Bail (Electronic Monitoring) Amendment Bill

We come now to clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3, “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

Thank you. Just about did a David Seymour there. No, I’m all right. Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a couple of things as we get towards the last hour or two of this debate and the first one is actually just a question about commencement.

I’m not proposing an amendment but it’s just a little odd to say the Act comes into force the day after Royal assent. You’ve kind of got a day in there that you’re leaving begging. Why not just have it come into force at the moment of Royal assent, which is what you see in other legislation? I’d just be curious as to why you’ve decided to have that extra day of illegal activity when you can fix it up a day sooner. That’s my first one.

Then, in terms of the title, this isn’t really creating electronic monitoring, so the title we’ve got is actually a little misleading and you could run through any number of more accurate titles like, “Oops” or something like that. Because that’s what it is, right? It’s fixing up an “oops” that has grown over time, over the past, you know, nine-odd years since 2013.

My tabled amendment just suggests—actually, a very sensible tabled amendment—making it a little more accurate because what you’re trying to do is correct Corrections, to make electronic bail workable and consistent with the legislative framework. You’re kind of getting the legislative framework to catch up with the kind of misbehaviours of Corrections.

My suggestion is we just call it the “Bail Corrections to Run Electronic Bail Amendment Act”, because it’s both. It actually does double duty that, doesn’t it? Because it’s Corrections to the legislation; it’s also Corrections that run electronic bail. So a very clever, quite witty—if I may say so—double entendre in there. If you’d be so kind as to adopt that title, it would give greater literary merit to our legislative book and also be a better reflection of the nature, purpose, and effect of this bill.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just responding to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb and his question about commencement the day after the Royal assent, I’ve been advised by officials that that’s a standard approach.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start with clause 3, on the principal Act, before coming back to clause 1, “Title”.

I think, in terms of the principal Act, it does say that the bill amends the Bail Act 2000, but I think throughout this debate, the committee stage, we’ve seen that there are a number of potential fishhooks in the way they are linked up and interact with the primary Act, which makes me think of whether what we see in front of us actually covers everything that the bill is meant to cover. For example, I think the Minister for Mental Health previously mentioned, quite accurately, that there is a definition of “EM assessor” under section 3 of the principal Act, the Bail Act 2000, but all it says is that the EM assessor’s definition is the same definition as in section 30E, and section 30E was precisely what we discussed before around what is the definition of “EM assessor”. What we’re seeing is sort of this ouroboros circle; we are not really getting the clarification, because all of them just say, “Please refer to this one section.” and neither of those sections actually refer to it very clearly and succinctly.

On to the title: we fully endorse the tabled amendment that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb proposes, because, again, the issue that we see here in terms of the title—other than the fact that it can go broadly—is that we are seeing this bill being introduced under urgency with a very rushed job. We talked a lot during the committee stage about the fact that just because it’s current practice doesn’t mean necessarily it’s the best practice. The fact that we have not been allowed to hear from the general public—and I think, before, our colleague from Te Pāti Māori, Takutai Tarsh Kemp, also mentioned in terms of the fact that we haven’t been able to go to our constituents to seek advice and particularly other implications that this bill introduces, despite it being the current process. For the Minister, I think there is something to be said about whether the title actually accurately represents the process that we have gone through today, and whether something else should be proposed instead.

I think, most importantly, like the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, has mentioned, electronic monitoring isn’t really what the issue is here; it is the authorisation of the electronic monitoring that is creating the issue that we have here. I wanted to check with the Minister if the Minister would consider amending the title clause to “This Act is the Bail (Electronic Monitoring Authorisation) Amendment Act 2025”, or even, alternatively, “Electronic Monitoring Authorisation Reform” or “Authorisation Improvements” or “Retrospective Authorisation Amendment Bill”?

Again, that more accurately captures the definition of this bill, because it’s not just simply that in general we’re seeing electronic monitoring reform. As we have, again, discussed during the committee stage, and particularly previously under other parts—and I think there have been a number of members who contributed around the broader policy question around remand and around the issue of electronic monitoring in general. But we are not actually seeing any of that as a part of this. Basically, would the Minister consider “Bail (Electronic Monitoring Authorisation) Amendment Bill” or “Bail (Electronic Monitoring Retrospective Authorisation) Amendment Bill 2025”?

In answer to that member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question, the answer is no.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is a somewhat overlooked part of the committee stage; none the less, the title and commencement clauses are just as important, if not more important, than many other clauses, and it’s important that we scrutinise them as well. It is our role.

I have a question in relation to the commencement. The bill refers to a definition of the old law, which is, essentially, the law that applies after 3 September 2013 and before this bill commences. Essentially, the retrospectivity aspect of this bill, which has been discussed at length, means that once the passage of this bill occurs, which is the day after Royal assent, it won’t actually be effective the day after Royal assent, which is what it says in the commencement clause; it will actually be effective right back to 4 September 2013.

My question to the Minister for Mental Health: is the commencement clause appropriate, given the inherent retrospectivity of this bill? We acknowledge that it needs to be retrospective; we are voting for this bill that will very shortly be an Act. But I ask that question, because it doesn’t seem to recognise the fact that the effective change that this law makes, through its commencement, is to, essentially, change the law right back to 4 September 2013. That’s my question to the Minister.

I can confirm for that member that the commencement date is correct.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is ruled out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Bail (Electronic Monitoring) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading