Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) Link to this

I move, That the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill be now read a second time. This bill has two main purposes: to deny parole to repeat serious violent offenders and to offenders who are guilty of committing the worst murders, and to impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious and violent offences.

This bill is specifically focused on offenders who show no regard for victims, their families, or the community, and who are repeatedly convicted of serious violent and sexual offending. Parole is not a right for prisoners; it is a privilege. This privilege is earned, and it should not be granted to those who demonstrate total disregard for the law by continuing to commit serious violent offences, despite being warned of the consequences. This bill ensures that the victims of repeat offenders and their families do not have to experience the additional stress of attending regular parole hearings or worry that an offender may be released on parole.

I thank the members of the Law and Order Committee and in particular the chair of the committee, Sandra Goudie, for returning this bill to the House in good time. The committee has recommended by majority that the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, as amended, be passed. I also thank the ACT Party for its continued commitment to this bill.

In February 2010 the New Zealand Police became the lead advisers on the bill, with the Department of Corrections assisting. It was particularly important for New Zealand Police officials to advise the select committee. That was because the threshold for the regime was to be changed from a qualifying sentence to a conviction for a relevant offence. That meant that police discretion as to what charges were laid, and the charging process itself, would be critical to the operational elements of the new legislation. Under the new regime, all prosecutions involving charges that qualify for stage three of the regime will be referred to the Crown solicitor for peer review, either pre-charge where circumstances allow, or by the second appearance. This provides an assurance that the appropriate charges will be laid in those cases.

I would also like to thank all those members of the public who took the time to make submissions on the bill. Ninety-four percent of submitters supported the bill. They stated their concerns about violent crime, public safety, and the need to hold offenders to account. Many supporters wanted to address what they described as the disparity between the rights of offenders and those of victims, and to spare victims the stress associated with repeated parole hearings. In addition to that, concerns were expressed about how violent crime impacts negatively on the reputation of this country.

Only 3 percent of submitters opposed the bill. Many of those submitters considered that the Government should be focusing on addressing the causes of offending and/or reoffending. Let me assure those people that this Government has a strong focus on addressing the causes of offending, and it views that as a vital component of our efforts to create a safer community.

The Labour Party did not support this bill. Labour members say that it could result in disproportionate sentences for offenders at stage three. I make no apology for that. By stage three, an offender has been convicted of two previous serious violent offences and has been warned on two occasions, both orally and in writing, of the consequences of further convictions for serious violent offences. This legislation recognises the repeat nature of offending by those few who fail to heed the warnings and continue to offend regardless of the consequences. The community can rightly expect to be protected from these serious recidivist offenders for a lengthy period.

In January this year the Government proposed a number of changes to the bill as introduced in February 2009 to better reflect the purpose of the bill. The Law and Order Committee agreed by majority that the bill be passed with those changes. The first change is that the threshold for each of the three stages of the regime has been changed to a conviction for a qualifying serious violent offence rather than a determinant prison sentence of 5 years or more or an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment. Secondly, the sentence for a conviction for a qualifying offence at stage three has been changed to the maximum sentence for that offence, and, unless it would be manifestly unjust, the court must order that the offender serve the sentence without parole. That replaces the sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 25 years at stage three, as in the bill as introduced. Section 86 of the Parole Act 2002 is to be amended so that an offender serving a short-term sentence of imprisonment at stage two serves the sentence in full, rather than being released after serving half the sentence, as is currently the case.

Other changes have been made to ensure consistency in the definition of what constitutes a qualifying serious violent offence. This includes five further offences being added to the list of qualifying serious violent offences. All of these offences carry maximum penalties of more than 7 years’ imprisonment, which is a defining characteristic of the offences in the bill as introduced. The offences are all closely related to the existing offences contained in the definition of “serious violent offence”. In addition, all cases involving offenders on a final warning who are subsequently charged with committing a serious violent offence will have their cases heard in the High Court. Only the High Court, Court of Appeal, or Supreme Court will be able to sentence an offender for a stage three offence.

This bill creates a three-stage regime that will improve public safety by imprisoning the worst repeat violent and sexual offenders for longer periods and under stricter regimes if they continue to offend. At stage one, offenders who are convicted of a serious violent offence will be sentenced as normal, but will be warned, both verbally and in writing, that they are on the first rung of the regime and what will happen if they are convicted of another serious violent offence in the future.

At stage two, an offender who is convicted for a second time of a serious violent offence and has previously received a warning will be sentenced as normal but will be required to serve any sentence of imprisonment imposed by the court, without parole. Such offenders will also be warned, both verbally and in writing, of the consequences of a further conviction for a serious violent offence.

At stage three, an offender who is convicted for a third time of a serious violent offence and has previously received a final warning at stage two must receive the maximum prison sentence for that offence and serve that sentence in full without parole. The exception to this is a conviction for manslaughter, for which an offender will be required to serve a life sentence with a minimum non-parole period of at least 20 years. The minimum non-parole period recognises the difference in seriousness between manslaughter and murder. The court also has the option at stage three of imposing a sentence of preventive detention, in which case the minimum non-parole period must not be less than the maximum finite term of imprisonment for the offence.

The bill makes specific provision for those convicted of murder at either stage two or three of the regime. At either stage, an offender convicted of murder will be required to serve a life sentence without parole. However, this bill also recognises that in some very rare cases the circumstances of the offender and the offence will be such that a sentence served without parole would be manifestly unjust. The bill takes that into account and makes provision for the court, where it is satisfied that a non-parole order would be manifestly unjust, to not make such an order at stage three when imposing the maximum term for a serious violent offence, or when imposing a sentence of life imprisonment for murder at stage two or three. In the case of murder, the court can instead direct that a substantial minimum term of imprisonment be served before parole eligibility.

In addition to the three-stage regime, the bill makes special provision for offenders who are convicted of the worst murders. In these cases, offenders can be sentenced to imprisonment for life without parole, even if they do not have a record of previous violent offending.

