Cosgrove Clayton: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4128. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I have some vague recollections of this Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill having served on the Law and Order Committee at the time that it was put through and like other members I find it a little bit strange the attitude of the Government which says that a great deal of urgent pressure—quite rightly so given the circumstances—was put about to get this legislation through. Then as my colleague Lianne Dalziel has pointed out like a number of other bills it languished on the Order Paper for a year. This Minister of Justice has decided to bring it to the House and push it along. To then be criticised as an Opposition because we dare—we dare—to actually challenge the authority of this Minister and perhaps put up cogent questions and raise issues and we dare to put up— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Ideas above your station. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am sorry? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Ideas above your station. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed. My colleague says I put up ideas above my station—absolutely! That would be considered patronising of course but what the Minister forgets is that this is a Parliament and this is a democracy unlike her little world. It may be that people are not allowed to ask questions are not allowed to put hypotheses up and are not allowed to criticise in her little world that she orbits from time to time—and I was not being patronising; I was being factual. But in this place an Opposition is charged with the responsibility of challenging a Minister. This Minister and this Government gave this bill such priority—and we have in the House the sort of political cadaver in the front row there Mr Banks—this Government gave this legislation so much priority— 
Hon John Banks 
: Get on to Part 2. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am coming to you. I am coming to you do not worry. Do not worry I am coming. Hold on help is on the way. It gave it so much priority that— 
Hon John Banks 
: I can smell roast duck. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —I can smell pork—that Mr Banks’ bill the Regulatory Reform Bill had a higher priority and you will recall this I am sure than this urgent piece of legislation. 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not know the name of the member but the member speaking is not addressing the part in the bill quite specifically. It is more like a third reading address and he has just about completed half of his speech. Can I put it to you that you need to haul him into line under the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will ask the member to speak on Part 2. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am very happy to speak on Part 2 especially as other members have and maybe Mr Banks was not listening as you never ruled out other members who talked about the priorities and the delays in getting Part 2 through. So where I left off. I am glad to see the member is alive and kicking. He is out of the crypt; he is ready to roll. As I said this Government gave this bill such a priority that Mr Banks’ Regulatory Reform Bill which I will not go into— 
Hon John Banks 
: Point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member does not need to raise it. I have asked the member to speak to Part 2. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Unlike Part 2 which deals with some substantive issues—what was the clause? It expunged 31 Acts that do not exist. I will not go into that bill any more because we are here to talk about Part 2 but such was the priority this Government placed on this jury protection measure that another piece of legislation that expunged 31 Acts that do not exist was put up ahead of it. Mr Banks may not like it but that is a fact. The Minister I am sure may not like it but after all her posturing and patronising attitude in questioning us and saying how outrageous it is that we even ask questions and raise issues about such a serious matter her priority list led by Mr Banks’ legislation took a bigger priority than this jury protection legislation—a far bigger priority. 
So she can sit there and smile away as she does but in this Parliament Minister we get to ask the questions and we get to raise the issues. That Minister will go down on record as a person who puffs and blows and talks about urgency and talks about priorities. Then of course we have the reality of this piece of legislation coming out of the select committee. It was a select committee I have got to say that was chaired well by Ms Dean—well I think from memory. It was efficient; it went through. The problem for Ms Collins is it sat around for a year. It sat around for a year— 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been here a lot longer than the member. I know the Standing Orders. You know the Standing Orders. He has got to address the part in the bill. He has rambled on. He said he wants to ask questions and get verification. He has not asked one question or asked for verification. He must address his propositions to the part in the bill being addressed in this Committee stage. It is quite a narrow debate. I put it to you Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Relevancy is really the role of the Chair to determine. I have listened very carefully to the member and I have mechanisms available to me. Mr Cosgrove—Part 2. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed and I am sure you will exercise those mechanisms. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Absolutely. I have great faith in you. 
The question I want to ask to satisfy Mr Banks’ penchant for ideas is about the relevant section inserted by clause 17 new section 14AB(7): “A breach of subsection (4) or (5) may be dealt with as contempt of court.” So in the Minister’s little world if you make a breach you are subject—if you are a murderer for instance—to a contempt of court. That is the only offence mechanism I am advised by learned counsel on our side that is contained within this part. There is no big deterrent. She is not going to go out there and crush their cars or dance on them or anything like that. It is simply a contempt of court which is a penalty that is at the discretion of a judge. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 92 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.