Dalziel Lianne: Bail Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDalziel Lianne: Bail Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11530. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East):I rise to speak on the Bail Amendment Bill. I wanted to start with a quote from some briefing papers to a former Minister of Justice. “It was stated that the problem of offending on bail could be addressed by remanding more people in custody than at present. There are however several major difficulties with this approach. The first is that it remains difficult to predict with any certainty who will offend while on bail and secondly it is difficult tosee how a greater use of custodial remand could be based in principle simply on the seriousness of the offence since it picks out one variable and ignores others which the research concludes are much more important in determining the rate of offending while on bail. For example only 2 percent of those charged with a violent offence committed a violent offence while on bail. Research indicates that a large proportion of those remanded in custody who are subsequently convicted do not receive sentences of imprisonment.” That report was to the then Minister of Justice the Hon Douglas Graham in 1991. I spoke on the Bail (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 22 years ago and we are still debating the same issue today.I think that it is possibly time for a consideration of bail laws on a basis where basically we get all parties together to actually consider what the evidence says and what would be effective in terms of identifying what the drivers of crime are. I attended a ministerial meeting on the drivers of crime when the Hon Simon Power was the Minister of Justice and very little has flowed from that and yet such a good beginning was promised at that meeting when we had people presenting evidence on what were those fundamental underlying drivers of crime. Yet we continue to deal with the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff instead of building a really strong fence at the top of the cliff. I would like us to think about bail in that sense.Mike Sabin: What was that? Crime at a 30-year low? What’s that all about then?Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The member is just really defeating his own argument. The point that I am making—Mike Sabin: Well hold on—if there is less crime is that not an example of more activity at the top of the cliff?Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Well why are we passing this legislation without the evidence to back it up? I heard members on the other side of the House basically saying that as long as we save one person’s life it does not matter how much we spend and that it does not matter how many people we lock up as long as one person’s life is saved. I think that Parliament owes this issue much more in-depth attention than those members are prepared to give it because they seem to be debating around the emotionalism which is always the case when one is presented with a petition as the Law and Order Committee was in this case.I sat on the Justice and Law Reform Committee as it was back in 1991 when it considered the bail legislation back then. We are always hearing from people who present a very compelling case based on the tragedy that has befallen them and we are right to listen to their concerns. But we are not responsible unless we actually address them by doing something that is effective and actually makes a difference so that those lives that are lost are not lost in meaningless political debate that does not actually advance the cause. That is simply the point that I am making.That being said in 1991 we voted against the Bail (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill; today we are voting for with reservations the Bail Amendment Bill. I hope that the next Parliament does decide to make more progress in this area. I think that would do more to honour those who see themselves as families of the victims of crime than political rhetoric.