Bail Amendment Bill

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this

I move, That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I thank members of the House for their support for the Bail Amendment Bill, despite some initial criticism from the lead Opposition party. I am pleased to see that sense has prevailed, and that it has decided to vote for this legislation. Of course, any position taken other than that one would be completely unsustainable in the medium to long term with the wider New Zealand public, so in my view the right move has been made. It was interesting, though, that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and the Hon Phil Goff could not quite bring themselves, during their first reading speeches, to say how the Labour Party would be voting on this legislation. It was left to my good friend the Hon Annette King, who was placed in the difficult position of being third speaker, to have to declare after all that to-ing and fro-ing that “We won’t be voting against it.” I am delighted that sense has taken hold in the Labour Party and that it will be supporting this legislation.

As the House is in urgency and this is a relatively simple bill, I do not intend to talk for long at this point. But I will address one or two things that were raised by members opposite, in particular during the first reading. In particular, I will address Mr Cosgrove’s point about the length of this bill. I say to the honourable member Mr Cosgrove that the bill is short because it amends only one section of the Bail Act. That section is the main provision governing the decision as to whether to grant someone bail or remand that person in custody. I know that the member considers himself to be a bit of a fighter in this regard, so I hope he will take the time to understand the legislation that he comments on from time to time when it comes before the House,.

As well as the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Annette King, the member also raised the issue of Justice Heath’s comments and clarification around the tests for and provision of bail. [Interruption] I take the Hon Annette King at her word; I refer these comments, then, to the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. The High Court has actually been divided over whether, and to what extent, the real and significant test changed the threshold for remand and custody. Members opposite were right to refer to Justice Heath’s comments on and discussion of that issue. However, for example, I am sure members opposite will know that Justice Gendall, in the Crown and Williams, 11 November 2007, granted the defendant bail “if only because of the rather more stringent test provided in the Bail Amendment Act.” This bill is designed to make it crystal clear what Parliament’s intention—not judges’ interpretation, but Parliament’s intention—is in respect of the bail legislation. That is why I am pleased that such a large majority of the House has considered this legislation worthwhile to support.

This bill does arise from a difference in opinion about what the law on bail is intended to achieve. As I said earlier, although the members opposite have referred to the very honest explanatory note on the front page of this bill, where it states: “The amendments were intended to clarify the law rather than make any significant changes.”, what all three of the front-bench members of the Labour Party failed to do was to read the next sentence, which states: “However, the New Zealand Law Society, the Police Association, the Police Prosecution Service, and a number of High Court judges have all said these changes have made it easier for defendants to get bail.” It would have been helpful if they had read the full passage.

Bail is one of the cornerstones of our criminal justice system. It impacts on the safety of the community and the integrity of the court process. It goes without saying that it is important to get it right. That is why this clarification is so definitely needed. In a civilised society, people charged with criminal offending, as I said in the first reading, have certain rights. They have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and the right to their liberty. However, as I said earlier, there comes a point where an individual’s rights must give way to those of the wider community. In an individual case the court is in the best position to decide when the risk that a defendant poses to the community and the administration of justice outweighs the defendant’s right to liberty. The court receives a range of information about the defendant, from both the prosecution and the defence. That includes information about criminal history, any history of breaching bail or court orders, any history of offending on bail, and information about the defendant’s personal circumstances, such as family and living arrangements, and employment.

The Bail Act, as originally enacted, recognised that the court is best placed to make the decisions on bail or remand. The Act gave the court a wide discretion, simply requiring the court to consider whether there was a risk the defendant would abscond, interfere with witnesses or evidence, or offend on bail. It was up to the court to decide whether the defendants’ risk justified remanding them in custody. In 2007, as part of the criminal justice reform suite of changes to three or four Acts—legislation that had in its explanatory note a stated desire to contain the prison population, and that included the changes to bail, I say to Mr Goff—the previous Government limited the court’s discretion in two ways.