This bill is tangible evidence that the Government is delivering on its election promise to toughen up on criminals. I am proud that this bill puts the victim’s and the wider community’s interests ahead of the interests of our worst serious violent offenders.

This bill may appear harsh to some, but I make no apologies for it. The bill is aimed at the minority of offenders who even after receiving two previous warnings continue to offend in a serious, violent way. These people have demonstrated that they will not change, and for those few people there is no alternative but to prevent them from offending in such a way that they no longer present a danger to law-abiding New Zealanders and visitors to this country. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) Link to this

In the 16 December 2009 Cabinet paper from the Minister of Police, who is also the Minister of Corrections, which is entitled Changes to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, the Ministry of Justice noted: “… the deterrence effect of the three stage regime is uncertain. The proposals will add substantial direct costs to the justice system without creating any significantly improved outcomes in terms of reducing the drivers of crimes, improving social outcomes or reducing reoffending and victimisation.” The Department of Corrections also said in its report to the Law and Order Committee: “Further information requested by the Law and Order Committee regarding prison bed forecasts”—which was received on 5 March 2010—indicates “… there is an implicit assumption that the Bill will have no deterrent impact.”

I think that those reports from the two departments that are now advising on this matter are of significance for the quality of the debate that we now have to have. Obviously, the Government challenges the Opposition on the basis of saying that this measure proves that the Government is tougher on crime than Labour is. I say to this House that it is not a competition. I am deeply concerned about a Government that proceeds with a measure such as this when the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Māori Affairs are attempting to engage with the broader community, which has an interest in these matters. Those Ministers are trying to find some way of addressing the underlying drivers of crime in an environment where we actually can have a debate about the things that will make a difference in the long term, without having to be challenged on something that we know is not an effective deterrent and that the Government knows is not an effective deterrent.

The other problem I have with debating this measure before we have had a response from the Government on the ministerial meeting on the Drivers of Crime, which the Government held just over a year ago last month, is that we still have not seen the fruit of the work that people put into that meeting, nor the subsequent work that has been done ever since. I know that one of the areas of work is on reoffending, because our reoffending rates are pretty, pretty appalling. I think one of the reasons our reoffending rates are so appalling is that there is a lack of work being done on rehabilitating and directing people away from the prison system at a very early stage. There are people ending up in our prison system too early and without the level of intervention that one would expect.

So let us go through the circumstances of one gentleman who ended up in the category that was defined by Minister Collins. He was brought up here in New Zealand, and although I am not sure of his age now, we are going back into the 1950s. His stepfather saw fit to tie him to the dog kennel in the backyard as a punishment for his constant bad behaviour inside the house. He thought that tying him to the dog kennel would be a good way to get him to behave well when he was inside the house. This young boy, this child, ended up with an entirely—

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

I am delighted to talk to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill in the debate on its second reading. I acknowledge my Law and Order Committee colleagues for the excellent work that they did on this bill. I also acknowledge the Minister, advisers, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and the committee staff, who also did an excellent job of assisting in the process on the bill.

I point out to the previous speaker, Lianne Dalziel, that in January 2010 the Minister of Police, who is also the Minister of Corrections, took over responsibility for the bill for its remaining parliamentary stages, due to the significant roles that the New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections will have in implementing the changes that are made in this legislation. So I correct the previous speaker: the Police were the advisers on the bill, not Ministry of Justice staff, and the comments about the Department of Corrections were also incorrect.

It was particularly important for New Zealand Police officials to advise the select committee on whether we should change the threshold at which the new regime applies from a qualifying sentence to a conviction for a relevant offence. This change meant that police discretion as to which charges were laid, and the charging process itself, would be critical to the operational elements of the new legislation. Under the new regime all prosecutions involving charges that qualify for stage three of the regime will be referred to the Crown solicitor for peer review, either prior to any charge being laid where circumstances allow, or by the time of the person’s second court appearance. This provides an assurance that the appropriate charges will be laid in that case. I thought it was pertinent to actually point out those things to the previous speaker, because she seems to have been somewhat incorrect in some of the things she was saying.

Lianne Dalziel also spoke about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I recall that when she spoke to another bill, she mentioned the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and suggested that we have a moral obligation to allow prisoners, in that case, to vote. I suggest that in the first instance the moral obligation is on the individual not to commit a crime. Yes, this Government is taking action to find the drivers of crime and address them, but also it is taking action to deal to the perpetrators of crime, who fail to take responsibility for not committing crime.

I will also talk about how many offenders are likely to be affected, which was an issue raised by the previous speaker. The impact on the New Zealand prison population is estimated at 56 beds after 5 years, 142 beds after 10 years, and 288 beds after 20 years, at the most. These figures are based on 1980-2008 figures, and do not factor in the deterrent effect of the new policy. One must remember that there is a deterrent effect in a policy such as this, and as such the estimate is conservative, so the actual figure may indeed be much lower than that. One must also remember the victims in all of these crimes; this policy goes some way towards meeting the needs of victims.

How much will this policy cost? Again, this issue was mentioned by the previous speaker. After 5 years the operating cost is estimated to be $5.1 million per year, with a total capital cost of $22.4 million. The previous speaker may like to be cognisant of that. We are certainly not soft on crime, unlike the previous speaker from the Opposition. We believe that people have a moral obligation not to commit crime in the first place, because once they commit a crime they give up their rights. That is a consequence of committing a crime: they give up those rights, and they are subject to the full effect of the law.

How will the bill work? This bill creates a three-stage regime that will improve public safety. That is the primary objective. Sentencing, parole, and bail should be driven by the need to put public safety first—that is the primary driver—and by giving some consideration to victims. I love to hear the comments from the Opposition members, who did nothing in 9 long years and now start to get all soft and “touchy-feely”. We are committed to taking the tough steps needed in order to tackle violent crime and make people feel safer in their homes and on the streets. I think that is incredibly important. Do members know that the public are feeling that already? It is exactly what they asked for, and that is what we are giving them. We are serious about better meeting the needs of victims and putting victims at the heart of our justice system, rather than putting criminals at the heart of the justice system, as the previous speaker seemed to do when she was in Government. We believe that there is a moral obligation on people not to commit crime, and that once they relinquish that moral obligation, they relinquish their rights.

