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:547] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I know where Mrs King was heading to— 
Hon Member 
: Carry on from there. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —so I will carry on from there. I touch on the point that as we have gone through this debate to this very significant point Mrs King was alluding to the fact that even the Minister in the chair had to admit that this bill was about sending a message not in essence about public safety. Mrs King also made the point just now that this did not sound like the pre-election promises that were made by the National Party. I just want to check that. She is right. In National’s policy document I have here its first principle is “Tough on crime”. As I said before Mr Garrett who is a learned lawyer and who has advised the Sensible Sentencing Trust for many years has said this will change little. The question is what then did the Minister say? He said: “Well I have said this will send a message.” But for whom is the message and about what? I do not want to interrupt the Minister’s conversation because I am sure he wants to listen to the debate that is happening but I suspect that the message the Minister wants to send is that he and his party have done something heavy-duty and gritty today—something very significant to make the people of New Zealand safer. 
Well they have not. The evidence that we have produced—because the Minister will not produce any evidence himself—is ironically via Mr Garrett who agrees with me. He has used the words “It changes little.” By the Minister’s own admission all it really does is send a sort of propaganda message—to whom and about what we do not know. If we look at the technicalities of this bill we see that we have gone from reverting back to the pre-2007 amendment where we had “real and significant risk” which was based as my colleague has said on the  
R v Hines  
decision to now taking out three words to go back to simply “risk”. This is based of course on the  
R v Hines 
 quote—and I am sure the quote is by this stage etched in Mr Power’s memory—“more than nebulous and insignificant and should be a real and significant risk”. So we have now just gone back to what was based on  
R v Hines 
. In that case “real and significant risk” were the words the judge used. 
I say to the Minister that this is an absolutely prima facie case—beyond that actually—of a hoax on the New Zealand people. This is smoke and mirrors this is flim and flam and this is political propaganda and puffery. I assume that the message the Minister is trying to send will try to persuade the New Zealand people that this legislation will keep them safer. Well it will not; it does nothing. From listening to Melissa Lee and others—as my colleague points out quite rightly—we would almost think that the day after this bill is given the Royal assent white doves will be released from Government House or somewhere olives will appear on trees and branches will be handed out because peace will break out in New Zealand and no crimes will ever be committed again. That is the way this bill has been packaged by Ms Lee and others. Well there is a word for that but it would be grossly inappropriate to use that term. 
This is propaganda. I think even now that New Zealand people will see through it. From the day after the Royal assent is given when the first bail breach occurs or when the next crime occurs we will be able to revisit this debate by asking the Minister some interesting questions and by quoting from Ms Lee’s speech and from those of all her other colleagues over there who have said that nirvana will break out the day after this bill is given the Royal assent. This Minister—members know it I know it and Mr Garrett has said it—will do nothing. This is a piece of political propaganda an attempt to talk tough look tough and sound tough Clint Eastwood - like. Before the election National members wandered around the country stamping their little feet—as every National Party candidate also did—and saying they would get tough but the first piece of legislation that has been brought into the House does nothing. 
Yet again I ask the Minister whether he will trigger the parole provisions. We have not been provided with an answer even though he has been diligent and provided us with I think three answers in one call to 50 or 60 questions that had been put to him; he is going for what we now call the “Wilkinson record of silence”.