Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10907] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I appreciate the advice you have given Mr Chair. I was not in the House for the first reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill but I want to make a couple of comments bearing in mind your advice regarding clause 3 the purpose clause. It says in essence the purposes of the legislation are to “deny parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worst murders” and to “impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent offences.” On the face of it and given the debate in the community that Mr Garrett has referred to it would be reasonably hard to argue against some of those sentiments until one delves into the detail of the proposals. 
I say firstly there is a problem with regard to these sorts of debates for those of us who oppose these sorts of measures. I have never been a victim—not ever. As such I have to be careful as a politician even if it is just in relation to the purpose clause about pontificating to the people who have been and are the victims of heinous crime. I acknowledge that and I also acknowledge in this debate that had my partner or my family been dealt to in the way that many in our community have been through tragic circumstances and heinous crime I suspect I would be less logical more emotional and possibly more extreme in my attitude than I am. I accept that because the closer that crime gets to one’s home the more personal the issue becomes and of course the bigger the impact that it has. 
But in this Chamber we are actually charged with trying to piece together with the best will in the world good solid legislation that has a positive effect. Let us put aside the argument that if one is not an extremist and a hard-liner one is soft on crime or that if one is interested in reform one is soft on crime—that sort of drivel which we hear often in this Chamber. If we put the political claptrap aside I would wager and take a political risk in saying that probably every member of Parliament on either side of the Chamber cares about victims and believes that the guilty should be punished but also believes that the behaviour of offenders should be changed—that they should be rewired. I would wager that we all want to pass effective legislation that actually works. 
As we look at the purpose clause the problem for the Labour Opposition is that I am sure that as we go through this debate sadly we will have the usual sort of comment made that anyone who is opposed to this legislation is a hand-wringing liberal who is soft on crime. That is probably where it will go; it has degenerated into that right through the debate on this bill. But those of us who are opposed to this purpose clause are opposed to it because we do not believe that this legislation will work. We do not believe that it will have the effect suggested by its promoters. We believe that this purpose clause along with every other clause in the bill is more about political posturing is more about bluntly tugging at the heartstrings of victims and more about raising the expectations of victims than it is about having the effect that has been suggested. In the years to come I suspect that we or maybe others will be back in this place looking at what this debate was about and what—[ 
Interruption 
] Well there we go; the utterances from that member prove my point. We will be back here to look at this legislation—either to amend it or dispose of it—because it will not have had the practical effects or provided the deterrence that its supporters and promoters say it will. 
I bow to Mr Garrett who is a lawyer. I am sure we could dredge out all sorts of statistics from all sorts of places—and that has been done by members from both sides in this debate—about whether paragraph (a) of the purpose clause regarding the denial of parole to repeat offenders will have the practical effect that the promoters want to achieve in terms of deterring crime and I presume changing people’s behaviour. It is interesting that Mr Garrett quoted an American judge. We had an American judge come to our caucus: Judge Hyman. I think he went around the country. As a judge in California he had administered the Californian version of this law. I acknowledge Mr Garrett’s point that someone will not receive a life sentence for stealing a stick of gum—I accept that. But Judge Hyman’s thesis based on his experience of administering a law where as in the purpose clause of this bill there are aspects of denying parole and imposing maximum sentences was that that did not work. We will back what works and we will oppose what does not work.