At stage one, offenders who are convicted of a serious violent offence will be sentenced as normal, but will be warned—as has been previously said—both verbally and in writing that they are on the first rung of the regime. They will also be warned about what will happen if they are convicted of another serious violent offence in the future. At offence one—at the first strike—they are told about the likely consequences if they do not take control of themselves and take some responsibility for their behaviours.

At stage two, an offender who is convicted for a second time of a serious violent offence—this is all about serious violent offences—and who has previously received a warning will be sentenced as normal, but will be required to serve any sentence of imprisonment imposed by the court without parole. The sentence for that second offence will be served without parole.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) Link to this

The Labour Party is very clear in its support of victims—

DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this

Kia ora koutou. The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill purports to improve public safety and increase confidence in the justice system by imposing longer sentences and making certain offenders ineligible for parole. Those are admirable intentions. We would all like to practically increase both public safety and people’s perception of safety, which is equally important. Unfortunately, nothing in this bill will contribute to either of those things—confidence or safety. In fact, all the evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion—that these sorts of regimes do nothing for public safety and will probably make our societies more dangerous, more unequal, and more divided.

This bill is a very punitive and reactive approach, a very reactive proposal, and, for a host of reasons that have been alluded to, it is unlikely to have any real effect. It cannot have any effect for at least another 10 years, even if it were imposed in legislation, and that is something that has not been made clear to people. The Ministry of Justice has said that the deterrent effect of the regime is uncertain, which I think is very polite language. The Department of Corrections has also demonstrated real scepticism that there will be any deterrent impact from this bill. Again, in relation to their language one does not have to read very carefully between the lines to see that the expertise in those two key departments is telling us that this legislation simply will not work.

The provisions in the bill will not reduce offending, and after having heard so many promises and so many assurances, the public expectation will be disappointed. The bill will serve to diminish people’s confidence in our justice system. They again will ask: “Why has it failed? Why do we not feel safe? Why are the crime numbers not telling us we are in a better situation?”.

This bill is a classic example of an end-of-pipe solution. The Government is attempting to tidy up the mess. It is dealing with the symptoms at the end of a process, rather than going to the root cause, to the beginning of whatever process is causing the mess in the first place. Putting the focus on locking offenders away for longer and giving them a tougher time while they are in prison is simply an exercise in storing up trouble.

Eventually those offenders will be released into society, be it after 5, 10, or 20 years—however long. With very few exceptions, offenders will come back into society so alienated and so brutalised that they will be almost impossible to reintegrate. We are literally storing up trouble for ourselves by putting serious offenders in prison for longer and treating them in the way that is proposed in the bill.

The time and effort that has been frittered away on this non-solution, this attempt to put a band-aid on a gaping wound, would have been much better spent on some real solutions. There are some truly sensible people in this country who despair of us breaking the cycle of offending and reoffending, of people entering jail for the first time as offenders and coming out as very skilled criminals.

The Greens agree with the many in the community who do not share the obsession with retribution and punishment for its own sake. We look for evidence-based solutions, and we look for solutions that will work for the community. The legislation being debated today simply fails to meet those simple tests of value.

We know there are numerous changes that could be made to lower the incidence of violent offending and to reduce offending. A study done by the Department of Corrections 10 years ago into the prevalence of mental illness revealed that of the total prison population some 90 percent had a current substance abuse or dependence diagnosis, and that only 35 of those were receiving adequate treatment at that time. The report also noted that substance abuse disorders are known to contribute to reoffending among offender populations. It is almost taken as a given.

Ten years on, the recent Law Commission paper on liquor includes a summary of the relationship between crime, alcohol, and other drug abuse and dependence. It estimates that something like 76,000 people are currently in need of intervention. These are people who come into the justice system either as accused or as offenders, and they are in need of some sort of drug or alcohol treatment. Of those 76,000 in need of help, in the last 12 months or so, judges were able to order scarcely more than 6,000, only about 7 percent of that number, to attend a substance abuse programme, simply because those programmes are not there. They are not funded; they do not exist.

There is a massive need for more drug and alcohol abuse prevention programmes. Without more such programmes people will stay on the treadmill of repeated and increasingly serious offending. The National Committee for Addiction Treatment suggests that at least a doubling of funding would increase the number of people able to be treated to, perhaps, 50,000, which still leaves a significant gap between those needing help and those in front of the justice system. Until we begin to adequately address some of the primary causes, like drug and alcohol abuse and dependence, these longer sentences and other make-believe solutions are just window dressing.

The second area where the investment of relatively small sums of money could have a real and positive effect on reducing the number of offenders is the provision of better support and assistance to the families of offenders. This can improve prisoners’ behaviour while they are serving their sentences, and it will certainly increase the likelihood of their keeping out of trouble when they come out of jail. On occasion, family backgrounds are part of the root cause of offending, but in many more cases positive family relationships, and maintaining those relationships, will go a long way towards breaking the reoffending cycle.

Comparative studies in Europe demonstrate that a combination of shorter sentences—not longer sentences; shorter sentences—and family-oriented prison policies and practice is a major factor in protecting children from the harmful effects of parental imprisonment and in breaking the intergenerational cycle. If families are adequately supported, then the children are much less likely to become offenders during an offender’s term in jail.

The relevant research in New Zealand around the relationship between imprisonment and the effect on families is some 10 or 20 years old. No decent work has been done for nearly two decades. All the work that has been done points to the fact that some really simple strategies could help us to reduce offending, such as small amounts of financial assistance for travel, improving prison visiting conditions and facilities, and information on prison protocols being made available to families. There is no current research, but there is overwhelming anecdotal evidence from the base organisations, the voluntary and community organisations that work in this area, that very little has changed in the last two decades.

