Bail Amendment Bill

We now move on to clauses 2, 3, and 4. As these debates are not part by part debates but clause by clause debates, they will be narrow debates. Members are to confine themselves to the words of the particular clause and issues contained therein. These are not wide-ranging debates, and if members do stray, I will call them to order.

This debate will be a real test, will it not, for somebody who likes to speak on issues in a very broad manner. Clause 2 has the commencement date, and for those who do not know what this clause says, let me tell them what is in it. This clause states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” Well, of course, the obvious—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: You read it too fast; I couldn’t understand it. Do it again.

For the sake of those who did not hear what I said, and were asleep, it states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” The obvious and first question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Power, is when this bill will receive the Royal assent. It is quite obvious that the Government has been having some problems with dates and organisation, with getting things organised and getting things down on paper, as we have seen in the House. In fact, I happened to see the organisational paper outlining what was going on in the House—Gerry Brownlee’s running sheet—and it was written on the back of an envelope. So I am worried that the Minister has not yet decided on which date he will get the Royal assent for this bill. Will he get the Royal assent for this bill on Monday? Will he have the Governor-General come up to Parliament on Monday to sign off this bill?

You see, I believe that it has to be Monday, because this legislation is so urgent that we have to be here on Friday at a quarter to 5 to debate it. We have to debate this legislation under urgency so that it can be given the Royal assent on Monday, because it will make an earth-shattering difference to the people of New Zealand. It has to be Monday; the Government will have wasted hours and hours of the public’s time, Parliament’s time, and taxpayers’ time if the bill does not get the Royal assent on Monday at least. Maybe Tuesday we could accept; maybe we could accept another day, so that the Minister could write it out—so that he could get his officials to put the signature down for him, and so on—but it would have to be no later than that.

The other thing I want to know from the Minister is whether we will receive the evidence for the need for this bill before it is given the Royal assent. Will we receive and will we have tabled in this Parliament the evidence that the Minister used as the basis for this bill, before we get the Royal assent on it, which could happen on Monday?

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Maybe.

Or maybe on Tuesday, or maybe Wednesday, or perhaps next Friday. But will we get the evidence? That is quite important, because before the Governor-General’s signature goes on this bill, I suspect that the Minister will have to write to the Governor-General to tell him what this bill does. That is what we used to do—we used to say what legislation does. When the Governor-General faces the Minister and is about to put his signature on it in order to give it the Royal assent, he will ask the Minister to show him the evidence for this bill. He will have noted that the Minister said in the explanatory note that the evidence for this bill comes from the Law Society, the Police Association, the Police Prosecution Service, and a number of High Court judges. The Governor-General will ask, before he signs this bill, to see the evidence. I ask the Minister whether we will see that evidence. Will Parliament, the Governor-General, or anybody else see the evidence that was the basis for this legislation, before it receives the Royal assent? Is that unreasonable? I ask Mr Garrett whether it is unreasonable. I ask whether he would like to see the evidence that was the basis for this bill, as stated in the explanatory note. That should be done before the Royal assent is given to this legislation—on Monday, or maybe Tuesday, because it is an urgent matter, given that the House has been required to debate it under urgency.

I say to the Minister, who is getting out of the chair, that I really thought we might well have that evidence before he finished his tour of duty—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We have had a change of Minister in the chair, but the Minister in charge of the bill is still in the Chamber. If the Minister in charge of the bill is in the Chamber, he or she is required to sit in the chair. The Minister can be relieved only if he is to be absent. I see that he is still here. I think he should take this matter a little bit more seriously than having the member for Whangarei, of all people, sitting in the chair. We have the Attorney-General here, who at least is knowledgable on these matters. The idea that Mr Heatley would be knowledgable is just preposterous.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Thank you, Mr Hughes. The point is well made. Order has now been resumed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I do feel, however, my colleague—

The commencement date is exceptionally relevant, because once the Governor-General signs the Bail Amendment Bill and it is enacted, certain impacts will flow from it. We should not bring, and I do not intend to bring, the Governor-General into the debate, but we know that he is a former judge. I have been a Minister and have attended Executive Council, and I know that the Governor-General is often wont to ask questions around legislation—certainly with Orders in Council—before he signs them off. As my colleague Annette King has said, I suspect that, being a former judge, he may well have questions. As a judicial official he was required to make decisions on evidence.

I too would like to know whether, as the legislation is packaged and sent up to the Governor-General, there will be an attachment of news clippings, because that appears to be all the evidence the Minister of Justice, Simon Power, has for the effectiveness of the bill—news clippings, hearsay, and opinion. I ask whether the impacts of this legislation will be summarised and attached to it as it is sent up to Government House for the Royal assent, because once that Royal assent is applied we know what those impacts will be.

