Power Simon: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:525] 
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.