bailed to that same community of people—the same family the same home and exactly the same circumstances that brought him or her into that criminal activity in the first place. There is no provision for them to get any kind of support to deal with the issues that brought them there. 
For many prisoners drug and alcohol treatment is absolutely essential. Vast quantities of our prison muster have drug and alcohol addiction problems. Very few especially those who have sentences of 6 months get access to any kind of rehabilitation programme whatsoever. Then they are let back out into the community. And what do we expect as we do the same thing over and over and do nothing to provide any assistance? We expect that they will magically decide to change everything about their experience and their lives and find a whole new way of living. 
There is not only that. As some of my Labour colleagues have mentioned they may then go into an environment where they may well get a job which is often a life-saver particularly for these young guys to help keep them out of trouble. But what happens after 90 days? They will be fired and they will find themselves on a benefit and on a 13 week stand-down because as we have discovered the Minister of Labour has not been able to fix that problem because she does not understand benefit law. [ 
Interruption 
] National did not support the amendment to get rid of that stand-down. Young guys in particular end up on a merry-go-round of jail for further offending trying to get work finding themselves unemployed going on a benefit again getting back into crime and going to jail—round and round it goes. Where is the intervention? Where are the resources that would stop that roundabout? There are none. 
We have to bear in mind that for all the really nice words that Minister Power has said in the past about trying to put more money into drug rehabilitation programmes both in prison and out of prison the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have told their Ministers that there is no new money. There in no money for any of these kinds of programmes so how will the Minister fulfil that promise? I have a great deal of faith in Simon Power. I have spent some time with him in the last 6 years in this House and I know that he is a genuine person. I believe that he believes those things but he has no money to put into rehabilitation programmes restorative programmes and programmes like the Sycamore Tree programme. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 There is a real and very significant risk that by passing this bill this House will penalise hundreds of people on the off chance that we may—I stress may—stop one or even two people who stand accused but are not yet found guilty of the crime of which they are accused. It is important that we as members of Parliament remember as the Hon Dr Michael Cullen said that a fundamental tenet of our criminal justice system is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The rationale is that it is better to let one guilty person go than to imprison any who are not guilty. So it is important that we keep that in mind when we are remanding a person into custody—they have not yet been found guilty of any crime. They are still presumed innocent of any crime they have been charged with. To remand them into custody which is what this is about is a very heavy penalty. It is a penalty that should be used only rarely in very limited circumstances where the police have sufficient evidence to convince the court that the defendant is highly likely to be convicted of the crime for which he or she stands charged is on a serious charge or is a danger to the public by either interfering with a witness absconding or reoffending while on bail. There is a very real and significant risk that we could be causing injustice. 
The Maori Party is convinced that this bill is a knee-jerk reaction as the member Metiria Turei has said. It is not a well-thought-out response to what everyone agrees is a problem. This bill does nothing to fix the problem. As a House I presume of intelligent people we should be sitting down and thinking this through properly. We should be putting it to a select committee so that people who have more experience in this area than us can give it well-considered thought come to talk to us about it and give us some solutions that are well-thought-through. 
If this bill is passed our wallets will be hit because Vote Corrections no matter what the Minister has told anyone will have to increase in size to pay for the huge increase in remand prisoners—that is people who are still presumed innocent. They have not been found guilty; they are still presumed innocent of any crime. 
The Maori Party agrees that the bill should not be pushed through under urgency. We should give the public a chance to have their say and to put up their ideas for dealing with this problem. And it is essential that Parliament does its job of making laws and does not pass that duty on to the courts. There is a real danger here that if we do not do that then the courts will. It is not the court’s duty to make laws; it is the court’s duty to interpret laws. Parliament should be telling courts what the law is not the other way around. There is a danger there when we let the courts make laws. 
I read from Moana Jackson’s paper  
The 
Maori and the Criminal Justice System: a new perspective—he whaipainga hou 
 Part 2 where he says that “The judge occupies a position in the eyes of the Maori community which is somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand judges are held to be worthy of respect because of their learning and wisdom; on the other they are responsible for injustice because of their service to an often prejudiced and unjust law.” As parliamentarians do we want to be remembered as the Parliament that passed unjust and prejudiced laws? We want to be making laws that will benefit all people and at this stage this law does not benefit Maori. It does not benefit anyone because it is a knee-jerk reaction. It is not doing what it is supposedly designed to do and we need to be able to say to our people and to everyone out there that we have thought this decision through—that we have done what the people say is the best thing to do. 
I continue from Moana Jackson’s paper: “Many Maori are aware of and continue to respect the frequent questioning of colonial policy by the first Chief Justice Sir Charles Martin. There is also continued anger and grievance at Chief Justice Prendergast’s dismissal of the Treaty.” 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I want to pick up on a couple of points that were made. Firstly I think that the fabric of the Bail Amendment Bill has started to unravel. Even the coalition partner—or whatever it is called—the ACT Party’s Mr Garrett made quite a valuable contribution. We finally teased it slowly out of him when he said that basically the changes proposed by Mr Power and the National Party do nothing—they do little. 
David Garrett 
: I didn’t say that. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes the member did; I wrote it down. He said that in itself this change will do “little.” That is what the member said. 
David Garrett 
: I said “little”. That is different from “nothing”. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I invite the member to whip out his  
Hansard 
 and have a look at it. That is what the Opposition has been saying for the last few hours. This is political puffery. This is propaganda. 
In response the Minister said to Annette King as the fabric of the legislation unravels and frays that this legislation is designed to send a message. We have an admission from Mr Garrett—he is a lawyer; I am not—that this legislation will do virtually nothing. We have been saying that. Mr Power says it is designed to send a message. Well by that admission we can see it is not designed to have any practical effect. At the start of this debate I said that the day after the enactment of this bill no one in New Zealand will be any safer because of it. This is what we have now come down to. This is political puffery. 
The Minister did get up and do what the Minister last night failed to do: he answered some questions. One key question that was put to him again was about his position on the parole legislation. His policy is the sentencing parole and bail policy of the National Party. Nowhere in there can I read of Mr Power sending a message. Under the heading “Our Principles” National’s policy states “Tough on crime.” Being tough on crime was the principle not the sending of a message. We now know not only because of what the Opposition said but also because of Mr Garrett’s admission that this bill does virtually nothing—very little. 
David Garrett 
: No I said “little” not “virtually nothing”. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: “Little” or virtually nothing. I do not have a dictionary in front of me but I am sure that we could get the  
Collins English Dictionary 
 out and have a debate about “little “very little” or whatever. There is another more colloquial way of putting it but I will not do that because it would be unparliamentary. Nowhere in the policy that the Minister sent to people before the election did it say National was going to send a message and that was all it was going to do. 
The question that Mr Goff Mrs King and I put to the Minister was about a practical solution. A practical effect that would make people safer would be to trigger the parole legislation. He was asked by me Mr Goff and Mrs King when he would do that. I tell the Minister to feel free to interject and answer that question. When will he ring the Governor-General and sign off the Order in Council? Today? Tomorrow? Next week? He could turbo-boost it if he liked. He could ring now; there is a phone in front of him. When will he actually do that? There is no answer. 
The other question that Mrs King put to the Minister was very interesting because he had rattled off that he had evidence from the Police Association the Police Prosecution Service and the New Zealand Law Society that our change had weakened the test for granting bail. She asked him was whether he could table the evidence of that. I am reliably informed that when he was asked in a side-bar conversation what the evidence of that was and whether he would table it the answer was that it consisted of news clippings and that he had never tabled news clippings in his life. So now we know there is no evidence. 
The hem is starting to fray on this bill because we have heard Mr Garrett say it is useless and does very little judges have said there is no change with this legislation and we know that it will not make one New Zealander safer the day after its enactment. I invite the Minister to change his mind get up in Parliament say “taihoa” go out to the phone booth behind him ring the Governor-General and do something that will be tough on crime. He could text him. I am told the Governor-General is well up on technology; the Minister could text him. He could do something that would be to quote his policy “tough on crime” and enact the parole legislation through an Order in Council. I wonder whether he will get up after this and answer that question. If not today then when will he do that? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Better than Kate Wilkinson. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He is better than Kate Wilkinson; I agree. He has actually got up and made a contribution. I know he is itching to make another but the whips have probably told him he is not allowed. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: No they’re not allowed to do that. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh they are not allowed to do that. But when will he bring into force the parole legislation? 
That is a fair and serious question I say to the Minister. It is a fair and serious question. The Minister knows—and all members from both sides of the Chamber who have made contributions and who have a view that we wish to help victims and to make New Zealanders and our communities safer know—that we cannot compare this piece of political propaganda with a phone call from the Minister to the Governor-General that would actually make a real difference to New Zealanders. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 48. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 5. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We now move on to clauses 2 3 and 4. As these debates are not part by part debates but clause by clause debates they will be narrow debates. Members are to confine themselves to the words of the particular clause and issues contained therein. These are not wide-ranging debates and if members do stray I will call them to order. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 This debate will be a real test will it not for somebody who likes to speak on issues in a very broad manner. Clause 2 has the commencement date and for those who do not know what this clause says let me tell them what is in it. This clause states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” Well of course the obvious— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You read it too fast; I couldn’t understand it. Do it again. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: For the sake of those who did not hear what I said and were asleep it states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” The obvious and first question to the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power is when this bill will receive the Royal assent. It is quite obvious that the Government has been having some problems with dates and organisation with getting things organised and getting things down on paper as we have seen in the House. In fact I happened to see the organisational paper outlining what was going on in the House—Gerry Brownlee’s running sheet—and it was written on the back of an envelope. So I am worried that the Minister has not yet decided on which date he will get the Royal assent for this bill. Will he get the Royal assent for this bill on Monday? Will he have the Governor-General come up to Parliament on Monday to sign off this bill? 
You see I believe that it has to be Monday because this legislation is so urgent that we have to be here on Friday at a quarter to 5 to debate it. We have to debate this legislation under urgency so that it can be given the Royal assent on Monday because it will make an earth-shattering difference to the people of New Zealand. It has to be Monday; the Government will have wasted hours and hours of the public’s time Parliament’s time and taxpayers’ time if the bill does not get the Royal assent on Monday at least. Maybe Tuesday we could accept; maybe we could accept another day so that the Minister could write it out—so that he could get his officials to put the signature down for him and so on—but it would have to be no later than that. 
