5. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Is he satisfied with the operation of the Bail Amendment Act 2007; if so, why?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this
Yes; because in the 9 days that the amendment has been in force it has clarified the law, which, of course, was its intent.
Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s new Act now makes it easier for a defendant to get bail because the Crown has to show that there is a “real and substantial risk” of reoffending or absconding, and that even if the defendant has repeatedly breached bail in the past it may not be considered relevant—as was the case with Chris Kāhui, who was recently granted bail under the Government’s new law, despite previously breaching his conditions three times?
No, the revisions in the Bail Amendment Act were made with the intention of clarifying the law. In fact, the phrase that the member quotes from the Act actually came from the Court of Appeal’s 2002 R v Hines case in terms of a specific quote from the court where it said “more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk”. This was a definition that the court itself ran. I can perhaps do no better than to quote Justice Heath on the very case the member quotes. He has said in the last few days that it “does not seem to me to put the test any higher than was under the previous legislation, but rather to emphasise the need for a proper inference to be drawn from proved facts, as opposed to the Court engaging in speculation or guesswork about the possibility of a risk.” Finally, I would point out that under this legislation, of course, the bail has also been revoked.
Lynne PillayI have seen and heard many. I have heard support for the then proposed bail changes as they were when they went through this House, followed by an assertion of “random and haphazard” application of the previous law, and then a failure at the last hurdle to support the very changes that brought greater clarity to the bail law—all from the member opposite, Mr Power.
Why has he made it easier to get bail at a time when the latest crime statistics reveal that since 1999 Labour has overseen an increase of 151 percent of defendants failing to report for bail, indicating that the Government is already letting people out on bail who should not be there?
The 9 days that we have to draw on experience, I suggest to the member, is a rather short period of time to evaluate. The 9 days none the less has seen Justice Heath talk about the advantage and clarity that this brings to making the appropriate decisions. I think Justice Heath is in perhaps the best position to make that decision.
Why is a previous record of breaching bail conditions not considered to be a good predictor of the likelihood of breaching bail again, or is this just consistent with the fact that 87 percent of the defendants on the electronic bail scheme had also previously offended while on bail—yet another bright idea from a Minister and a Government desperate to cut prison numbers?
I assume that when the member stood in this House and said that he and the National Party would support the bail provisions in the then bill proceeding through the House—
Well, of course, flip-flopping is something we are used to from that member, saying one thing and doing another. I think Mr Power is a one-man leadership crisis. He does not even need another member to disagree with. But I assume that when the member said he was going to support the bill, and spoke in favour of it, it was because it intended to clarify the law and respond to a number of judicial decisions, including the Court of Appeal in 2002, which is precisely what this legislation has done.
Can he confirm that the primary reason for making bail more readily available and letting more offenders out on bail is to lower the number of prison inmates, since the original purpose of the bill in which the provisions relating to bail were contained were to “introduce a range of measures to arrest the sharp increase in the prison population in recent years.”?
No, I can confirm that the revisions in the Bail Amendment Act are intended to clarify the law and respond to a number of judicial decisions rather than to make any specific changes. But I say to that member, if the National Party is not committed to try to bring down the shocking high level of imprisonment in this country then it does not deserve, ever, to sit on the Treasury benches.
Ron MarkHas the Minister reviewed the select committee’s examination of this bill; if so, can he confirm that these matters were of such great concern to that committee as a whole, of which Mr Power is a senior member, that it made no mention of them at all in the substantive part of the report, and that, in the same report, the National Party’s minority report made no mention whatsoever of this issue; and can he also confirm that, unlike the ACT party, which brought an amendment to the bill to the floor of this House—and in discussions with New Zealand First and the Government got an amendment—Mr Power made no mention whatsoever of this issue then?
My recollection is that the member’s first assertion is correct. It would be par for the course for the member opposite belatedly to raise matters that are in direct conflict with what he has said during the course of debate in this House as well as in select committees. As to the second matter, indeed I think the member raises a very good example of MMP at work, where a member of a very small party, having found a concern, brought in an initiative and discussed it with other parties. The Parliament got behind that decision because it was the right thing to do.
Has the Minister received any reports that explain why New Zealand First voted for legislation that makes it easier for defendants to get bail?
No, I have not received any such reports, but, of course, the matter before the House in this question does not do what the member asserts. The Act actually clarifies the law consistent with, for instance, the Court of Appeal decision in 2002.
I seek leave of the House to table two statements. One is by Mr Power and says that the National Party would support the bail part of the bill.
I seek leave of the House to table a statement made by Mr Power where he said National would now not support the Bail Amendment Bill.