First, the previous Government prevented the courts from remanding a defendant in custody, unless he or she posed a real and significant risk—quite different from the legislation that Phil Goff often proudly tells the communities of New Zealand that he was responsible for. He was responsible, but since that time the legislation has slid well away from the tests and standards that he set as Minister of Justice during the third term of the previous Labour Government. Second, the previous Government limited how the courts could take breaches of bail conditions into account. Under the 2007 amendments, breaches could be taken into account only if they were relevant to assessing a defendant’s risk. The effect of those changes on judicial behaviour is unclear. In particular, the High Court has been divided on whether the real and significant test reflected existing judicial practice or raised the threshold for remand in custody. However, it seems clear from the statistical changes that the result has been fewer people being remanded in custody.

This bill repeals the real and significant test, restoring the court’s discretion to decide whether a defendant’s risk is unacceptable. We trust in our courts to make the right decision, based on a full assessment of the relevant information. Equally significantly, this bill also restores the court’s ability to remand a defendant in custody as a sanction for breach of bail conditions. As I have said before in the first reading of this bill, this bill is not all that the Government is doing in regard to bail. We will be taking a close look at the bail system, to make sure that it achieves the level of safety the public expects and deserves, and that it contributes to an effective and efficient court system.

I finish by saying that despite all the yelling and screaming by the Labour Party members in their objections through the first reading of this bill, we are delighted that they have seen the error of their ways and learnt from their mistakes, and that they will be supporting this legislation through its stages. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

The Hon Simon Power quoted a submission when he talked about the notion that High Court judges were split in their opinions. He quoted one judicial decision, but I point him away from Justice Heath to the case outlined by colleagues, the Crown v Hines and others, where the Court of Appeal, the higher court in the hierarchy, implicitly agreed with the High Court that, to amount to just cause for continued detention, the risk that the defendant may interfere with the witness should be, as stated: “more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk.” Those are the words of the Court of Appeal, the higher court in the hierarchy. So whether or not there are different views on the High Court bench, and the member—being a lawyer, I am not—would understand the hierarchy of that court system, the higher court in the hierarchy, the Court of Appeal, held the same view.

The reason Labour will not vote against this legislation is that it makes no significant change. That is the truth; it makes no significant change to the legislation. When, or if, this is passed in the next hour, day, week, or months—depending how long we are here for—I do not believe that New Zealanders as a whole will feel any more secure than they do today. I am pleased that Mr Power stated that there are other things the National Party is planning in respect of law and order; we will wait with bated breath.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

I want to make two or three points in respect of comments made, especially by the last speaker. I think it was a real shame to witness what happened when a new member of the House was making some very salient points in respect of this matter. Ms Lee was referring to an incident she had referred to in her maiden speech, which was about a home invasion. In her speech just before lunch, she came to a point where she was referring to her own experience. She caught herself, and it appeared to be from an emotive point of view. Straight away those three in the front row over there jumped in and tried to turn the knife, and she was dissuaded from what she was about to say. They were saying: “Oh, you have the market cornered on victims.”, and all the rest of it. She was about to amplify that, but they turned her away from doing so.

We all bring something to this House. We all bring experience to this House, so she intended to bring before this House her experience in relation to this matter. The lack of respect shown to a new member by members from that side of the House is completely indicative of where they are, and it shows the shallowness of their understanding around these issues.

At lunchtime I wandered across the road to the High Court and I listened to the returned verdict in the Jhia Te Tua case—a case that got right to the heart of provincial New Zealand, of gang activity, and of offending in this country. That particular case turned the former Government’s mind round in relation to gangs. Its gang strategy that had been abandoned at the end of 2004 was, all of a sudden, picked up again. Legislation was introduced to the House in a rush, because those members wanted to be seen to be dealing with it.

Today Labour members want to be seen to be supporting the Bail Amendment Bill, but they have done nothing but scoff about it since it was introduced this morning. They have given every reason in the world as to why no one should support it, but they will vote for this bill for political purposes. It is not for any other reason, whatsoever. They know that if they do not support this legislation, there is no way they can stand on a stump or in a public hall, or speak to a policeman, a defence counsel, or anybody else, and try to explain to them that they have their heads around criminal offending in this country.