I have spoken personally to families of inmates, as I am sure other members have, and we hear the same stories again and again. It is incredibly difficult for people, even for educated people, to get basic information about where a family member is, what ways they can assist their family member, and how they can maintain a relationship with him or her. It is difficult even for people who are confident in dealing with bureaucracies and Government departments, who are resourced, and who have jobs and incomes.

It is exponentially more difficult for someone from a disadvantaged background, somebody without an education and without an income, or someone on a benefit with dependent children. It is almost impossible for those people to break through those barriers. I have heard that from the families of inmates, and I have heard acceptance of that point from officers in the Department of Corrections, the people who work in the prisons. It is time we put some real resource into those areas, because those are the real solutions. Locking offenders up and throwing away the key is a 19th century approach. It is not even worthy of our attention, and it should not come before this House.

My final comments are, I am sure, ones that have been made elsewhere. The process of getting this bill to this stage has been suboptimal, to say the least. Despite very significant and substantive changes to the original bill, there was completely inadequate opportunity for a second round of submissions, and a highly prescriptive approach to engaging with the communities of interest, and that begs the question: what were the proponents of the bill afraid of? Why would they not allow a decent and comprehensive second round of submissions to a significantly changed bill?

As members may have gathered from my comments, the Greens will continue to oppose this legislation, and we hope that significantly better and more intelligent proposals will come to this House. Kia ora.

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this

This is a very proud day for the ACT Party and for our members and supporters, who have campaigned for many, many years for the better protection of law-abiding citizens. It shows that those people who have supported the ACT Party and voted for it have made a difference to our country and will make our country a safer place in which to live. The ACT Party, as part of its constitution, has the view that the primary role of any Government is to keep citizens safe in their communities, in their places of work, and at home. We are also aware, as a party, that keeping our communities safe is part of the wider set of policies that are needed in order to deal with disadvantage in our society.

I take on board the comments made by the Labour Party and the Green Party. The way that the ACT Party looks at the wider issues is that in order to address poverty and economic and social disadvantage, we must reform welfare, keep our communities safe from crime, improve education through providing a choice of schools, and stop taxing low-income people as punitively as we do. Instead, our taxation system punishes enterprise and hard work, our welfare system encourages attitudes that destroy personal responsibility, self-reliance, and self-confidence, and our schooling system fails up to a third of our children. Out of all these failures has come a crime rate, particularly a rate of violent crime, that should shame us all. Our poorest communities suffer the most from criminal offending—from petty offences through to the most violent offences. Murder, rape, and aggravated robbery have become all too common. I say to Mr Horomia that it is from amongst Māori that the ACT Party, in comments, has received the most support, because Māori suffer so badly from violent crime.

Our sentencing system is weak, and the parole system has clearly failed us. Offenders who are released on parole all too often commit further violent crime. These criminals have torn apart the lives of their victims. Their victims must live with the effects of the crime—the pain, the fear, the anguish—for the rest of their lives. For victims, the crime is just the beginning. ACT campaigned hard for tougher sentencing, with the “three strikes” policy at the 2008 election. After the election we negotiated an agreement with National to give ACT’s “three strikes” policy a fair hearing at the Law and Order Committee, and throughout the past year ACT and National have worked constructively together to agree on a “three strikes” policy designed to keep Kiwis safe. I particularly single out the Minister of Justice, Simon Power; the Minister of Police, Judith Collins; the Prime Minister; and the entire National caucus as those with whom we have had many discussions over the past year.

The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is a huge step towards getting the most violent repeat offenders off our streets and keeping law-abiding citizens safe. The “three strikes” policy that it implements is focused on a small subset of criminal activity. It is not by any means a policy that addresses the wider set of issues surrounding effective policing or that gets younger people off a pathway towards committing crime. Those issues are, of course, of the utmost importance, but the “three strikes” policy is an essential part of the full mix of policies that are needed. It is focused solely on the worst violent crimes; it is focused on the few offenders who repeatedly commit violent crime. Unlike the Californian law, people will not receive severe sentences under this law from conviction for relatively trivial offences. The offences on the qualifying list all represent serious crimes. This policy is about protecting our citizens from violent repeat offenders. It will keep our communities safe by deterring those criminals who are rational enough to see that their repeat violent offending will be met with an escalating level of punishment. Those who are not rational will be locked away, which is as it should be.

On strike one the offender will receive a sentence with parole as determined by a judge, as at present. Nothing will change, except this: the judge will tell the offender that that is strike one. At strike two, the offender will receive a sentence as determined by a judge, but now with no parole. Again, the judge will tell the offender that that is strike two. At strike three, the offender will receive the maximum sentence for that crime, with no parole. That is strike three: the maximum sentence with no parole. An essential element of the “three strikes” policy is that it deliberately escalates the punishment for repeat violent offenders. Most offenders will not want to risk a second strike, so when they are told about their first strike, they will have to think very, very hard about whether to amend their ways or carry on with a life of violent crime. Is it not a good thing to send a signal to young, male, violent offenders that it is a good idea to stop their violent offending? Is that not the sort of signal that we would want to send to Māori, Pacific Islanders, Europeans, or whoever else commits that crime in our community? That is what this bill will do. Most offenders will not want to risk a second strike, and they certainly will not want to risk a third strike.

The evidence demonstrates that these policies work. Some offenders modify their behaviour, and I ask again whether that is not a good thing. No longer will they hurt people, but, more particularly, they will improve the way that they live their lives. Those who do not modify their behaviour will be locked away for longer than is the case currently—and so they should be, because, as I said, the ACT Party has the view that our first priority is to protect people from violent crime. If people cannot modify their behaviour, and if they are going to come out and kill, rape, and maim people, then we say our first priority is to keep our citizens safe. That is what the “three strikes” policy is all about.

