Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill

And they will say that anything we put up was unfunded anyway, as my colleague the former Minister of Finance said. That is a sort of “get out of jail free” card—if members will excuse the pun—for National.

The reason we are opposed to this bill is that it implements what is commonly called the “three strikes and you’re out” policy. I will comment specifically on the ACT provisions in the bill. I note that National’s stated position is that it will support those provisions going to the select committee only—unless the Minister who has just resumed his seat, Simon Power, wants to correct me on that. He appears not to, so I presume that that is National’s stated position. I will touch on the ACT policy because, on the face of it, “three strikes and you’re out” is a great slogan, is it not? Anybody who does not have the privileges that we do in this House or access to the statistics and research available out in the ether would say it is a good policy.

Before the election, Mr Garrett—the former apparatchik for the Sensible Sentencing Trust and a learned lawyer—ran around this country and gave everybody the impression that the moment the “three strikes” legislation was passed, the world would change. I am not sure which university he went to. I am not a lawyer; he is, so I bow to his superior knowledge and experience. Everybody out there, including constituents in my electorate, was under the impression from Mr Garrett that once the legislation was passed, the “three strikes” provisions would come into effect. It was only after the election that Mr Garrett made it clear to everybody that the “three strikes” provisions will have no effect on anyone in the system or on any criminal for 15 to 20 years. In fact, if we look at the regulatory impact statement, we see it states under the “Costs” heading: “It is estimated that when the full effects of implementation have been felt after 50 years,”. That is the bill in its entirety—50 years; five zero.

There is another stunning thing about this situation. I will read a quote from Hansard in regard to the second reading of the Bail Amendment Bill. Before Christmas there was quite a bit of banter across the Chamber, involving Annette King. Many members said the ACT Party’s policy, which was giving everybody the impression that the day this bill is passed it all kicks in, even though “three strikes and you’re out” has no effect for 15 to 20 years, might well have been the biggest political fraud in the nation. I made that point to Mr Garrett and said, as I interjected on him, “You never told the people this before the election though, did you?”. Mr Garrett replied “No, I say to Mr Cosgrove”—and this is a clanger—“I had not worked it out.” If one goes on to read Hansard further, one sees that Mr Garrett tried to put a case that he had not got the calculator out and had failed to work out that his own legislation, his own policy, would not be retrospective. I have his policy document here, and nowhere does it state that “three strikes and you’re out” will not be retrospective. Nowhere does it state to the public that the measure will have no effect for 15 to 20 years. He had not worked that out.

I have no law degree. To some that will be obvious, I am sure.

Absolutely.

Cullen Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this

Mr Garrett said “Absolutely.”, and he is right. But even I could work out that five plus five plus five is 15, and that very few laws, apart from some tax laws, are retrospective. Yet that genius is a lawyer. Mr Garrett was the apparatchik for the Sensible Sentencing Trust. That man has LLB after his name and, presumably, has a practising certificate. He wandered round this country and told everybody, and gave everybody the impression, that if ACT’s “three strikes” policy was put into place, the moment the Governor-General signed the bill the policy would kick in. That is what people thought. By his own admission, he had not worked out that the policy would have no effect on a person in the justice system for 15 to 20 years. Mr Garrett’s own admission is prima facie evidence that the policy is ill-conceived and ill-thought-through. It rates five lines in the ACT law and order policy document. Five lines—that is the policy. Yet it is now jammed into this legislation.

Interestingly, even National—again, unless the Minister corrects me if I am wrong—will only support those provisions going to a select committee. I would say that from a coalition partner, that is a reasonably damning indictment.

I feel sorry for the people of New Zealand who voted for that member and his ilk—Mr Hide. I wonder what Sir Roger Douglas—who I do not think has actually made a public utterance on this provision—

He’s no better with the numbers, though, to be fair.

Well, I will leave that comment to my colleague. I wonder what Sir Roger Douglas really thinks about this “three strikes and you’re out” measure, because we know it does not work. We know there are states in the US that are now pulling back on, repealing, or ditching it.

But it is a really good political slogan, is it not? Out there on “Struggle Street”, people who do not have the benefit of the data that we have probably nod their head and say they will sign up to it, thinking that it will have an immediate effect. The indictment that is now on the record of this House is that Mr Garrett said he had not worked that out. He had written the policy, he said he had gone all over the world looking at it, he convinced the Sensible Sentencing Trust to sign up to it, and he convinced the ACT Party to sign up to it—and possibly got his place on the list as the result of being a guru, an apparatchik, and a learned officer of the court. Then he came into the House and, when that policy was being debated in the House, said the reason he went around and gave everyone the impression that it would kick in immediately was that he had not quite worked out that it would not be retrospective and therefore would apply 15 years hence—or 50 years, if we look at the totality of the bill and at what is stated in the regulatory impact statement about the impact being 50 years out. Mr Garrett sort of forgot to tell that to the general public when they voted for ACT.

It is true that under the previous Government there was a toughening-up of sentences. I have already talked about parole and the 72 percent decline rate for parole applications. The Parole Board now must take into account as its primary focus whether a person, on release, will be a danger to the community. I recall that when that crew was in Government, that was not the primary focus of the Parole Board. One would think the Parole Board’s primary decision-making tool would be whether a person, on release, would commit a crime again, and if that person is a violent or other serious offender, whether the person would be a danger to the community. We changed that to make it the primary focus of the Parole Board. I would have thought that was common sense.

But I ask Mr Garrett—and I will be interested in his comments—how he is going to correct the record, and whether he will apologise to the people of New Zealand and the voters for hoodwinking them. He did that, and so did Mr Hide, Sir Roger Douglas, and every member of the ACT Party. Mr Garrett’s admission that he had not worked out that this measure would not be retrospective condemns it for what it is. It will not work. The New Zealand people will be advised of that as we go through the select committee process on the bill. It is a political pamphlet. There is no evidence that the “three strikes and you’re out” rule has worked in places like the United States. There is no evidence in that respect.

Have a look at the regulatory impact statement. You haven’t read it.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this

I have read it and worked that out; that member has not worked it out. The bill makes no logical sense. We will be opposing the bill and we will be looking forward to the select committee process, as, again, a bill is rushed through the House in order to try to tick another box in National’s 100-day work programme. I have referred to the Bail Amendment Bill. It is fictitious. Learned scholars said the changes that were proposed in it—a few words—would do nothing to make Kiwis more secure. One could run through the holes in the DNA bill. The “$50 bill” has peas shot through it, but not even anecdotal evidence is set in the regulatory impact statement, let alone authoritative evidence produced by the Minister. It is full of risks.

