Cosgrove Clayton: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:503] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 The Hon Simon Power quoted a submission when he talked about the notion that High Court judges were split in their opinions. He quoted one judicial decision but I point him away from Justice Heath to the case outlined by colleagues the  
Crown 
 v  
Hines and others 
 where the Court of Appeal the higher court in the hierarchy implicitly agreed with the High Court that to amount to just cause for continued detention the risk that the defendant may interfere with the witness should be as stated: “more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk.” Those are the words of the Court of Appeal the higher court in the hierarchy. So whether or not there are different views on the High Court bench and the member—being a lawyer I am not—would understand the hierarchy of that court system the higher court in the hierarchy the Court of Appeal held the same view. 
The reason Labour will not vote against this legislation is that it makes no significant change. That is the truth; it makes no significant change to the legislation. When or if this is passed in the next hour day week or months—depending how long we are here for—I do not believe that New Zealanders as a whole will feel any more secure than they do today. I am pleased that Mr Power stated that there are other things the National Party is planning in respect of law and order; we will wait with bated breath. 
Hon Simon Power 
: You won’t have to wait long! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He says we will not have to wait long. We would not have to wait for any time at all if he and his colleagues would pick up the phone ring Government House and ask the Governor-General if he could pop down here to sign off the Order in Council to trigger the two-thirds parole provision. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Why didn’t you go? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: We are not in Government—you are! 
Hon Simon Power 
: It was there for 3 months. Why didn’t you go? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Power has forgotten that if he takes the pay and takes the warrant as Minister of Justice he also has to take the responsibility and ultimately the flak. I say to the Minister that he is in Government. I cannot ring the Governor-General and ask His Excellency to pop down and I cannot give the Governor-General an Order in Council. But Mr Power could do that without any bureaucracy and without any time at all not even impinging on the time frame or scheduling of this Parliament because the Act is passed. It requires mere triggering through an Order in Council. 
Now the two-thirds parole provision that would do something substantial today. 
Hon Simon Power 
: All in good time. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I ask the Minister how much time? When is it—today? We heard Melissa Lee who apparently has a monopoly on sympathy and concern for victims. I say that is arrogant; I say that is patronising. Maybe when she has spent more than 5 minutes here she will know that every member of this Chamber has empathy and concern for the victims of tragedies when they happen out there. When the member has been here for more than 2 minutes she might lose the arrogant edge. I note that even her colleagues would share with me a sympathy and concern for victims. She does not have a monopoly on that. I ask the Minister of Justice when we will get a substantive action from the National Government that is not political piffle and propaganda as this legislation is. 
This legislation is designed so that National Party members can beat their chests to the public and say that they have done something in their first 100 days in Government knowing that it is meaningless. I ask Mr Power when we will get to the parole legislation. When will he ring the Governor-General? The phone is on the hook and the telecommunications work. Mr Brownlee could pop down there between lunch and afternoon tea and knock on the door. He could immediately trigger that substantive legislation. I assume that it would be supported by the Sensible Sentencing Trust the ACT Party and most of the parties in this Parliament. It would be supported by us because we passed the Act. I would like to know when we are going to see something substantive come out of the National Party. 
This is not substantive legislation. When we talk about the length of it maybe I should explain in slightly more detail what I mean. There is no substance to it. There are four clauses. There is no meaning to it. It contradicts people like the Ombudsman and the view of Justice Heath and it contradicts the view of the Court of Appeal. If we are going to play knock for knock with the odd High Court judge then go to the Court of Appeal the higher court in the hierarchy we see that it contradicts their view. It contradicts the view of the many case law and common law precedents that have been set to provide more certainty more consistency and more precision around what “risk” meant. I fail to see how one could make an argument against the definition of “real risk”. Does that mean we argue for “unreal risk” or “substantial risk”? Does that mean we argue for a lesser risk? That does not make sense. 
This legislation is about Mr Power saying to the communities that bail was easier to get than before. The remand figures show that that was not true. Even his own bill as Annette King referred to shows that the number of those offending whilst on bail went down under the previous Government. This is a bit of political propaganda so National members can all go out to their constituents after they have had their Christmas feed and say that they have done something. Many constituents do not have a legal frame of reference or perhaps a legal qualification to be able to look in depth into legislation although judging by the simple nature of this bill from “Simple Simon” they could probably get it in 5 seconds. They may well be hoodwinked for a time that this is something substantial and gritty. I tell Simon Power that we will wait to see the practical results of this legislation and when the next set of bail figures come out and the next set of figures after that and beyond I will look forward to questioning Mr Power and his ilk and to Mr Power trying to justify what material difference this legislation has made. 
This legislation is a hoax. This is really a hoax and in many respects it is a tragic hoax. Indeed the election provided a vehicle where people voiced their concern on law and order matters. We saw victims in the media express and note the tragedies that had occurred in their lives. The National Party promised huge results and very quickly. Its members promised real substantial and gritty legislation. To kick off that programme we have this which is propaganda. It is absolute propaganda. Those victims are out there—perhaps some of the victims that Ms Lee seems to have a monopoly of all knowledge on— 
Chester Borrows 
: Mr Speaker— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: False start Chester. Not only does Mr Brownlee—who was shadow Leader of the House for 9 years—not know the rules and obviously Mr Power’s tutorials using Little Golden Books and visual aids for Mr Brownlee did not work but that legend in his own lifetime Mr “Burrows”— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Mr Borrows. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —Mr Borrows does not know the rules either. The victims that Ms Lee referred to were crying out for gritty and substantial legislation based on National Party promises. If those victims are listening I say to them that they can have that today. They can have that immediately with a phone call from Simon Power that triggers a two-thirds parole scheme. They can have that now. The question for Mr Power is why he will not do that. If he wanted to he still could ram through this piece of flimflam and piffle and also ring the Governor-General to put through the parole legislation. He could do that as well. He could say: “OK we are going to ram through this bail propaganda this political pamphlet. But I am going to go down and ring the Governor-General today and put the parole provisions in place.” I ask Mr Power if he will do that today. The silence is deafening. 
Ms Lee may wish to go back to telephone the victims she represents and tell them that Mr Power has the power to trigger that parole legislation today but refuses to do it. He refuses to do it. She may then want to explain to those victims why it is that Mr Power will not exercise his ministerial prerogatives and put through substantial law and order legislation as passed when Labour was in Government. I ask Mr Power to consider it again. He may want to take another call in the Committee stage. Will he ring the Governor-General now and pass the parole provisions?