Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10932] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I am astounded by that contribution for two reasons. The first is that the Minister perhaps cannot read. This bill is actually in her name but in relation to the report from the select committee she said that I had not quoted the Ministry of Justice. Well I will quote the minority report: “the Ministry of Justice has noted:”. That is in the report in the bill and the quotation is in the name of the Ministry of Justice. So the Minister is ignoring the ministry she barred from the select committee process the ministry whose core functionality is to administer this legislation—because the bill is not a corrections bill nor a police bill; it is a justice bill. 
We have noted in the minority report that the key Crown agency—and this is why the Minister of Justice did not want a bar of the bill—has stated that the bill will not work. It is not the business of the police or of the Department of Corrections; the justice ministry is the key Crown agency that has to administer justice bills. I will even give the Minister the page with the quotation. It is page 14 in the commentary and she will see that the quotation is attributed to the Ministry of Justice. 
So why is she standing up but not giving us a contribution of substance or going through the analysis? She has not even bothered to go through the analysis in this Committee stage on Part 2 yet she has got up and lambasted me and she has tried to twist words to say that I quoted her the police or the Department of Corrections. No no I quoted from the Cabinet paper that went through her and was signed off and is now quoted as being from the Ministry of Justice in the commentary on the bill. 
The ministry may not be her ministry but this is her bill and she is responsible for it. But the key agency has not been allowed to participate in it. I would like the Minister to tell me what key agency when changes were made at the eleventh hour to this bill was not allowed—in fact was specifically barred—from appearing at the select committee. Members of the select committee asked for Ministry of Justice staff to appear as advisers even just to sit in the room and maybe contribute to the last stage of the bill. But oh no they were completely blocked under instruction. There are other bills some of which I cannot talk about where that has occurred as well. I cannot talk about them yet. 
But why would anyone bar the key administrative agency—the police will not administer this legislation and corrections will not administer it; it will be administered by the Ministry of Justice—from submitting and from advising members without fear or favour? Well the answer is on page 14 of this bar 2 bill. The Ministry of Justice was not wanted. I understand Simon Power’s dilemma. He wanted to back out of this and he did not want his own ministry being put up and having to tell the truth—to say that it would not have a bar of this bill and that it would not work. I repeat the words that are quoted from the ministry which state that the bill will have a nominal effect in “reducing reoffending or victimisation.” 
The Minister got up and did what I predicted earlier today. Instead of having a logical debate—no no—she said that members on this side of the Chamber defend criminals. I say to her that she is a lawyer; I am not. If we say we are opposed to this legislation because it has no logic and because it will not work the best that the Minister can do is throw around an insult that says if Labour members are opposed to this bill it means that we always defend criminals. I had a text from somebody tonight that made the same accusation—an ill-informed accusation. 
I will show enough goodwill as I did this afternoon to say that I expect there is not one person in this Chamber in any part of the Committee who would defend criminal activity. I expect that every member in this Chamber of whatever political colour would stand beside victims. We may disagree on how to help them and we may disagree on how we deal with prisoners but I expect that everybody even Mr Garrett would say that everybody in this Committee stands on the side of victims. 
So the sort of smirky Shirley Temple - type smarmy insult that is thrown around by that Minister which says that if we are against something and if we have an argument of substance because we believe that the bill will not work then somehow we are defending criminals is the best this Minister can do. She has not even got up and gone through the part clause by clause. At least Simon Power or Chris Finlayson would do that. Chris Finlayson has come to the Chamber with regard to other Ministers’ bills to patch them up and has had the decency to go through them give us the analysis and his arguments and acknowledge points but not this Minister. The best she can do is to get up— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: I did too. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —thanks mate—and say that the Labour Party defends criminals or the Green Party defends criminals. Well if it has come down to that—and we always thought it would—I think that in a few years we will look back in  
Hansard 
 and some people in this Chamber will be ashamed of the comments they made in this debate. 
This is the Minister of course who never comments on anything when it goes wrong but is always happy to comment with her departments when things go right. It is always an “operational matter” when it goes wrong. She would not comment to the media on vehicle crime tonight—the resolution rates being so low—because it was an operational matter. She will not comment on other matters of critical substance but if things go OK oh yes then Judith Collins is front and centre in taking the credit.