This policy is about making New Zealand a safer place in which to live, work, and raise our children. It is about sending the very powerful signal to repeat violent offenders that their repeat violent offending will no longer be tolerated. I say it is about time that we all stood up as New Zealanders and said no to violent crime. It is time that all of us in this House stood up and said we will not tolerate repeat violent crime and we will not make excuses for it. I am astonished to be sitting here and listening to members of the Labour Party and the Green Party excuse it. I think that that might be OK for those people who are protected and safe from violent crime and who do not live amongst it on a day-by-day basis. But I say that, for the first time ever, we have a Government that hears the message of New Zealanders. It is responding to the concern of New Zealanders and is saying “Halt, enough!” to violent crime. We will not tolerate repeat violent crime. I say to New Zealanders that everyone can see, on this day in this Parliament, that the ACT Party has made a difference, that people’s support for the ACT Party has made a difference, and that their vote for the ACT Party has made a difference. I think it is a shame that more MPs have not heard the concerns of their communities that it is now well past the time when we should have said no to repeat violent offending. This is a good bill and I commend it to the House.

Dr CAM CALDER (National) Link to this

It is a privilege to stand and speak—somewhat huskily—on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill.

John Key’s National-led Government, as we know, is principled and pragmatic, and it is seeking solutions to the many challenges facing our country. We in National are keeping our promises. We promised action, and we are taking action on combating violent crime. We are making families safer in their homes and communities.

This bill is part of a raft of legislation that we have brought to the House: legislation to toughen sentences and parole and bail conditions for violent offenders, to crack down on gangs and on P, and to support the victims of crime. We have also initiated Fresh Start programmes. Almost 3,000 young offenders benefited last year from interventions to turn them away from a life of crime.

We in National recognise that drug and alcohol addiction is the root cause of much crime, and we have increased the access to drug and alcohol rehabilitation programmes. We have recognised the woeful undermanning of the police under the previous lacklustre, lackadaisical, unlamented Labour administration. We have already deployed over 200 more police in the Manukau-Manurewa area, where I have the privilege of being based. A hundred more police will be deployed by the end of 2010, and 300 more police will be deployed nationwide by the end of next year. Along with initiatives in health, social policy, and education and initiatives addressing the drivers of crime, those are some of the areas of the previous Government’s mesh that we will be reshaping in our effort to make our communities more secure.

We have heard some criticism from Opposition members. But I ask how useful its policies were in reducing crime when it was last in Government. In fact, some might ask whether it had any policy in this area. We may well ask. I believe that it did, but how useful was that in reducing crime and making New Zealanders feel safer in their homes and on their streets? Judging by what I saw when walking the streets of Manurewa in 2008, I would say that it was not very useful. People had three locks on their doors, and they had two more locks on the screen outside. Labour’s policy was not very useful. People might ask how useful it was. It was perhaps as useful as a cricketer’s box to a ballerina. It was as useful as a drink of water to a drowning man. It was as useful as a sunhat at midnight.

The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is part of the National-led Government’s raft of measures to make our communities safer. Let us not ignore the fact that it puts the interests of victims and the wider community ahead of the interests of our worst and most serious violent offenders. This bill is aimed at the minority of offenders, who, even after receiving two previous warnings, continue to offend in a serious and violent way. Those people have demonstrated that they will not change, and for those few people there is no alternative but to prevent them from reoffending, in such a way that they no longer present a danger to law-abiding men and women living in our communities.

Not one of the 41 qualifying offences for the “three strikes” is a relatively minor offence. All offences involve serious violence or sexual offending, and all have a maximum penalty of at least 7 years in prison. In defending the rights of offenders, critics of “three strikes” downplay the goal of the legislation, which is to protect the public from criminals who have a track record of serious offending. This bill does not focus on the poor or innocent, who are, unfortunately, dealt with by the State; it focuses on the repeat nature of offending rather than just the offence itself. Critics of “three strikes” may also argue that offenders do not consider the consequences of their actions when they commit crime. Critics say that the offenders did not know what they were doing when they committed their crimes, and that longer sentences are not an effective deterrent.

The road to a third strike is a long one, involving clear warnings delivered by a judge about the consequences of further serious offending and considerable time in prison, where it is hoped that they will reflect on their actions. When making a choice of whether to commit a third serious crime, offenders will have a very good idea of what is in store for them. I comment this bill to the House.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Huri rauna, kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. When we want to look at prison statistics and prison programmes, at programmes that work and programmes that do not, we do not have to look any further than the good old USA, where dingbat sheriffs think they are clever to march prisoners around in pink uniforms, and idiots sign laws allowing police to arrest and jail anyone who looks like they might be an illegal immigrant—people like Parekura Horomia and Mita Ririnui sitting over there! The USA is also where Governor Arnold “The Terminator” Schwarzenegger oversees California’s penal system, which is facing a crisis of overcrowding, with more than 167,000 inmates, often triple-bunked, angry, fearful, and exploding into violence across our screens every week on America’s Hardest Prisons. California’s penal system costs $8 billion, which is 11 percent of the state budget—and blowing out of control as we speak.

Arnie might be a muscle freak, but he did not get to be the governor of one of the world’s top ten economies without having some smarts. It occurred to him that there had to be a better way to deal with prisoners than the philosophy of locking them up and throwing away the key, which the “three strikes” morons of the overseas and domestic variety would use to deal with crime. So he proposed a simple solution. He divided criminals into two categories: those who pose little or no risk, and those who need regular supervision. The idea was to take all the less threatening prisoners out of jail and put them into other programmes. It was a simple solution, but it was a seismic shift in reform, and it has been long sought by independent analysts and commissions into penal reform. That brings us back to Aotearoa, where, instead of trying to learn from the mistakes of the Californian penal system, we seem hell-bent on following it down the deep dark hole that Arnie is struggling to get out of.

