Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10946] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Referring to the title and the commencement of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill one could argue that given the debate and the points that have been made tonight this bill would be better called the “Sentencing and Parole (Hoax on Victims) Bill”. 
I read an article that Deborah Coddington wrote. Deborah Coddington is a former member as we know of the ACT Party. She may have been a founding member—I do not know. But she made an interesting point. She said that even 
this bill was not an ACT Party bill; it was not a bill of the original— 
Chris Hipkins 
: The original liberals. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —Mr Hipkins is right those are the words she used—liberal ACT Party before Rodney Hide got his claws into it. The comments she made were interesting. She talked about the liberal reforms that the ACT Party was built on not only in this area but in other areas of policy. 
This bill could be described as a hoax on victims because it does two things: it tugs at the heartstrings of victims and it raises victims’ expectations substantially. I would wager that this bill when passed will for a time be eminently popular because “three strikes” is a great slogan and everyone can remember it. It will be popular for a time. Victims will have a high expectation of what it can deliver for them. And that is fair enough. I do not blame victims or members of our community who sadly may be future victims or members of our community who truly believe that this bill will be the answer to all the ills in our criminal justice system. The bill will be popular and I know what will be said about it at the next election because given that we will not see the ultimate effects of it for 5 to 7 years it will be very difficult to argue one way or the other on the election stump as to its merits or lack of them. That is part of a hoax that the ACT Party and National have put in place; it is a nice little strategic political triangulation. It is a bit like the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill which comes into force in July of next year not too many months before I suspect the next general election. The only time we will be able to really scrutinise and see the practical effects of this bill will be well after the next election cycle. That I would argue is very very deliberate. 
This bill will be a notch on the belt for Mr Garrett—a legislative notch on the belt. And Mr Hide will be able to tick the box for the Sensible Sentencing Trust and say that ACT has done the deal and delivered. The deal with the Sensible Sentencing Trust has been clinched. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: We’re keeping our promise. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He says that yes the deal has been clinched. We all know what the deal was too. But the time will come when members of Parliament have to revisit this legislation. And the crime figures will continue to go up. It is interesting that under the Minister of Police Judith Collins we have I think the worst murder rate for 20 years 
.  
But that was all going to be absolved; everything was going to change when National got into power. 
There will be people listening tonight who will disagree vehemently with me and with the Labour Party position. They will say we are wrong and some will even say we are soft because we oppose the bill. I do not have any angst against those folks out there at all because they have a genuine belief that this legislation will deliver for them. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: They’ve been conned. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes they have. 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You brought to the attention of the Hon Lianne Dalziel the matter of relevancy. I have let this speech go on for some time now without bringing the speaker to order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I hear what the member said. I mentioned to Mr Cosgrove’s colleague earlier that we are on clauses 1 and 2 the title and the commencement. The member has a minute to go and I would like to hear the title and the commencement mentioned in the remaining minute. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You might recall that I mentioned my suggested amendment to the title in the first sentence I made. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is not a point of order. I am inviting the member to continue. He has the call. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I intend to continue and I will repeat for your edification because maybe the sound system is not working— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is a challenge to my ruling. I have ruled and I am inviting the member to continue. We do not need any further discussion on it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I repeat the first sentence I made in my speech which was that an appropriate title for this bill would be the “Sentencing and Parole (Hoax on Victims) Bill”. That is what I said in my first sentence of my speech. 
Chris Tremain 
: Don’t be a smart-arse—the way you spoke to the Chair. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We do not need to get into this sort of nonsense. I am inviting the member to continue. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. In the spirit of the hour I ask the member to continue. We are talking about clauses 1 and 2. I hear what the member said. Please continue. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will not respond to the member opposite. He may choose to use unparliamentary language but I will not. As I have said— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Get on with it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh we will get on to it I say to the member. We will be back debating this legislation in some years whether or not that member is in the House and we will revisit the  
Hansard 
 of that member who I do not think has made a contribution in the whole debate. I invite him to get up and make a contribution. I think he has a legal background. He may be able to make a substantial contribution on the bill rather than standing over there and doing an imitation of the member who is based in an electorate near Trevor Mallard’s—what is his name? 