I look forward to seeing them support this legislation. I would love for them to support this bill for the right reasons, but they will not do so, because they do not know what the right reasons are.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this

I begin by picking up a couple of comments from Chester Borrows. The reason this side reacted as it did to Melissa Lee was that she arrogantly assumed that nobody on this side of the House could empathise with victims. I have had relations killed by people acting illegally. I can empathise, and I do not need to be told by one of the member’s colleagues that I do not understand how a victim feels or how the family of that victim feels.

We had this speech from Melissa Lee. It was straight off the campaign trail, and it was exactly what she had told the people of New Zealand: tomorrow—with a National Government—these things will never happen again! The rhetoric was: “We will never again have to see a case like Navtej Singh.” As a former police officer, Chester Borrows knows that that is rubbish. Chester Borrows knows that the laws we pass in this country do not determine when a homicide will happen. I tell Ms Lee to use the empty rhetoric for as long as she, as a member, feels that that is appropriate, but to know that if she has been telling her constituency that, they will hold her to the expectation that all of these crimes will disappear tomorrow.

The member knows—if she knows anything at all, and maybe she does not yet—that the Bail Amendment Bill will do not one jot to protect a single New Zealander from homicide committed by a person on bail. The member Chester Borrows knows, and the Minister himself knows, that this legislation will have the most marginal effect of anything that happens in terms of protecting the community from crime. It provides for 10 extra remand beds in the next year. Each year 15,000 people are remanded in custody on bail, and at any one time there are 1,800 people. This will affect 10 of them. The 10 people, if that figure is, indeed, correct, will be those whose level of risk is the most marginal. That is what this bill is about, is it not, I ask Mr Power. It is about those grey areas, the marginal areas, the areas where we really cannot tell whether the person will be a risk. That does not include alleged homicide offenders. That does not include people who have committed serious crimes.

Let me ask the Minister another question. We are supporting this legislation—or we are not opposing it—because it does not make any real difference. It actually reinstates the legislation that I passed in 2000. After 2000 the Court of Appeal decided that the word “risk” without any qualification was a little vague. Therefore, the court decided that it would interpret what the law said. Mr Power, as a lawyer, knows that when we pass law, the impact that that law has depends on the interpretation of the court.

This is what the Court of Appeal said in 2002 in the Hines case: “… to amount to just cause for continued detention the risk that a defendant may interfere with a witness”—but it could also apply to committing another crime—“should be more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk.” So what the Government is doing in the House today is taking the law back to my law. The interpretation of my law is that of the Court of Appeal in R v Hines, and, therefore, we have exactly what we have now—that the interpretation of the court is that it cannot be a nebulous risk; it has to be a real one.

I ask which member of this House would say that we should make a decision to put a person in custody, based on a nebulous risk—one that we cannot determine. The Minister in charge of this bill, who is a lawyer, would stand proudly behind the view that people are innocent until proven guilty, but we qualify that by saying that we must protect the safety of the community. That is what I did with the legislation in 2000. In fact, Mr Power knows that I reversed what his colleague Mr Ryall put in the legislation. I said that we judge a person’s risk on what his or her track record has been. I stated, in the legislation in 2000, that if a person has been a hard-core and repeat offender, then the onus of proof should change. It should change, I say to Chester Borrows, from the police having to prove to the court that it is not safe to have that person in the community, to that person having to prove to the court that he or she is safe to be in the community. That is what made the difference. That is the really important law on bail in this country. That is what saw 2,000 more people being held in custody while they were awaiting trial. That was the hard legislation, I say to Mr Garrett. That was the tough legislation, not this flimflam that we have in front of the House today that does not change things one iota.