The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is scary. It ignores even the advice of the Government’s own Attorney-General that the “three strikes and you’re out” law could be in breach of our fundamental human rights, and, in particular, in breach of the section of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that protects New Zealanders against cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe punishment, such as having to face a sentence of life imprisonment for, perhaps, a third charge involving the unlawful discharging of a firearm, which is a common occurrence at Tūhoe and Ngāpuhi tangihanga, and Tūhoe Treaty settlements, for that matter. Unlawfully discharging a firearm could mean using granddad’s rifle when one is out hunting, having never even thought to get it registered.

Experts like Dr John Pratt, Professor of Criminology at Victoria University, will tell us what I told the House last week about a similar “kick them while they’re down” bill, which is that without a sound philosophical base, penal measures are nothing more than the nasty, vicious form of vengeance that we thought had died out in Europe before Pākehā even came here. Just 5 years ago, a Cabinet paper entitled Effective Interventions concluded that there are smarter ways than prison to prevent crime and make criminals accountable to their victims and to society, and that prison is not the most effective or efficient approach to reducing crime.

That same paper noted than even the practice of remanding people in custody was being influenced by growing public, political, and media pressure for change. In fact, in the 10 years from 1997 to 2007, prison sentences went up by 37 percent but cases of remand in custody went up by 214 percent. All of that, of course, saw the Department of Corrections’ budget blow out to $900 million for 2007-08, and if we carry on the way we are going, the budget blowout will be $2 billion by 2020.

The silly thing is that this mania about building more and more prisons and filling them even before they are built, and at a cost that this country cannot sustain, is not only illogical but also unnecessary. International research out of Washington confirms that there are excellent alternatives to prison, which reduce not only the demand for prison beds but also crime. The problem, though, is that although all our resources are being siphoned off into building prisons, doubling up the bunks in cells, putting prisoners in containers, and locking inmates down for 16 hours to cope with overcrowding, the positive programmes for prisoner rehabilitation, like work, training, and education, are being closed off. We cannot even provide for 500 drug rehab places a year in a system with 6,500 prisoners who are currently drug or alcohol dependent.

International evidence tells us that “three strikes” has led to a massive increase in prison populations and jailhouse homicides. It has had a major negative impact on non-violent offenders, their families, and their poor communities. It has resulted in a blowout in cost for society, and the problem is getting worse. The evidence also shows that imprisonment does not deter crime, and that harsher prison conditions and longer sentences do not reduce reoffending. The evidence shows that reductions in crime usually come about through better drug and alcohol programmes, greater employment and education opportunities, stronger families, and stronger communities.

For the last few years, we have seen a “build ’em and we will fill ’em” philosophy in terms of our prisons, to the point where prisons targeted to be completed in 2011 are already filled in 2010, before building has been finished. That philosophy will be exacerbated by the “three strikes and you’re out” rule, because it means we will be locking them up in rugby clubs and moving them around the country in buses at night time because there are no other beds for them to sleep in. We will be filling up the day rooms at police stations. We will run out of places to put people in jail. We will simply not be able to sustain that, because, at the end of the day, we either lock them up for life—and we pay for it for life; we pay for it through the nose for life—or they will get out. And when they get out, they will be seriously upset people, and they will take that out on a whole lot of other people.

There is no rehabilitation in this proposal. There is no intent to use the opportunity to change the nature of some of these people. I hear people asking how many chances they need. They do not even need one chance—it is about giving them the right chance the first time. The threat of heavier and heavier punishment does not change people. All it does is piss them off. It makes them angrier, so when they come out they will be worse than when they went in. We have to try to turn this round, and the “bash ’em and bash ’em again” philosophy has been proven not to work overseas. We would be foolish to go down that track.

If the evidence was different, I would say to give it a try. But the evidence is not different. It suggests that the best opportunity to turn people’s lives round is to try to get to them before they get to prison, to improve their lot, to address the causes of crime, rather than the effects of crime, and to attack poverty in the home. Whānau Ora provides the opportunity for Māori on this side of the House, and on the other side of the House, to put our hands up and say we think we can do better, and then to challenge ourselves to do better, so that we do not need Draconian legislation like this. This bill will simply take our country backwards into a time of vengeance and nasty, mean-spirited viciousness; the kind of punishment meted out to people in 16th century England. Koinā nō mō tēnei wā. Thank you very much. Kia ora tātou katoa.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) Link to this

I start my speech on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill by congratulating the member from the Māori Party, Hone Harawira, on a fantastic speech. On this side of the House we agree with the member, and that is not always the case. For its key platform this Government said—if I can remind members in the House—that there would be 100 days of action. Enough was enough, there was blood on the streets, and this Government was going to get tough on crime and fix things! Eighteen months later, we see that that is simply not the case. The National Government has brought in that legislation, which is very similar to the legislation we see before the House today, and what have we seen? What are the results of that legislation? Violent crime has escalated dramatically under the National Government. Now we are seeing the highest homicide rates in New Zealand in decades, under a Government that said it would fix it. It said it had the remedies, and its 100 days of action would get tough on crime and fix it. Well, it simply has not. This Government should hold its head in shame for the record that it has.

I would be very interested to hear the Minister of Justice, Simon Power, to take a call on this. I would be very interested for Chris Finlayson, the Attorney-General to take a call. They know that this legislation will not fix things. If anything, this legislation will make things worse.

I pause for a moment, because this week is Rape Awareness Week, and it is important in this House that we acknowledge the victims of sexual assault, and their courage, in terms of what they have been through and what they go through with re-victimisation during the court process. It is also important to acknowledge the agencies that advocate for victims of serious crime, and to acknowledge the support they give.

When Rodney Hide gave his speech, he spoke about keeping New Zealand safe—that was the key focus of this legislation; it was about keeping New Zealand safe. I say to this Government and to the ACT Party that one of the key principles should be about supporting victims and ensuring that they are treated fairly through the system. It is about crime prevention. It is about ensuring that agencies have the funding they need to work with people to cut the cycle of crime. It is about ensuring that police have the funding and support they need. All we are seeing is the funding for those very services that would actually have an impact on violent crime in this country being cut. The results speak for themselves. The escalating violent crime rates are an absolutely clear picture of what this Government, through its policies, has brought about.

