Lee Melissa: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Lee Melissa: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:498] 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I am surprised. I may be new in this House but I am surprised that the Labour Party seems to have forgotten that we have had the biggest submission from the public: it was called the election and those guys lost. Law and order was one of the major points on which New Zealand voted against Labour. 
I rise in support of the Bail Amendment Bill. The purpose of this bill is to put public safety first. Fifteen thousand people marched in South Auckland to say that it is not right that people like Navtej Singh Joanne Wang and Yin Ping Yang died at the hands of people who had been bailed. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
MELISSA LEE 
: I will reiterate what I said before the lunch break— 
Hon Members 
: No! 
MELISSA LEE 
: Perhaps you have short memories; I will just remind you. You keep saying that public submissions were not made— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday and the day before we had long dissertations from the Deputy Prime Minister interrupting speeches when the word “you” was mentioned. I think it is only fair that if the Government wants to play that game all through the urgency motion the Opposition will respond. So I am doing that now. 
Hon Simon Power 
: In reference to the member’s comments I remind him of course that we had the same problem with Ms Pillay as you will recall Mr Assistant Speaker because you were in the Chair at the time. The Opposition did not interrupt her speech at that point. The member knows that the interruption of another member’s speech needs to be for a significant point of order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Could I take this matter a stage further because at times when listening to these speeches and occasionally with some of the points of order there is a little bit of a problem about the ruling that has been given over many years on this matter which is worth exploring. 
There are two ways in which people use the word “you” in conversation and in speeches. There is the sense where we use the word “you” when it is referring to you and in the House that means you Mr Assistant Speaker. It cannot actually mean “you Mr Power” although if one says “you Mr Power” then that is actually slightly different. It is quite clearly not “you Mr Speaker”. However also in absolutely normal English usage the term “you” is meant as a substitute for “one”—in other words a general person who is not a specific person. I have listened to speeches a couple of times when people have used “you” in that respect. It is actually a bit trivial to raise a point of order when people have used the word “you” in that context or other contexts. “You did this. You said that. You you you …” is clearly referring to “yourself” but if it is used in the innate general sense of “one” or a person then it seems to me it is not worth pulling up the business of the House for interruptions. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Each member has made a very good point. It is not acceptable to use the word “you”. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen makes a good point—that in fact there are many uses of the word. I tend to be reasonable with its use because we have some new members here who need to learn the rules. But in response to the Hon Simon Power I say that simply because people do not object at the time it can only be taken to mean that they accept the rules. If people object they should say so at the time. An old pearl I learnt in history some years ago is “silence means consent”. 
MELISSA LEE 
: I support this amendment bill because we should never again allow the senseless killing of people like Navtej Singh. He was a hard-working father husband and son working at his liquor shop minding his own business behind his counter when people walked into his shop and shot him dead. Joanne Wang was run over while she was trying to stop the people who had snatched her bag. The bastards ran over her while her son watched her die. 
What about the Korean tourist killed in Nelson by Hayden Brent McKenzie? McKenzie was already serving a life sentence for murder when he killed Jae Hyeon Kim in 2003. Kim’s body was not even discovered until October this year. What anguish his family must have gone through not knowing and then to discover he was killed by this very hateful person! 
I would like Opposition members to read the victim impact report to see what kind of damage these criminals do to innocent families. Perhaps they do not actually have the emotions to understand what it is like to be a victim. I mentioned it in my maiden speech— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: That is very patronising. What would the member know about anything— 
MELISSA LEE 
: I have worked as a reporter and I have worked as an adviser for the police in Auckland. In my experience and from the things I have heard the police say and watch them do I know they are chasing the same offenders over and over again—offenders who have been bailed. That is a waste of the police’s valuable time. We need to protect the hard-working law-abiding citizens of New Zealand instead of protecting the rights of these criminals. 
As I said and as the Opposition keeps forgetting we did not have public submissions apparently. But as far as I am concerned we had the biggest public submission on 8 November. It was called the election and the people of New Zealand said no to Labour. One of the very very important things on which they voted against Labour now in Opposition was the law and order issue. More than 15000 people marched in South Auckland because they were sick and tired of 9 years of non-performance by the then Government. Has the Opposition forgotten that? We are here doing something instead of wasting the time of this House and taxpayers’ valuable money so those members should just accept it. We are here to do a job and we are doing it. Thank you.