This is a light bill. It is a political pamphlet. Sadly, it toys with, and plays on the heartstrings of, those victims who have been impacted on by violent offenders. It portrays to them that the Government and Mr Garrett are going to get tough, swagger around in John Wayne style, and provide them with security. Sadly for those victims, this bill is a fraud.

Worth Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Associate Minister of Justice) Link to this

It is very appropriate that the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill be the subject of scrutiny by the Law and Order Committee on the referral of the House. The bill will be afforded the opportunity of full process, public participation, and, of course, a report back to the House, in the context of our Parliamentary procedures.

As a general proposition, I make the comment that New Zealanders have lost faith in sentencing and parole laws, and that major changes, as we have seen in recent days, are on the way. The public is rightly concerned about the number of serious offences committed by people who have been released on parole. The public is also concerned about the sentences of home detention that are given to violent criminals, so restoring the public’s faith in sentencing and parole will be a priority over the next period. The community needs to be assured that people who are a threat are kept behind bars. The public also needs to be assured that processes are in place to ensure that prisoners are rigorously monitored, and are released only when they present no threat to the community. So I say that New Zealanders have to have confidence that policies for sentencing and parole are focused on keeping the community safe and providing appropriate consequences for offenders.

I pick up what the Hon Simon Power said a few moments ago: “Parole is not a right for prisoners; it is a privilege—a privilege that must be earned.”, and I say that any decision to grant parole to an offender should put first the public’s right to safety. Parole should be granted only to prisoners who have demonstrated that their behaviour has changed. There are—and I think we know these cases—a number of people whose offences are simply so horrific that they do not deserve the opportunity to be released into our communities on parole. The Government is determined to make sure that the law reflects that reality, so under this Government the worst repeat violent offenders will be in prison for the full duration of their terms. We believe that the knowledge that they will serve their full sentences in prison if they reoffend will increase the deterrent effect of other prison sentences.

One needs only to look at the statistics. The rate of violent crime increased by 11.1 percent from 2006-07 to 2007-08. The rate of grievous assaults was up by 11.7 percent, that of serious assaults was up by 13.7 percent, and that of minor assaults was up by 13.2 percent. The rate of intimidation and threats was up by 7 percent, and that of group assemblies was up by 19.6 percent. No one can be proud of those statistics. Since 1999-2000—and I choose that date because it is the date the Labour-led Government came into power—the rate of violent crime has risen by a massive 46.6 percent. It has gone from 40,090 offences to 58,761 offences. We need only to look at some of the classes of significant criminal activity to be appalled by the figures. The rate of kidnapping and abduction is up by 68 percent, and the rate of grievous assaults has nearly doubled—it is up by 89.7 percent. The rate of robberies is up by 57 percent, that of serious assaults is up by 54 percent, that of intimidation and threats is up by 67 percent, and that of sex crimes has risen by 12.5 percent.

That is why a central aspect of the last election campaign was quite clearly the need to deal determinedly with law and order issues. This bill forms part of the action plan for violent crime that Prime Minister John Key outlined before the election. The Government is delivering on its promises.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) Link to this

I have always believed that in Parliament one of the most important things we can do is to bear witness to the truth—to stand up and tell what we know to be true, despite the consequences. What I know about the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is that it is bound to play well as a popular measure, but it is a fraud; it will not deliver on the promises the Government has made about it. I believe that the Ministers responsible for the bill know that it will not deliver the results they have promised. I believe that they are cynically pushing it through anyway for popular appeal; I accept its popular appeal—superficially. They are pushing it through, knowing that it will not end violent crime as they have promised, and knowing that it will not make a significant difference as they have promised.

The Government has promised some extraordinary results: “there will be no more William Bells …”. That was the statement Rodney Hide made in his press release. Word for word, he said: “Under this bill there will be no more William Bells …”. That statement is fraudulent; a lot more violent men will kill after this bill has been passed—there will be lots more. The promise the Minister made in his press release will come back to haunt him, and he will regret it.

The evidence that this bill will not work is spelt out in the explanatory note of the bill. The explanatory note states that any impact on prison numbers from this bill “will not be felt for at least 10 years,”. I did not read that in the corrections Minister’s press release. I did not read that in Rodney Hide’s press release. The Minister’s statement did not say that 10 years after this bill was passed, not one single extra person would be locked up. What will the potential William Bells do for the next 10 years? There will not be any more William Bells, according to Rodney Hide.

I read that we will get tough with violent criminals; that is what John Key promised. He did not say that getting tough meant waiting 10 years before one single person was locked up. I read of John Key saying that “New Zealanders are sick of waiting for promises on law and order to be delivered.” Well, they will wait a long time for this promise to be delivered. I read that John Key said that the last Government took 9 years to deliver—it seems that he is going one better and is waiting 10 years to deliver.

The explanatory note says that after 20 years an extra 70 prison beds will be needed—70. Let us add it up. The Government says that this bill will end violent crime by locking up a total of 70 people between 10 and 20 years from now—that is about seven people a year. National—joined, of course, by ACT—thinks that the extent of the violent crime problem in this country is seven violent crimes a year. That is nonsense; this Government has vastly oversold its ability to make a difference.

I remember that National got elected in 1990 by saying that it would end violent crime—National said that in that year as well as this year. John Banks, who was Minister of Police, said that on his watch he would put an end to murder, violence, and pillage. One month after his appointment as Minister of Police the tragedy of Aramoana occurred—13 people were murdered in the worst mass killing in New Zealand’s history. After that we never heard much more from John Banks about ending violence on his watch. That is what happens to these silly promises. It turned out that violent crime was a lot more complex than the cheap headlines the Government then—and the Government and ACT now—make. It will turn out the same this time. I know that, and I think that National, in its heart of hearts, is sensible and knows that too.

This country has a serious problem with violent crime; there is no argument about that. I saw research this week that showed that 43 percent of New Zealanders feel completely unsatisfied about their security and safety in their own homes. Therefore, we owe it to New Zealanders to do something real about violence. But in spite of the promises made, this bill does nothing to reduce violence. People are not locked up until violent crimes have already been committed, and that does not stop crime. We deal with it after the fact. This Government is soft on crime. It will not do anything to stop crimes being committed in the first place; it will do that after the event. The members opposite say they will reduce crime by locking up the most serious violent offenders, but offenders are not locked up until they have already committed a violent offence—in fact, three violent offences.