One of the consequences in terms of the victims of crime, and I will talk about it in terms of the “three strikes” policy, is that this will result in fewer guilty pleas. If an offender is on stage three, or even on stage two, that offender will not think “Oh goodness, I must not be naughty any more.” At this point these people will think they cannot possibly admit it, they cannot plead guilty, because all that will happen is that they will get the worst-case scenario, so they have no choice. Whereas an offender could possibly be in a position where he or she thinks “Right, I will be accountable for what I have done.”, and will plead guilty. But where is the incentive when they know that if they do that, they will get the toughest sentence possible? There is no logic to that.

What does that mean for victims? It means they are re-victimised. So many victims say that that is exactly what the court process does when they have to go through the lengthy trial because there is no incentive at all for offenders to plead guilty.

I also remind this House that Labour tried to bring in sentencing guidelines. The recommendation from the Law Commission was to introduce sentencing guidelines, so there would be consistency in sentencing, and a steer in terms of serious crime. That would have been a really good initiative, and it was strongly supported, but not by National and not by ACT. If we did have that consistency, then that would go a long way to addressing many of the concerns that have been raised by victims.

I also will talk about the research that—as the previous speaker said—found that imprisonment has little, if any, deterrent effect. There is a great deal of evidence saying that it does exactly the opposite. This “three strikes” legislation, due to its cost—and I will talk about the cost in a moment—will not achieve anything, except a sweetheart deal with the ACT Party to keep it sweet in order to keep National in Government.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) Link to this

Let us get it right: there is a punitive element to prison. It is punishment, as well as a covering of many other bases. Let us get it right that the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is talking about the protection of citizens in our society. It is addressing not only the issue of wanting to reduce crime but also the issue of wanting to make our society safer on the outside for our citizens.

It is easy to rail against the Government because of recent increases in crime statistics, but we know, and members opposite understand, that this issue is endemic, that the problem is often generational, and that turning the tide takes more than 18 months. But we are putting in policies and processes that will do exactly that. Labour says that the Sentencing and Parole Acts of 2002 achieved the same purpose as the “three strikes” legislation, but we say that those Acts did not go nearly far enough in protecting the community from the worst repeat violent offenders.

As a background, I tell members that under the Parole Act 2002 offenders sentenced to prison for 2 years or less are automatically released after serving half their sentences, and those with sentences longer than 2 years are eligible for parole after serving only one-third of their sentences. The public has been concerned about the number of serious offences committed by people who have been released on parole, and concerned that sentences of home detention have been given to violent criminals. Home detention was designed as an option for non-violent offenders. Under the previous Government it was given to too many violent sex and drug offenders who posed a serious threat to the community. The figures are these: in 2006 and 2007 more that 50 percent of offenders on home detention had convictions for violent sexual and drug offences, compared with 39 percent in 2001 and 2002. That is an unacceptable relaxation of attitude, but it also speaks of the increase in crime through that decade.

Our Minister of Corrections, the Hon Judith Collins, recently said: “In the 18 months that I have been police minister I have been shocked at the level of violent and anti-social behaviour in our society. There is a section of our community that has no respect for other people and no respect for the law. We are seeing it in the frequent attacks on police and innocent members of the public.” I take that on board, and I have listened to the comments regarding the wider issues. As a Government, we are committed to long-term, comprehensive measures by dealing with the drivers of crime. They are just as important as responding to the aftermath of crime. The Hon Simon Power has said: “As you will be aware, most of the government’s agenda for law and order since the last election has been dominated by measures to improve the immediate safety of the public.”, and so it should be, but we also need to get serious about how we stop crime from happening in the first place. So we are approaching this issue from both directions—that of the drivers of crime, and that of the protection of society today.

These are some of the questions that our political leaders are confronted with and that we are confronted with as a Parliament. We want lasting solutions, but today we are forced to draw a firmer line. It is a line meaning that should people continually choose not to be law-abiding members of our society, but to be persistent repeat offenders of violent crime, then the constraint of the law, which seeks to bring freedom and protection for its citizens, will deny freedom to those who abscond from that responsibility. The law causes constraints to curtail their behaviour, in order to ensure that the rights of others are protected so that they can live in freedom. When people refuse to live under such reasonable constraints of law, the law constrains them until those persistent repeat offenders come to the ultimate constraint, where, for the sake of the freedom of others, their freedom must be denied.

This bill is about freedom. It is about who deserves freedom most. The Prime Minister has said: “Where there is a balancing of rights to be done between criminals and victims, … I will take a side. And that side will be the side of the victim.” However, there is a discretionary measure in this bill. It recognises that in some very rare cases, the circumstances of the offender and the offence will be such that a sentence served without parole would be manifestly unjust. The bill takes this into account, and it makes provisions for the court where the court is satisfied that a no-parole order would be manifestly unjust at stage three when imposing the maximum term for a serious violent offence. Thank you.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this

As with all debates on law and order, the rhetoric is the easy part. It is easy to stand up and say that we will be tough on crime by locking up more criminals for longer and that we will make communities safer by locking up more people for longer. The reality is somewhat different. I find it totally offensive that any member of the House would label another member or group of members, based on their support or opposition to this particular measure, as being soft on crime or tough on crime. It is a lot more complicated than that, and the public of New Zealand deserve better than the type of hollow rhetoric that so often characterises the debates we have on law and order.

People are not stupid. People are smart enough to know that we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the developed world and that doing more of the same simply leads to more of the same. For the last couple of decades we have been on a trajectory that has seen us exponentially increase the number of people we have put into prison, but has that made our community safer? No, it has not. It has not made our community safer and it will not make our community safer.