Of course, this point about the consequent impacts is very relevant. We have heard Mr Garrett say this legislation being passed and signed off by the Governor-General will have little impact, and that little will change. We now know from Mr Power that once the Governor-General signs off this legislation, all that it will do will be to send a message, and nothing will change. I ask whether Mr Power might take this legislation himself in the limousine to the Governor-General and ask His Excellency: “Would you mind signing this other document?”, which would trigger the parole legislation regarding two-thirds of a sentence. That would have the dual effect of making people safer and of being tough on crime.

💬 Hon Simon Power: You said this didn’t have an effect.

Indeed—is the Minister agreeing with me? Will he take it up to Government House and trigger the parole legislation?

I would like to know whether the Minister will be prepared to tell the Governor-General why the Government is passing this legislation before he signs it, and to explain the evidence that legitimises the legislation and the consequent impacts that will flow from it. I ask whether he is prepared to commit to His Excellency that every New Zealander will be safer and that, as Melissa Lee pointed out, the day after this is signed there will be no more breaches of bail—it is almost as if no more crimes will be committed, if we listen to National members—and I ask whether he is prepared to give those commitments to the Governor-General as the legislation is signed and, therefore, enacted on its date of commencement. These are legitimate questions, Mr Chair, as you will know, being the previous Minister for Courts.

As I say, the Governor-General, being a former judicial officer, may well want to query his responsible Ministers, from whom he takes advice, as to the consequent impacts of this legislation. I suspect His Excellency will look at this legislation and conclude, as we do, that it changes nothing, and that once it is enacted and has the commencement date put in place the status quo will effectively remain. That is what we have heard in speeches from the learned gentleman Mr Garrett, in the evidence from Justice Heath, and in the evidence the Opposition has put forward.

Before we move on to the next clause I would again ask the Minister whether he is prepared to answer Mrs King’s questions about parole, and whether he is prepared to table the evidence, or if he will not table it with us, then to provide His Excellency with it as the legislation is signed and given the Royal assent. Maybe then Mrs King and I could write to His Excellency and ask him whether he would release it and mail it to us.

There is no evidence. Not one shred of evidence has been produced. We know that the consequential impacts that will flow when this legislation is given the Royal assent will be none—zero. There are no impacts and there are no changes. The status quo will simply remain. We have heard that from Mr Garrett. A little bit will change, but, in effect, nothing will change. This is not part of National’s “get tough on crime” policy, but I invite the Minister, as he pops up to Government House with this legislation, to simply lean over and say: “Here is another piece of paper, your Excellency. Could you trigger the parole legislation?”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Before I call the next member, I advise members that they should try to resist the temptation to bring the Governor-General into this debate and to speculate about the Governor-General’s motives and about how he might approach this matter. I want to make sure that members are aware of that.

The commencement clause debate is quite useful, and it has been helpful to hear some of the more experienced MPs talk about it. I am interested in how the impacts of the Bail Amendment Bill are going to be measured once it commences and comes into force, given that it has been only a year or so since the last lot of changes that this legislation reverses came into force. No evidence has been tabled or presented in the House during the debate about the impact of that legislation in the short period of time it has been in force.

💬 David Garrett: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You directed that the debate would be narrow and on the subject matter of the clause. I fail to see how measurement of effects has anything to do with a commencement date.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member was relating the date to impacts before and after, but it is broadening the debate out a bit. I draw members’ attention to the point that the debate is about the commencement date and issues around the commencement date itself, not a wide-ranging debate beyond that.

We have no idea when the commencement of this bill will be. What we do know is that once it has commenced at some time in the unknown future there will be a significant cost associated with it. The regulatory impact statement talks about $7 million per year, plus another $38 million in capital expenditure. Those costs will start to be incurred on the commencement of this legislation.

I suggest to the Minister of Justice that it would be a wise move to invest the same amount of money as will be invested in the management of this legislation, once it commences on some unknown future date, in the alternatives that have been known and proven to be effective at reducing reoffending in the past. Should $7 million be invested in rehabilitation at the commencement of this legislation at some time in the unknown future, we would then be able to assess, within a year of this legislation commencing, whether it made a difference, or whether the alternatives made a difference to keeping our communities safer, reducing reoffending rates, increasing the support for young offenders, and to the subsequent issues around drug and alcohol treatment and the opportunities that might bring. But without a clear indication from the commencement clause as to how the effects of the legislation will be measured and managed, it will be impossible to tell whether this bill has any point to it whatsoever, especially as we have no previous information about the changes this legislation makes.