The other thing I want to know from the Minister is whether we will receive the evidence for the need for this bill before it is given the Royal assent. Will we receive and will we have tabled in this Parliament the evidence that the Minister used as the basis for this bill before we get the Royal assent on it which could happen on Monday? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Maybe. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Or maybe on Tuesday or maybe Wednesday or perhaps next Friday. But will we get the evidence? That is quite important because before the Governor-General’s signature goes on this bill I suspect that the Minister will have to write to the Governor-General to tell him what this bill does. That is what we used to do—we used to say what legislation does. When the Governor-General faces the Minister and is about to put his signature on it in order to give it the Royal assent he will ask the Minister to show him the evidence for this bill. He will have noted that the Minister said in the explanatory note that the evidence for this bill comes from the Law Society the Police Association the Police Prosecution Service and a number of High Court judges. The Governor-General will ask before he signs this bill to see the evidence. I ask the Minister whether we will see that evidence. Will Parliament the Governor-General or anybody else see the evidence that was the basis for this legislation before it receives the Royal assent? Is that unreasonable? I ask Mr Garrett whether it is unreasonable. I ask whether he would like to see the evidence that was the basis for this bill as stated in the explanatory note. That should be done before the Royal assent is given to this legislation—on Monday or maybe Tuesday because it is an urgent matter given that the House has been required to debate it under urgency. 
I say to the Minister who is getting out of the chair that I really thought we might well have that evidence before he finished his tour of duty— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have had a change of Minister in the chair but the Minister in charge of the bill is still in the Chamber. If the Minister in charge of the bill is in the Chamber he or she is required to sit in the chair. The Minister can be relieved only if he is to be absent. I see that he is still here. I think he should take this matter a little bit more seriously than having the member for Whangarei of all people sitting in the chair. We have the Attorney-General here who at least is knowledgable on these matters. The idea that Mr Heatley would be knowledgable is just preposterous. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Thank you Mr Hughes. The point is well made. Order has now been resumed. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. I do feel however my colleague— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 The commencement date is exceptionally relevant because once the Governor-General signs the Bail Amendment Bill and it is enacted certain impacts will flow from it. We should not bring and I do not intend to bring the Governor-General into the debate but we know that he is a former judge. I have been a Minister and have attended Executive Council and I know that the Governor-General is often wont to ask questions around legislation—certainly with Orders in Council—before he signs them off. As my colleague Annette King has said I suspect that being a former judge he may well have questions. As a judicial official he was required to make decisions on evidence. 
I too would like to know whether as the legislation is packaged and sent up to the Governor-General there will be an attachment of news clippings because that appears to be all the evidence the Minister of Justice Simon Power has for the effectiveness of the bill—news clippings hearsay and opinion. I ask whether the impacts of this legislation will be summarised and attached to it as it is sent up to Government House for the Royal assent because once that Royal assent is applied we know what those impacts will be. 
Of course this point about the consequent impacts is very relevant. We have heard Mr Garrett say this legislation being passed and signed off by the Governor-General will have little impact and that little will change. We now know from Mr Power that once the Governor-General signs off this legislation all that it will do will be to send a message and nothing will change. I ask whether Mr Power might take this legislation himself in the limousine to the Governor-General and ask His Excellency: “Would you mind signing this other document?” which would trigger the parole legislation regarding two-thirds of a sentence. That would have the dual effect of making people safer and of being tough on crime. 
Hon Simon Power 
: You said this didn’t have an effect. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed—is the Minister agreeing with me? Will he take it up to Government House and trigger the parole legislation? 
I would like to know whether the Minister will be prepared to tell the Governor-General why the Government is passing this legislation before he signs it and to explain the evidence that legitimises the legislation and the consequent impacts that will flow from it. I ask whether he is prepared to commit to His Excellency that every New Zealander will be safer and that as Melissa Lee pointed out the day after this is signed there will be no more breaches of bail—it is almost as if no more crimes will be committed if we listen to National members—and I ask whether he is prepared to give those commitments to the Governor-General as the legislation is signed and therefore enacted on its date of commencement. These are legitimate questions Mr Chair as you will know being the previous Minister for Courts. 
As I say the Governor-General being a former judicial officer may well want to query his responsible Ministers from whom he takes advice as to the consequent impacts of this legislation. I suspect His Excellency will look at this legislation and conclude as we do that it changes nothing and that once it is enacted and has the commencement date put in place the status quo will effectively remain. That is what we have heard in speeches from the learned gentleman Mr Garrett in the evidence from Justice Heath and in the evidence the Opposition has put forward. 
Before we move on to the next clause I would again ask the Minister whether he is prepared to answer Mrs King’s questions about parole and whether he is prepared to table the evidence or if he will not table it with us then to provide His Excellency with it as the legislation is signed and given the Royal assent. Maybe then Mrs King and I could write to His Excellency and ask him whether he would release it and mail it to us. 
There is no evidence. Not one shred of evidence has been produced. We know that the consequential impacts that will flow when this legislation is given the Royal assent will be none—zero. There are no impacts and there are no changes. The status quo will simply remain. We have heard that from Mr Garrett. A little bit will change but in effect nothing will change. This is not part of National’s “get tough on crime” policy but I invite the Minister as he pops up to Government House with this legislation to simply lean over and say: “Here is another piece of paper your Excellency. Could you trigger the parole legislation?”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the next member I advise members that they should try to resist the temptation to bring the Governor-General into this debate and to speculate about the Governor-General’s motives and about how he might approach this matter. I want to make sure that members are aware of that. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The commencement clause debate is quite useful and it has been helpful to hear some of the more experienced MPs talk about it. I am interested in how the impacts of the Bail Amendment Bill are going to be measured once it commences and comes into force given that it has been only a year or so since the last lot of changes that this legislation reverses came into force. No evidence has been tabled or presented in the House during the debate about the impact of that legislation in the short period of time it has been in force. 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You directed that the debate would be narrow and on the subject matter of the clause. I fail to see how measurement of effects has anything to do with a commencement date. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member was relating the date to impacts before and after but it is broadening the debate out a bit. I draw members’ attention to the point that the debate is about the commencement date and issues around the commencement date itself not a wide-ranging debate beyond that. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: We have no idea when the commencement of this bill will be. What we do know is that once it has commenced at some time in the unknown future there will be a significant cost associated with it. The regulatory impact statement talks about $7 million per year plus another $38 million in capital expenditure. Those costs will start to be incurred on the commencement of this legislation. 
I suggest to the Minister of Justice that it would be a wise move to invest the same amount of money as will be invested in the management of this legislation once it commences on some unknown future date in the alternatives that have been known and proven to be effective at reducing reoffending in the past. Should $7 million be invested in rehabilitation at the commencement of this legislation at some time in the unknown future we would then be able to assess within a year of this legislation commencing whether it made a difference or whether the alternatives made a difference to keeping our communities safer reducing reoffending rates increasing the support for young offenders and to the subsequent issues around drug and alcohol treatment and the opportunities that might bring. But without a clear indication from the commencement clause as to how the effects of the legislation will be measured and managed it will be impossible to tell whether this bill has any point to it whatsoever especially as we have no previous information about the changes this legislation makes. 
I suggest to the Minister that if he can squeeze some cash out of his Government which of course sounds completely impossible that would be a useful opportunity to take on the commencement of this legislation. There is no point in passing legislation that will do nothing yet will cost well over $40 million. In fact even the regulatory impact statement says that it is difficult to estimate the impact of reversing the 2007 changes and it is virtually impossible to know what the impacts of this legislation will be once it comes into force. We are talking about the lives of real people here too. We are talking about young people’s lives about their ability to be educated to have their serious issues addressed and to get jobs. All of those issues are affected at the time that this legislation comes into force. We are not talking about obscure people or obscure numbers. We are talking about real people’s daily lived lives. I am sure many members of this House know of people for whom this legislation will have that very serious effect. Those are the people whom we are here to protect and care for. Those are the people who are affected by this legislation coming into force at some unknown time in the future. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Just before I take the next call I remind members that the debate is about the words. To simply mention the words and then go off on this that or any other peripheral subject is taking the debate beyond what it is. The debate is a narrow one about the actual words themselves. If members do not address the words then that simply invites the Chair to accept a closure motion earlier than he might otherwise have done. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to make a small contribution in the Committee stage on clause 2. The reason Labour members feel the need to make sure we are examining each aspect of this legislation is that this is another example of a bill that has not been to a select committee. It was given to the Opposition at a quarter to midnight on Wednesday and its first reading second reading Committee stage and third reading are being rushed through under urgency. So unless we can debate this matter now there will be no other opportunity for this bail law to be considered by anybody at any time. 
In a way clause 2 is the clause that has the most important impact for the whole legislation. It is the trigger clause. It is the clause that will decide when all this will start. Up until now we have heard debates about the merits of this legislation about the changes to the bail law and about the way this bill is being held up as being some kind of great change when in fact the scrutiny we have been able to give it through this process has shown that it is as my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove said a bit of a hoax. It is a flimflam measure that we do not believe will have the kind of effect the Government has been saying it will have. In fact in saying it is going to be so serious about law and order and crime issues the Government has really been holding this measure up as being some sort of major huge change. Yet when we go through the meat of this bill and we see how small it is and what a small difference it will make it is hard for us to believe that this is part of a grand 100-day vision. But of course as clause 2 makes clear the day after the bill receives its Royal assent it will become law in this country. It will be held up as a measurement a yardstick as to how effective the Government has been in delivering on its crusade for sentencing parole and the effects of bail. 
I want to ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power a few questions about what he is proposing to do in order to give effect to clause 2. Obviously he cannot sign the law as he is not the Governor-General although I suspect he will be as part of some future deal when he gets edged out in that last little rush. It will be a very sort of Jeffrey Archer moment we might say when in a decision made in a  
First Among Equals 
 kind of environment Mr Power will be put in as the Governor-General. But I am focusing on the present time when he does not hold that high office and we can be very clear that the bill will become law not on the day that the Royal assent is given but on the day after that date. The Opposition is very keen to hear from the Minister about what he plans to do in the time between the bill’s third reading and the time he submits it to the Governor-General for His Excellency’s Royal assent. 
It seems to me the Minister might like to consider a couple of things between the third reading and the date of clause 2 taking effect with the Royal assent. We would like to hear about some process issues from the Minister particularly around his ministerial responsibility in liaising with the judiciary. Throughout the earlier parts of the debate the Committee of the whole House was told about some of the more negative comments that have been made by people who are involved in the judiciary—who are lawyers or those working with judges—and who believe that this is an unusual step to be taking. What measures does he along with his colleague the Attorney-General plan to take to build the confidence of the judiciary in this bill before it receives its Royal assent so that the day after when it becomes the law he has built up a constituency of support amongst those who are going to have to use this law and give effect to it? 
