Mackey Moana: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:524] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the member who has just resumed his seat David Garrett. I think he has put his finger on the nub of the issue which is that in itself the Bail Amendment Bill will not do a lot. In fact the very case he outlined—the kind of situation he outlined—is the exact reason why the last Labour Government changed the bail laws as soon as we became the Government and is the very reason we changed the Sentencing Act and parole laws the moment we became the Government: because we recognised the inherent unfairness and the danger to the community of existing legislation. But as I said none of us likes presiding over rising prison populations. It is a waste but at the end of the day the safety of the community and the safety of the public have to be upheld. It is important that when people come up for bail their previous history can be considered as an indication of the kinds of risks they might pose to the community if they were to be released. So strangely enough there is not a lot there that we disagree on and I think that the Hon Phil Goff who passed those amendments into law had that in mind when he passed them. 
But I say to members again that we cannot forget the other side of the equation which is that if we are constantly—to use a very overused cliché—the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff rather than the fence at the top then parliaments in 20 30 40 50 or 60 years’ time will still be having these debates. There will still be far too many victims of violent crimes and nothing will change. 
I appreciate that this is not a large bill: it is fewer than 50 words I think if we take out headings and the contents page. It did not really need the contents page but that is all right—it is standard. I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power which clause in this particularly short bill will prevent crime. I ask the Minister which clauses in this legislation will prevent family violence. I reiterate that this is the first law and order legislation we are seeing in National’s 100 days of action; it is the top priority for the new Government in terms of law and order legislation in its first 100 days of action. It is significant: as a Parliament and as a country we can look at the first bill that comes up as an indication of the way that we will go forward. This is the bill that has come up first. I ask the minister which clause in this bill will prevent family violence and will encourage people to report family violence. I ask him how many crimes this bill will prevent. If this bill as he says will result in a large number of people being held in remand how much has he budgeted for that increase? How many extra beds has he budgeted for? 
I ask how he reconciles this legislation with the legislation his Government passed yesterday and today which increased taxes on the most vulnerable families and which took away the rights of workers in their first 90 days of employment to appeal against being sacked even if they were sacked simply because their boss did not like them or their partners. How does he reconcile that legislation with this? Does he agree with his colleague Tony Ryall who said in 2000 when Labour passed the Bail Act to toughen bail provisions that bail is a very important constitutional right and people should not have to be held in prison? The rhetoric that I heard on the election campaign certainly did not support that point of view. I think it is only right that as an Opposition party we come into this Parliament as a minority hold the Government to account for the rhetoric its members gave us during the election campaign and compare it with the reality of the legislation before us—the first law and order legislation of this new National - ACT - Maori Party Government. 
After going through an election campaign of fire and brimstone of hell to pay for criminals and of hell to pay for offenders this is the first piece of legislation we get. It really does not do much at all. It will not make a single person safer; a number of people have said that. We can play tit for tat over which justice said what and which academic said what but the fact is that this bill will not make anyone safer it will not live up to the rhetoric we heard during the election campaign and it is the role of the Opposition to hold the Government to account.