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:546] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 This is the final clause in the Bail Amendment Bill and it amends section 8(1)(a) of the Bail Act by omitting the words “real and significant”. This clause reverts the test to what it was before the 2007 amendment which was that there would just be a risk rather than a real and significant risk. So we go back to where we were. Somebody today said: “We go from 24 to 36 and back to 24.” Virtually we are returning to where we were before the 2007 amendment Act. 
One of the arguments that Labour has put up continually today is that this is a very small change in terms of the arguments put forward by National members. Those members have argued that the change they are making today will make a real difference to the safety of the public of New Zealand. They argue that in making this change by reverting to words that just state “risk” rather than “real and significant” risk it will make a big difference to the safety of the community. That was said not just by one speaker but by many speakers from the Government benches. 
Government backbenchers with the set of notes that had been prepared for them continually said this bill will make the community safer. We even heard the learned scholar Dr Worth say that is right; it will make the community safer. The public of New Zealand listening to this debate would believe from what the National members were saying that when this legislation is passed and receives the Royal assent the streets of New Zealand will be safer. The homes of New Zealand will be safer. 
As Melissa Lee said we will not have to face the sort of dreadful murder that happened in a dairy in South Auckland. In fact that is one of the examples she put up as a reason for this change to be made. This bill was played up as making a very significant change indeed by the backbench members of the National Government. On the campaign trail that is what National members were saying but during this debate it has become clear that this is not a major change—in fact it is window dressing. The test reverts back to “risk” rather than “real and significant risk”. The bill is window dressing indeed. 
What this will do as has been pointed out by the Minister himself is send a message. When this bill is passed it will not make the streets of New Zealand safer. It will send a message. That does not sound to me like the rhetoric of the campaign trail. That does not sound to me like the promises made to New Zealanders during the campaign. It does not sound to me like the sort of action one needs to take in the first 100 days that one is in power nor the sort of action that one needs to take under urgency on Friday night at 10 to 6. We and the coalition partners of the National Government know that this is a very small change indeed. 
As has been pointed out and as the Minister knows the change was never made to put fewer people in prison unlike what was said by National candidates when they were on the campaign stumps. In fact the “real and significant” threshold was chosen by examining judicial decisions on the previous risk threshold. It was decided by looking at judicial decisions especially the Court of Appeal 2002 decision in  
R v Hines 
. The Court of Appeal stated in that case that to amount to a just cause to continue detention the risk should be “more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk.” That was the basis for the advice the previous Labour-led Government received from the Ministry of Justice. That is the advice we received in making the changes that we did.