I think it is quite important that the Minister can tell the Committee that. There has not been the chance for any external view to be taken because the bill has been rushed there has been no select committee process and the bill was tabled by the Leader of the House at a quarter to midnight as part of a very unusual way in which the Leader of the House is running the House. That scrutiny might be able to take place between the passing of the third reading and the time when clause 2 takes effect—in that brief window of opportunity the Minister will have available. 
We know the Minister is an efficient man. We read the newspapers. We see he does not keep any paper on his desk at all. We know from the feature articles that have been written about him that he likes to move things through very quickly. He is so efficient that he has written a bill that comprises only one page on such a serious issue as bail apparently but that is irrelevant. What is more relevant is what happens for the Minister so I have covered what needs to happen with regard to the judiciary and the legal fraternity in that period. 
The second period relates to stakeholder groups like the Sensible Sentencing Trust. Mr Garrett touched on this in his contribution. He has been the legal representative of the Sensible Sentencing Trust and he came in at No. 5 on the ACT list because of an arrangement with that trust. It has delivered him into Parliament here. The Sensible Sentencing Trust this week said that it was the most effective lobby group in New Zealand. We received an email from Garth McVicar about this bill. So in between this period of the third reading and clause 2 taking effect with the Royal assent I would like to know from the Minister whether he plans not only to engage with the judiciary about this bill before he can recommend it to his Excellency but also to talk to stakeholders like the Sensible Sentencing Trust because it seems to me there is a very very close relationship between the Sensible Sentencing Trust and the National - ACT - Maori Party Government. We want to make sure there is actually some arrangement for that to take place. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move that the question now be put.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The question is that the question be now put. Those of that— 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to be very clear that I am not challenging your ruling at all—I am not going to do that—but the member did not put the closure motion correctly; she did not use the correct sequence of words. You cannot accept a closure motion that has not been put correctly. That is a longstanding ruling. She did not get the words right. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I call Moana Mackey. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to contribute to the debate on clause 2 the commencement clause which to some people might not seem to be a particularly important clause. In fact it is extremely important. For the benefit of those who have only started listening to this debate since my colleague the Hon Annette King gave her contribution I say clause 2 reads: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” For most people that is fairly meaningless because we are not privy to knowing on which date the bill will receive the Royal assent. Yet this bill is being introduced into the House in the 100 days of action— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Turbocharged. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —in the turbocharged 100 days of action. 
My question to the Minister is: on which day of that 100 days of action will this bill receive the Royal assent? The reason why that is important is that the Act comes into force on the day after the bill receives the Royal assent. So the day on which the bill receives the Royal assent is of critical importance to the people of New Zealand. I am not sure which day of the 100 days of action we are at now. Is this day one or day two? It may well receive the Royal assent on day 35 of the 100 days of action. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Urgency might make a difference. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Urgency might make a difference. 
The reason I ask these questions is that this bill has not gone to a select committee. It is not going through the normal process. Clause 2 does not tell us exactly what day it will be. We have had other bills in this urgency motion that have included dates in their commencement clause so we have known exactly when they were to become law. But when a bill simply states that the Act will come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent then the date on which it receives the Royal assent becomes of critical importance. 
I ask the Minister again to give us some indication because we have been promised 100 days of action. Will the Act come into force outside that 100 days of action in which case there will be no sentencing legislation coming into force in the 100 days of action as was promised during the election campaign? Once again I point out that it is the role of the Opposition to hold the Government to account for its rhetoric in the election campaign and if the Minister could give us some indication of when he intends to provide the evidence to the Governor-General as to why this bill should receive the Royal assent then the Opposition would be interested in hearing that. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Oh come on! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Mr Mapp is not very happy. If those members had managed to read the closure motion properly then I would have been denied the opportunity to ask these important questions. 
Hon Annette King 
: And you did ask them. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is right. One of the reasons is that law and order was a key campaign plank for the National - ACT - Maori Party Government. It is the role of the Opposition to ensure that that rhetoric comes into some kind of reality or the Government will be held to account. So I say to the “National - ACT - Te Ururoa Flavell Government” that— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I bring your attention to Standing Order 107 about relevancy. The previous Chairman instructed speakers to be relevant and speak to the title because I think we need to bring this to a close. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I do not need any further assistance. It has been made very clear that this is a very narrow debate on the commencement. Would the member confine her comments to those points. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You are absolutely right about the question of relevance; you have to judge that for yourself. But one point I would make is there was a lot of noise in the Chamber while my colleague was trying to speak both from the Opposition side—we will take our responsibility—and the Government side and for a speaker trying to talk about a very narrow clause like this is difficult so maybe you could keep a little bit more order in the Committee. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am very happy to limit my comments to the commencement clause. I shall refer to the comments made by my colleague from the Green Party Metiria Turei about how important it is that the public knows exactly on which day this Act is to come into force. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It states it in the bill. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well no it does not state it in the bill and this is the point we are trying to make. Any indication from the Minister as to when he believes he will take this bill to receive the Royal assent would be greatly appreciated not only by the Opposition but I am sure also by the people of New Zealand who are listening to this debate because they were promised action within the first 100 days. The commencement date does not tell us whether this legislation will come into force within those 100 days and if it does not then the Government has failed in that respect to match the rhetoric of the election campaign in which it promised tougher sentencing and bail laws within the first 100 days. 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 47. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 106 Noes 5. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee to amend the vote of the Maori Party on the closure motion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave has been sought for the Maori Party to change its vote on the closure motion from 2 to 3. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I apologise. I thought I did say 3 but we have been 3 consistently pretty much this afternoon. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The corrected vote for the closure is 63 for and 48 against. 
Clause 3 Principal Act amended 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Clause 3 amends the Bail Act 2000 and I am delighted that Tony Ryall is actually in the Chamber at this point because the passing of the Bail Act in 2000 was something that Mr Ryall was pretty much opposed to. In fact he said at that time that bail was a very very important constitutional right and people should not be held in prison. That was the quote from Mr Ryall at that time. 
Of course the Bail Act 2000 strengthened the bail legislation that had been previously there. I want to share with the Committee what the Ombudsman said in his report about the Bail Act 2000. He said that Act was enacted following an increase in offending while on bail and growing public political and media pressure for change. Well of course we all know 2000 was a few months after Labour became the Government after 9 long years of a National Government which had the opportunity to strengthen the bail legislation when it was in Government but which did not make the changes that were being sought. So the Bail Act was enacted following growing public political and media pressure for change. At that time two major changes were made to the legislation. It contained increases in the circumstances in which the onus was on the defendant to justify a release on bail rather than relying on the prosecution to justify a custodial remand—the reverse onus of proof. That is when that was brought in. The second change made at that point was to provide for breaches of bail conditions to be recorded and to be available subsequently when bail was an issue. 
At the time the National Party said we had gone too far we were being too tough and people had the right to have bail. We believed that people had the right to have bail but we were responding to the pressure at that time for there to be a tightening-up of the bail legislation. We made a substantial and significant change in 2000 in the Bail Act and that is recognised by the Ombudsman in his report. He made this point. In March 1997 the total prison muster was 4967 comprising 4417 sentenced prisoners and 550 people on remand. Ten years later the total sentenced prison population was 6053 a 37 percent increase. The remand population was 1724 an increase of over 200 percent out of a total muster of 7775. If the remand population had increased at the same rate as the sentenced population—that is by 37 percent rather than by over 200 percent—the remand population would have been 753 and the total prison muster would have been approximately 6786 which is nearly 1000 fewer than the actual muster. So the changes that were made in the Bail Act 2000 made a significant difference to those remanded on bail. At that time a real difference was made and it continues to be made regarding people who are remanded on bail. 
But in the Bail Amendment Bill we have a change to a small minor change made in 2007 in order to clarify the issue of significant risk. A small change was made to the Act then not for the purpose of putting more people into prison or out of prison but to clarify the issue as requested by judges. That was the purpose—to make it clearer—and the impact was estimated to be around 10 more prisoners a year. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Before we carry on I point out that this debate is a very narrow debate. Although clause 3 refers to the provisions of the Bail Act 2000 it does not justify talking about that Act. The debate is about the impact that this legislation before us has. It is not about the overall provisions of the Act. Clause 3 is a very narrow clause. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This amendment is to the Bail Act and I was setting out what the changes were and what this change is. I think that has to be made clear so people understand the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will be watching this debate very closely. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The change that the 2007 amendment made was not about putting fewer people in prison; it was about clarifying the Act. The Minister is nodding his head and agreeing with me. 
In fact it has been made clear during the debate that this amendment to the Bail Act 2000 makes very little difference at all. I think that one of the most significant things that were said during the debate was said by David Garrett of the ACT Party which is probably the strongest campaigner on law and order—it certainly had the biggest billboards and it certainly made the most noise in conjunction with the Sensible Sentencing Trust. David Garrett declared today that this amendment to the Act makes little difference. I can see Mr Boscawen looking at me and thinking maybe I am not quoting him correctly but I say to Mr Boscawen that that is exactly what he said. My definition of “little” is that it is not big so it must be tiny. It is little; he is quite right. It is a little change to the Act. It was clarified in 2007 and the change back according to the ACT Party is a very little change indeed. 
Well if this amendment is a little change indeed then one has to ask why we are debating it now. Why are we debating it under urgency? It is a little change a minor change— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Insignificant. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is an insignificant change in fact and it is being seen as so important that we are rushing it through under urgency. We are bemused by that. We are bemused by the fact that we have not been given the evidence for making this little change as the ACT Party has described it. We have not been provided with the evidence—and I have asked the Minister to provide it—as to why this amendment is so important that it has to be made now. And we have not been provided with evidence anyway—it is hearsay I believe and it is newspaper clippings. 
It is unheard-of for a Government to amend legislation of such significance as the bail legislation with this little change based on a few newspaper clippings. I cannot recall that happening before. I cannot recall the Ministry of Justice putting that forward as the evidence as to why we should make this change today under urgency. I do not believe that the professionals within the ministry would give the Minister a collection of press statements on which to base his decision to make this amendment to the Act. I do not believe that they said: “Here Minister is something from the  
Sunday News 
 and  
Truth 
. This is what you can use for your evidence. We’ll put that into the bill and say it is the evidence in the explanatory note.” I do not believe that is the case. 
I believe it is important that the Minister provides the evidence for this amendment to the Act today. It has to happen so that we can see why it was so important to make this little change now. We have heard that the National Party believes this little change will solve crime stop violence on our streets and make our communities safer. Simon Bridges should not be shaking his head. If he had been listening to the debate he would have heard his colleagues say that is exactly what will happen once the bill receives the Royal assent. They said this bill will make our communities safer on Tuesday. 
