Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10920] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 This will be a very brief call on Part 1 of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill which I suspect I will have to recommence after the dinner break. I will answer a couple of charges raised by Mr Garrett about the amendments that the Labour Party has put up. Mr Garrett alleged that somehow we were not expressing goodwill. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Before the dinner break I was speaking about the amendments that Labour had put forward mainly to clause 5. I was referring to some comments that Mr Garrett had made where basically in colloquial language he accused the Labour Party of not playing fair because we had not dropped down on bended knee crawled over to him and his ilk and provided him at an early stage with the amendments we were going to put forward. In mitigation for that accusation I will make a couple of points. One is that this Parliament over the last 18 months has been littered with whole pieces of legislation—some under the name of the Minister of Justice; one or two I think under the name of the Minister in the chair Ms Collins—that have been dropped on this Parliament with no notice. They were never seen by anybody in Parliament apart from the Minister in charge and Cabinet. 
The second point I make is that Mr Garrett is a lawyer and I am not yet I managed to work out some changes that I think need to be made. Mr Garrett sat on the Law and Order Committee; so did I and I and my colleagues worked out some changes that had to be made. Mr Garrett heard the submitters submit on these issues—they were learned people—and so did the folks on my side of the table and we managed to work it out. Part of the role of an Opposition apart from opposing where it feels it is appropriate is to propose solutions ideas and amendments. I am sure Mr Chair could quote me the Standing Orders that would provide a framework for Mr Garrett to tell him that this is called the Committee stage and this is where political parties and members of Parliament put forward amendments. I am sure that Mr Hide being a learned member of this Chamber would agree that it is not a requirement that people submit themselves on bended knee to the opposing party and present all the ideas. 
Mr Garrett is a member of the legal profession. He heard the same people that I did who had problems in respect of the manifestly unjust provisions on the third strike in clause 5 in respect of the suggestions about the exclusions of accidental or negligent manslaughter and issues about allowing guilty pleas to be a factor in sentencing as per our proposals for clause 5. Either he did not understand them and dismissed them or if as he claimed tonight before the dinner break he had had notice of them he would have somehow shown goodwill—and I will take him at his word—and he would have offered to look at them to see whether they should be incorporated in the legislation. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: It is just being petty if they’re— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No I disagree with my colleague. My colleague said that it is being petty; I understand why she would say that. But I say that if Mr Garrett is true to his own word he has an opportunity now to stand up to walk over to the Minister and to have a word in her ear and ask why they do not taihoa on this piece of legislation for a couple of days or maybe until next week so that he can look at the Opposition’s amendments. He will do that if he is true to the goodwill gesture that he proffered out of one side of his mouth before the dinner break. But I will take a bet with any member of Parliament—I will put $100 on it—that Mr Garrett will not do that because Mr Garrett wants to get the legislative notch on his belt. He is desperate to raise the flag on this one because this is a cause célèbre. 
If he is not prepared to go over to the Government and tell it to hang on as he said he would look at these ideas and consider what is appropriate and common-sense then that tells us that Mr Garrett wants this bill to go through in any form come hell or high water. Even if he sees some unjust problems with it and some solutions that we have provided he is not interested in them. That means that the last series of accusations from him—about us not coming over cap in hand giving him the amendments and bowing down before him as the “O Great One” the man who allegedly stands so much on the side of victims when no one else in this Chamber apparently does—are just words. He has an opportunity. He could stand up in this place tonight or his leader could—his leader is the senior man on deck tonight—and say that they will look at these amendments.