Turei Metiria: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:543] 
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.