Chauvel Charles: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 10 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2195. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I listened to that contribution from Mark Mitchell carefully. The previous speaker accused fellow members of the House of engaging in political spin. He then went on to talk in critical terms about one of those members who had spoken about the burglary rate. I want to say one thing to that member who has resumed his seat. As members opposite know or ought to know the burglary clearance rate in this country is below 25 percent. That means that if somebody commits a burglary in this country now they are much more likely to get away with it than not. The effect of a burglary on a person is horrible. They feel violated because their home has been invaded. There are statistics that show that an older person who suffers a burglary ends up with a greater chance of an early death because they feel that sense of violation. 
Mark Mitchell 
: That’s right. You’re making my case. Thank you. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: It is all very well for Mark Mitchell to indicate that he agrees with what I am saying because what I am actually saying is that the single biggest thing that members opposite in the Government could do to improve public safety is get that burglary clearance rate up by making sure that the police have the resources to do their job. We need proper community policing in this country and ideas like those that were contained in the election manifesto put out during the last election campaign which showed how you would extend police resources in areas like burglary clearance. What you might do is get civilian staff in to assist once the complaint has been made to do the fingerprinting and to do the investigative work that you might be able to spare a uniform for and then deliver the file to the uniformed constable so they could actually follow it up. In this way you might do something about that pathetic burglary clearance rate. Then you might stop escalation from burglary to more serious crime—all things that that member spoke about piously in respect of the law and order debate but that this Government is doing nothing about. Those are the things that we need to see action in law and order on if we want to see an actual improvement in public safety levels in this country not more and more legislation that sounds good on talkback radio and allows Ministers to talk tough on law and order but when you actually weigh up the consequences of that legislation is found to be wanting. 
 I want to say this about this bill: I have been very concerned about bail laws. I have been concerned to know about the sort of risk assessment that is applied by the judges when they go through the exercise of granting bail and so I have been putting a series of written questions to the Minister of Justice in particular but also to her colleagues. Here is a summary of the answers received to those questions. In the year 2009 there were only 4 percent of offenders who refused to answer bail. In that year only 5 percent of those between the ages of 17 and 19 failed to answer bail. Only one conviction for murder was obtained in 2009 from somebody on bail and only one again the following year. So the previous member Mark Mitchell and his colleagues can read the notes that they have from their research unit on anecdotal cases as much as they like. Yes we will support this bill going to the Law and Order Committee. Yes we want to see the very best bail system available in this country. But let us not have pious speeches about law and order. Let us see some real action based on evidence for a change because that is what New Zealanders really want.