Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1422] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I will say from the outset that Labour will be opposing the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. We do not support it. Before we hear the heckles from certain individuals on the other side I will restate for the record our commitment to decreasing crime and restate for the record also some facts about what happened under our Government in respect of parole. 
The Parole Board now declines 72 percent of parole applications. That is up from 52 percent which was the rate before other legislation that we put in place came into effect. Seventy-two percent of applications are declined. That is the result of legislation passed under the previous Government. The average non-parole period imposed for life sentences increased by more than 25 percent between 1997 and 2006. I do not want to get into silly arguments with National members—because I am sure they will come—that they are tougher than us on crime. They will say we did nothing because that is the only tactic they have but it is factually incorrect. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: And it was unfunded anyway. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: And they will say that anything we put up was unfunded anyway as my colleague the former Minister of Finance said. That is a sort of “get out of jail free” card—if members will excuse the pun—for National. 
The reason we are opposed to this bill is that it implements what is commonly called the “three strikes and you’re out” policy. I will comment specifically on the ACT provisions in the bill. I note that National’s stated position is that it will support those provisions going to the select committee only—unless the Minister who has just resumed his seat Simon Power wants to correct me on that. He appears not to so I presume that that is National’s stated position. I will touch on the ACT policy because on the face of it “three strikes and you’re out” is a great slogan is it not? Anybody who does not have the privileges that we do in this House or access to the statistics and research available out in the ether would say it is a good policy. 
Before the election Mr Garrett—the former apparatchik for the Sensible Sentencing Trust and a learned lawyer—ran around this country and gave everybody the impression that the moment the “three strikes” legislation was passed the world would change. I am not sure which university he went to. I am not a lawyer; he is so I bow to his superior knowledge and experience. Everybody out there including constituents in my electorate was under the impression from Mr Garrett that once the legislation was passed the “three strikes” provisions would come into effect. It was only after the election that Mr Garrett made it clear to everybody that the “three strikes” provisions will have no effect on anyone in the system or on any criminal for 15 to 20 years. In fact if we look at the regulatory impact statement we see it states under the “Costs” heading: “It is estimated that when the full effects of implementation have been felt after 50 years”. That is the bill in its entirety—50 years; five zero. 
There is another stunning thing about this situation. I will read a quote from  
Hansard 
 in regard to the second reading of the Bail Amendment Bill. Before Christmas there was quite a bit of banter across the Chamber involving Annette King. Many members said the ACT Party’s policy which was giving everybody the impression that the day this bill is passed it all kicks in even though “three strikes and you’re out” has no effect for 15 to 20 years might well have been the biggest political fraud in the nation. I made that point to Mr Garrett and said as I interjected on him “You never told the people this before the election though did you?”. Mr Garrett replied “No I say to Mr Cosgrove”—and this is a clanger—“I had not worked it out.” If one goes on to read  
Hansard 
 further one sees that Mr Garrett tried to put a case that he had not got the calculator out and had failed to work out that his own legislation his own policy would not be retrospective. I have his policy document here and nowhere does it state that “three strikes and you’re out” will not be retrospective. Nowhere does it state to the public that the measure will have no effect for 15 to 20 years. He had not worked that out. 
I have no law degree. To some that will be obvious I am sure. 
David Garrett 
: Absolutely. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Garrett said “Absolutely.” and he is right. But even I could work out that five plus five plus five is 15 and that very few laws apart from some tax laws are retrospective. Yet that genius is a lawyer. Mr Garrett was the apparatchik for the Sensible Sentencing Trust. That man has LLB after his name and presumably has a practising certificate. He wandered round this country and told everybody and gave everybody the impression that if ACT’s “three strikes” policy was put into place the moment the Governor-General signed the bill the policy would kick in. That is what people thought. By his own admission he had not worked out that the policy would have no effect on a person in the justice system for 15 to 20 years. Mr Garrett’s own admission is prima facie evidence that the policy is ill-conceived and ill-thought-through. It rates five lines in the ACT law and order policy document. Five lines—that is the policy. Yet it is now jammed into this legislation. 
Interestingly even National—again unless the Minister corrects me if I am wrong—will only support those provisions going to a select committee. I would say that from a coalition partner that is a reasonably damning indictment. 
I feel sorry for the people of New Zealand who voted for that member and his ilk—Mr Hide. I wonder what Sir Roger Douglas—who I do not think has actually made a public utterance on this provision— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: He’s no better with the numbers though to be fair. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well I will leave that comment to my colleague. I wonder what Sir Roger Douglas really thinks about this “three strikes and you’re out” measure because we know it does not work. We know there are states in the US that are now pulling back on repealing or ditching it. 
But it is a really good political slogan is it not? Out there on “Struggle Street” people who do not have the benefit of the data that we have probably nod their head and say they will sign up to it thinking that it will have an immediate effect. The indictment that is now on the record of this House is that Mr Garrett said he had not worked that out. He had written the policy he said he had gone all over the world looking at it he convinced the Sensible Sentencing Trust to sign up to it and he convinced the ACT Party to sign up to it—and possibly got his place on the list as the result of being a guru an apparatchik and a learned officer of the court. Then he came into the House and when that policy was being debated in the House said the reason he went around and gave everyone the impression that it would kick in immediately was that he had not quite worked out that it would not be retrospective and therefore would apply 15 years hence—or 50 years if we look at the totality of the bill and at what is stated in the regulatory impact statement about the impact being 50 years out. Mr Garrett sort of forgot to tell that to the general public when they voted for ACT. 
It is true that under the previous Government there was a toughening-up of sentences. I have already talked about parole and the 72 percent decline rate for parole applications. The Parole Board now must take into account as its primary focus whether a person on release will be a danger to the community. I recall that when that crew was in Government that was not the primary focus of the Parole Board. One would think the Parole Board’s primary decision-making tool would be whether a person on release would commit a crime again and if that person is a violent or other serious offender whether the person would be a danger to the community. We changed that to make it the primary focus of the Parole Board. I would have thought that was common sense. 
But I ask Mr Garrett—and I will be interested in his comments—how he is going to correct the record and whether he will apologise to the people of New Zealand and the voters for hoodwinking them. He did that and so did Mr Hide Sir Roger Douglas and every member of the ACT Party. Mr Garrett’s admission that he had not worked out that this measure would not be retrospective condemns it for what it is. It will not work. The New Zealand people will be advised of that as we go through the select committee process on the bill. It is a political pamphlet. There is no evidence that the “three strikes and you’re out” rule has worked in places like the United States. There is no evidence in that respect. 
David Garrett 
: Have a look at the regulatory impact statement. You haven’t read it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I have read it and worked that out; that member has not worked it out. The bill makes no logical sense. We will be opposing the bill and we will be looking forward to the select committee process as again a bill is rushed through the House in order to try to tick another box in National’s 100-day work programme. I have referred to the Bail Amendment Bill. It is fictitious. Learned scholars said the changes that were proposed in it—a few words—would do nothing to make Kiwis more secure. One could run through the holes in the DNA bill. The “$50 bill” has peas shot through it but not even anecdotal evidence is set in the regulatory impact statement let alone authoritative evidence produced by the Minister. It is full of risks. 
This is a light bill. It is a political pamphlet. Sadly it toys with and plays on the heartstrings of those victims who have been impacted on by violent offenders. It portrays to them that the Government and Mr Garrett are going to get tough swagger around in John Wayne style and provide them with security. Sadly for those victims this bill is a fraud.