This bill does not lock offenders up before they commit an offence, so it is not really about reducing crime, at all. It is about revenge and denouncing criminals. There is a market for denouncing criminals, and I am not one who praises criminals or says that people who are outraged by criminal events are not right to be outraged. But agreeing that there is a place for denunciation in criminal sentencing is one thing; promising New Zealanders that this bill will end violent crime is completely another. That is why when my colleague Matt Robson was corrections Minister he started building more prisons than any corrections Minister in history. We had to pay for them. I am waiting for National to find out where they are going to put all these new prisons. Ninety-three percent of New Zealanders voted for more prisons, but when it comes to putting a prison next to them, nobody remembers that they voted for them. The next time we have a referendum like that, we should take the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the voters, who agree to have a prison next to them when they vote for them.

I support putting violent offenders away; my party helped build prisons to do that. But we ought to be frank about what we are doing. If the object of this bill is to denounce crime, then Government members should say so. They should not come into this House pretending that a bill like this will reduce violent crime, because it will not. The bill will not do that, and the Government members must know that. They cannot be silly enough to think otherwise. Pretending that it will reduce violent crime makes the very basis of this bill a fraud, and it insults this House. It insults the intelligence of members to say that it will end violent crime. The object of this bill is to pretend that the Government will do that, when in fact it will not.

If I were generous, I would say that the object of the bill might be to punish offenders more—that is a fair objective. But I do not believe that the object of the bill is to reduce offending. I put out during the last election campaign a widely ignored and very detailed plan for reducing crime. It was not as spectacular as ending all crime with a bill that has a “three strikes and you’re out” policy, because I knew that that would not work. We went through every measure that expert research and expert policy show makes a long-term difference over time. It starts with reducing at-risk behaviour, it continues with getting tough with young hoons and their life of crime, and it includes addressing the major risk factors in prisons, like alcohol and illiteracy. When over 90 percent of criminals have an alcohol or drug problem, we cannot rehabilitate them and turn them away from a life of crime unless those problems and addictions are fixed. If there is a fair wind and a good day on which to implement all those details and prudent and efficient policies, in the long run the best estimate is that crime would be reduced by about 17 percent—not that we will end all violent crime by passing this bill.

The bill is a long way short of what the Government promised. It promised an end to violent crime, and now it will be accountable for that promise. We will hold it to its promises. We have heard a lot of songs from this Government about accountability, and now it is accountable for its promise to make a significant reduction in violent crime. The clock is ticking. It is accountable for its promise that “there will be no more William Bells …”. Members should watch this space—God help the Government if there is one more William Bell after this bill is passed.

If the bill will not make much difference to crime, what difference does the bill make? We know the answer. Other countries have tried the “three strikes and you’re out” approach, and it always results in huge anomalies and greater injustices. When sentencing discretion is taken away, there is bad sentencing. What are the chances that a woman living with, and getting bashed up by, a violent thug with a criminal record will be even less likely to leave after this bill is passed than at present? It is likely that there will be less chance of her reporting the behaviour of such a man, if she knows that he will be locked up for life. Victims make these decisions all the time, and the truth is that this bill will ensure that some women in exactly the position I have described will suffer grievously because of the horrifying dilemmas that this bill creates. I ask members what is compassionate about that.

Goudie SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

In speaking to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, I take up a few of the comments made by the previous speaker, Jim Anderton. I was absolutely astounded when he said that he did not want to denounce criminals. That is a pretty amazing comment from a former Minister. The opposite of denouncing is condoning, so what does that comment mean? Does that mean that he actually condones the activities of criminals? I find that quite an extraordinary statement.

I applaud the excellent work of the Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power, and the Minister of Police, the Hon Judith Collins, as they work so hard to ensure the safety of all law-abiding New Zealanders. We denounce criminals; we do not condone them in any way, shape, or form. That is what our position is all about, and that is this Government’s intention. Our primary concern is the safety of all New Zealanders. The Opposition, in saying that it does not want to denounce criminals, quite clearly condones them. It is no wonder that there has been no action over the last 9 years and that we now find ourselves confronted with this mess. It will take some time to sort out, so I heartily commend the work of my colleagues in bringing this bill to the House.

We will put into practice the Government’s policy of no parole for the worst and most violent repeat offenders. We are unashamedly putting the safety of the community before violent offenders. When offenders, if they are over 18, get their first sentence for a serious or violent offence, they will get their first warning. If they then get another sentence, other than life imprisonment for murder, they will get their second recorded final warning and there is no parole. When they commit a further offence they get a life sentence. That is as it should be. The purpose of this bill is to create a three-stage regime of increasing consequences for the worst repeat violent offenders, and it is all about ensuring the safety of law-abiding New Zealanders. We stand forthrightly behind that.

Garrett DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

Before I begin my speech, I will touch on Mr Cosgrove’s jibes across the House. His remark about the Act, as the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill will become, not having full effect for 15 years was made after Mr Kim Workman, one of the spokespeople and apparatchiks—a far more appropriate word for them—claimed on the radio that it would double the prison population within 2 years. That was where that remark came from.

We know that this bill will work, because right now there are 77 murderers in jail who committed a murder at a time when they had three or more violent offences under their belt—77 people. That is more than half of the number of members of this House. It is not half of the number of members here today, and in fact there probably are not 77 in the House right now. But if this House were full for question time, the number would be over half that of the House—77 murderers. Their victims would be alive today if, at the time they were killed, this bill had been enforced. That is not arguable; it is simple arithmetic. I notice there is silence from the other side. It is simple arithmetic; we know that it will work.

We know that right now there are thousands of violent offenders out in the community who have not three but dozens of violent convictions. Mr Anderton talked about William Bell; he had 102 convictions when he killed three people at the Panmure RSA—102 convictions. The late, unlamented—at least by me—Antonie Ronnie Dixon had 160 convictions at the time he killed James Te Aute. James Te Aute was the kind of person those people on the other side of the House are supposed to be concerned about—a Māori man from South Auckland who was simply down at a gas station—but that mongrel killed him. Antonie Dixon had had 160 previous convictions. We know from bitter experience that those 77 murderers who are in jail right now will be joined by others—we know it.

What does this law do? Before talking about what this law will do I want briefly again—because I am sick of hearing the lies on the radio from the fellow travellers of those members across the other side—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you probably know what I am going to say. That comment was totally unparliamentary and the member should withdraw and apologise.

Sure. I tell the member he cannot use the word “lies”. I ask him to withdraw that comment, please, and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I was referring to fellow travellers rather than—

No. When I have ruled from the Chair, the member must not question the ruling. The member apologises and withdraws the comment, end of story.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this

We hear from commentators—the familiar, usual suspects—that under this legislation people can go to jail for 25 years or for life for shoplifting; stealing a chocolate bar is one of the favourite examples they use. That simply cannot happen. I said it an hour or two ago and I will say it again, because I am sick of hearing wrong statements. It simply cannot happen, because the bill defines what the offences are. Strike offences, as we called them, are now called serious offences. There are also qualifying offences—they are all listed there. The list does not include shoplifting, theft, burglary, or car conversion; the Californian situation cannot happen here.

