King Annette: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
King Annette: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:540] 
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.