I say to Mr Power that this bill is simply window dressing—the accusation made against Mr Power by the pre-eminent expert on sentencing and criminal law at Otago University, Professor Geoff Hall. It is window dressing. Why are we sitting here, under urgency, passing legislation that is simply window dressing? If the Minister wants to do something, then why does he not go to the Governor-General today—this afternoon—and say that he has the Bail Amendment Act 2007, which states that anybody serving a short-term sentence will have to serve that sentence in full, and that anyone serving more than 2 years will have to, as a minimum, do two-thirds of the sentence? That will be tough. That will put a few more hundred, maybe a few more thousand, into prison, I say to Mr Power. His Government can do that right now. If the Minister really thinks he wants to be tough, then why has he and his Government not taken that action, rather than coming into the House, saying that the Bail Amendment Bill is his top priority? This bill will not make any difference. It does not change the law. It might put 10 marginal people, or 10 beds, into the remand system out of the 15,000 who go through it. Why is the Minister wasting the time of the House? I will answer that question, because the Minister has his head down—he knows the answer. This is all for show. He is the show pony of the House today. He is there to persuade Melissa Lee and his other colleagues that he is tough. He is tough on something that makes no difference.

I turn my attention to ACT for a moment. I went through the election campaign, and the ACT hoardings—all over Botany, all over Auckland, and all over the country—that were saying “zero tolerance for crime”. The ACT Party told us: “Three strikes and you’re out—25 years without parole.”, and everybody said: “By God, they are tough. Gee, they will really sock it to the criminals.” Then the day after the election I was listening to Radio New Zealand National, and heard David Garrett speaking. He was asked whether this policy would have a horrendous impact on the prisons. “Oh no,” he said, “because it is not retrospective. It does not come into effect for 20 years.” I wondered what I was hearing. This is electoral fraud like the country has never seen before. The ACT Party was saying how tough it would be, and the day after the election admitting that its tough law would have no impact for 20 years.

Mr Garrett has thought about this a bit further, because I later read in one of the newspapers that it is not 20 years—that was a mistake—it is 15 years! There will be no impact for 15 years. Here we have a Government supported by a tough law and order party that has just committed the greatest electoral fraud this country has ever seen. The greatest electoral fraud this country has ever seen—the promise was “three strikes and you’re out”, but the day after the election that all changed. There was not a word from Mr Garrett when we were on a panel together debating the issue during the campaign, and not a word before the election, but after the election he admitted that his law would have no impact for 15 years.

I ask Melissa Lee whether her constituents would want to wait 15 years before this measure has any impact. Now that she has heard the argument, does she understand that this failed bill is nothing more than flimflam, nothing more than window dressing?

I am serious about protecting the safety of New Zealanders. My track record can be seen—the Bail Act, the Sentencing Act, and the Parole Act. They were opposed by Mr Power’s party. And when I raised the matter of the Bail Bill, Tony Ryall said it was too tough. So those members opposed it, and they opposed the Sentencing Bill and the Parole Bill.

This Government was elected on a lie—that it would make a difference, that it had a plan. It had no plan; it still has no plan. That is obvious from this legislation and the sentencing legislation—it is all a fraud.

Hon PANSY WONG (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) Link to this

Labour has reverted to its old form. When those members have nothing substantial to say, what do they do? They launch a personal attack.

Is it not strange that the Hon Phil Goff and all his colleagues are attacking this bill as being a showpiece with no substance, yet they are voting for it? Why are they voting for it? They should show the true spirit of their position. Suddenly, the Hon Phil Goff has come into this House and said that this bail law is not tough enough. Well, after 9 long years—9 long years—in Government, and after losing the election, suddenly those members have woken up and they have come back to the House to say they would have done a lot better.

I will share some personal observations. My hard-working, knowledgable, and intelligent new colleague Melissa Lee MP is a lot more in touch with the New Zealand public than the Hon Phil Goff is. At a public meeting during the election campaign, the then Minister of Justice was trying to tell people that rising crime was a figment of their imagination. He was telling them that New Zealand is safe, when none of the people in the audience were feeling safe. I am not too sure what mandate and what message he has that makes him feel he is in touch. I can assure him that Melissa Lee is really in touch with not just Korean and Asian people but the New Zealand public as well.

