Pillay Lynne: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:496] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I believe that this bill should be renamed the “Wasting Parliament’s Time on Meaningless Legislation Bill”. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: In urgency. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: And we are doing it under an urgency motion. Again there is no opportunity for comment by the public. There is no ability to scrutinise this bill and say how effective or ineffective it is what it does or how it could be improved. There is no chance given whatsoever. This is another case of turbocharged legislation. It is a glowing example of the tough strong National Party. This bill has minimal effect but it is absolutely essential that it is rushed through under urgency. I want the Minister to take a call—certainly when we have more discussion in the Committee stage—to explain why this bill is being rushed through under an urgency motion. I think it is an insult. It is an insult to this Parliament but more important it is an insult to the good people of this country who are denied the opportunity to come to the select committee. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: “Sir Richard” shouldn’t treat us like this. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right. I am sure there will be people who support this bill; they should be given the opportunity to come to the select committee and make comment on it. 
But—and I think more important—people should also be able to come and say how they believe the bill could be improved: suggest things they think could be better and other actions this Government could take to improve the bill or to live up to the Government’s promises of getting tough on and cutting crime. I cannot wait to see the crime rate drop dramatically in this country in the next few months under a Labour Government—I am sorry; I meant under a National Government. It did actually drop under a Labour Government. That was a slip of the tongue but the crime rate did drop under a Labour Government. I cannot wait to see how under a National-led Government the crime rate will drop. This is a glowing example of the National - ACT - Maori Party Government having no substance and no style of doing things. A myriad of meaningful pieces of legislation could be before this House. We could be having a question time where we in Opposition could be fulfilling our role of holding this Government to account for all the terrible things it has done. 
Moana Mackey 
: That’s why they’re doing urgency. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right; this is why we are under urgency. Why do we have this flimflam piece of legislation before the House at the moment? Why are we going through every single stage at this point in time? What would we normally be doing? We would be having a question time. We would be asking the members on that side of the House why the Government has slashed KiwiSaver why the Government has provided tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of modest income earners and families and why the Government has brought in the 90-day bill without taking it to a select committee. Why has the Government done that at all? 
Hon Simon Power 
: I thought we were on to the bail bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Members will see how it all comes together. I thank Mr Power. If he follows this he will see that it will come together very soon. In response to Mr Power who is wondering why I will suggest what the National Government which is looking towards a brighter future could have done. It could have build on better legislation—on legislation introduced by the Labour-led Government. It could have built on paid parental leave. It could have built on 4 weeks’ holiday early childhood education apprenticeships KiwiSaver Working for Families and much much more. Instead it did not. 
When I chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee— 
Moana Mackey 
: The heydays. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That was in the heydays. I acknowledge that at times Chester Borrows was on that committee with me and I acknowledge that working with him now on the new Justice and Electoral Committee— 
Hon Dr Richard Worth 
: So lucky! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —he often makes pretty meaningful contributions. 
Moana Mackey 
: It’s nice to see Mr Worth awake. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Dr Worth is also on the committee and that is very good as well. I know that Chester Borrows as chair of that committee will comment on how impressive it is to see submitters come to select committees and be given—[ 
Interruption 
]. Well that is right. But I know that Chester Borrows would have liked and enjoyed people coming to select committees. The Law and Order Committee chair—who is the Law and Order Committee chair? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Sandra Goudie. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly. Under the expert stewardship of Sandra Goudie—oh that is why the bill did not go to a select committee; I get it now. I am sorry but I get it. The Government could have sent the bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee where I am sure Chester Borrows would have been happy to have it. I think that every chair of every select committee and any member of a select committee would acknowledge the committees’ robust debate and input—be it positive or negative—and how effective it is to have that submission process. To deny that process just because the Government has no confidence in the chair of its select committee is absolutely ridiculous. This bill should have gone to a select committee because I know that meaningful input from the public and from organisations would have only enhanced this bill. So why is the bill being rushed through? Why are the public organisations and the police not being given the opportunity to comment? 
In respect of Labour’s Bail Amendment Act 2007 which this bill seeks to repeal Justice Heath actually recognised that it did not raise the test; it was more a codification of what was practised. Remand figures—if I can talk about remand figures—show that the prison population has not decreased. In fact despite the 2007 amendment to the Bail Act—and I have some figures here that I will share with the House—the remand population totalled 1733 and comprised 21 percent of the total prison muster. By July 2008 remands had increased by almost 6 percent and constituted 23 percent of the total prison muster. So the Act certainly did no harm as the National Party is claiming; it really just shows that this bill is meaningless. And this bill does no harm. The harm as I said before is in its not going to the select committee and in the wasting of good time. The bill does not achieve anything. 
It is lightweight; it is a slogan—a slogan piece of legislation. It is a hoax on the public and it is another example of sloganeering where National is grandstanding on what is essentially just a repeal of the clarification of what is current practice. This is the National practice of smoke and mirrors. If National really wanted to get tough on crime it would bring into further effect the two-thirds parole law that Labour has already passed. 
Moana Mackey 
: When will the Minister do that? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I ask when the Minister will do that. Instead this bill is about the scoring of political points; it shows the wishy-washy sloganeering electioneering method of the National Party. National’s claims that this amendment will make it easier to get bail are not supported by remand figures. I look forward to members on the other side of the House in upcoming debates actually clarifying for this House what this bill will achieve.