Simon Bridges 
: Reduce crime. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. I say to the member that one of the things about this House is that everything a member says goes into 
 Hansard 
 and we all get to look at it eventually. So I say to the member that he should look at what his colleagues were saying. They said the bill would make the community safer once it was passed. 
Hon Dr Richard Worth 
: Quite right. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Oh “Quite right.” says “Professor Worth”. I will hold him to that. If communities are not safer on Monday after the bill gets the Royal assent I can only assume that the member was hoodwinking the public of New Zealand with that comment. 
Everyone knows this bill is nonsense. Everybody knows it is rubbish. Everyone knows it is flimflam and part of a political agenda. It has nothing at all to do with the safety of the community. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Clause 3 “Principal Act amended” as my colleague Annette King just noted states that the bill amends the Bail Act 2000. In doing so there is a consequential impact. 
As my colleague and others have said the Bail Act 2000 its history and its content flowed from the loose arrangements that the Labour Government inherited in 1999. Serious measures were put in place. There was the provision to change the onus. Then came the addition of the words “real and significant” which were put in place in a revision of the Bail Act in 2007. They were intended to clarify the law to promote a very solemn common-sense thing called consistency in decision making in respect of the judiciary and to respond to a number of judicial decisions rather than to make any significant changes. That is why the amendment was made and that last point is completely germane. As my colleague said and as Mr Garrett and other members have pointed out the change that is now proposed to—as clause 3 states—the Bail Act 2000 in itself does little. That is what Mr Garrett said. When the Labour Government made that change it was attempting as I have said to provide some consistency. 
It is interesting that others share Mr Garrett’s view. Let us look at what Justice Heath said. He said that the change that Labour made to the Bail Act when we placed the words “real and significant” in it “does not seem to me to put the test any higher than it was under the previous legislation but rather to emphasise the need for a proper inference to be drawn from proven facts; as opposed to the Court engaging in speculation or guesswork about the possibility of risk.” The purpose of the amendment that the Labour Government made to the principal Act was to avoid as Justice Heath said speculation or guesswork and to provide guidance to the judiciary so that there was not speculation or guesswork. I am sure Mr Finlayson a learned lawyer would be able to talk to us in the Chamber for hours about his experience. I am sure he would share the view that we as a Parliament should provide our judicial officials with guidance so that there is where possible consistency of decisions and to ensure that judges are not put in a situation where they have to speculate and have to guess what Parliament meant. That is why Labour when in Government placed those words in the legislation. 
Today clause 3 states that that Act the Bail Act 2000 is to be amended again. As I said at the start of my contribution certain actions and impacts will flow from that. What we have attempted to do—the ACT Party ourselves and others—is to analyse what the consequential impacts will be once clause 3 has been dealt with and once the Royal assent has been given. We are told by the Minister in charge of the bill Simon Power and by members of his party—we have been told all day—that the impacts will be huge. I am sorry: we were originally told—I should be more precise—by the Minister in the chair and his colleagues that the impacts will be huge; that once this Act has been amended once those three words have been removed there will be no more murders nirvana will appear crime will end and bail breaches will end. And it is not about of course—so he said—the prison population. That was the original proposition that was put earlier in the day. Later on after I think Mr Garrett in addressing the actual impact of clause 3 noted that in itself this change will do little it was incumbent upon the Minister to come clean. He then I think in response to some very detailed deep and penetrating questions from my colleague Annette King stated to the House that what this change once the principal Act was amended was really about was—to quote him—sending a message. 
Sending a message to whom? Well I think the message needs to be sent to the criminals but I am assuming that the message that the Minister was attempting to send was to the general public. What he will be doing after the principal Act is amended as stated in clause 3 is sending a message to the community that claims that the National Government in its first 100 days has been really tough on crime and has made a huge impact with this legislation. That is what his message I suspect will be as he pumps out the letters and the press releases. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 As with my contribution to the commencement debate I will refer to the costs of this amendment to the Bail Act 2000. I want to read briefly from the regulatory impact statement which sets out what the costs will be once this amendment has been made: “If reversing the changes”—that is making the amendment—“has an equal and opposite effect increasing the number of remand beds by 75 this will cost an estimated $7 million per year in additional operating expenditure and a total of $38 million in capital expenditure (the actual costs will depend on wider factors and other policies).” Then it goes on to state: “However it is likely that the effect will be greater.” The statement later goes on: “It is difficult to estimate the impact that reversing the 2007 changes”—so making this amendment—“will have on the number of people remanded in custody because the impact of the 2007 amendments is itself uncertain.” 
So we simply have no information at all as to whether the pre-2007 provisions of the Bail Act 2000 had an effect and whether the changes in 2007 increased any risk to the community by having that apparently high threshold for bail applications. Since that original amendment was made in 2007 we have no information whatsoever as to whether those changes have increased the risk to the community by apparently lowering slightly the threshold for bail applications. And now this legislation is to amend the Act again and there is no assessment there is no evidence—there is nothing—that suggests that this amendment will make any changes or increase the risks to the community. 
So we are passing an amendment with absolutely no concept at all no information at all about whether any changes will be made to anything and in the process we are spending $45 million a year on a legislative change despite the fact that we have no knowledge at all as to whether it will have any effect. That is nuts and the public would be appalled if they were listening to this debate to discover that nearly $45 million per year will be spent on a minor and arguably very small technical change to the bail laws with no evidence whatsoever— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: To keep people safe! 
METIRIA TUREI 
: —I say to Dr Mapp as to whether it will make the community safer. 
The issues around law and order of course are far more important than money. Of that there is no doubt. This is a Government that likes to pride itself on frugality—at least that is what it says—and on being careful with the public’s money. But at the same time with the third piece of legislation it passes in its first week it proposes to spend $45 million a year on provisions even though it has no concept whatsoever as to whether they will be effective. That is $45 million a year down the drain. 
I am sure there are alternative amendments to the Bail Act that could be much more effective and cost a great deal less money. I do not know whether in the past discussions around amendments to the Bail Act whether this one or previous ones have really addressed the opportunities for alternatives—not radical alternatives but community alternatives where people who are put out on bail are given some support. In the UK people talk about bail hostels for example which are an alternative to prison and help people to deal with the issues. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move that the question now be put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will give Dr Cullen the call in a second but can I refer those who are moving closure motions to Standing Order 132. It is spelt out there what the words are. It is very clear what actually has to be said for the Chair to accept a closure motion. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I am prepared to run sessions on closure motions if Government MPs would like to have them. As you have rightly pointed out Mr Chairman clause 3 Principal Act amended” is a narrow clause and simply states: “This Act amends the Bail Act 2000.”—for those who might have had any doubt about what the bill is doing. Of course that immediately raises the question of why we have a clause to amend the Bail Act 2000—why do we have that bill at all in that form? Presumably there are a number of reasons why one has a clause that states: “This Act amends the Bail Act 2000.” Presumably there was an assumption that something was wrong with the Bail Act 2000 in some way or another. That argument has not been made so the primary reason for including this clause has not been given in this debate at all so far. 
Nobody has been able to point to any significant issue with the current Bail Act that will be remedied by the amendment before the Committee. It is not a question of whether there have been difficulties with bail—clearly there have been. Clearly people on bail have committed serious offences. Does that necessarily point to problems with the law? Not necessarily so. Does it point to problems with judgments made by judges? One has always to be very careful about that. By the very nature of things judges are being asked to make extraordinarily difficult decisions and sometimes they will make mistakes in making those decisions. Nobody is going to not make a mistake. Anybody who has ever studied science or social sciences knows that there are two types of mistake: the mistake of rejecting a correct hypothesis and the mistake of accepting a false hypothesis. In fact life is a balance between those two and nobody ever gets each of them 100 percent right. 
There are two hypotheses here: should somebody who is a danger be kept inside and should somebody who is not a danger be let out? Given the fact that there are those two hypotheses and the judge has to judge between them that judge is going to make a mistake sometimes. The consequences of the judge making the error of letting out a dangerous person who then commits a murder are clearly much more serious in almost every case than the error of keeping somebody in jail who should not be there and indeed who may subsequently be found to be innocent. Nevertheless the right of the assumption of innocence must be there right from the beginning; otherwise our system would make no sense at all—we would simply change the whole nature of our justice system in that regard. So I do not think that case has been made. 
Is there a case that judges are lacking sufficient guidance? On this issue very significant statements have been made by judges. They have gone carefully into the differences between what is actually in this bill because it was the previous Act and what is in the current Act. They have simply said quite clearly that what is now in the legislation provides clarification of what was previously there but that this does not change the essential meaning of what was there. So there is no need to clarify the essential meaning; the judges have determined that they are clear about the essential meaning of what Parliament intends. I do not believe that anybody could make a case as one can sometimes make cases—and I have never argued this either when I was Attorney-General or now when I am not—that judges do not sometimes interpret what Parliament means in a very strange way indeed and require perhaps some correction in that regard. 
So in that respect I think this clause should not be in this bill. Quite simply because the bill does not need to be there there is no need to amend the Bail Act. I am quite happy now to hand over to Hekia Parata as I see her preparing herself with the Standing Orders in front of her. I think she is going to say: “I move That the question be now put.” and if she does that is the correct wording. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand Labour 43; Maori Party 3; Green Party 2. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
METIRIA TUREI (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Having miscalculated how many votes the Green Party is entitled to overall I seek leave to change the votes made this afternoon where they are recorded as “2” votes to “3” votes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member needs to be more specific. Does this mean all votes cast since 2 o’clock? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There being no objection we will correct that. 
Clause 4 Consideration of just cause for continued detention 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 This is the final clause in the Bail Amendment Bill and it amends section 8(1)(a) of the Bail Act by omitting the words “real and significant”. This clause reverts the test to what it was before the 2007 amendment which was that there would just be a risk rather than a real and significant risk. So we go back to where we were. Somebody today said: “We go from 24 to 36 and back to 24.” Virtually we are returning to where we were before the 2007 amendment Act. 
One of the arguments that Labour has put up continually today is that this is a very small change in terms of the arguments put forward by National members. Those members have argued that the change they are making today will make a real difference to the safety of the public of New Zealand. They argue that in making this change by reverting to words that just state “risk” rather than “real and significant” risk it will make a big difference to the safety of the community. That was said not just by one speaker but by many speakers from the Government benches. 
Government backbenchers with the set of notes that had been prepared for them continually said this bill will make the community safer. We even heard the learned scholar Dr Worth say that is right; it will make the community safer. The public of New Zealand listening to this debate would believe from what the National members were saying that when this legislation is passed and receives the Royal assent the streets of New Zealand will be safer. The homes of New Zealand will be safer. 
