Prosser Richard: Bail Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Bail Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11528. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the second reading of the Bail Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill. This bill has been examined by the Law and Order Committee under the fine chairpersonship of Jacqui Dean. I sit on the committee but at the time that this bill was first referred to it I was not a member so this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on this bill.In general terms New Zealand First finds itself most often in agreement with the National Government on matters of law and order. We find that we agree with it more closely than we do with the Labour Opposition on these matters and this bill is no exception to that. However we also find that we frequently feel that the measures taken by National that are intended to improve public safety and law and order do not go far enough. Again this bill is no exception.New Zealand First believes that some further changes could have been made within this bill in order to make it an even more robust tool that the courts could use to improve public safety and to protect innocent people from the actions of criminals. But our dissatisfaction with that aspect is not sufficient for us to not support the bill nor is it enough that we felt compelled to submit a minority report to the House as part of the bill’s report back from the select committee as Labour and the Greens have done.We are satisfied that this bill will improve the bail system and that it will contribute to the enhancement of public safety. We hope that in future a New Zealand First - influenced Government of either potential flavour will have the opportunity to revisit the subject of court bail yet again and when that times comes we look forward to tidying up some of the aspects that we feel to be insufficient at this time.New Zealand First supports the provision in this bill that will introduce a reverse burden of proof for offenders charged with serious violent offences and class A drug dealing. We support the provision that will remove the strong presumption in favour of bail for defendants aged 18 and 19. We are not particularly happy that the removal of the strong presumption in favour of bail will not extend to 17-year-old defendants as well.We do not agree that the international obligations referred to namely the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child should take precedence over the requirements and processes of lawmaking here in New Zealand. New Zealand First believes strongly that laws applied in New Zealand should be made in New Zealand with the realities of our society and the rights of our citizens being placed first and foremost. We do not believe that the United Nations should be making our laws or influencing our lawmaking processes.We are also not happy with the provisions that will empower the police to arrest only those young defendants who they believe have significantly or repeatedly breached the conditions of their bail. New Zealand First believes that as a matter of principle anybreach of bail should be regarded as significant and should be classed as grounds for arrest.We understand the objections raised against this position by the Labour Party and some submitters that a person on bail has not been convicted of a crime and should not therefore be penalised for any so-called minor breach of the bail conditions imposed prior to a court appearance. We understand that objection but we do not agree with it. We hold—I reiterate—that any breach of bail conditions constitutes an offence in its own right and the police should be empowered to arrest a person on that basis. Indeed as the committee’s report states we were told that some young people disregard their bail conditions because they are aware of the restrictions on their arrest—they play the system. We do not believe that a requirement for breaches of bail to be significant or repeated will be sufficient to deter them from doing that.We note that the changes to bail that this bill will bring about will have an impact on prison capacity. We accept that reality as we believe do the majority of New Zealanders. There will be more required of the prison system. There will be more beds required. There will be a greater cost. We accept that cost. We accept that it is going to cost more. But we believe in protecting New Zealanders and in keeping people safe and if it costs more to do that then it costs more.There is a cost in not locking people up as well which is often not taken into account when the cost of running prisons is being talked about. There is a social cost and there is a financial cost—the cost of dealing with offenders when they commit further crimes while on bail and the cost associated with helping and assisting their victims.Sometimes the cost of not locking someone up is unacceptable as we saw with the tragic case of Christie Marceau. The committee received the Christie’s Law petition at the same time as we were considering the bill and because the appeal in the case was still before the courts there were aspects of it that we were not able to take into account. There remain some deficiencies in the bill with regards to the concerns raised by Christie’s Law petitioners which will not be addressed by this new law. That is something that I am sure all members of the House find as unacceptable as do those fine people who campaigned on behalf of Christie Marceau and her family.I salute those brave people. I believe that this House owes all of them a debt and we must undertake to revisit the matter of bail yet again as soon as is practical in order to address the deficiencies that still remain and to put in place the learning that we took from considering the petition. I believe that the Government must sponsor such a change and I call on the Minister of Justice and the members opposite to give this possibility serious and urgent consideration.In closing I would like to highlight an issue that the Labour Party raised in its minority report and with which we in fact do agree. Labour says: “A critical issue that the Government must address is delays in the court system.” Indeed it must. New Zealand First agrees with Labour that the time taken from arrest to court appearance and from court appearance to trial and the length of too many trials is far too long. Justice delayed is justice denied I say to this House. Two weeks may be an acceptable time frame but 2 years is not.Delays in the court process system put great pressure on judges to grant bail rather than keep accused people in custody and this in turn results in more offences being committed by people who should be locked up and in innocent people being hurt raped robbed and in some cases murdered. This is not good enough and it is the Government’s responsibility to address this issue to resource the courts sufficiently and to look at matters of procedure that lead to unacceptably long delays. That said we believe this bill is a step in the right direction and we are happy to support its passageinto law while reiterating that the deficiencies in it still need to be addressed and should be addressed as soon as possible.