Before I sit down I congratulate my hard-working and stick-to-his-promise colleague the new Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power. What did he do? He went out and campaigned on a promise to bring in a raft of legislation to fulfil the promise of our leader, the Prime Minister, to make safe communities a priority. I am so glad that today I have had the opportunity to take a short call to support this great start to the National Government’s promise to return safety to our community.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

I rise to respond, firstly, to the Hon Phil Goff, because before the lunch break he and his colleague the Hon Annette King accused me of “electoral fraud”, which is fairly close to that forbidden “l” word. It certainly needs a response, and I will give it now. I have learnt that if not the “l” word then certainly looseness with the truth is the case around here.

I did not speak the day after the election, as the Hon Phil Goff said; I think it was a week after it. The reason for my comment about an impact being felt in 15 or 20 years was that I spent considerable time drafting the draft three strikes bill to avoid the injustices that have occurred in similar legislation in California and elsewhere. I went there last year specifically to look at what had been done in that state and in other states, and to find out, firstly, if it was true that people were going to jail for life or 25 years for shoplifting, burglary, or whatever and, secondly, if it was true, to find out why.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this

Here we are once again under urgency passing through all stages yet another bill that the public of New Zealand will have no chance to scrutinise or debate. We have done a complete 180, because we have just finished debating two appalling bills that will cause serious, serious damage to our economy and families. We have now done a complete 180 to a bill, the Bail Amendment Bill, that does absolutely nothing. I ask members to remember that we are in the 100 days of action! I am sure all New Zealanders are feeling turbocharged because we are in 100 days of action right now! Law and order was one of National’s key campaign planks on the election trail, and what is the first law and order bill that comes before this House in the 100 days of action? What is the first legislation from this tough-on-criminals, good-to-victims National Government? What is it? It is a bill that does nothing. It is a flimflam bill that does nothing.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

I seek leave to table the 1991 so-called “mother of all Budgets”, which came 5 months after that lot got the boot in direct response to the state it left the country in.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) Link to this

The heart of what we are debating today is public safety. As someone who has returned from London, I say that the previous Labour Government has made New Zealand less safe. I say as a young woman who walks the streets of central Auckland that New Zealand is not the place it once was. That is why I stand to speak today and am proud to support this legislation.

I want to deal with a couple of things. The first is that at the heart of this Bail Amendment Bill we are dealing with risk—the level of risk. Phil Goff stood up before and said that this bill is just window dressing. I make the point that clearly he did not think that in 2007, because why else would he have passed legislation changing the law? So, yes, he is reversing his position, and I think he needs to stand up and explain why he is doing that.

The second point is that a number of reputable organisations believe that as a result of this law change it has been easier for people to get bail, and we need to acknowledge those organisations’ concerns. The New Zealand Law Society, the Police Association, the Police Prosecution Service, and a number of High Court judges have all said that it has been easier to get bail as a result of that law change. I stand here and say that we should be listening to those organisations. They know what they are talking about. The Labour Opposition might not, but they do. We should be listening to those organisations that believe that the law passed by Labour in 2007 has meant it is easier for people to get bail.

The third point I want to make today is to ask those members opposite that if they do not believe this legislation is making any change whatsoever, then why are they supporting it?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this

The second reading of the Bail Amendment Bill has been a very robust debate, which is how we like it on this side of the House. I am sure many members on the other side of the House have enjoyed the debate as well, and that is healthy for democracy.

I congratulate Melissa Lee on her election to this Parliament, but I say to her that one of the mistakes one can make in this place is to assume that other people have not had the same experience that we have had. People from all walks of life are in this Parliament, whether they are in the National Party, the Labour Party, or any other party, and we have all had different experiences. She should never assume that because we are in the Labour Party and therefore the member’s natural opponents, people on this side of the House have never experienced sorrow, despair, or tragedy, because that is not true. We have all had such experiences; let us respect that. When someone says “You won’t know what it is like to be a victim”, that is not true. Everybody in this House at some time has probably been a victim of something, so when someone says that, it brings out the worst in people. That would be my advice to the member.