As Melissa Lee said we will not have to face the sort of dreadful murder that happened in a dairy in South Auckland. In fact that is one of the examples she put up as a reason for this change to be made. This bill was played up as making a very significant change indeed by the backbench members of the National Government. On the campaign trail that is what National members were saying but during this debate it has become clear that this is not a major change—in fact it is window dressing. The test reverts back to “risk” rather than “real and significant risk”. The bill is window dressing indeed. 
What this will do as has been pointed out by the Minister himself is send a message. When this bill is passed it will not make the streets of New Zealand safer. It will send a message. That does not sound to me like the rhetoric of the campaign trail. That does not sound to me like the promises made to New Zealanders during the campaign. It does not sound to me like the sort of action one needs to take in the first 100 days that one is in power nor the sort of action that one needs to take under urgency on Friday night at 10 to 6. We and the coalition partners of the National Government know that this is a very small change indeed. 
As has been pointed out and as the Minister knows the change was never made to put fewer people in prison unlike what was said by National candidates when they were on the campaign stumps. In fact the “real and significant” threshold was chosen by examining judicial decisions on the previous risk threshold. It was decided by looking at judicial decisions especially the Court of Appeal 2002 decision in  
R v Hines 
. The Court of Appeal stated in that case that to amount to a just cause to continue detention the risk should be “more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk.” That was the basis for the advice the previous Labour-led Government received from the Ministry of Justice. That is the advice we received in making the changes that we did. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I know where Mrs King was heading to— 
Hon Member 
: Carry on from there. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —so I will carry on from there. I touch on the point that as we have gone through this debate to this very significant point Mrs King was alluding to the fact that even the Minister in the chair had to admit that this bill was about sending a message not in essence about public safety. Mrs King also made the point just now that this did not sound like the pre-election promises that were made by the National Party. I just want to check that. She is right. In National’s policy document I have here its first principle is “Tough on crime”. As I said before Mr Garrett who is a learned lawyer and who has advised the Sensible Sentencing Trust for many years has said this will change little. The question is what then did the Minister say? He said: “Well I have said this will send a message.” But for whom is the message and about what? I do not want to interrupt the Minister’s conversation because I am sure he wants to listen to the debate that is happening but I suspect that the message the Minister wants to send is that he and his party have done something heavy-duty and gritty today—something very significant to make the people of New Zealand safer. 
Well they have not. The evidence that we have produced—because the Minister will not produce any evidence himself—is ironically via Mr Garrett who agrees with me. He has used the words “It changes little.” By the Minister’s own admission all it really does is send a sort of propaganda message—to whom and about what we do not know. If we look at the technicalities of this bill we see that we have gone from reverting back to the pre-2007 amendment where we had “real and significant risk” which was based as my colleague has said on the  
R v Hines  
decision to now taking out three words to go back to simply “risk”. This is based of course on the  
R v Hines 
 quote—and I am sure the quote is by this stage etched in Mr Power’s memory—“more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk”. So we have now just gone back to what was based on  
R v Hines 
. In that case “real and significant risk” were the words the judge used. 
I say to the Minister that this is an absolutely prima facie case—beyond that actually—of a hoax on the New Zealand people. This is smoke and mirrors this is flim and flam and this is political propaganda and puffery. I assume that the message the Minister is trying to send will try to persuade the New Zealand people that this legislation will keep them safer. Well it will not; it does nothing. From listening to Melissa Lee and others—as my colleague points out quite rightly—we would almost think that the day after this bill is given the Royal assent white doves will be released from Government House or somewhere olives will appear on trees and branches will be handed out because peace will break out in New Zealand and no crimes will ever be committed again. That is the way this bill has been packaged by Ms Lee and others. Well there is a word for that but it would be grossly inappropriate to use that term. 
This is propaganda. I think even now that New Zealand people will see through it. From the day after the Royal assent is given when the first bail breach occurs or when the next crime occurs we will be able to revisit this debate by asking the Minister some interesting questions and by quoting from Ms Lee’s speech and from those of all her other colleagues over there who have said that nirvana will break out the day after this bill is given the Royal assent. This Minister—members know it I know it and Mr Garrett has said it—will do nothing. This is a piece of political propaganda an attempt to talk tough look tough and sound tough Clint Eastwood - like. Before the election National members wandered around the country stamping their little feet—as every National Party candidate also did—and saying they would get tough but the first piece of legislation that has been brought into the House does nothing. 
Yet again I ask the Minister whether he will trigger the parole provisions. We have not been provided with an answer even though he has been diligent and provided us with I think three answers in one call to 50 or 60 questions that had been put to him; he is going for what we now call the “Wilkinson record of silence”. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast-Tasman) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The question is that the question be now put. Those who— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Without in any way wishing to challenge your ruling— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No you cannot challenge my ruling. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am not; I am not challenging it. As a point of information for you I say that we on this side of the Chamber strongly object because there have been only two calls from this side. There are only four clauses in this bill and there has been substantial debate on each of the first three of those clauses. Now we have come to the critical one and there have been only two calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You are challenging the ruling. It is at my discretion that a closure motion is accepted. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Clause 4 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This Government was elected on a law and order policy that promised to put the safety of the public first. This bill is one of the steps in making that promise a reality. 
Labour Party members knew they could not afford to vote against this bill particularly because their leader has admitted publicly that Labour was beaten in the law and order debate during the election campaign. That left those members with no choice in effect because had they decided to oppose this bill it would have immediately laid the platform in this subject area for the next general election. 
In respect of this bill all too often we hear about serious offences being committed by people on bail. That does not mean of course that bail is a failure or that it should be abandoned. There are thousands of people on bail at any one time and only a small proportion commit serious offences. But what it does mean is that we must be vigilant about who is released on bail. 
Last year as part of a package in the Criminal Justice Reform Bill to reduce the prison population the Labour Government restricted the courts’ ability to remand in custody people charged with criminal offending. Under those changes defendants could be remanded in custody only if the court considered they posed a real and significant threat of absconding interfering with witnesses or evidence or offending whilst on bail. In addition the courts were restricted in the way that they could take breach of bail conditions into account in bail decisions. In a change the Labour Government inserted a provision that provided that the courts could take a breach of conditions into account only to the extent that it was relevant to the defendant’s risk. In effect that meant the courts could no longer use remand as a sanction for non-compliance. 
This Government recognises that the court is in the best position to determine a defendant’s risk and whether he or she should be bailed or remanded in custody. We will not let the courts be unduly constrained in those decisions. This bill restores the courts’ discretion to decide when a defendant’s risk is such that he or she should be remanded in custody and to take appropriate action when a defendant is not complying with bail conditions. 
Despite the lengthy debate that the House has had on this bill—and in fact the lead Opposition party ultimately voted with the Government after we had tried to pry that position out of it after its third speaker took to her feet—it is one of the shortest bills that the House will see. It has one operative clause of two lines. However those two lines are indicative of a new focus for New Zealand’s criminal justice system—one that puts public safety first. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Before I begin my third reading speech I would be interested to know whether the Minister of Justice who has just resumed his seat has the evidence he referred to for some of the claims he made about the weakness of bail from the prosecution service the Police Association and the Law Society. I noted that he had evidence and I would be grateful if he would lay that evidence on the Table or seek leave to table it. There has been no tabling of any evidence and I am told that he turned to my colleague Annette King and said that he has never tabled media clippings—his evidence—in his life. 
This has been a very interesting debate for a whole series of reasons. One reason that is relevant I suppose to the shambolic way in which the Government has conducted itself in the last 24 hours but not specifically connected to the bill is the fact that the senior Opposition whip counted 12 times that the geniuses opposite tried to take a closure motion. It eventuated that Tony Ryall the Minister of Health who I think did a stunning job was hauled out of his ministerial office. I am told that he cancelled all his appointments. He was asked to come to the Chamber to move the closure motion. He looked quite distraught because I know he is a well-mannered person who does not like to be rude to people he is supposed to be meeting. He cancelled all his appointments so he could come to the Chamber and move a closure motion. That is how organised these geniuses on that side of the Chamber are. 
This has been an interesting debate. It is a pity I have to say that in the final clause 4 debate the Opposition was cut down like a stump and could take only two calls given that the bill has been rammed through and has had no select committee scrutiny at all. We were cut down like a stump and allowed to take only two calls but that is the prerogative of the Chair and we should not challenge it. 
It has been an interesting debate. We will remember of course the nature of how it occurred. I am sure all those who were party to it in the Chamber and outside will be listening to that. This debate was interesting because a number of new National Party members told us unequivocally that once this bill is enacted there will be no bail breaches there will be no crime. Melissa Lee’s speech is etched on my brain. She said that there will be no bail breaches and there will be no crime. Doves will be released around New Zealand because crime as a proposition and problem will disappear. 
What we heard throughout this debate was political puffery and propaganda. The National Party came to this House with a policy that says as its first principle “tough on crime”. What was National’s first bill in the House? Its first bill in the House was one to try to persuade the New Zealand people by taking away the words “real and significant” from the risk proposition in the bail legislation that that would have a massive impact and everybody would be safer. Before the member says it the reason we did not oppose it was that it does absolutely nothing. It does not change the status quo. That Minister made a vain attempt. He is not a bad bloke old Simon Power—“Simple Simon”. He is not a bad guy and he did give it his all. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been called a lot of things in my life and I am pretty relaxed about that but in this House I would prefer to be called Simon Power or something similar. I am happy to have the reference used by the member opposite levelled at me anywhere else but I think this place deserves the respect of all members in an appropriate way. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The Minister has taken exception; the member will withdraw. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. The Hon Simon Power who is a complex member not a simple member made a very very good attempt to try to sell this as the big ground-breaking hit for the National Party on law and order. He said that this would make a change and that after tonight all people in New Zealand would feel safer in and out of their homes. Then as we moved through this debate the fabric started to fray in legislative terms. Mr Garrett made a stunning intervention. He is a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust a lawyer— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Their man in Parliament. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well their man in Parliament maybe. He is a lawyer and a person who advised them on this bill. He said: “In itself this”—the bill—“will do little.” Then it started to unravel. The Minister late in the day hours after being asked questions that he would not answer—questions like why he would not do something substantive something real that would make people secure like ring the Governor-General and get him to sign the Order in Council to trigger a two-thirds minimum parole—then said what the real intent of this bill was. It is to send a message. That is code for propaganda. That is code to go out to the people and say: “We’ve been tough on crime and this is what we’ve done.” I have to say that the people will see through this because this bill changes very little. 
