Cosgrove Clayton: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:542] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Clause 3 “Principal Act amended” as my colleague Annette King just noted states that the bill amends the Bail Act 2000. In doing so there is a consequential impact. 
As my colleague and others have said the Bail Act 2000 its history and its content flowed from the loose arrangements that the Labour Government inherited in 1999. Serious measures were put in place. There was the provision to change the onus. Then came the addition of the words “real and significant” which were put in place in a revision of the Bail Act in 2007. They were intended to clarify the law to promote a very solemn common-sense thing called consistency in decision making in respect of the judiciary and to respond to a number of judicial decisions rather than to make any significant changes. That is why the amendment was made and that last point is completely germane. As my colleague said and as Mr Garrett and other members have pointed out the change that is now proposed to—as clause 3 states—the Bail Act 2000 in itself does little. That is what Mr Garrett said. When the Labour Government made that change it was attempting as I have said to provide some consistency. 
It is interesting that others share Mr Garrett’s view. Let us look at what Justice Heath said. He said that the change that Labour made to the Bail Act when we placed the words “real and significant” in it “does not seem to me to put the test any higher than it was under the previous legislation but rather to emphasise the need for a proper inference to be drawn from proven facts; as opposed to the Court engaging in speculation or guesswork about the possibility of risk.” The purpose of the amendment that the Labour Government made to the principal Act was to avoid as Justice Heath said speculation or guesswork and to provide guidance to the judiciary so that there was not speculation or guesswork. I am sure Mr Finlayson a learned lawyer would be able to talk to us in the Chamber for hours about his experience. I am sure he would share the view that we as a Parliament should provide our judicial officials with guidance so that there is where possible consistency of decisions and to ensure that judges are not put in a situation where they have to speculate and have to guess what Parliament meant. That is why Labour when in Government placed those words in the legislation. 
Today clause 3 states that that Act the Bail Act 2000 is to be amended again. As I said at the start of my contribution certain actions and impacts will flow from that. What we have attempted to do—the ACT Party ourselves and others—is to analyse what the consequential impacts will be once clause 3 has been dealt with and once the Royal assent has been given. We are told by the Minister in charge of the bill Simon Power and by members of his party—we have been told all day—that the impacts will be huge. I am sorry: we were originally told—I should be more precise—by the Minister in the chair and his colleagues that the impacts will be huge; that once this Act has been amended once those three words have been removed there will be no more murders nirvana will appear crime will end and bail breaches will end. And it is not about of course—so he said—the prison population. That was the original proposition that was put earlier in the day. Later on after I think Mr Garrett in addressing the actual impact of clause 3 noted that in itself this change will do little it was incumbent upon the Minister to come clean. He then I think in response to some very detailed deep and penetrating questions from my colleague Annette King stated to the House that what this change once the principal Act was amended was really about was—to quote him—sending a message. 
Sending a message to whom? Well I think the message needs to be sent to the criminals but I am assuming that the message that the Minister was attempting to send was to the general public. What he will be doing after the principal Act is amended as stated in clause 3 is sending a message to the community that claims that the National Government in its first 100 days has been really tough on crime and has made a huge impact with this legislation. That is what his message I suspect will be as he pumps out the letters and the press releases.