The member also said the change to bail that we are making today will mean we will never again see a tragedy like the murder of a dairy owner in South Auckland. Well, after this bill is passed today, the Royal assent is given on Monday, and it becomes the law, when somebody is then murdered tragically in a dairy or on the street, what will the member say to her constituency? National will pass the legislation and in 6 months’ time a tragedy may happen again, but National will have passed the legislation. In a year’s time it may happen again, after the legislation is passed. You see, passing this legislation will not stop mindless, senseless violence by people one cannot control. One has to have good law; I agree with that. But to think that the law itself will stop that kind of mindless violence is not correct. I think the member will grow to regret that comment, because what is said in this House, unfortunately, becomes the record of this House and then is used over and over again—and we have all been victims of that. That comment will come back to haunt Ms Lee and the National Party, because the Minister knows that when this legislation is passed it does not mean the end of mindless violence in New Zealand. I wish it did, but it does not.

Then we had Chester Borrows speak. He said National was supporting this bill because it wanted to be seen to be doing something. Well, actually, I tell him we are supporting it because it does not make any difference to what is happening now, in terms of people going into prison.

I tell Nikki Kaye that when I was the Minister of Justice I got the briefing papers, as well. Our change in 2007 to the Bail Act was never about putting fewer or more people into prison. It was about clarifying the law. So it was not about suddenly seeing a whole lot of people going into prison or not going there. The 2007 amendment was designed to clarify the law because it was not clear, and judges had made it clear to us that the law was not clear. In fact, the estimate was that by 2009 there would be 10 extra people on remand in jail because of the change, and they would not necessarily be 10 murderers, or suspected murderers. They could be people charged with any crime for which they could be remanded on bail. The advice I got was that by 2011 there could be as many as 40 people affected by that amendment. So the issue was never about putting more people in jail or fewer people in jail; it was always about clarifying the Act.

Pansy Wong said it took us 9 long years and we did nothing. Well, for the information of this House, I say the bail laws of New Zealand were toughened in 2000 by the Hon Phil Goff as Minister of Justice. That is quite clear, and I listened to Rahui Katene’s speech where she pointed out what had happened since the bail laws were toughened up. She does not agree with what happened, actually, and that is fair enough. She thinks the bail laws became too tough. That toughening-up happened in 2000. The National Party members voted against the toughening-up of the Bail Act then. They did not agree with that. They said we were being too tough on people who would require bail. That was done in 2000. Then we looked at the need to clarify the law when the 2007 amendment was brought in.

I now turn to David Garrett. He honestly said he had researched his “three strikes and you’re out policy”. He said he did the homework, went to the United States at his own expense and that of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, came back and did the work, and then, just before the election, found he had got it wrong—

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) Link to this

I respect the sentiments of the Labour members. They had 9 years to amend the law, yet crime has increased. In those 9 years they did not do anything, but National, which has been in office for only 1 month, has introduced this bill. I respect the sentiments of the Labour members and understand that that is why they are upset.

There are really big concerns in the Indian community, because over the last few years that community has faced three murders. Hard-working people, hard-working Kiwis, have been lost while working in their shops to earn bread for their families. In the case of Navtej Singh, his family does not have a breadwinner right now and is really struggling to make a living.

I support this bill because it is a great step. Within 1 month of becoming the Government, National has introduced this amendment bill, and the main objective of it is to protect the public and to give rights to the police and the justice system.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) Link to this

It gives me some pleasure to rise to speak to the Bail Amendment Bill. The bill is interesting in that it deals with an important issue but, in the end, really does nothing about it. I think that is the essence of what the Opposition is arguing.

Obviously the issue is important. I do not think there is anybody in this House—even the most liberal on penal policy—who regards seriously violent crime and, indeed, other serious forms of crime, with anything other than abhorrence. Anybody here who read the material about the Nia Glassie case, for example, and many other cases over the years simply fails to grasp or understand how people can be so evil, so cruel, and so thoughtless about the actions they engage in. It is beyond the comprehension, I think, of anybody in this House to think about what kind of mind can bring itself to do that kind of action. Equally, much less serious forms of crime can impact seriously upon people. Minor forms of burglary feel like a form of invasion for the individual. It is a disruption of one’s life. It is an invasion of one’s privacy. It can result in the removal of things that are perhaps of little material value but of great non-tangible value to families.