We heard Justice Heath’s comments. As I said in the first reading this bill is built on two malicious and false propositions—firstly that bail is weakened and secondly that this was done to somehow decrease the prison population. Well I remind that member that the remand prisoner population has continued to grow at a rate greater than the sentence population despite the 2007 amendment to the Bail Act. In July 2007 remands including prisoners held in police stations totalled 1733 and comprised 21 percent of the total prison muster. By July 2008 remands had increased by almost 6 percent and constituted 23 percent of the total prison muster. We have advice from the Ministry of Justice that says that by September next year the change we put in place would result in a decrease of about 10 beds and then go down to 40. 
Hon Annette King 
: 40 by 2011. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That would be the impact. His own leader said at the post-Cabinet press conference that this would have an impact of about 75 beds in a muster of around 15000. This is absolute bunkum. 
Hon Simon Power 
: What? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Over a year of course; has the member not read his own briefing papers? This is about trying to act tough talk tough and be the Clint Eastwood of the National Party which was Simon Power before the election. Then the first thing he does is nothing by taking three words out of legislation that relies on the  
Queen v Hines 
 decision which uses the words “real and significant risk”. So basically we have gone back to the status quo of risk and there is no change. 
Even Mr Garrett a lawyer said there is very little change if any at all—a complete waste of this Parliament’s time. That member and other members will ask why we stood up and made speeches and why we debated it for hours. Well I tell members that it is our job to do so and it is our job to show up this crew. We said we would not vote against it because it changes nothing but we have debated it and we have highlighted what these members have said. It is our job to hold them to account. They are in utter disarray and are disorganised—we can see that. I think Mr Brownlee has been taken off to the sideline to limber up for tomorrow or next week or whatever. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I haven’t seen him much today. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well I could not comment on that; that would not be appropriate. He is probably doing his callisthenics or whatever. But Simon Power was in charge and the Chamber just came apart. I say to the Minister of Justice that people are not stupid. The day after this is signed when we have bail breaches and we have people who commit offences whilst on bail when we have people who are released on bail—when perhaps in our view they should not be—then we will with great delight revisit the Minister’s speech Melissa Lee’s speech and all the speeches that were put up. The member for Tauranga whose name is— 
Hon Annette King 
: Simon Bridges. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He was I believe a Crown prosecutor. Is that correct? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He told us he knew all about the law. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He told us he knew all about the law. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: He got all the criminals off from the prosecution. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well I would not go as far as that but who knows? He is a Crown prosecutor who told us he knew all about the law. He could not move a closure motion though. That is how good he is. I do not know what sorts of arguments he has made on behalf of the Crown and in defence of the Crown in the Tauranga District Court or the High Court. 
I do not think the people of New Zealand have been well served by this Government today. This bill is small in stature and small on substance. This is a political pamphlet. This is Simon Power’s first big hit as the big tough Minister of Justice. It is a one-pager with a few pages of an explanatory note on the front. He is a show pony. He has had 9 years work—3 years as spokesperson on law and order—and this is what he has come up with. I do not object to the length of the bill; I object to its lack of substance. 
What our changes in Government were designed to do were to create some uniformity and some certainty. That is our job as parliamentarians. It is the judiciary’s job to interpret the law. This bill does nothing. This bill has no logic to it. This bill is propaganda—it is a political pamphlet. It is a pamphlet that tries to say National is tough on crime—well the veil has dropped on that one. National is loose and weak on crime and I invite the Minister or his next delegated speakers to tell us when they will do something substantive and activate the two-thirds parole bill. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It is always a privilege to follow the Hon Clayton Cosgrove because he is the ultimate exemplar of nonsense and foolishness. National is committed to effective law and order policies. We do that against the background of increasing levels of violent crime in New Zealand. These issues are not easily brushed aside and a number of Government members have spoken about particular examples where sadly for the community in the context of bail decisions things have gone badly wrong—badly wrong for victims badly wrong for families and I would say badly wrong for society. 
It was very interesting that when this debate first started Labour was equivocal about what its position was on this legislation. As events unfolded it became absolutely clear that Labour actually supports this change. I was interested in what Mr Cosgrove said when he spoke about how he saw the job of the Opposition. He said to us—and this will be recorded in  
Hansard 
—that it is “our job to fight it for hours”. I would say that that is simply not the task of an Opposition that actually favours the legislation that is before this House. It is right to say in the context of parliamentary time that we have seen substantial time wasted in speeches that are often characterised by misunderstanding and repetition. I think that is a tragedy. 
I would like for a moment to come back to what the purpose of this legislation is. Like it or not for the Government the gains that will flow from this legislation are significant. Like it or not for the Opposition bail will be harder to get. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Say that again! 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Bail will be harder to get. 
I would like to talk about just two aspects of this bill and I reflect with interest that comments have been made by Opposition members that this is a short bill. It may be a short bill but it will have significant impact. Why will it have that impact? There are two reasons for that. It will produce an outcome whereby bail will be harder to get with the consequence that there will be additional protections for the community in respect of those who offend in the community whilst on bail. We know the statistics; they are referred to in the explanatory note of the bill. 
The other aspect that I think is quite significant is that the bill will deal with a circumstance whereby a large number of defendants fail to appear in court. [ 
Interruption 
] The consequences of that as Mr Cosgrove should know from his previous experience are huge delays and congestion in the system. The numbers of those defendants who fail to appear in court when called are actually quite significant. Convictions for breach of bail—failing to appear—increased by 76 percent between 1997 and 2006 and it will be an outcome of the legislation that those denied bail of course will be there on the appointed day to meet their desserts. 
The reality is that delays in the court system are a hugely significant factor. Many will know that justice delayed is justice denied and the injustice that is done is an injustice to the victims to the system—in terms of congestion—and in some respects to those who are facing trial and have the consequence of having to wait and wait for their day in court for the opportunity of either vindicating themselves or being found guilty of the offences with which they are charged. So we have been treated to a time-wasting exercise. Maybe the Opposition justifies it in the context of seeking to show its mettle. Has it done that? Not at all. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 That was very interesting. Dr Richard Worth made a speech there— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: “Sir” Richard. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: “Sir” Dr Richard Worth OBE made a speech that was about three times longer than that of the Minister in charge of the Bail Amendment Bill. I think he is trying to prove his mettle. That was a front-bench bid from the member up at the back of the Chamber there. Now the Minister in charge of the bill assures me it is simply a matter of words per minute and he just speaks faster than “Sir” Dr Richard Worth. 
We have been giving the Minister a bit of stick about the lack of substance in this bill. The only thing in the House tonight that has had less substance than this bill was that speech from “Sir” Dr Richard Worth— 
Hon Member 
: OBE! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —OBE pardon me. I say to the member who has just resumed his seat that I am happy to stand here and just respond to his interjections if that is what he wants but if the member is complaining about the level of scrutiny that this Opposition shows towards legislation in the House then maybe he should have sent this bill to a select committee. If this Government continues to do what it has done under urgency which is to ram bills through that do not need to be passed urgently—there is no rush to get this bill through—and if it wants to do that by denying the people of New Zealand the right to have bills properly put before a select committee and for the people of New Zealand to come and speak at the select committee to bills and if it is going to table bills in the House at 15 minutes to midnight on the night before they are being discussed then the Government can expect that we will provide the scrutiny in this House that has been denied to the people of New Zealand. The power is in the hands of the Government in that respect because if it follows due process and allows bills to be properly scrutinised then the process through the House will be quicker. 
It is nice to have finally made it to the third reading of this bill. I thought we would never get a closure motion passed to close the last debate on the final part of the bill. It is nice to finally be here and I acknowledge the stamina of the Minister who was in the chair the Hon Simon Power during the Committee stage of this bill. I saw his head drop to his hands every time another closure motion was denied and we are happy to be here with the Minister to debate this third reading. 
In the Speech from the Throne and during the election campaign we were promised 100 days of action. It is clear that the only reason we are here in urgency passing bills that do not need to be passed and with no public scrutiny and no respect for process is that if we were not doing that the National members would have nothing to do in this House. Their 100 days of action would be shown up as the farce that it is. We have seen here tonight the very first law and order bill. During the campaign National told us it would get tough on crime. That was one of its primary campaign planks. So what is the first legislation from this “tough on crime” law and order National Government that we see in this House? It is a bill that does practically nothing that will not make a single person safer and that largely maintains the status quo. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: There is nothing about parole though. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: No that is right. And we say again to the Minister that if he is serious about being tough on crime he should pick up the phone. I am sure that he can call the Governor-General at home. It is a bit late but I am sure he would take the call—[ 
Interruption 
] OK maybe he would not. But to be fair we did raise this issue during work hours when the Minister could have picked up the phone and said to the Governor-General that a bill had been passed by the former Government about parole— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Two-thirds. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —the two-thirds of a sentence minimum parole provisions—and the Minister could have picked up the phone. He could have done that while he was in the chair; he could have sent a text message. He would have shown himself to be tough on crime in the first 100 days right there. 
Hon Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has already been comment about drawing the Governor-General into these debates. I think it was you who gave an earlier ruling on that. It is completely inappropriate; it is outlawed by the Standing Orders. Why does the member persist in trifling with us? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Governor-General is not being brought into the debate by the member saying that the Minister has the power to get an Order in Council which of course involves the Governor-General in the process of issuing it. That does not presume any views that the Governor-General may have about the merits of that Order in Council. It is simply a process issue that is being discussed. 
Hon Dr Richard Worth 
: That is a completely inaccurate representation of what the member was saying. The member was offering a proposition that the Minister should call the Governor-General and somehow seek to influence him in favour of or against this bill. That is completely wrong. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member was not saying that at all. She was speaking slightly loosely about the process involved in issuing an Order in Council. The fact is the Minister recommends to the Governor-General. That is the exact form. Probably the Minister who has just spoken has not actually had one yet. Sooner or later he will have one—no doubt by 2010 or so. If the Minister recommends an Order in Council be issued the Governor-General agrees to that and does so. Surprisingly enough since 1707 it has been the normal behaviour of the Sovereign to agree to what is recommended by Parliament or the executive and that is done. That does not mean that the Governor-General is brought into the debate. When referring to the process of issuing an Order in Council the member is quite correct. One could be issued to bring in the provisions for parole after serving two-thirds of a sentence. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Members Standing Order 114 rules against disrespectful references to the Governor-General being made in debate. I also spoke earlier about trying to speculate on what the Governor-General’s attitudes might be. Again that is not in order. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the point of order that was being made by my colleague the Hon Dr “Sir” Richard Worth OBE MP interjected on my colleague. I think that is a very unhelpful way to perform and behave in the House this evening and you might want to call him to order in respect of that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I did note that there was a brief interjection. I was about to object to it but I let it slide in the hope that we could get to the end of these points of order and we could then address the issue that is before us: the Bail Amendment Bill. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I thank the honourable member for raising that point. I think it was a very good use of time for us to learn about the origin of that particular point of order. I thank the member the Hon Dr “Sir” Richard Worth OBE for raising that. I believe it was a good use of the House’s time to learn about that. 
