The Green Party supports this Bail Bill. We think it contains a number of very good measures that are admirable. First of all, it tidies up bail legislation, bringing it into one Act. This is important, because bail legislation has been confused and scattered, and it is good to see it being brought into one piece of legislation.
The bill also provides for the views of victims to be taken into account at a bail hearing for offences relating to sexual violations and other serious assaults or injuries. The member for New Zealand First Ron Mark said that this will not go the whole way towards satisfying victims' concerns, and of course it will not. We agree with that. In fact, until we have a proper victim-centred restorative justice system up and running, the concerns of victims will not be addressed, because what we have now is an adversarial system that relegates victims to a minor part of court proceedings. It relegates them to the role of just another witness in the trial rather than understanding that when a crime is committed, the No. 1 problem is that someone has been hurt by that crime.
This Bail Bill also looks at making provisions for those who are charged with an offence while on bail, to reverse the onus for proof of bail from police to defendant, and that is also something we support.
The Green Party has been concerned about Mr Goff's Supplementary Order Paper, as proposed. We were concerned that it took too broad an approach that would result in the imprisonment of many individuals who have committed minor offences and who are not a danger to public safety. There are many people who may not get custodial sentences or may get sentences of less time than they spent on bail, under the Supplementary Order Paper as originally put forward.
The Supplementary Order Paper also counted concurrent sentences when considering previous convictions. The Green Party feels that this is something that could disproportionately target property offenders. For example, when people break into a house they may face a number of charges for the single event.
We consider it appropriate that access to bail should be tightened for those with a history of violent offending. Mr Franks from the ACT party referred to people who bash old ladies and commit other kinds of offences. They fill us all with disgust. No one supports that kind of behaviour. But attempts to use the trauma and pain of those suffering people for political ends is a bit contemptuous.
Current legislation already targets those who are considered a physical danger to the public or their victims. One of the things this bill aims to do to strengthen the Crimes Act in that regard is to add to the information that is available to judges when deciding bail. This is something that will lead to much better decision-making and reduce the likelihood of the occurrence of some of the more horrific offences we have seen over the last few years that have been committed by offenders while on bail.
It actually came as some surprise to me to realise that up until now judges have been unable to know whether people appearing before them have been previously convicted for committing an offence while on bail. I commend Mr Goff for the provisions in this bill that make that information available to judges from here on.
The reversal of onus when it comes to bail provisions is a serious breach of rights. Some members in this Chamber are happy to do this to score political points rather than out of genuine concern for the public.
(Speech ends — continued some time later)
The reversal of onus for deciding bail, as outlined in the Supplementary Order Paper, is a serious issue. If we are to remove the presumption that people on trial — we are not talking about people convicted; we are talking about people on trial and therefore presumed innocent — retain their freedom while awaiting trial, that must be done with caution, with calm reason, and it must be based on clear evidence.
I would like to refer to Mr Bob Simcock, the National member, who waxed lyrical about the need for punishment in prisons. I would like to remind that member, and perhaps some of the other members in this House who are confused, that this is not a bill about prison. It is a bill about bail. It is about people awaiting trial and therefore presumed innocent.
That member made the suggestion that my opinion is not relevant because I have not been in this House long enough. I say to the member that it is that kind of comment that leads some members of the public to think that members in this House sometimes have an inflated opinion of themselves.
The only legitimate purpose of reversing the onus on bail is if we fear that people will offend on bail or that they will abscond while on bail. The best predictor of that is if people have already offended while on bail. It obviously makes sense that if people show a lack of respect for bail provisions, they should face more stringent criteria to get bail.
We are pleased that the Minister has accepted the sensible principle put forward in my amendment today. I would like to announce to the Committee that I am withdrawing my amendment in my name and that the Greens will be supporting this bill.
Subscribe to email newsletters