I suggest to the Minister that if he can squeeze some cash out of his Government, which of course sounds completely impossible, that would be a useful opportunity to take on the commencement of this legislation. There is no point in passing legislation that will do nothing, yet will cost well over $40 million. In fact, even the regulatory impact statement says that it is difficult to estimate the impact of reversing the 2007 changes, and it is virtually impossible to know what the impacts of this legislation will be once it comes into force. We are talking about the lives of real people here, too. We are talking about young people’s lives, about their ability to be educated, to have their serious issues addressed, and to get jobs. All of those issues are affected at the time that this legislation comes into force. We are not talking about obscure people or obscure numbers. We are talking about real people’s daily lived lives. I am sure many members of this House know of people for whom this legislation will have that very serious effect. Those are the people whom we are here to protect and care for. Those are the people who are affected by this legislation coming into force at some unknown time in the future.

Just before I take the next call, I remind members that the debate is about the words. To simply mention the words and then go off on this, that, or any other peripheral subject is taking the debate beyond what it is. The debate is a narrow one about the actual words themselves. If members do not address the words, then that simply invites the Chair to accept a closure motion earlier than he might otherwise have done.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise to make a small contribution in the Committee stage on clause 2. The reason Labour members feel the need to make sure we are examining each aspect of this legislation is that this is another example of a bill that has not been to a select committee. It was given to the Opposition at a quarter to midnight on Wednesday, and its first reading, second reading, Committee stage, and third reading are being rushed through under urgency. So unless we can debate this matter now, there will be no other opportunity for this bail law to be considered by anybody at any time.

In a way, clause 2 is the clause that has the most important impact for the whole legislation. It is the trigger clause. It is the clause that will decide when all this will start. Up until now we have heard debates about the merits of this legislation, about the changes to the bail law, and about the way this bill is being held up as being some kind of great change, when in fact the scrutiny we have been able to give it through this process has shown that it is, as my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove said, a bit of a hoax. It is a flimflam measure that we do not believe will have the kind of effect the Government has been saying it will have. In fact, in saying it is going to be so serious about law and order and crime issues, the Government has really been holding this measure up as being some sort of major, huge change. Yet when we go through the meat of this bill, and we see how small it is and what a small difference it will make, it is hard for us to believe that this is part of a grand 100-day vision. But, of course, as clause 2 makes clear, the day after the bill receives its Royal assent it will become law in this country. It will be held up as a measurement, a yardstick, as to how effective the Government has been in delivering on its crusade for sentencing, parole, and the effects of bail.

I want to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Power, a few questions about what he is proposing to do in order to give effect to clause 2. Obviously, he cannot sign the law as he is not the Governor-General, although I suspect he will be, as part of some future deal when he gets edged out in that last little rush. It will be a very sort of Jeffrey Archer moment, we might say, when, in a decision made in a First Among Equals kind of environment, Mr Power will be put in as the Governor-General. But I am focusing on the present time when he does not hold that high office, and we can be very clear that the bill will become law not on the day that the Royal assent is given but on the day after that date. The Opposition is very keen to hear from the Minister about what he plans to do in the time between the bill’s third reading and the time he submits it to the Governor-General for His Excellency’s Royal assent.

It seems to me the Minister might like to consider a couple of things between the third reading and the date of clause 2 taking effect with the Royal assent. We would like to hear about some process issues from the Minister, particularly around his ministerial responsibility in liaising with the judiciary. Throughout the earlier parts of the debate, the Committee of the whole House was told about some of the more negative comments that have been made by people who are involved in the judiciary—who are lawyers or those working with judges—and who believe that this is an unusual step to be taking. What measures does he, along with his colleague the Attorney-General, plan to take to build the confidence of the judiciary in this bill before it receives its Royal assent, so that the day after, when it becomes the law, he has built up a constituency of support amongst those who are going to have to use this law and give effect to it?

I think it is quite important that the Minister can tell the Committee that. There has not been the chance for any external view to be taken, because the bill has been rushed, there has been no select committee process, and the bill was tabled by the Leader of the House at a quarter to midnight as part of a very unusual way in which the Leader of the House is running the House. That scrutiny might be able to take place between the passing of the third reading and the time when clause 2 takes effect—in that brief window of opportunity the Minister will have available.

We know the Minister is an efficient man. We read the newspapers. We see he does not keep any paper on his desk, at all. We know from the feature articles that have been written about him that he likes to move things through very quickly. He is so efficient that he has written a bill that comprises only one page on such a serious issue as bail, apparently, but that is irrelevant. What is more relevant is what happens for the Minister, so I have covered what needs to happen with regard to the judiciary and the legal fraternity in that period.