As I was saying during the election campaign the people of New Zealand and the then Labour Government were subjected to constant cries of how National would get tough on crime. As I said we waited with bated breath to see the first law and order bill introduced into this House in the 100 days of turbocharged action of this new National Government because this is the bill that essentially sets the law and order tone of this National Government for the next 3 years. This is the bill upon which it launched its “tough on crime” platform. What does it do? It largely maintains the status quo as the Minister has admitted. 
We will not vote against something that maintains the status quo that we put in place—that would be ridiculous. But I say to members that the rhetoric we heard on the campaign trail is not matched by the reality of this legislation because not one New Zealander will be safer as a result of this legislation passing into law. We on this side of the House feel that it is our role as the Opposition to hold the Government to account for the promises it made to the electorate during the election campaign. Paula Bennett thinks she should not have to live up to the promises she made. In fact Paula Bennett made a speech in the House on the previous bill that was so full of clichés that it showed only that she must be related to David Bennett because their speeches were pretty much exactly the same. Either that or David Bennett gave her— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That is a terrible thing to say. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: OK I withdraw and apologise. 
But we must look at the context within which this bill came in. Of course it was the Labour Government that strengthened and toughened our bail laws. It was also the Labour Government that strengthened and toughened our Parole Act and our Sentencing Act. We acknowledged that the sentence needs to fit the crime and that often the victims of crime did feel that they were not treated well in the justice system. In the 9 years of the National Government for example someone could get a sentence of preventive detention only on the second offence. It was as though the first one was free. It would have been bad enough to get preventive detention if it had been for the second offence but people got it only if they had been convicted twice. So one of the first things Labour did was to make sure that the sentence of preventive detention was available on the first sentence so that if that was appropriate it could be applied then. 
So we had a National Government for 9 years that did nothing but talk big. It was loud in Opposition but it was quiet in Government. Then we had a Labour Government for 9 years that strengthened the bail laws the Parole Act and sentencing laws and that brought in the Victims’ Rights Act and strengthened victims’ rights. And now we have moved again to a National Government that has promised us it will be tough on crime. What evidence do we get of that? What is the first legislation we get? It is a bill that will not help any more people to avoid becoming victims. 
Amy Adams 
: Yes it will. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: According to that member yes it will. That will be interesting to see. I would like to know from the member—and I am sure she can take a call in this debate—how much money her Government has budgeted for this bill if it will result in a lot more people being held on remand. Does she know that? No I did not think so. I suspect that she may want to read a little more about this bill before she interjects. 
As I said in my previous speech this bill and this Government never speak about the things we need to do in order to make sure that young people who are on the path to crime get off that path. The former Labour-led Government put much resourcing into ensuring that our most vulnerable families were not living in poverty. We lifted 130000 children out of poverty. Yesterday we saw a taxation bill that kicks those families in the guts again and raises taxes on some of our most vulnerable families in order to pour money into the pockets of the chief executive of Telecom. How will that solve crime down the road? We saw a 90-day bill that will see people lose their jobs having been fired for absolutely no reason at a time when we should be protecting those people. Where will the children who are growing up in those households be in 15 or 16 years’ time as this new National Government reverts to form and plunges them back into poverty? I will tell members where they will be. They will be there with another National Government saying that a bill like this one will solve crime whilst doing nothing to address the actual causes of crime. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 In my contributions during the Committee stage of the debate one of the things I was interested in was the cost of the policy given the complete lack of information about its necessity and its effect. We have no information at all about whether the bill is needed or the impact it will have because the bill did not go through the select committee process. We have not had reports from officials and we have not had assessments from those at the coalface doing this work—those from the courts those involved with prisoner rehabilitation those involved with victims’ rights organisations those involved with the police corrections or with remand. No one who actually has to do the work that this bill will require and no one who will be affected whether it be the prisoners or the victims by this bill has had a chance to have any kind of say or make any analysis of the bill. That means we are passing legislation with a huge lacuna of information and that makes us highly irresponsible. The passage of this bill is fiscally and legislatively irresponsible and a disgrace. I am sure taxpayers around the country will be horrified to discover that this legislation will cost about $45 million a year to implement with no information no oversight and no scrutiny. 
The cost of this legislation is very interesting because it does beg the question of where the Minister and the ministry expect to get the money from. Earlier on the Prime Minister said very clearly that there would be no money for Ministers to spend. Where is the $45 million going to come from? It will have to come from somewhere within the ministry. That is what the Prime Minister has said that Ministers have to do. What else might that money be used for or where else might it be coming from? What we do know of course is that the most effective means of preventing reoffending is keeping people out of jail and providing them with rehabilitation services when they are in jail; and afterwards when they are out in the community community support and community transition from other kinds of sentences back out into the community. 
Those services are run by community organisations—by churches; by organisations and programmes like the Sycamore Tree Programme for example which does an exceptional job; by restorative justice organisations; and by the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society which is a fantastic organisation of people directly impacted. This community sector is absolutely desperate for funds to run the programmes for prisoners and their families for offenders and their families for offenders and victims to make sure that offenders do not reoffend and they are by and large very effective programmes. These are the community programmes that work. These are the community programmes that keep our communities safe because they deal with the actual issues that lead to reoffending such as drug and alcohol addiction and systemic lifelong physical psychological and sexual abuse. 
These community programmes provide education and find means for prisoners and their families—offenders and their families—to re-educate themselves so that they have skills that they can take out to the workforce. Support for offenders trying to get work support for victims to deal with the impacts of the crimes on their lives and to confront either their own offenders through a restorative justice programme or other offenders to understand what is going on is provided through programmes like the Sycamore Tree. They are desperate for funds. 
Where might the money to pay for this $45 million useless project come from? It may well come from the Ministry of Justice support that goes to those programmes. Why would that be? It is because this Government completely fails utterly and dismally to understand that to work to protect our communities to keep them safer we need to stop reoffending. That is where the resources need to go. This bail legislation will make no difference whatsoever to the safety of our communities. The National Government and the Minister need to take responsibility for that failure should there be any reoccurrence of the kinds of cases and the kinds of issues that have been described during the debate. 
The other question it raises for me is that if there is going to have to be an increase in remand beds then this policy begins to lay the groundwork for the privatisation of prisons and private sector engagement in the building and management of our prisons. We have had this fight in this Chamber before. My colleague Nandor Tanczos led the charge to oppose the privatisation of prisons and we were very pleased when Labour Government legislation was put forward that would prevent the privatisation of prisons. I was involved with Nandor Tanczos: we visited prisons to talk about remand issues. I went to Auckland Remand Prison a privately owned prison at the time. It was a lovely prison if there is such a thing. It was very flash. It had fabulous services and all these wonderful things. It was obviously a loss leader. There is absolutely no way that Australasian Correctional Management could possibly have provided those kinds of services for the money it was getting contracted to do it for. It was clearly a flagship institution to try to encourage people to think that private prisons were fantastic so that they could get more contracts and run the miserable violent terrible prisons that they are known for running around the world in Australia South America and other countries. 
These companies that run private prisons are known not only for the abuse that goes on within the prisons between inmates but also for the abuse between inmates and corrections staff and the abuse of staff by the institutions themselves. Their services are dismal; the rehabilitation is ridiculous and non-existent. These private prisons have an international record of the most appalling impacts and results. Yet at the time there was a huge outcry from the National Party about the elimination of private prisons because its whole ideology is around the increase in privatisation of public services. 
Not only are we concerned about the privatisation of prisons but also we are concerned about the practical implementation of having private companies making a profit off the imprisoning of our own people—and particularly the imprisonment of Maori for whom those rates are very high. The principle is that it is the role of the State to engage in that level of punishment and the role of the State to be part of that justice and legal process. For the community to then contract out those responsibilities to the private sector is a wholesale relegation of that social contact between the State and the community. So in principle it is absolutely appalling and in practice it causes huge discrimination huge abuse of offenders and actually of the staff as is known. 
Towards the end of my first reading speech I talked about the social impacts of legislation and about the comment that Simon Power had made that corrections policy is failed social policy. I reiterate that again because I think that was a very wise statement and it is absolutely true. Like Moana Mackey I too am terribly concerned about the social policy that the National Government is putting through in urgency. That includes the tax cuts for some with tax increases for the poor in order to pad out the wallets of the wealthy; the 90-day fire-at-will legislation which will mean that young people and vulnerable workers in particular will have a great deal of difficulty getting and keeping employment; and also the coming education legislation which the House will soon be debating. This not only contains an increase in truancy fines for the most vulnerable and poorest families who could not afford to pay the existing fines and certainly will not be able to afford to pay the $3000 worth of fines but also the move to league tables for primary schools which is a move towards the privatisation of the education system. 
This bail legislation like the other legislation that is going through under urgency signals the Government’s absolutely clear path towards the privatisation of public assets and public services. It is a disgrace. It will cause greater reoffending it will cause communities to be less safe than they would otherwise have been and it is a dismal disgraceful waste of taxpayers’ money. Thank you. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I have been listening with interest to the comments from the Labour Opposition this afternoon. I have a number of comments in response to the issues they have raised but before I make them I need to turn my initial comments to the Green Party member Metiria Turei. I think the House has just been subject to a huge amount of rubbish. The honourable member talked about the social contract. Well I say that the social contract Parliament and the Government of this country has with the people of New Zealand is to keep them safe. The member talked about the former private remand prison at Mount Eden. I ask the member how many escapes were made from that prison. She talked on the one hand about the superb services the good quality of the prison and the way the inmates were treated and then she turned around and tried to draw a comparison with prisons in South America. The social contract that the Government of this country has with the people of New Zealand is to keep them safe and to protect them from crime. I see Mr Cullen is looking. I do not believe that the members on that side of the House have actually understood why they lost this election but one of the key issues was law and order. One of the key issues in the election was law and order and the fact that the people of New Zealand want to be kept safe. 
But before I go back to that issue again I will comment also on Metiria Turei’s comments on the tax bill. The tax bill that has just been passed under urgency makes a significant reduction in the top marginal tax rate. I have said that it is not enough but it is the start—it is the start of a tax system that will reward people who want to work hard get on have a higher income provide for their families and provide a higher standard of living. It will stop the great exodus of people going from this country to Australia. Similarly the changes to the employment legislation are all designed to encourage employers to take on staff with the confidence that they can do so and to create wealth and improve the productivity of this country. 