There are many injustices in California. I went there 2 years ago to work out how to get around the situation and to avoid that happening here. There are some terrible stories. A Mexican chap with two strikes to his name—I do not know what they were for; I suppose I should have found out—sat a driving test for his cousin who was illiterate in English. Unfortunately for him, in California that was what they call a technical felony. We do not have such a thing, or anything else with a different name. These Californian horror stories cannot happen here.

So how would the bill work? I started to explain in a speech an hour or so ago, and I will finish what I was saying. If this bill were passed tomorrow and someone committed aggravated robbery the following day—an offence attracting a maximum penalty of 14 years jail—that man, and it is usually men or almost always, would receive a sentence of 7 or 8 years. Depending on what my colleagues in the National Party do with the parole provisions in relation to serving one-third or two-thirds of a sentence, he would be out again in 3, 4, or 5 years on parole. But let us say that he commits another aggravated robbery the next day, despite the warning he has been given by the judge. This time, because of the way in which the bill has been drafted, he might, say, get 12 years. This time there would be no parole, and he would get another warning from the judge—a final warning. Kiwis are fair people; we do not want people to have no chances. This time he will get 12 years and he will serve 12 years. But if “Mr Scumbag” comes out of prison and commits another such offence again, he will go away for a sentence of 25 years to life. That is it. There is nothing magical or unfair about it.

Members opposite should go out there and talk to their constituents. They have forgotten what they are like. I talk to them most evenings when I drop by for a beer on the way home. They say it is a great idea.

You didn’t tell people that before the election.

Mr Cosgrove—and Mr Anderton, for that matter—made selective references from the regulatory impact statement, or “RIS” as I believe it is called. The explanatory note states: “A study on the wide-sweeping Californian three-strike laws did find a statistically significant deterrent effect,”—and I will not omit the next bit—“but the high cost of that deterrent effect needs to be weighed against the finding that almost all crime was committed by offenders who had not received strikes.” So there, hidden away on page 10 of the explanatory note, is an indication that there is a deterrent effect. There is a big cost—yes, there is. No one is pushing the California model. This is not the “California Three-Strikes Bill”. If people like to use computer parlance, it is “Three Strikes 2.0”. It is an improvement of an idea that emanated from America.

This Government, thankfully, understands that the old television programme Yes, Minister was in fact a comedy and not a documentary. Officials do not run the Government. They might be continuing to try, but they do not run the Government.

I see that in the regulatory impact statement there is talk of the impact on Māori. That is quite correct. It states that Māori are more likely than other ethnic groupings to be convicted of violent offences. That is true, but there is a little half-truth there. Māori are also much more likely to be affected by those offences. James Te Aute was going about his lawful business at a gas station in South Auckland and a white man, Antonie Dixon shot him with a machine gun. Māori people are more likely to be affected by crime than I am. I am a middle-aged white man, I live out in the country, and I have got lots of insurance. If I get burgled, it does not matter too much. But the people the Opposition supposedly represents are the ones who are disproportionately affected by crime. It is not just about offenders; it is about victims, as well. We will hear the bleat from the John Mintos, the Peter Williamses, and the Kim Workmans, but they will be being dishonest.

A lot of people talk about rehabilitation. Who could be against rehabilitation? In research I discovered that Singapore has a somewhat similar provision. In Singapore, if you are convicted of a strike offence—

No, don’t bring the Speaker into it.

—which by definition is a long sentence, you are given psychological and psychometric testing to find out what might be wrong with you, in the mental health sense, and what you are good at. Then, the mental health issues or whatever issues there are, are addressed. Let us say it is decided that you would be a good mechanic; you are then trained as a mechanic. So after 10 years, 8 years, or whatever, you come out as a trained mechanic, having had your “issues”, as they say these days, addressed. If you commit another strike offence—

Look, the member knows that he cannot bring the Speaker into the debate. Every time he uses the word “you” he is referring to the Speaker or presiding officer at the time. The member should talk about “somebody” or speak in the third person, but he should not use the word “you”, please.

Power Hon Simon Power Link to this

My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. If that person after release commits a second strike offence in Singapore, he will go back and get special treatment. Oh, I was hoping for a poignant interjection! No, it is not the rotan, or anything else. The authorities have another look at the person and try to find out what else they can do to make that person a decent citizen. So they try harder. They put the person in a special stream and give the person more attention. If that person comes out again and commits another crime, that is it—goodbye, There are no questions. I support that. It will be costly but I support trying to stop people from becoming three-strikers. Nobody wants that. I do not want that. What sensible person would want people to be locked up for 25 years or for life? The aim is to get felons to see where they are going, to decide they do not want to spend from 25 years to a lifetime in jail, and to change their ways. I am all for rehabilitation if it can work, but this bill is designed to protect people, and we know it will work because of the 77 in jail now.

Turia Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa. One week ago the federal judges ordered the state of California to release as many as 57,000 inmates—one-third of all inmates—over the next 3 years. The call to let the people go was a dramatic intervention to alleviate prisons swollen by unprecedented numbers of inmates. The multibillion-dollar costs of California’s prison system, the inadequate health facilities, and the overcrowded cells are a grim wake-up call for this nation as we sit on the cusp of new measures that may cause massive increases in our prison population. Measures such as the “three strikes” rule, tougher and longer sentences, harsher prison conditions such as chain gangs and degrading treatment, are measures that made Sheriff Joe famous. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona is the one who grabbed media attention by painting jail cells pink and making inmates wear pink garb. He is the same guy who dreamt up the “tent city” jail; who cut jail meals back to 40c a serving and then charged inmates for the right to eat them. The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is all the warning we need that Sheriff Joe has come to town.

As the headlines have told us over these last 24 hours, it is not as if the corrections system in Aotearoa is at all perfect—far from it. It is an utter disgrace to read the Auditor-General’s scathing report into a parole system that by anyone’s estimation is on the brink of collapse. How more relevant can parole reform be than when we are told that out of the cases of 100 paroled offenders examined, the Department of Corrections failed to follow its own rules in nearly every case? The Auditor-General found that consideration of victims was at best scant. Paroled offenders were being accommodated in locations that could place victims at risk. Victims were not being notified when offenders breached parole conditions. They were not being regularly visited by probation officers, and senior department staff were failing to give priority to the management and supervision of their probation officers in handling high-risk offenders.