The second period relates to stakeholder groups like the Sensible Sentencing Trust. Mr Garrett touched on this in his contribution. He has been the legal representative of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, and he came in at No. 5 on the ACT list because of an arrangement with that trust. It has delivered him into Parliament here. The Sensible Sentencing Trust this week said that it was the most effective lobby group in New Zealand. We received an email from Garth McVicar about this bill. So in between this period of the third reading and clause 2 taking effect with the Royal assent, I would like to know from the Minister whether he plans not only to engage with the judiciary about this bill before he can recommend it to his Excellency but also to talk to stakeholders like the Sensible Sentencing Trust, because it seems to me there is a very, very close relationship between the Sensible Sentencing Trust and the National - ACT - Māori Party Government. We want to make sure there is actually some arrangement for that to take place.

I move that the question now be put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The question is that the question be now put. Those of that—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to be very clear that I am not challenging your ruling at all—I am not going to do that—but the member did not put the closure motion correctly; she did not use the correct sequence of words. You cannot accept a closure motion that has not been put correctly. That is a longstanding ruling. She did not get the words right.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I call Moana Mackey.

I rise to contribute to the debate on clause 2, the commencement clause, which, to some people, might not seem to be a particularly important clause. In fact, it is extremely important. For the benefit of those who have only started listening to this debate since my colleague the Hon Annette King gave her contribution, I say clause 2 reads: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” For most people, that is fairly meaningless, because we are not privy to knowing on which date the bill will receive the Royal assent. Yet this bill is being introduced into the House, in the 100 days of action—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Turbocharged.

—in the turbocharged 100 days of action.

My question to the Minister is: on which day of that 100 days of action will this bill receive the Royal assent? The reason why that is important is that the Act comes into force on the day after the bill receives the Royal assent. So the day on which the bill receives the Royal assent is of critical importance to the people of New Zealand. I am not sure which day of the 100 days of action we are at now. Is this day one or day two? It may well receive the Royal assent on day 35 of the 100 days of action.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Urgency might make a difference.

Urgency might make a difference.

The reason I ask these questions is that this bill has not gone to a select committee. It is not going through the normal process. Clause 2 does not tell us exactly what day it will be. We have had other bills in this urgency motion that have included dates in their commencement clause, so we have known exactly when they were to become law. But when a bill simply states that the Act will come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent, then the date on which it receives the Royal assent becomes of critical importance.

I ask the Minister again to give us some indication, because we have been promised 100 days of action. Will the Act come into force outside that 100 days of action, in which case there will be no sentencing legislation coming into force in the 100 days of action as was promised during the election campaign? Once again I point out that it is the role of the Opposition to hold the Government to account for its rhetoric in the election campaign, and if the Minister could give us some indication of when he intends to provide the evidence to the Governor-General as to why this bill should receive the Royal assent, then the Opposition would be interested in hearing that.

💬 Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: Oh, come on!

Mr Mapp is not very happy. If those members had managed to read the closure motion properly, then I would have been denied the opportunity to ask these important questions.

💬 Hon Annette King: And you did ask them.

That is right. One of the reasons is that law and order was a key campaign plank for the National - ACT - Māori Party Government. It is the role of the Opposition to ensure that that rhetoric comes into some kind of reality or the Government will be held to account. So I say to the “National - ACT - Te Ururoa Flavell Government” that—

💬 Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I bring your attention to Standing Order 107 about relevancy. The previous Chairman instructed speakers to be relevant and speak to the title, because I think we need to bring this to a close.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I do not need any further assistance. It has been made very clear that this is a very narrow debate on the commencement. Would the member confine her comments to those points.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You are absolutely right about the question of relevance; you have to judge that for yourself. But one point I would make is there was a lot of noise in the Chamber while my colleague was trying to speak, both from the Opposition side—we will take our responsibility—and the Government side, and for a speaker trying to talk about a very narrow clause like this is difficult, so maybe you could keep a little bit more order in the Committee.

I am very happy to limit my comments to the commencement clause. I shall refer to the comments made by my colleague from the Green Party Metiria Turei about how important it is that the public knows exactly on which day this Act is to come into force.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: It states it in the bill.

Well, no, it does not state it in the bill, and this is the point we are trying to make. Any indication from the Minister as to when he believes he will take this bill to receive the Royal assent would be greatly appreciated not only by the Opposition but, I am sure, also by the people of New Zealand who are listening to this debate, because they were promised action within the first 100 days. The commencement date does not tell us whether this legislation will come into force within those 100 days, and if it does not, then the Government has failed in that respect to match the rhetoric of the election campaign, in which it promised tougher sentencing and bail laws within the first 100 days.

I move, That the question be now put.

I seek leave of the Committee to amend the vote of the Māori Party on the closure motion.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave has been sought for the Māori Party to change its vote on the closure motion from 2 to 3. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?

I apologise. I thought I did say 3, but we have been 3 consistently pretty much this afternoon.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The corrected vote for the closure is 63 for, and 48 against.

Clause 3 Principal Act amended