Let me come back to you Mr Cosgrove; let me come back to you. As I say I do not think that you have understood— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I wouldn’t get that close. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: You would not get that close? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: To you? Hell no! 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: So you are frightened of me Mr Cosgrove? I am not surprised. You should be because—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am not the object of the debate. Please keep the conversation in the third person; do not bring the Chair into the debate. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I apologise Mr Assistant Speaker. I was referring my comments to Mr Cosgrove. Mr Cosgrove trivialises the very fundamental issue of law and order. He talked about there being no crime in the country. He trivialised the speech that Melissa Lee made. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No no no. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Yes he did. He talked about there being no crime in New Zealand. He said that the white doves would be free to be released that there would be no crime and that all would be good and well in this country. The member shows how he “trivilises” this issue. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: “Trivil” what? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: He trivialised it. Moana Mackey rose to say that this bill does practically nothing and then she went on to say that my colleague says that in itself this bill will do little. [ 
Interruption 
] That is what she said. David Quarrack has quite rightly said that in itself this bill will do little. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to be of assistance because I know that every member has the right to be addressed in the appropriate way. I think that Mr Boscawen was referring to Mr Garrett not Mr Barrett. I do not think we have a Mr Barrett in the House and I think that the member should show some respect to his colleague. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a proper point of order. I call the member to continue his speech. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. If members are concerned that this bill does practically nothing then let me just talk to them about some of the other bills that will come before the House on this issue. Let me talk about the three strikes bill. The ACT Party came to Parliament on a promise to introduce the three strikes bill. Members of the Opposition will have an opportunity to vote for that bill and to refer it to a select committee; members will have the chance to vote for that bill refer it back to the House and pass it into law. 
Moana Mackey 
: When will that be introduced? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: 15 years! 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: The initial effect of that ACT bill will be immediate because— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Immediate—no it won’t. Talk to Garrett. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: That is right. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He said 20 years. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Yes you can smile. Let me explain to you— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I cannot smile; please keep me out of the debate. Focus on the point. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I apologise. Let me explain to the member how that bill will operate. On the first conviction criminals on serious and violent offences will be convicted and sentenced and will serve the full length of the term that the judge sentences them for. So on their first conviction for a serious and violent offence offenders will have to serve the full length of their sentences. On the second conviction for a serious and violent offence they will have to serve the maximum sentence. So if the maximum for grievous bodily harm is 14 years then that is exactly what they will serve. 
The point that Mr Garrett was trying to make which has been misrepresented by the Opposition is that if criminals have two strikes they will in the first instance already have served the time set down by the judge for the first strike so they will serve the maximum time provided under the law for the second serious violent conviction. Then on the third conviction they will serve 25 years to life. So if members on the other side of the House are concerned that this bill does practically nothing if that is their concern then I can tell them that the ACT Party came into this Parliament to fulfil its social contract with the people of New Zealand to keep the people of New Zealand safe and to punish those who commit serious violent crimes. 
I say to Mr Cosgrove and Mr Cullen— 
Hon Members 
: Dr Cullen. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: —I apologise; the Hon Dr Cullen—that they and their colleagues will have the opportunity to refer ACT’s three strikes bill to a select committee. I welcome those members’ support and the support of the National members on that committee to hear the submissions of the public of New Zealand and then to refer the bill back and pass it into law. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What other bills are coming? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Well hopefully there will be a repeal of the emissions trading scheme. There will be future tax bills. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. I am pleased the member is clapping because the Hon Jim Anderton was having a crack at the National Government earlier this week and at the fact that there was no reference to research and development in the Speech from the Throne. Those members forget that the Labour Government passed emissions trading legislation that will introduce severe taxes for the rural sector in this country. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What else is coming? 
Moana Mackey 
: What else are you going to do? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I am very pleased to hear the interjections. I wish they would come just one at a time because then I could actually hear them and respond to them. It is actually a bit hard to hear. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What other bills are coming? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: We have the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill coming up later this evening. 
Hon Member 
: We? Those aren’t your bills. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Well I am happy to talk about the ACT policy on education if members wish because we certainly believe that parents in this country should be addressing— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member should be addressing the Bail Amendment Bill. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I am sorry Mr Assistant Speaker I did not hear those comments. I am happy to sit down because the point I am trying to make is that the Labour Opposition is saying that this bill will do practically nothing. If members think this bill will do practically nothing they will have the opportunity to vote for the ACT “Three Strikes and You are Out Bill” early in the New Year. I can assure them that that bill will do something and that members of the ACT Party are committed to this Government fulfilling its social contract with the people of New Zealand. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: For the edification of the House I remind members that we are on the third reading of the Bail Amendment Bill. The Government’s agenda for some time in the future is not part of that discussion—interesting though it was to members. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I will take I hope a relatively brief call. This must be an awful day for Government members. Today they have found out that practically none of their backbenchers can move a closure motion correctly so the crusade for literacy starts there. They cannot even read: “I move that the question be now put.” I saw them: they had it in front of them and they could not even read it. 
Then Government members found out that their coalition partners give fruit cake a bad name. That speech really was a worry. Anybody who knows my background will know that I have been a rather staunch critic of Marxism as an intellectual theory but Marx had the insight that lots of groups have what is called false consciousness—they tend to argue what is actually against their own intrinsic interests. I say to Mr Boscawen that a large amount of the choice seafront property in New Zealand is owned by the supporters of the ACT Party so ACT had better be right on global warming because if it has got it wrong it will be a classic case of false consciousness. ACT is about to drown its own supporters progressively over the coming generations. 
Coming back to the Bail Amendment Bill I say that during the election campaign Mr Power flew around the country like some kind of superhero. He was “Justice Man” with a big “J” on his chest and great wads of cotton wool stuffed elsewhere on his body and he was going to deliver justice to the country. He was going to clamp down on crime. He was going to wipe out everything that everybody hated about crime. He laboured mightily in the vineyard and he brought forth—well it is flattery to call it a mouse. It is actually a little tiny bill that is not new as he said in his first reading speech of roughly 200 words I think it was at most. It is an old bill. It is what the Labour Government legislated for previously. It is not even a new idea; it is an old idea with a Labour stamp on it and it will not do anything of any significance at all. As a kind of law and order man he is now going around the country like Wyatt Earp with no horse and no guns and it will not be a good way to go I can tell Mr Power in that particular contest. 
We are told even in the notes prepared for us by officials that this bill will have very little effect. Very few people will be affected by this bill at all. If it keeps one serious violent offender from committing another violent offence then that is obviously an advantage of the bill but that will depend on the judges getting it right. As I said before there is a matter of difficult judgment. People have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. The default position is that people have bail unless there is good reason for them not to have bail and that must be the position. Otherwise the presumption of innocence has no meaning because it means that any of us are liable in effect to serve a period in prison even if we are totally innocent of the charges that have been brought against us. 
This bill is all the Government can do in this first great burst of the 100 days in order to address law and order issues. That is not what people were led to expect during the election campaign. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Don’t worry. More is on the way. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well I ask Mr Power whether what is coming is what Mr Boscawen suggested—something that says people have to serve the full sentence. Mr Boscawen clearly does not understand how judges work. If a judge is faced with the position where whatever sentence he or she gives is the full sentence that must be served then the average full sentence will drop for any given set of offences. That is precisely what judges will do because they will take into account the fact that the full sentence must be served and there is no possibility of parole. It also means that prisoners will be less well prepared for release into the community and when finally released they will be more likely to reoffend. So that measure is very unlikely to protect the community better against violent offences. 
This is a classic case of the idea that if a party puts together enough bumper stickers it can make a car but it does not actually work that way—not even for a non-turbocharged car. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Oh they still laugh at his jokes. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am glad Jacqui Dean interrupted because one of the things I have not understood is why she is not the Minister of Finance. As the only member opposite who knows how to get money without borrowing it from overseas she is precisely the person we need to be Minister of Finance at the moment when the Government is in great need of money without having to borrow it. But of course she does not actually have a clue how to do that. 
Let me say to Mr Power that this is a trivial bill. It is a bill that will not achieve its stated effects. It will not reduce crime. It will not protect the public from violence. It may lead to some marginal increase in costs and—as Ms Turei quite rightly said—if that happens given the cap on spending that money will have to come from somewhere else and it may well come from the provision of rehabilitation programmes. At the end of the day we will support the bill because actually it does nothing but what a waste of time it is to pretend that this is the great measure under urgency in the first week of Parliament to deal with law and order issues. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is good to be able to take a call and make a few points in respect of the Bail Amendment Bill. It is good to know too that the Labour Opposition is supporting the Government in respect of this provision a provision that is no silver bullet in spite of what the Opposition says we have cracked it up to be. We know that there is no particular legislation that will do an absolute job on absolutely everything; everybody knows that. We are not under any illusions in that respect in spite of the hopes and dreams of those who come into this House as we all did. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Melissa Lee is. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: What is a bit of a shame to look at though is the way the Labour Party Opposition is prepared to take the mickey out of anybody who comes here with some sort of experience to bring to the table or some sort of energy or willingness to express desires in where the law might be able to take them. 
It is interesting to hear the former member for Otaki expressing a bit of humour and taking the mickey in that particular way. At least he does it with a little bit of class. He has some youthful enthusiasm—as I understand it he has been shaving for 10 years and he cut himself on both occasions. It is a totally different scenario for the soon to be former member for Waimakariri who wants to take a slap every time he turns. When he speaks like he does turning one way to the other it is as if he has the agitator from one of those old washing machines stuck in his nether regions because that is the way he does it time and time again. 
The fact is that this legislation is just a little bit of common sense which brings something to the debate around reoffending and the opportunity to reoffend. It is one small step that we can take. If those members are prepared to go out and back legislation which they say does nothing we look forward to them backing the legislation that we intend to bring before this House in respect of gangs and in respect of recovering DNA from every person who is arrested for an imprisonable offence. We look forward to hearing those members backing us on legislation that for instance will put 12 and 13-year-olds before the Youth Court and allow them to access the programmes and extend the sentences that that court will be able to impose upon those young offenders to make some real intervention and to provide some of the real rehabilitation that the Green member lamented the absence of. 
We look forward to hearing the Labour Party back us on legislation that will give longer sentences to those accused of crimes against children who are the most vulnerable within our society. No doubt there will be references to other cases that have been to the absolute shame of New Zealand society. We look forward to the Labour Party backing Government initiatives to remove the options of parole for the worst repeat violent offenders. If the Labour Party is prepared to back this legislation purely on the basis that the politics of not supporting it would only damn it within the headlines and over every bar leaner in the country then we look forward to the Labour Opposition backing the serious legislation that will soon come before the House that will deal significantly to repeat offenders. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 7 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.