I want to make it absolutely clear. The inability of the Department of Corrections to adhere to its own parole conditions, to address any breaches, and the shocking disregard for the concerns about placing public safety at risk, is a failure we cannot ignore. The Māori Party stands by the Minister of Corrections in her call to the State Services Commissioner to “please explain”. Her immediate response demanding that we find out who is accountable for this appalling situation is both appropriate and absolutely fundamental if we are ever to restore public confidence in the parole system.

I remind the House that section 7 of the Parole Act 2002 states that “the paramount consideration for the Board in every case is the safety of the community.” It is a paramount consideration more important than anything else. Yet as we all know, as in the recent high-profile cases, public safety appears to be compromised. The fact is that restoring prisoners to their communities is a complex and demanding process, and hardly takes place within the environment of a prison. Parole was designed to reduce the greater risk to the community of prisoners being released without any chance to adjust to life outside prison. Abolishing parole is not a realistic option, but the parole system must be backed up with sufficient resources.

The Auditor-General’s report brings home the true cost of the previous Government’s policy of getting tough on crims. That cost must be measured not when offenders are released from prison, but only after they have been successfully reintegrated into their communities. As a nation we must examine alternatives to prison. I remind the House that the state of the criminal justice system requires a significant and comprehensive review, and that is what we should be pushing for in this Parliament.

The Ombudsman Mel Smith’s inquiry into the criminal justice system reported back at the end of 2007, recommending a high-level examination of all of the issues and of all of the approaches that we could turn to, to produce a more efficient, and improved justice sector. He suggested a royal commission of inquiry was necessary, concluding that prison is not the most effective or efficient approach to reducing crime. He pointed out the economic and social costs of crime had risen to $9.1 billion in 2003, and were predicted to explode as the population grew with punitive policy changes. Yet that report and those recommendations are ignored. It beggars belief.

The Ombudsman reports to Parliament that the extraordinarily rapid changes in the criminal justice policy are set to continue, and that an inquiry is urgently needed to reflect on whether the punitive treadmill is picking up speed, yet nothing is done.

So is this bill the answer to such wide-ranging issues? The Māori Party does not think so. All the research we have uncovered on the “three strikes” provision indicates a number of fatal flaws with this approach. There have, in fact, been increased homicide rates, significantly larger prison population, disproportionate effect on non-violent offenders, disproportionate effect on marginalised populations, and significant costs and negative impacts on offenders’ families. It would appear to us that rather than investing in crime prevention and restorative justice, introducing such a punitive package will work only to increase the level of dysfunction unwinding in an already suffering system.

The issue of the disproportionate impact of the “three strikes” legislation is particularly of interest to the Māori Party. The Justice Policy Institute analysis of the racial and ethnic make-up of “three strikes” defendants in the United States reported that African Americans are given life sentences at nearly 13 times the rate of whites, and Latinos are incarcerated at a staggering rate of 82 percent more than white people. In fact, Vincent Schiraldi, the executive director of the institute commented: “rarely does one see any law imposed so disproportionately against any one racial group.”

There are other unintended consequences of such legislation—issues like the risk of leading to serious under-reporting of violent offending. As we know, many victims of family violence just want the violence to stop. They do not necessarily want to see perpetrators locked up in long-term incarceration. And, of course, the significant cumulative effect on the size of the prison population—and the additional expense to taxpayers—is unsustainable.

The analysis we have carried out on the 11 pages of this radical legislation gives us no choice but to vote against the bill. We do not believe that incarceration deters people from committing crime. We did not find any evidence that increasing imprisonment has any effect on serious crimes. And there is nothing to suggest that the cost of building prisons and incarcerating people is resulting in reduced offending.

Last November a colloquium on Māori justice held in Ngāti Kahungunu noted that 91 percent of the 2,000 research participants wanted some alternative options to be considered to reduce the offending rate and impact upon the rate of recidivism. It called for whare whakaoranga—rehabilitation centres—which focus more on concentrated reform and restoration rather than on harsher prison conditions. It is not a new idea. In 1989 such a concept was presented to Mr Justice Roper in a review of the prison systems. It is but one of many positive and constructive solutions that could have been investigated, rather than simply importing the worst of American policy experiments. That is where we believe any further debate on this issue should be based—on our own locally determined solution for our population. The Māori Party policy advocates that the cure is in the care, and that we should support a restorative justice system, where victims are empowered and the community is integral to bolster relationships and reduce crime. We will not, and cannot, support this bill.

Turei METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

I fully support the very rational analysis that my colleague the Hon Tariana Turia has put forward today, and it has been very nice to hear that on a debate as intense as this, which is often full of fluff and drama but no proper analysis. I very much appreciate that.

The Green Party will oppose the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, and we cannot see any reason why it should proceed any further than this first reading debate. We would like to see it go up in flames, if at all possible. The legislation is dangerous, it is discriminatory, and it will fail to achieve a safer community. The Green Party policy is focused on keeping the community safe by eliminating the causes of crime, poverty, under-education, and unemployment; by supporting victims and promoting the rights of victims as being central to the legal system; by focusing on the rehabilitation of offenders to reduce reoffending rates; by fully supporting restorative justice programmes to restore and rebuild community relationships; by investing in Māori justice systems and in Māori restorative justice programmes; and by relying on imprisonment to keep only the worst and most dangerous offenders away from the community. This policy direction of the Green Party requires less of an obsession with retribution and punishment for their own sake, and looks instead for evidence-based solutions that work for the community. This legislation that we have debated today absolutely fails to achieve any of the Green Party goals in our policy.

The bill is the result of lobbying by the Sensible Sentencing Trust and ACT, as I understand. There is no inherent evil in that process, but I make the point that the Sensible Sentencing Trust has, distressingly, abrogated its principle of supporting victims of crime with the recent statements made by Garth McVicar concerning the killing of Pīhema Cameron by Bruce Emery. That case was a tragedy for two families—a terrible tragedy for the families of the victim and the offender. I note that under this bill Bruce Emery would have risked a minimum 25-year sentence and no parole in some circumstances. But it is especially awful for the victim’s family in this case, when the spokesperson for a supposed victims’ support group has stated that the offender, convicted of the manslaughter of a young man, should have been discharged from that crime because minor crimes like graffiti need to be “dealt with seriously”. One cannot get more serious than the taking of another’s life. In no circumstances can such a killing be justified, let alone for a base property infringement. The Sensible Sentencing Trust is advocating vigilantism and lynching, and the trust has both raised the stakes for Mr Emery and abandoned the family of the victim in that case.

This bill also arises from the agreement between National and ACT. The agreement says that National has agreed to introduce this legislation as part of a package of stuff. National has agreed to give the ACT bill a fair hearing at the select committee, based on the evidence, but I note that National has made no promise to pass this legislation into law. That might explain why the bill’s regulatory impact statement, which was written into the bill by the Ministry of Justice, completely slams this legislation. The statement has nothing good to say about this bill, at all, and, surprisingly enough, I largely agree with it.

