Mackey Moana: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:553] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 That was very interesting. Dr Richard Worth made a speech there— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: “Sir” Richard. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: “Sir” Dr Richard Worth OBE made a speech that was about three times longer than that of the Minister in charge of the Bail Amendment Bill. I think he is trying to prove his mettle. That was a front-bench bid from the member up at the back of the Chamber there. Now the Minister in charge of the bill assures me it is simply a matter of words per minute and he just speaks faster than “Sir” Dr Richard Worth. 
We have been giving the Minister a bit of stick about the lack of substance in this bill. The only thing in the House tonight that has had less substance than this bill was that speech from “Sir” Dr Richard Worth— 
Hon Member 
: OBE! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —OBE pardon me. I say to the member who has just resumed his seat that I am happy to stand here and just respond to his interjections if that is what he wants but if the member is complaining about the level of scrutiny that this Opposition shows towards legislation in the House then maybe he should have sent this bill to a select committee. If this Government continues to do what it has done under urgency which is to ram bills through that do not need to be passed urgently—there is no rush to get this bill through—and if it wants to do that by denying the people of New Zealand the right to have bills properly put before a select committee and for the people of New Zealand to come and speak at the select committee to bills and if it is going to table bills in the House at 15 minutes to midnight on the night before they are being discussed then the Government can expect that we will provide the scrutiny in this House that has been denied to the people of New Zealand. The power is in the hands of the Government in that respect because if it follows due process and allows bills to be properly scrutinised then the process through the House will be quicker. 
It is nice to have finally made it to the third reading of this bill. I thought we would never get a closure motion passed to close the last debate on the final part of the bill. It is nice to finally be here and I acknowledge the stamina of the Minister who was in the chair the Hon Simon Power during the Committee stage of this bill. I saw his head drop to his hands every time another closure motion was denied and we are happy to be here with the Minister to debate this third reading. 
In the Speech from the Throne and during the election campaign we were promised 100 days of action. It is clear that the only reason we are here in urgency passing bills that do not need to be passed and with no public scrutiny and no respect for process is that if we were not doing that the National members would have nothing to do in this House. Their 100 days of action would be shown up as the farce that it is. We have seen here tonight the very first law and order bill. During the campaign National told us it would get tough on crime. That was one of its primary campaign planks. So what is the first legislation from this “tough on crime” law and order National Government that we see in this House? It is a bill that does practically nothing that will not make a single person safer and that largely maintains the status quo. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: There is nothing about parole though. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: No that is right. And we say again to the Minister that if he is serious about being tough on crime he should pick up the phone. I am sure that he can call the Governor-General at home. It is a bit late but I am sure he would take the call—[ 
Interruption 
] OK maybe he would not. But to be fair we did raise this issue during work hours when the Minister could have picked up the phone and said to the Governor-General that a bill had been passed by the former Government about parole— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Two-thirds. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —the two-thirds of a sentence minimum parole provisions—and the Minister could have picked up the phone. He could have done that while he was in the chair; he could have sent a text message. He would have shown himself to be tough on crime in the first 100 days right there. 
Hon Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has already been comment about drawing the Governor-General into these debates. I think it was you who gave an earlier ruling on that. It is completely inappropriate; it is outlawed by the Standing Orders. Why does the member persist in trifling with us? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Governor-General is not being brought into the debate by the member saying that the Minister has the power to get an Order in Council which of course involves the Governor-General in the process of issuing it. That does not presume any views that the Governor-General may have about the merits of that Order in Council. It is simply a process issue that is being discussed. 
