Bail Amendment Bill

This is the final clause in the Bail Amendment Bill, and it amends section 8(1)(a) of the Bail Act by omitting the words “real and significant”. This clause reverts the test to what it was before the 2007 amendment, which was that there would just be a risk, rather than a real and significant risk. So we go back to where we were. Somebody today said: “We go from 24 to 36 and back to 24.” Virtually, we are returning to where we were before the 2007 amendment Act.

One of the arguments that Labour has put up continually today is that this is a very small change in terms of the arguments put forward by National members. Those members have argued that the change they are making today will make a real difference to the safety of the public of New Zealand. They argue that in making this change, by reverting to words that just state “risk” rather than “real and significant” risk, it will make a big difference to the safety of the community. That was said not just by one speaker but by many speakers from the Government benches.

Government backbenchers, with the set of notes that had been prepared for them, continually said this bill will make the community safer. We even heard the learned scholar Dr Worth say that is right; it will make the community safer. The public of New Zealand listening to this debate would believe, from what the National members were saying, that when this legislation is passed and receives the Royal assent, the streets of New Zealand will be safer. The homes of New Zealand will be safer.

As Melissa Lee said, we will not have to face the sort of dreadful murder that happened in a dairy in South Auckland. In fact, that is one of the examples she put up as a reason for this change to be made. This bill was played up as making a very significant change, indeed, by the backbench members of the National Government. On the campaign trail that is what National members were saying, but during this debate it has become clear that this is not a major change—in fact, it is window dressing. The test reverts back to “risk” rather than “real and significant risk”. The bill is window dressing, indeed.

What this will do, as has been pointed out by the Minister himself, is send a message. When this bill is passed, it will not make the streets of New Zealand safer. It will send a message. That does not sound to me like the rhetoric of the campaign trail. That does not sound to me like the promises made to New Zealanders during the campaign. It does not sound to me like the sort of action one needs to take in the first 100 days that one is in power, nor the sort of action that one needs to take under urgency on Friday night at 10 to 6. We and the coalition partners of the National Government know that this is a very small change indeed.

As has been pointed out, and as the Minister knows, the change was never made to put fewer people in prison, unlike what was said by National candidates when they were on the campaign stumps. In fact, the “real and significant” threshold was chosen by examining judicial decisions on the previous risk threshold. It was decided by looking at judicial decisions, especially the Court of Appeal 2002 decision in R v Hines. The Court of Appeal stated in that case that to amount to a just cause to continue detention, the risk should be “more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk.” That was the basis for the advice the previous Labour-led Government received from the Ministry of Justice. That is the advice we received in making the changes that we did.

I know where Mrs King was heading to—

💬 Hon Member: Carry on from there.

—so I will carry on from there. I touch on the point that as we have gone through this debate to this very significant point, Mrs King was alluding to the fact that even the Minister in the chair had to admit that this bill was about sending a message, not in essence about public safety. Mrs King also made the point just now that this did not sound like the pre-election promises that were made by the National Party. I just want to check that. She is right. In National’s policy document I have here, its first principle is “Tough on crime”. As I said before, Mr Garrett, who is a learned lawyer and who has advised the Sensible Sentencing Trust for many years, has said this will change little. The question is what, then, did the Minister say? He said: “Well, I have said this will send a message.” But for whom is the message, and about what? I do not want to interrupt the Minister’s conversation, because I am sure he wants to listen to the debate that is happening, but I suspect that the message the Minister wants to send is that he and his party have done something heavy-duty and gritty today—something very significant to make the people of New Zealand safer.

Well, they have not. The evidence that we have produced—because the Minister will not produce any evidence himself—is ironically via Mr Garrett, who agrees with me. He has used the words “It changes little.” By the Minister’s own admission, all it really does is send a sort of propaganda message—to whom, and about what, we do not know. If we look at the technicalities of this bill, we see that we have gone from reverting back to the pre-2007 amendment, where we had “real and significant risk”, which was based, as my colleague has said, on the R v Hines decision, to now taking out three words to go back to simply “risk”. This is based, of course, on the R v Hines quote—and I am sure the quote is by this stage etched in Mr Power’s memory—“more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk”. So we have now just gone back to what was, based on R v Hines. In that case, “real and significant risk” were the words the judge used.

I say to the Minister that this is an absolutely prima facie case—beyond that, actually—of a hoax on the New Zealand people. This is smoke and mirrors, this is flim and flam, and this is political propaganda and puffery. I assume that the message the Minister is trying to send will try to persuade the New Zealand people that this legislation will keep them safer. Well, it will not; it does nothing. From listening to Melissa Lee and others—as my colleague points out quite rightly—we would almost think that the day after this bill is given the Royal assent, white doves will be released from Government House or somewhere, olives will appear on trees, and branches will be handed out because peace will break out in New Zealand and no crimes will ever be committed again. That is the way this bill has been packaged by Ms Lee and others. Well, there is a word for that, but it would be grossly inappropriate to use that term.

This is propaganda. I think even now that New Zealand people will see through it. From the day after the Royal assent is given, when the first bail breach occurs or when the next crime occurs, we will be able to revisit this debate by asking the Minister some interesting questions, and by quoting from Ms Lee’s speech, and from those of all her other colleagues over there who have said that nirvana will break out the day after this bill is given the Royal assent. This Minister—members know it, I know it, and Mr Garrett has said it—will do nothing. This is a piece of political propaganda, an attempt to talk tough, look tough, and sound tough, Clint Eastwood - like. Before the election National members wandered around the country, stamping their little feet—as every National Party candidate also did—and saying they would get tough, but the first piece of legislation that has been brought into the House does nothing.

Yet again I ask the Minister whether he will trigger the parole provisions. We have not been provided with an answer even though he has been diligent and provided us with, I think, three answers in one call to 50 or 60 questions that had been put to him; he is going for what we now call the “Wilkinson record of silence”.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put. Those who—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Without in any way wishing to challenge your ruling—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, you cannot challenge my ruling.

I am not; I am not challenging it. As a point of information for you, I say that we on this side of the Chamber strongly object, because there have been only two calls from this side. There are only four clauses in this bill, and there has been substantial debate on each of the first three of those clauses. Now we have come to the critical one, and there have been only two calls.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You are challenging the ruling. It is at my discretion that a closure motion is accepted.