Chris Hipkins 
: Paul Quinn. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Lotu-Iiga is doing an imitation of Paul Quinn squawking from the sidelines. This is very very important legislation. Whether or not we disagree with it it is substantial and it will have a huge impact—Labour would argue a negative impact. I say to that member that if he would like to make a contribution he should get on his feet and make one because we would enjoy listening to it. But I do not think that will happen as he sips his glass of water. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: You don’t want to talk about the bill. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will talk about the bill all right. There is a very very high expectation of this legislation among victims. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s the problem. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is the problem yes because those victims expect this bill to deliver for them. They expect that it will have a deterrent effect. They expect that as they have been told criminals before they commit a crime will think: “Hang on I am on a first strike or a second strike.” or “I have been warned by the judge.” and they will walk out of the house without doing what they had gone there to do whether that be murder rape or any heinous crime. I do not have faith in the criminal element to make those sorts of mental calculations as they are about to commit a crime. They will not stop and think about what the judge warned them would happen if they committed this kind of crime again. 
I think there are dangers for victims. It may well be the case that the ultimate tactic of the criminal element is not to maim but to kill because if they kill there will be one fewer witness who can testify against them. There are dangers as my colleague Lianne Dalziel has said for our police force and for our corrections officers. If an offender would be incarcerated for the rest of his days he has nothing to lose. Look at Graeme Burton—as I speak to the title of the bill—and at the activities that he has engaged in because he is not getting out of prison any time soon. He will not be getting out at all. I suspect that he has determined that given that anything goes. The human carnage that he has left and the threat that he poses to prison officers and to others who come into contact with him are an awful prospect going forward. He should never be allowed out. But his case shows what can happen. 
A more appropriate name for the bill is the “Sentencing and Parole (Hoax on Victims) Bill”. I repeat that the Law and Order Committee was told by officials that it is eminently possible—we asked them repeatedly—that a person who commits a first-strike offence a grievous offence may get a shorter sentence than a third-striker who commits a less grievous offence. We asked the officials that specific question—whether that was possible under this legislation. We have professional officials and they answered that yes it was possible. 
I am glad to see that the Minister of Justice is in the Chamber. I am sure that after his long absence from the fight his absence from the debate—I do not mean physical of course; I mean his verbal absence—his absence from the process Simon Power being the reformer that he says he is will want to take a call in support of his Minister of Police who wrenched this bill from his grasp. He tried to hang on to the bill for so long. The Cabinet paper was pot-riveted to his part of the Cabinet desk; he had held on to it for so long that he was superglued to it. He did not want to get away from it. He wanted to take it through all stages but he was rolled by the Minister of Police who said that no she would do it. I suspect that that is the alibi anyway. I say to the Minister of Justice given that he is here that it will be his agency the core Crown agency that deals with justice bills that has to administer this legislation. He might like to take a call and tell us why his Ministry of Justice was barred from the second part of the process as the amendments were put through the select committee. He might want to tell us why his Ministry of Justice continues to be gagged on a number of pieces of legislation and processes here. He might want to tell us that given that the Police told us that it will not be the key agency that deals with the bill and neither is the Department of Corrections. 
Amy Adams 
: What has this got to do with the title? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The bill is in respect of the title a hoax on victims. It could also be called “The Bill I Wanted to Put Through as Justice Minister but I Was Rolled by the Police Minister Bill”. It could also be called the “Ton of Guts Bill”. A ton of guts was shown by various Ministers in fronting this legislation like the “Great Reformer” the Minister of Justice. He said that he would get tough and sort it out. He showed a ton of guts in fronting up to this bill: there he was all through the debate silent.