Hon Dr Richard Worth 
: That is a completely inaccurate representation of what the member was saying. The member was offering a proposition that the Minister should call the Governor-General and somehow seek to influence him in favour of or against this bill. That is completely wrong. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member was not saying that at all. She was speaking slightly loosely about the process involved in issuing an Order in Council. The fact is the Minister recommends to the Governor-General. That is the exact form. Probably the Minister who has just spoken has not actually had one yet. Sooner or later he will have one—no doubt by 2010 or so. If the Minister recommends an Order in Council be issued the Governor-General agrees to that and does so. Surprisingly enough since 1707 it has been the normal behaviour of the Sovereign to agree to what is recommended by Parliament or the executive and that is done. That does not mean that the Governor-General is brought into the debate. When referring to the process of issuing an Order in Council the member is quite correct. One could be issued to bring in the provisions for parole after serving two-thirds of a sentence. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Members Standing Order 114 rules against disrespectful references to the Governor-General being made in debate. I also spoke earlier about trying to speculate on what the Governor-General’s attitudes might be. Again that is not in order. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the point of order that was being made by my colleague the Hon Dr “Sir” Richard Worth OBE MP interjected on my colleague. I think that is a very unhelpful way to perform and behave in the House this evening and you might want to call him to order in respect of that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I did note that there was a brief interjection. I was about to object to it but I let it slide in the hope that we could get to the end of these points of order and we could then address the issue that is before us: the Bail Amendment Bill. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I thank the honourable member for raising that point. I think it was a very good use of time for us to learn about the origin of that particular point of order. I thank the member the Hon Dr “Sir” Richard Worth OBE for raising that. I believe it was a good use of the House’s time to learn about that. 
As I was saying during the election campaign the people of New Zealand and the then Labour Government were subjected to constant cries of how National would get tough on crime. As I said we waited with bated breath to see the first law and order bill introduced into this House in the 100 days of turbocharged action of this new National Government because this is the bill that essentially sets the law and order tone of this National Government for the next 3 years. This is the bill upon which it launched its “tough on crime” platform. What does it do? It largely maintains the status quo as the Minister has admitted. 
We will not vote against something that maintains the status quo that we put in place—that would be ridiculous. But I say to members that the rhetoric we heard on the campaign trail is not matched by the reality of this legislation because not one New Zealander will be safer as a result of this legislation passing into law. We on this side of the House feel that it is our role as the Opposition to hold the Government to account for the promises it made to the electorate during the election campaign. Paula Bennett thinks she should not have to live up to the promises she made. In fact Paula Bennett made a speech in the House on the previous bill that was so full of clichés that it showed only that she must be related to David Bennett because their speeches were pretty much exactly the same. Either that or David Bennett gave her— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That is a terrible thing to say. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: OK I withdraw and apologise. 
But we must look at the context within which this bill came in. Of course it was the Labour Government that strengthened and toughened our bail laws. It was also the Labour Government that strengthened and toughened our Parole Act and our Sentencing Act. We acknowledged that the sentence needs to fit the crime and that often the victims of crime did feel that they were not treated well in the justice system. In the 9 years of the National Government for example someone could get a sentence of preventive detention only on the second offence. It was as though the first one was free. It would have been bad enough to get preventive detention if it had been for the second offence but people got it only if they had been convicted twice. So one of the first things Labour did was to make sure that the sentence of preventive detention was available on the first sentence so that if that was appropriate it could be applied then. 
So we had a National Government for 9 years that did nothing but talk big. It was loud in Opposition but it was quiet in Government. Then we had a Labour Government for 9 years that strengthened the bail laws the Parole Act and sentencing laws and that brought in the Victims’ Rights Act and strengthened victims’ rights. And now we have moved again to a National Government that has promised us it will be tough on crime. What evidence do we get of that? What is the first legislation we get? It is a bill that will not help any more people to avoid becoming victims. 
Amy Adams 
: Yes it will. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: According to that member yes it will. That will be interesting to see. I would like to know from the member—and I am sure she can take a call in this debate—how much money her Government has budgeted for this bill if it will result in a lot more people being held on remand. Does she know that? No I did not think so. I suspect that she may want to read a little more about this bill before she interjects. 
As I said in my previous speech this bill and this Government never speak about the things we need to do in order to make sure that young people who are on the path to crime get off that path. The former Labour-led Government put much resourcing into ensuring that our most vulnerable families were not living in poverty. We lifted 130000 children out of poverty. Yesterday we saw a taxation bill that kicks those families in the guts again and raises taxes on some of our most vulnerable families in order to pour money into the pockets of the chief executive of Telecom. How will that solve crime down the road? We saw a 90-day bill that will see people lose their jobs having been fired for absolutely no reason at a time when we should be protecting those people. Where will the children who are growing up in those households be in 15 or 16 years’ time as this new National Government reverts to form and plunges them back into poverty? I will tell members where they will be. They will be there with another National Government saying that a bill like this one will solve crime whilst doing nothing to address the actual causes of crime.