I will describe some of the comments that the regulatory impact statement makes. It states that the provisions lead to the possibility of disproportionate outcomes that may affect public confidence in the judicial system. This bill is supposed to be about increasing public confidence; it will reduce public confidence. It states there is no evidence that the bill will improve public safety, and indeed there is nothing in the bill that deals with the causes of crime. It states there is little, if any, evidence that such provisions will act as a deterrent to offenders, or that offenders will even understand the consequences of this legislation in the process of their offending. So there will be no deterrent effect. Even if we accept that offenders will weigh the consequences of whether this bill will apply to them, the bill leads to a perverse incentive for offenders, who will become liable for a life sentence regardless of the severity of the crime they commit, as long as that crime fits within a wide range of different crimes. So the bill incentivises them to commit the worst crimes. There is the danger of disproportionately harsh sentencing that could lead to judges avoiding the imposition of the qualifying sentence of 5 years, in order to ensure a later or long-term just outcome. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report on this legislation clearly sets out that this approach is irrational; it is not a rational approach to dealing with issues, particularly around disproportionately harsh sentencing.

The regulatory impact statement states that the bill will impact on Māori disproportionately more than on any other population group in this country. It is rare for the ministry to make statements such as that, I have to say. Mr Garrett referred to the comment in the legislation that Māori are more likely to be convicted. Well, that is quite right, because there is absolutely clear evidence that there are racist filters in the police, and in the legal system, that lead to a greater number of Māori being stopped by the police, being arrested by the police, being convicted by the legal system, and attracting harsher penalties from that legal system than do other population groups in this country. I note that for young Māori offenders there is an even greater increased risk of disproportionate treatment. In 2004, research showed that young Māori come to the attention of the police more often, even though their offending is less serious than that of their non-Māori counterparts. This bill entrenches the impact of those racist filters in our system, leading to an increased number of Māori being kept in prison for the length of their natural lives. We are talking about a significant proportion of our Māori talent—our rangatahi, our pākeke—spending their whole lives in prison. This is especially grotesque, because we know that the Māori lifespan compared with the Pākehā lifespan is so much shorter. Some Māori will spend their whole lives in prison because of a ridiculous, dangerous, irrational bill. This bill entrenches racism, and perhaps, given Garth McVicar’s comments about the Cameron whānau—who are Māori victims of crime—we should not be at all surprised.

This bill also deprives offenders of the possibility of rehabilitation, which disproportionately compounds the impacts on whānau and families of offenders, and there has been some discussion about that already this afternoon. From even a purely economic point of view, this bill will subsequently increase the prison population with a significant higher cost, and there has been very little cost-benefit analysis to suggest that the bill will work or be of benefit, in terms of the use of taxpayers’ money. The money that will be used to keep people, predominantly Māori, in prison for the term of their natural lives, will come from a limited pool. Indeed, that pool of money, which comes out of Government coffers, is the same money that is used now for the support of victims of crime, for restorative justice programmes and community-building programmes, for rehabilitation, and for education programmes in prison. It is the same pool of money, with so much of it to be directed to just a few, when, if that money were used for the purposes of dealing with reoffending rates, rehabilitation, and the causes of crime, we would get a much bigger bang for our taxpayer buck. That will not be the case if this legislation is passed. The more money that is spent on those few offenders, the less will be available to implement the programmes that will actually keep our communities safer by reducing offending.

If this bill is set into the general context of the policy on private prisons, the story gets even dirtier. If corporations are able to make a profit from public money and a bums-on-seats model of shifting people into jails, then this “three strikes” legislation will become a profit-generating mechanism for those corporations. That has happened in the US. This week two judges have been charged with corruption for taking kickbacks for sending young offenders to privately owned boot camps, whose owners had then given the judges money for those sentences, which had been imposed for very, very low-level crimes. That is happening elsewhere where this system exists. It will happen in this country, because neither this legislation nor any other Government policy has put in any protection mechanisms to make sure it does not happen. There has been no discussion of the relationship of all these different bits of legislation and the private prisons’ corporate profit capacity that this Government is proposing, as part of its supposed crackdown on crime. There are no safeguards.

This legislation will cause extraordinary harm, particularly to Māori communities, but also to people in general. It will be enormously expensive, and it will do nothing to solve the crime issues in this country. The Green Party will not support this bill.

Borrows CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

I rise in support of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. It is important to note that, of course, the first role of the Government is to protect its citizens. That point is often made in this House. It is within the capability of the Government, though, to protect only the vulnerable, to prevent a state of anarchy and vigilantism. It is imperative, then, that the Government takes that role seriously, and that is what the National Government is doing.

It is important to note that the role of sentencing, as defined within the Sentencing Act, is denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, reparation, and restoration. Some people would assume that it is only about punishment, which is not the case.

Here is another bill that delivers on National’s promise to put before Parliament bills that will positively impact on the safety of vulnerable New Zealanders. Members cannot look at this bill in isolation; they need to look at the other bills that have been put before the House recently, which include the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill, the body sampling legislation, the Bail Amendment Bill, the legislation in respect of short-term protection orders, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, which was before the House last night, the gang legislation, and a number of others.

Other legislation will be introduced in the House that will enable better rehabilitative programmes to be offered earlier in prison. It is important to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, under the previous Government, prisoners had to do at least 2 years in jail before they could receive any rehabilitative programmes at all, irrespective of the fact that 83 percent of the people in our prisons have drug and alcohol dependency issues.

We have heard that there is consensus among all those involved in the criminal justice system that there are people who should never be allowed out of prison, and that those people are generally identified by their violent offending. Even Labour members nod their heads at that. The question is how we define those offenders, and the answer is that we define them by the worst serious violent offending. It is not a reactive political knee-jerk to bring the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill before the House; it is a clear and logical response, which has struck a chord with the public. Public agreement is not a reason to condemn this initiative—and it is popular with the public—but it is one of the many good reasons why it should be supported.

I would like to say in closing that I do not accept that prisoners should be referred to as “scumbags”, “dirt bags”, “dross of society”, or anything else. I believe that many—if not all—of the people in our prisons actually fall on a continuum that runs between victim and offender, and that somebody other than them has created or helped to create the people who sit behind bars. It is our duty as a society to protect those who are most vulnerable. Some of those people are in jail; most of them are on the street.

I look forward to seeing the progress of this legislation through the select committee process, and I look forward to being part of the select committee that will work on it. National’s position is that we will support the bill’s referral to the Law and Order Committee, and that was part of the confidence and supply agreement. Thank you.