I absolutely abhor violent crime, and I think, yes, those who commit violent crime should be held to account for their actions—absolutely. But I think that we, as an entire community, should also be held to account for the moves that we take to prevent crime from happening in the first place, and should get serious about addressing the drivers of crime. I congratulate Simon Power on having the gumption to hold a ministerial meeting on the drivers of crime and on getting serious about some discussion around those things.

We, as a society, cannot keep turning our backs on the people who commit crimes, suggesting that only they are responsible. There is the old saying that it takes a village to raise a child, and it is absolutely true. We cannot simply turn our backs on the ones who get into trouble. We all have to accept responsibility for them. We have to accept the fact that, in many cases, offenders have themselves been victims before they were offenders. Often they have lived in households where little love was shown towards them, where they were abused, and where the love they knew was actually violence. We cannot turn our backs on them and simply say we will lock them up and throw away the key. We must look seriously at the causes of criminal offending, including the causes of violent crime. The rhetoric is the easy part; the solutions are a lot harder. I, for one, will not label members on any side of the House as soft or tough on crime based on whether they support or oppose this bill.

I will talk about a number of serious concerns I have about this bill as it stands, and suggest that there are other, better ways that we can deal with the issues. I believe that this bill removes some of the motivations for offenders to reform and better themselves, and increases, in some cases, the likelihood of reoffending and the seriousness of the reoffending, should it occur. We can keep people in prison for longer, but there is no evidence, from anywhere, that suggests it makes them less likely to reoffend.

This bill is bad for victims, and the Ministry of Justice has advised that it will lead to fewer guilty pleas and more appeals, which means the victims of crime will be dragged through lengthy and painful trials and appeals processes. That is one of the key questions that we should always ask in a law and order debate on any issue: what will this measure do for victims? Will it make them better off, will it help them, or will it simply provide them with an outlet for their anger?

I can understand why victims of crime often have so much anger towards those who commit criminal offences. That is one of the reasons that victims of crime are not on juries and are not the judges—they cannot make objective judgments. It is why we have an independent judiciary. That practice goes back hundreds of years, and it is absolutely right for us to have an independent judiciary, and independent juries, so that proper decisions can be made, free from the emotion of being directly involved in something. I understand the anger that so many victims have. That does not mean we should necessarily be locking people up for longer and resorting to a much more primal instinct of retribution. It is not the right way to go.

There are many problems with this bill as it is drafted. It removes judicial discretion. As I said, we have to trust judges. Only on the first qualifying offence will the court solely determine the sentence. For the second offence, the offender will serve any prison sentence that is imposed, in full, without parole. For the third offence, the judge will have no discretion whatsoever. The judge will be required to impose the maximum sentence, with no parole, regardless of any extenuating circumstances. What, I ask then, is the point of having an independent judiciary if judges do not get to make independent judgments? We have to trust judges. We have to give them discretion.

We also have to ask what the bill will do in terms of the discretion that it provides to the police, and the pressures that it may place on the police. For example, the bill removes all judicial discretion at the third strike and severely limits it at strike two, but the police, on the other hand, will have much greater discretion. Under this legislation, the police could, for example, lay a charge of aggravated injury against an offender, which is a “three strikes” offence, but then plea-bargain with the offender and reduce the charge to aggravated assault, which is not a “three strikes” offence. They could do that on the condition that the offender pleaded guilty to the lesser charge. So the police discretion to prevent something getting into a court of law is greater than the discretion that judges have once the matter reaches the courts. How can that be fair? How can that be consistent with an open, transparent, and fair judicial system? It simply cannot be.

The bill potentially leads to punishments not fitting the crime. Under this bill it is no longer just about the most serious offenders, as the Government claims, because some of the qualifying offences can cover conduct ranging from serious to relatively minor. This bill could lead to situations where the punishment does not fit the crime.

It potentially reduces the incentives or ability to gain guilty pleas from those who have committed an offence. Studies in the United States have found that the rate of guilty pleas decreased after the “three strikes” law came into force, because there was no incentive to plead guilty, and defendants hoped that juries would find them not guilty when they discovered what the penalty would be. That is the other challenge to the judicial system and to those who serve on a jury. Will a jury find somebody guilty if its members know that the consequence of doing so is that the person may well never, ever be released from jail? So we put more pressure on the judiciary.

It places more pressure on victims of domestic violence, because they may be less likely to report abuse if it is more likely to result in a lengthy term for the abuser. That is something we should think very long and hard about.

Of course, tremendous pressure is placed on those who work in the prisons. If prisoners are never to be released, where is the incentive for them to behave appropriately in prison and make any effort whatsoever to reform their ways? If they know that they will go to prison if they get caught for a crime, it will create more of an incentive for them to go further with that crime. Someone on a third strike who does something wrong may think that he or she could commit another crime—maybe kill the person who saw the crime being committed—knowing that he or she will go to prison anyway. What is the incentive for that offender not to do that? There is no incentive.

The rhetoric on this issue is easy. The complexities are so much more difficult. We need to step back from the raw emotion of the law and order debate and consider what will work. We need to step back and consider the drivers of crime. We need to look at drug-dependency, victimisation within the home, family violence, and so on. Those are the things we should be looking at. This is a punitive bill, and it will not make our communities safer.

MELISSA LEE (National) Link to this

It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate on the second reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. Normally I like to listen to the speeches of the member who has just resumed his seat, Chris Hipkins, but I am rather disappointed with his speech today. He started off by talking with hollow rhetoric. Let me tell members what has been hollow. The speeches from the Labour Opposition have been rather hollow, because none of the speakers were part of the select committee process in the Law and Order Committee. Where were the members who sat through the select committee process on this bill? If members had been at the select committee, they would know that 94 percent of the submitters supported this bill. So the hollow rhetoric has come from the Labour Party—let me start by saying that.

Labour members are very loud in opposing this bill now that they are in Opposition, but I wonder what Labour’s stance on violent crime really is. I wonder about its voters, and whether they know about its stance on violent crime. It seems that in the 9 long years that Labour was in Government, it did absolutely nothing about violent crime.