Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10929] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I have a couple of points before I go on to Part 2 of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. I too have read the theory about abortion that comes from a book called  
Freakonomics 
. That shows where the ACT Party gets the basis of its policy and its ideas does it not? I think the name of the book is very apt when it comes to that party. 
The second point I make is there is enough evidence round the world to show that crime goes down as unemployment decreases. I will tell members why. 
David Garrett 
: Didn’t go down here. We had full employment in 2006. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Garrett should take his own advice and pull his head in. He was good enough to tell one of my colleagues to do that. He should breathe through his nose as a member once said. 
A contributing factor to crime decreasing is employment. I think that might be logical. If a person has a job and earns money he or she is less likely to jump through somebody’s window and steal a stereo or mug somebody for money or to get food or do another crime. There might be a sort of tangible logic to that. I did not read that in  
Freakonomics 
. 
I will tell members what is logical—and I refer to Part 2 because I would hate to transgress your authority Mr Chairperson. If we look at this bill we see that the most damning indictment on it comes from the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections the Hon Judith Collins who sits in the chair. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: It’s a bill. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes the member is right it is a bill; I thank Mr Finlayson. On 16 December 2009 in a Cabinet paper from the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections entitled  
Changes to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill 
 the Ministry of Justice noted the following: “… the deterrence effect of the three stage regime is uncertain. The proposals will add substantial direct costs to the justice system without creating any significantly improved outcomes in terms of reducing the drivers of crime improving social outcomes or”—if you do not care about any of that—“reducing reoffending and victimisation.” That is what it says. That quote comes directly from a Cabinet paper via the Minister of Police and of Corrections. 
The Ministry of Justice was not allowed to participate in the amended bill. While Mr Garrett quoted  
Freakonomics 
 and other mystical naysayers around the place for his logic I quoted the Minister’s own Cabinet paper. It is the most damning indictment on the bill itself because they are her officials it is her Cabinet paper and she took this bill over from the Ministry of Justice and the Minister of Justice. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: He wouldn’t touch it with a bargepole. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well he may not have touched it with a bargepole; that says more about him. The Ministry of Justice has been prevented from participating in the amended bill but let us be clear that this is a justice bill. I asked senior police officers in the Law and Order Committee what would happen if we did a review of this bill in some years’ time because presumably they the police as lead advisers on the bill would be the people to do it. They said no they were not equipped to do that. They said the Ministry of Justice were the ones who would have to do it. That is what they said. 
We can bandy statistics around any way we like. We can quote from that book and other psychedelic texts or we can quote from the Cabinet paper that was submitted under the Minister’s name. I will read it again for the record: “… the deterrence effect of the three stage regime is uncertain. The proposals will add substantial direct costs to the justice system without creating any significantly improved outcomes in terms of reducing the drivers of crime improving social outcomes or reducing reoffending and victimisation.” I would have thought that reducing reoffending and victimisation is what we are about here—that is what I would have thought. If the Minister’s own corrections department says that it is doubtful and it has assumed that this legislation does not have a deterrent value at all then I say we have a problem here. 
The arguments that were put forward by this side in respect of Part 1 of the bill are the same in respect of Part 2. We do not believe it will deter crime. We do not believe that this bill will work. The Minister in her own flippant way did not give an analysis of the amendments in Part 1. She said National members were not supporting our amendments because they did not want the Opposition coming to them with any ideas. Mr Garrett said he wanted an advance copy to read in between chapters of  
Freakonomics 
 and the Minister said they did not want the Opposition to come with any amendments or any ideas at all. They are not prepared to listen.