Jones Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I do not ordinarily speak about justice measures, prison sentences, etc. Naturally I support Clayton Cosgrove and my other colleagues. We will not be supporting the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, nor the foul mind that conceived it. The reality is that this is a vexing issue for those of us from the Māori community. On one level, we acknowledge that Māori are disproportionately present in the gang scene.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but, as the person who conceived this bill, I take offence at being referred to as somebody with a foul mind. I wonder whether the member might like to reflect on that for a moment.

I withdraw and apologise.

The member withdraws and apologises. Thank you.

I mistakenly thought that the architect of the bill sat over there, on my left.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I similarly object to being described as a person with a foul mind.

If the member said that, I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

Indeed, Mr Speaker. It is spelt ‘f-o-u-l’ and “f-o-w-l”. In our Māori community—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member was asked to withdraw and apologise and he didn’t do it.

Yes. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise unreservedly so that we can continue with the debate. Thank you.

I withdraw and apologise.

It is a vexing issue. On one hand, we have the disproportionate presence of Māori associates and members of gangs creating all levels of havoc within communities and, indeed, infiltrating marae, etc., and potentially using marae as recruiting grounds. A host of us in positions of leadership find that very, very dangerous. On the other hand, however, this bill is very savage in terms of its impact not only on Māori offenders but also on the confidence that Māori families already have or might have in the future administration of the justice system. That is something that troubles me deeply, because when a system does not enjoy confidence across the community, and when elements of the community feel that system is completely stacked against them, they either will show no respect for it, or will continue to behave in such a fashion that they court personal or community disaster by refusing to modify their behaviour, because of a deeply held belief that the system is stacked against them. I do not adhere to that point of view.

They refuse to modify their behaviour now! That’s the problem.

Grant Robertson Link to this

We know that Parliament is a wonderful institution, but it causes us to deliberate gravely and think very deeply when we take a step like the one that is now being advanced by the Government and promoted particularly strongly by the ACT Party. Once it leaves our hands, the legislation falls into the hands of the judiciary. Obviously the electoral tide brings all sorts of characters into Parliament, and in the most recent tide-surge, it brought in Mr Garrett. I cannot insult Mr Garrett, other than to say that I worked for the Ministry for the Environment, and I can remember when “snot grass” or didymo—

“Rock snot”.

—“rock snot” arrived in the form of ballast on a very high tide. Many of the ideas put forward by Mr Garrett today came from the same ballast and endeavour to convince the victims of crime that this bill will somehow bring criminal behaviour to an end, and will give them the kind of solace that they seek after their mothers, brothers, sisters, etc., have suffered at the hands of these villains. That not only is a fraud; it also makes this a very sad day for the more liberal and sensible members of the ruling party that is associated with that man. Of course, that man will not be here in 3 years, and, in its current form, this bill will go nowhere following its referral to the Law and Order Committee. We all know that. We know that the Prime Minister found it necessary to go to Peru. We know that it was necessary for him to form a relationship with Tariana Turia’s group and with Rodney Hide’s group. We also know that the warhorse Sir Roger Douglas came back to bolster the economic credentials of the ACT Party. That is fine. Some of us do not like that, and some have no drama with it. But when Mr Garrett comes in with the promise of solving crime with “three strikes and you’re out” we know it is a joke. The reality is that it will not take effect for between 25 and 50 years, and that makes it a very sad and misleading day for the families who have actually suffered as victims of crime.

I would like to make an important point to the architects and Ministers who are shepherding through this legislation. The views in Te Ao Māori are mixed. There are people with views that are almost Old Testament ones and that come from the world of utu. Those people say that if they suffer an insult from someone, they will deliver it back with fatal consequences. Then there are those who say that that is not actually a sustainable way to organise a society. I ask how much understanding offenders will actually have once Mr Garrett has sought to change the world with this foul proposed legislation. What will the actual consequences be? The research and, indeed, the regulatory impact statement show that there will be nothing—a minimal deterrent effect.

Go and talk to your constituents. Go and see what they say.

Now, when I hear the member speaking, I am reminded of the people who join the Fire Service then quietly go around lighting fires. There is something unnatural about his contribution on these matters of criminal and penal policy. There is no point in coming to the House and in trying to establish a consensus of opinion when he is hell-bent with traffic lights—orange, red, and green—flashing in his pupils every time he speaks. That is why that member’s advocacy of this bill condemns it to irrelevance. We also know that the more judicious members opposite will tolerate it for a mercifully short period of time, then replicate what the Labour Government did, anyway. Labour increased quite significantly the parole provisions. At the moment we are waiting for members opposite to effect the final step, which is the Sentencing Council, but they are hanging back because they want to avoid the opprobrium of being seen to plagiarise and nick another idea. However, that is the nature of politics. That which can be adapted will, no doubt, be modified.

Let us go on to a matter that will, no doubt, interest Sir Richard Douglas, and that is the financial cost of this policy. The financial cost of this policy represents exponential growth. It has not actually been funded or budgeted for. It is very likely that Bill English, at some point in time, will push the red button—the light we occasionally see flashing in the pupils of Mr Garrett—and it will be haere rā for that piece of this particular bill.

In addition, how much safer is “three strikes and you’re out” actually going to make the whānau of Aotearoa? Mr Garrett will no doubt say they will be a lot safer. He will talk about Mr Bell, he will talk about Mr Burton, and he will talk about a host of other people, who, quite frankly, should never enjoy the privileges of freedom, of wandering around amongst our children, our nieces, our nephews, and our supporters in this House. But one cannot bring such a profound change to justice policy and have it translated into legislation on the whim of reciting half a dozen very ugly incidents. That is not a basis for good law. Good law requires long, deliberate, calculated considerations. The way to get emotions to boil—either in our community, Te Ao Māori, or just broad garden-variety Kiwis—is to seize upon an isolated example, extrapolate it out, and pretend that that is happening every day of the week. This is why that member there is actually ill-suited for the role that he has arrogated to himself. He comes like a sheriff into this House, on behalf of unknown New Zealanders, with a pair of six guns, and he is going to blow all the opposition away. He has had an epiphany in the Nevada Desert and imagines that what has happened in the United States of America—where they are currently deliberating as to how they can release many of the inmates caught in this policy—is going to capture the popular imagination of New Zealanders.

That will never ever happen, which is why Labour will not be supporting this bill. We look forward to those portions of the bill that are basically a mirror image of what our party, when we governed, was proposing to do anyway. I have no doubt there will be sensible discussions at a high level on both sides of the House, and given I use the word “sense”, it would exclude that member, Mr Garrett. At some point in time, parole policy and the Sentencing Council will emerge but at this stage this bill, like that member, is going nowhere. Ka kite anō.

