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:549] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Before I begin my third reading speech I would be interested to know whether the Minister of Justice who has just resumed his seat has the evidence he referred to for some of the claims he made about the weakness of bail from the prosecution service the Police Association and the Law Society. I noted that he had evidence and I would be grateful if he would lay that evidence on the Table or seek leave to table it. There has been no tabling of any evidence and I am told that he turned to my colleague Annette King and said that he has never tabled media clippings—his evidence—in his life. 
This has been a very interesting debate for a whole series of reasons. One reason that is relevant I suppose to the shambolic way in which the Government has conducted itself in the last 24 hours but not specifically connected to the bill is the fact that the senior Opposition whip counted 12 times that the geniuses opposite tried to take a closure motion. It eventuated that Tony Ryall the Minister of Health who I think did a stunning job was hauled out of his ministerial office. I am told that he cancelled all his appointments. He was asked to come to the Chamber to move the closure motion. He looked quite distraught because I know he is a well-mannered person who does not like to be rude to people he is supposed to be meeting. He cancelled all his appointments so he could come to the Chamber and move a closure motion. That is how organised these geniuses on that side of the Chamber are. 
This has been an interesting debate. It is a pity I have to say that in the final clause 4 debate the Opposition was cut down like a stump and could take only two calls given that the bill has been rammed through and has had no select committee scrutiny at all. We were cut down like a stump and allowed to take only two calls but that is the prerogative of the Chair and we should not challenge it. 
It has been an interesting debate. We will remember of course the nature of how it occurred. I am sure all those who were party to it in the Chamber and outside will be listening to that. This debate was interesting because a number of new National Party members told us unequivocally that once this bill is enacted there will be no bail breaches there will be no crime. Melissa Lee’s speech is etched on my brain. She said that there will be no bail breaches and there will be no crime. Doves will be released around New Zealand because crime as a proposition and problem will disappear. 
What we heard throughout this debate was political puffery and propaganda. The National Party came to this House with a policy that says as its first principle “tough on crime”. What was National’s first bill in the House? Its first bill in the House was one to try to persuade the New Zealand people by taking away the words “real and significant” from the risk proposition in the bail legislation that that would have a massive impact and everybody would be safer. Before the member says it the reason we did not oppose it was that it does absolutely nothing. It does not change the status quo. That Minister made a vain attempt. He is not a bad bloke old Simon Power—“Simple Simon”. He is not a bad guy and he did give it his all. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been called a lot of things in my life and I am pretty relaxed about that but in this House I would prefer to be called Simon Power or something similar. I am happy to have the reference used by the member opposite levelled at me anywhere else but I think this place deserves the respect of all members in an appropriate way. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The Minister has taken exception; the member will withdraw. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. The Hon Simon Power who is a complex member not a simple member made a very very good attempt to try to sell this as the big ground-breaking hit for the National Party on law and order. He said that this would make a change and that after tonight all people in New Zealand would feel safer in and out of their homes. Then as we moved through this debate the fabric started to fray in legislative terms. Mr Garrett made a stunning intervention. He is a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust a lawyer— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Their man in Parliament. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well their man in Parliament maybe. He is a lawyer and a person who advised them on this bill. He said: “In itself this”—the bill—“will do little.” Then it started to unravel. The Minister late in the day hours after being asked questions that he would not answer—questions like why he would not do something substantive something real that would make people secure like ring the Governor-General and get him to sign the Order in Council to trigger a two-thirds minimum parole—then said what the real intent of this bill was. It is to send a message. That is code for propaganda. That is code to go out to the people and say: “We’ve been tough on crime and this is what we’ve done.” I have to say that the people will see through this because this bill changes very little. 
We heard Justice Heath’s comments. As I said in the first reading this bill is built on two malicious and false propositions—firstly that bail is weakened and secondly that this was done to somehow decrease the prison population. Well I remind that member that the remand prisoner population has continued to grow at a rate greater than the sentence population despite the 2007 amendment to the Bail Act. In July 2007 remands including prisoners held in police stations totalled 1733 and comprised 21 percent of the total prison muster. By July 2008 remands had increased by almost 6 percent and constituted 23 percent of the total prison muster. We have advice from the Ministry of Justice that says that by September next year the change we put in place would result in a decrease of about 10 beds and then go down to 40. 
Hon Annette King 
: 40 by 2011. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That would be the impact. His own leader said at the post-Cabinet press conference that this would have an impact of about 75 beds in a muster of around 15000. This is absolute bunkum. 
Hon Simon Power 
: What? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Over a year of course; has the member not read his own briefing papers? This is about trying to act tough talk tough and be the Clint Eastwood of the National Party which was Simon Power before the election. Then the first thing he does is nothing by taking three words out of legislation that relies on the  
Queen v Hines 
 decision which uses the words “real and significant risk”. So basically we have gone back to the status quo of risk and there is no change. 
Even Mr Garrett a lawyer said there is very little change if any at all—a complete waste of this Parliament’s time. That member and other members will ask why we stood up and made speeches and why we debated it for hours. Well I tell members that it is our job to do so and it is our job to show up this crew. We said we would not vote against it because it changes nothing but we have debated it and we have highlighted what these members have said. It is our job to hold them to account. They are in utter disarray and are disorganised—we can see that. I think Mr Brownlee has been taken off to the sideline to limber up for tomorrow or next week or whatever. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I haven’t seen him much today. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well I could not comment on that; that would not be appropriate. He is probably doing his callisthenics or whatever. But Simon Power was in charge and the Chamber just came apart. I say to the Minister of Justice that people are not stupid. The day after this is signed when we have bail breaches and we have people who commit offences whilst on bail when we have people who are released on bail—when perhaps in our view they should not be—then we will with great delight revisit the Minister’s speech Melissa Lee’s speech and all the speeches that were put up. The member for Tauranga whose name is— 
Hon Annette King 
: Simon Bridges. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He was I believe a Crown prosecutor. Is that correct? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He told us he knew all about the law. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He told us he knew all about the law. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: He got all the criminals off from the prosecution. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well I would not go as far as that but who knows? He is a Crown prosecutor who told us he knew all about the law. He could not move a closure motion though. That is how good he is. I do not know what sorts of arguments he has made on behalf of the Crown and in defence of the Crown in the Tauranga District Court or the High Court. 
I do not think the people of New Zealand have been well served by this Government today. This bill is small in stature and small on substance. This is a political pamphlet. This is Simon Power’s first big hit as the big tough Minister of Justice. It is a one-pager with a few pages of an explanatory note on the front. He is a show pony. He has had 9 years work—3 years as spokesperson on law and order—and this is what he has come up with. I do not object to the length of the bill; I object to its lack of substance. 
What our changes in Government were designed to do were to create some uniformity and some certainty. That is our job as parliamentarians. It is the judiciary’s job to interpret the law. This bill does nothing. This bill has no logic to it. This bill is propaganda—it is a political pamphlet. It is a pamphlet that tries to say National is tough on crime—well the veil has dropped on that one. National is loose and weak on crime and I invite the Minister or his next delegated speakers to tell us when they will do something substantive and activate the two-thirds parole bill.