Worth Richard: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:552] 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It is always a privilege to follow the Hon Clayton Cosgrove because he is the ultimate exemplar of nonsense and foolishness. National is committed to effective law and order policies. We do that against the background of increasing levels of violent crime in New Zealand. These issues are not easily brushed aside and a number of Government members have spoken about particular examples where sadly for the community in the context of bail decisions things have gone badly wrong—badly wrong for victims badly wrong for families and I would say badly wrong for society. 
It was very interesting that when this debate first started Labour was equivocal about what its position was on this legislation. As events unfolded it became absolutely clear that Labour actually supports this change. I was interested in what Mr Cosgrove said when he spoke about how he saw the job of the Opposition. He said to us—and this will be recorded in  
Hansard 
—that it is “our job to fight it for hours”. I would say that that is simply not the task of an Opposition that actually favours the legislation that is before this House. It is right to say in the context of parliamentary time that we have seen substantial time wasted in speeches that are often characterised by misunderstanding and repetition. I think that is a tragedy. 
I would like for a moment to come back to what the purpose of this legislation is. Like it or not for the Government the gains that will flow from this legislation are significant. Like it or not for the Opposition bail will be harder to get. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Say that again! 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Bail will be harder to get. 
I would like to talk about just two aspects of this bill and I reflect with interest that comments have been made by Opposition members that this is a short bill. It may be a short bill but it will have significant impact. Why will it have that impact? There are two reasons for that. It will produce an outcome whereby bail will be harder to get with the consequence that there will be additional protections for the community in respect of those who offend in the community whilst on bail. We know the statistics; they are referred to in the explanatory note of the bill. 
The other aspect that I think is quite significant is that the bill will deal with a circumstance whereby a large number of defendants fail to appear in court. [ 
Interruption 
] The consequences of that as Mr Cosgrove should know from his previous experience are huge delays and congestion in the system. The numbers of those defendants who fail to appear in court when called are actually quite significant. Convictions for breach of bail—failing to appear—increased by 76 percent between 1997 and 2006 and it will be an outcome of the legislation that those denied bail of course will be there on the appointed day to meet their desserts. 
The reality is that delays in the court system are a hugely significant factor. Many will know that justice delayed is justice denied and the injustice that is done is an injustice to the victims to the system—in terms of congestion—and in some respects to those who are facing trial and have the consequence of having to wait and wait for their day in court for the opportunity of either vindicating themselves or being found guilty of the offences with which they are charged. So we have been treated to a time-wasting exercise. Maybe the Opposition justifies it in the context of seeking to show its mettle. Has it done that? Not at all.