Lee MELISSA LEE (National) Link to this

I rise to take a very short call. I have to apologise to the member opposite, Shane Jones. I was so shocked that a member from the Green Party had called the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill a racist bill that I did not really pay too much attention to what he had to say. I did not realise victims’ rights could be colour-coded so carelessly.

This bill is designed to create a three-stage regime of increasing consequences for the worst repeat violent offenders. To me, as a mother, the idea of giving a warning to a child, like a good mother would, to make sure that he or she performed better next time, is a good idea. This Government, like a good parent would, wants to give warning to an offender who commits a serious crime. The second time round, obviously, it will be a bigger warning. In terms of that person committing the offence a third time, a lot of people in New Zealand will agree that the full duration of his or her term in prison should be served. I have to say that all of New Zealand will be applauding this bill, and I do not understand how anybody could actually oppose it. That is all I have to say.

Ardern JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this

I am very proud to rise and give Melissa Lee, the member opposite who just spoke briefly, the Labour Party’s set of reasons as to why anyone sensible should not be supporting the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, but first, I will point out that what we see here is the week of appeasement. This is the week in which National justifies the reasons why it went into its coalition agreement with ACT. If this is not the week of appeasement, then I imagine we will see National supporting this bill when it comes back from the select committee—if, indeed, this act is not just an act of appeasement.

Unlike some of my colleagues who have talked a little bit about the impact of this bill and at what stage it will be felt—whether it will be felt in 20 years, 50 years, or 100 years—I will not dwell on that, because to my mind, bad legislation is bad legislation, whether we see its effect tomorrow or in 20 years’ time. But I do want to go back to first principles on this policy. I think that that is a good way to break down legislation.

What are the first principles when we are considering sentencing legislation? Firstly, almost all sentencing legislation comes to this House with the primary role of ensuring that a debt to society is repaid. That, of course, is done through the removal of an individual’s civil liberties. Of equal importance—and we have seen this every time that Labour introduced criminal justice reform—is the role of ensuring the safety of the community. That has always been the driver behind what we saw in 2002 with the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act, where we increased minimum non-parole periods, and that was why we made the primary consideration of the Parole Board the safety of the community. Labour has always seen those two factors as part of one very powerful line—extraordinarily powerful. It was a principle, it was prescribed, and it was clear. There were no bones about it; it was clear what our attempted impact was. Those have always been key principles when we are looking at sentencing legislation.

What does this bill, the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, do? We have already heard the technical description of the three stages of the strike, so I will not dwell on those. But this bill does add an additional layer to sentencing. That additional layer essentially removes the discretion of the presiding judge.

That’s right.

At the point at which someone comes back before a judge for a third time, it does not matter what the judge sees before him or her.

That’s right.

Turia Hon Tariana Turia Link to this

The member across the House says that that is right and is what he intends.

Let us not talk about this in vague terms. Let us add to this debate some real descriptions, some real-life scenarios, of what might happen. We have heard about a few of the American examples. Aggravated burglary is one of the crimes that could be covered by this bill. It carries a maximum sentence of about 14 years, which is well above the criteria that Mr Garrett has laid out, via the National Government, in this bill. Aggravated burglary could include an individual with a crowbar robbing a home. There is a wide descriptor of what constitutes a weapon in our law. So if an individual chooses to rob a home on more that one occasion and finds himself or herself in front of a judge for a third time, this legislation will apply. And who knows what the personal circumstances of that individual are? I will not dwell on that here; I will leave that to individual members to decipher.

There’s no excuse.

There is no excuse, and we would expect judges to deal with that. In fact, they can deal with it with maximum prison sentences of up to 14 years, which is quite punitive. Is it just for someone in those circumstances—let us say he is 24 years old and he has committed three burglaries—to go to prison for the rest of his life? We could be talking about more than 60 years. He could have stolen three stereos in that time, using a crowbar. Is that what the Government intends by this legislation? I point out here that one of the most common crimes committed by young people who go through our Youth Court happens to be burglary, and it is often a one-off offence. I do think the member should keep that in mind.

A number of other unintended consequences are not dealt with here. Mr Garrett has already stated that on the first cut of his bill he decided he had been too liberal. I acknowledge the Hansard in which Mr Garrett did state he was trying to avoid “the unjust consequences that have happened in California.”, but he decided that he had been too liberal and that he needed to tighten it up and toughen it up even further. I will reflect on that. We have seen that this sort of measure has not worked in the USA. Twenty-two states have it; eight are currently trying to get rid of it. I think that the member may have tightened up the bill beyond his own comprehension.

I do, however, defer to the advice from the Ministry of Justice. It is thinly veiled and it is coded this time. The Ministry of Justice has put forward its advice via the regulatory impact statement. I would like to dwell on the statement. I see the Chair may be rising to cut me off, though, so I am unsure whether I should launch into my hefty tirade. I see—that has been granted. One of the issues raised in the risk assessment by the Ministry of Justice is that of public safety. The explanatory note of the bill states that “it is not possible to conclude with any certainty to what extent any of the options will improve public safety.” Surely that was one of the intentions of both the Government and ACT when this bill was introduced. If public safety is not one of their intentions, then the bill must be a solely punitive measure. That is all I can conclude. The second statement the ministry notes is: “However, offenders who commit serious violent offences do not necessarily have previous sentences for serious violent offences.”

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Before the House rose for the dinner break I was reviewing the regulatory impact statement for this Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, and had reflected on the community safety aspect. I will now quickly go over a second issue—public confidence. The regulatory impact statement states: “the worst repeat offenders policy raises the potential for disproportionate outcomes, which may negatively affect public confidence in the criminal justice system …”. The final statement I will highlight relates to the unintended consequences of this bill: “An offender who commits a third qualifying offence that would otherwise be liable for around 5 years’ imprisonment could receive 4 years 11 months’ imprisonment,”. This is a distortion of our criminal justice system that Mr Garrett would not have anticipated, but I see every likelihood of this arising if this bill progresses past the select committee stage—which I doubt very much that the National Government would like to happen.

One of the reasons I raise the community aspect of this bill, and speak of the community’s expectations, is that all law and order issues impact on public confidence. I strongly believe—as I am sure that many members of this House believe—that the bidding war around law and order must at some point come to an end. All of us very recently campaigned in our home electorates, and we know how heavily law and order weighs upon the minds of our constituents—it is a major issue. We do our constituents a disservice if we imply that measures like this will make them safer, because we know that that is not the case.

The crime rate in New Zealand has decreased.

Hon Members

Rubbish!