King Annette: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
King Annette: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:493] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to be able to speak on the Bail Amendment Bill while David Garrett is still in the House. The member’s speech in this debate was the first time I have heard him speak. I congratulate him on now being a member of this Parliament. Coming in as the spokesperson for the Sensible Sentencing Trust he has come in with an agenda; that is fair enough. But I listened very carefully to Mr Garrett talking before the election about the “three strikes and you’re out” policy—a very strong ACT policy. Up and down New Zealand people listened to what he said. Those who voted for ACT heard it. They did not hear what he said after the election: that this policy should it be implemented would have no impact on the number of people going into prison for another 15 years. I say to Mr Garrett that that was not an upfront truthful approach to the people of New Zealand. That was not what ACT candidates said on the hustings where I was. That was not what ACT candidates said. Not for one moment did they believe that if this policy were implemented somebody might be affected by it only in 15 years’ time. All I can say is that that is not a straightforward way to start one’s career in this place. 
I listened to Chester Borrows and I ask why he is not the Minister of Police. He should be the Minister of Police. He has a lot of information and a lot of knowledge. I believe he would be a very fine Minister of Police but he was shifted to one side. I have to correct him however on one thing he said; when it comes to the justice area perhaps he is not so well informed. He raised the issue of people offending on bail. I suggest he reads this bill. I point him to page 4 of the explanatory note of his Minister’s bill where it states that offending on bail under a Labour Government was reduced—not increased but reduced. I point him to page 4 and ask him to have a read. It shows the drop in offending on bail under a Labour Government. The impression the member left for the public was that offending was going up and was out of control. That is not what is in his own Minister’s bill. 
There is no doubt that law and order was a major election campaign issue. In fact a campaign to make it a major election issue started I think almost 2 years before the election. It seemed that the National Party had decided that if it could not buy the election then—along with its backers those who control the media and those who own the media—it would scare the voters into its camp. As so many commentators and academics have said whipping up law and order as a political issue is very much like using race as a political issue. We know how successfully the National Party used the race issue against Maori to lift its poll ratings: it almost won the 2005 general election by whipping up the race issue. Everybody on the National front bench—with the exception of Christopher Finlayson but including John Key—jumped on that race-based campaign. Those members had no qualms about taking the poll gains that Don Brash brought them with that campaign. Of course once John Key became the leader he then decided he needed to broaden his base so he popped down to McGehan Close and found a nice Maori family who became the poster for his now broadened approach to New Zealand. But National members banked the race-driven poll ratings; they never repudiated their basic assumptions and they moved on to their next target which was to whip up the same response on law and order for the 2008 election campaign. 
Do not get me wrong: safety in our community is very important. Every murder is a tragedy and every assault is wrong. Family violence in this country is a national disgrace. Street violence is unacceptable. The tools we use in this country like most other countries are a combination of legislation education and enforcement. We use these tools to try to combat crime in our society but the tools have to be effective. I say to Simon Power for whom I have great respect that this bill is not an effective legislative tool if it is intended to put more people in prison. That is the basis on which he has put up this bill—to put more people in prison. But this bill will do nothing of the sort. He is talking about a handful of people at the margin. 
David Garrett 
: 10 percent. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The advice I received as Minister of Justice is that we are talking about 10 more people— 
David Garrett 
: You got it wrong in 2000—what’s changed? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I tell Mr Garrett they would not have all been murderers or even have committed violent crimes. Ten more people by 2009 would have been in prison and 40 more people by 2011. 
You see the change to the Bail Act in 2007 was never about putting more people in prison. The changes made by Phil Goff in 2000— 
David Garrett 
: It was about remanding dangerous people— 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I tell Mr Garrett that I am correct. The changes made to bail law in 2000 by Phil Goff were real big changes. They were significant. The change made in 2007 was not about putting fewer people in jail—and I will go over that in a moment. That was not the purpose. 
This bill is just flummery and that distresses me. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Just flimflam. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is just flimflam as my colleague says. The 2007 amendments were about clarifying the bail law. They were never about remand beds. Mr Power has read his very short bill but I am surprised that he has not read the explanatory note. The explanatory note was probably written by the Ministry of Justice because it would have given him this advice. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask Mr Garrett whether he is listening. It states: “The amendments [of 2007] were intended to clarify the law rather than make any significant changes.” 
Why did we need to clarify the law? Well it became quite obvious. The ministry’s advice was that we needed to clarify what was considered a risk under the previous risk threshold. It came out of case law—out of a Court of Appeal 2002 decision the  
Queen v Hines 
. In that case it was stated that to amount to just cause to continue detention the risk should be “more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk”. On the basis of that and other decisions we decided on advice to use those words in the amendment of 2007. 
It was not about more people or fewer people going to prison. That is why it is flimflam to be making this change under urgency. I tell Mr Power that this bill makes very little difference to the status quo. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: We won’t be voting against it. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Therefore we will not be voting against it. It makes very little difference. It is flimflam. I believe that if the member had really wanted to make a difference then he would have picked up some of the tough measures that exist and are in law now. One of those is the two-third parole provisions. 
David Garrett 
: Pick up the phone! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Bail Amendment Act 2007 is passed I tell members of the House. I tell Mr Garrett that the law is passed. It need only be triggered by an Order in Council. It would make a significance difference. I say to Mr Garrett that the ACT Party as a coalition partner should put pressure on the National Government to implement that legislation. An Order in Council could be drawn up today could go through Cabinet on Monday and the Governor-General could sign it off in the afternoon. It would make a significant difference for the safety of people in New Zealand. But the National Government is not doing that. It wants this piece of flummery to be its flagship legislation.