People want to see those responsible for crime punished, not least because the traditional reason why the State punishes crime is, in part, to prevent other people from punishing crime. It is to ensure that the Crown—the King or the Queen—keeps unto itself a monopoly, if one likes, on retributive power; otherwise, we descend into a state of mutual retribution and endless cycles of retribution. We would also like to see more effective rehabilitation within the penal system, yet I suppose we can say that successive Governments have failed to achieve as much in that respect as we would all like to see. I wish the new Government well with its plans for drug and alcohol rehabilitation within prisons. I hope it can get that kind of money for penal policy out of my successor as Uncle Scrooge.

That is all well and good, but there also is a lot of rhetoric on these issues that bears not a great deal of relationship to reality. There is an idea that simply by having ever stronger penal policy, ever longer sentences, ever more difficulty in getting bail, and ever more difficulty in getting parole, somehow or other these crimes will go away. I think Ms Lee fell into that mistake quite badly by arguing that this particular change—which, as one can see if one stands not very far back at all, is a very marginal change to the provision of bail—will somehow prevent people from committing serious crimes. Well, it is most unlikely to do so. It is certainly most unlikely to prevent any first offender from committing a serious crime, because the first offender is most unlikely to have the kind of record or the kind of experiences that will alert a judge to the possibility that he or she is likely to commit a serious crime if let out on bail. It will not necessarily prevent people from committing crimes after they are released from prison—prevent them from being second-time offenders—unless we say that for every kind of serious offence people are locked up for life and we mean life. If we mean that, we had better start building an awful lot of prisons very quickly. That would create an awful lot of difficulty.

All of those things really are true. As Annette King wisely said—and I think the Government would be wise to listen—making bold promises within a matter of weeks of becoming the Government that these kinds of actions will mean we do not have any more horrendous, attention-grabbing, headline-grabbing crimes that revolt the nation merely exposes one to enormous risk in the future. It means that even if we do not choose to visit those words back upon the Government, the media will certainly choose to visit them back upon the Government at some point in the future, particularly during the dead news season over the Christmas holidays and the new year, when crime dominates the headlines on television and in other media because not a lot else is going on. That is why crime dominates in that period. It is not necessarily because there is more crime; it is because there is no other news for the media to cover.

So what does the bill actually do? It basically is the equivalent of pressing the circle button on one’s Sky TV remote. It moves one back to channel 23 from channel 24 if one was on channel 23 previously. It simply removes a change and goes back to the previous law in terms of bail. What does that mean in practice? On the one hand, it might mean slightly more confusion in that the changes introduced in 2007 were merely an attempt to clarify the intention of the law, given the fact that certain members of the judiciary had arrived at certain views that did not seem entirely consistent with the law. But, on the other hand, there is a great deal of case law and many statements from judges already that can be taken as a guide, and, by and large, the statements from judges on cases since 2007 have indicated that, in their view, the 2007 changes made very little difference to the interpretation of the law. In other words, if we are to go by what the judges have said so far based on the 2007 changes, we cannot expect the judges to make much of a change in interpretation based on this particular law. So again I say to Ms Lee that she should be very careful.

Let us also remind ourselves of one quite fundamental point. Our system assumes that people are innocent until proven guilty. The presumption is that bail is given unless there is good reason, in terms of the interests of protecting the public, not to give bail. Otherwise, one ends up with an increased risk of people who will be found innocent having spent considerable periods of time in jail. That, of course, is not a desirable outcome. People are innocent until proven guilty.

NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) Link to this

This is a new Government now getting on with the job in the first 100 days, and rolling through legislation that is vitally important in order to keep our communities safer. The main objective of the Bail Amendment Bill is about making communities safer. It is about protecting the public from defendants who—