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 third time. The purpose of this bill is 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 violent offences.

This bill has changed significantly since its introduction and its referral to the Law and Order Committee. These changes will increase its effectiveness and its contribution to public safety. The bill creates a three-stage regime that will imprison the worst repeat violent and sexual offenders and the worst murderers for longer periods, with increasing sentences and reduced access to parole if they continue to commit serious violent offences. The changes have increased the certainty of the punishment that offenders will receive, mainly through offenders now qualifying for the regime following conviction rather than following a sentence of 5 or more years’ imprisonment.

I take this opportunity to again acknowledge the pivotal role played by the ACT Party in the passage of this legislation, and especially David Garrett. I thank the Law and Order Committee and its chair, Sandra Goudie, for guiding this bill through the select committee process. I also particularly thank the New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections for their tireless efforts.

For the benefit of the House, I will recap the main elements of the regime. When convicted of a serious violent offence for the first time, an offender will be sentenced as normal but will be very clearly warned that he or she will now be subject to the three-stage regime, and warned what will happen if he or she is convicted of a further serious violent offence. If the offender is convicted of a second serious violent offence, the implications are more serious. He or she will be sentenced as normal but any jail sentence will be served in full without parole. The offender will be warned again, both verbally and in writing, of the consequences of a third conviction for a serious violent offence. If the offender fails to heed the previous warnings and is convicted of a third serious violent offence, he or she will be sentenced to the maximum penalty for that offence, to be served without parole. The exception to this regime is for 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 bill has specific provisions for those convicted of murder. Those convicted of murder at either stage two or stage three of the regime will be required to serve a life sentence without parole. The bill also makes special provision for offenders convicted of the worst murders. These offenders can be sentenced to life without parole even if they did not have a record of previous violent offending. However, the bill provides for judicial discretion in those very rare cases where the circumstances of the offender and of the offence would be such that to serve a maximum sentence without parole at stage three, or a life sentence for murder at stage two or three, would be manifestly unjust.

By means of this bill, this Government is sending a strong message that we are serious when we say that parole is a privilege not a right. Parole is a privilege that will not be available to those who fail to take heed of warnings and continue to commit serious violent offences. This bill ensures that the rights of victims and their families are put before the rights of offenders who choose to continue to offend in this way.

Once again I thank all those members of the public who submitted on the bill, 94 percent of whom supported it. These people welcomed this new regime to address violent crime and to spare victims the stress associated with the current system, which many view as favouring the offender rather than the victim.

I turn now to the amendments proposed by Labour members during the Committee stage of this bill. Those amendments sought to weaken the impact of the regime on repeat serious violent offenders by supposedly reducing what they describe as the potential for disproportionate sentencing and unjust outcomes. These amendments did not receive the majority support of the Committee. The Opposition fails to understand that this bill deliberately puts in place an escalating regime of penalties for which I make no apology. An offender who is being sentenced at stage three has committed a third serious violent offence and has received two previous warnings about the consequences of reoffending in this way. It is also highly relevant that the regime includes only offences committed by people over the age of 18. The severity of the sentence reflects the repeat nature of the serious violent offending and the refusal of the adult offender to respect the rights of law-abiding citizens. The community expects and rightly deserves to be protected from those serious violent offenders for a lengthy period.

The Opposition also tried to discredit the legislation by citing some of the more controversial scenarios that have arisen from the Californian “three strikes” legislation, such as offenders whose juvenile offending record is taken into account and are given sentences of more than 25 years for shoplifting. I restate the fact that this regime will not apply to offences committed by those aged under 18 and will apply only to a specific range of 40 serious violent offences, all of which are punishable by a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment or more. Some members of the Opposition chose to overlook these two key differences.

Another issue that has been raised is the importance of the appropriate charges being laid by police. The Government is confident that the police have sufficient checks and safeguards in place to ensure that the appropriate charges are laid, particularly at the third stage of the regime. At stage three police will be referring all charges that qualify for the mandatory maximum penalty to the Crown solicitor for review, either pre-charge or by second appearance.

I also take this opportunity to reassure the public that this Government is committed to helping those offenders who genuinely want to turn their lives round. Some offenders are simply bad and the best thing we can do is make sure that they stay locked up. But for others, turning to crime is often the result of being poorly equipped to live law-abiding lives. Drug and alcohol problems and a lack of basic skills are a big impediment to offenders who want to make a change for the better. This Government made a commitment to increasing the number of prisoners gaining skills and work experiences by at least 1,000, to doubling the number of prisoners receiving alcohol and drug treatment to 1,000, and to expanding prisoner literacy and numeracy programmes. We are well on the way to achieving these targets in just 18 months. Over the past year 23,000 hours of literacy and numeracy tuition have been provided to prisoners. This is an increase of 10,000 hours over the same period in the previous year. We now have 4,428 prisoners employed in work activities, and this represents substantial growth towards the target of 1,000 extra prisoners in employment. International studies have shown that participation in employment can reduce the risk of reoffending by between one-third and one-half.

We are also providing more alcohol and drug treatment to prisoners. A new drug treatment station is in operation at Otago Corrections Facility and two more units are being built—one at Auckland prison and the other at Whanganui. The more prisoners we have who are learning to live productive, law-abiding lives, the less crime we will have in the community. Less crime in the community means fewer victims of crime, and everyone should agree with that.

In conclusion, this Government is very pleased to fulfil our election promise to deny parole to, and impose maximum terms of imprisonment on, the very worst repeat violent offenders. This bill sends a clear message to those offenders who think it is OK to use violence to get what they want that their behaviour will no longer be tolerated. If they continue to commit serious violent crime despite being warned of the consequences, they can look forward to being locked up for a long time. This Government is proud to put the interests of victims, their families, and the wider community ahead of serious violent criminals. I commend this bill to the House.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this

I rise on behalf of Labour to oppose this bill, as we have done throughout this process. I put on the record of the House that Labour is deeply concerned about increasing crime rates, we are especially concerned about reoffending rates, and we care deeply for victims of crime, no matter where that crime takes place in New Zealand. And those are some of the reasons why we oppose this bill, because, quite simply, this bill does not address the causes of those crimes, it does not seek properly to address the reoffending, and it certainly does not reach out to victims. In fact, it could be argued that in many ways it will put victims under more stress—and I will return to that shortly.

We oppose this bill because it gives false hope to victims and their families, and it is unworkable, unjust, and inequitable. If we continue to park ambulances at the bottom of the cliff of crime, we will not address the causes of crime, and we will not reduce crime and its impact on society. I will return to these specific matters shortly, but I raise now several process concerns that Labour has about this bill.

The major one is the role—or the lack of the role—of the Ministry of Justice throughout the process of this bill. It is important to know that the Ministry of Justice was prevented from having a role as adviser to the Law and Order Committee by National members of that select committee. That raises an extremely serious issue for Parliament around where Parliament gets its advice from—not where the executive gets its advice from, but where Parliament gets its advice from. In our system very important distinctions are made between the operational arms such as the police, and the Ministry of Justice, which is the policy arm. That has been blurred by this Government and it has prevented parliamentarians from being able to seek the advice they need to make decisions in this House. I believe that that represents a significant and a serious let-down by this Government.

But perhaps we can see why the Government did not want this Parliament to have the Ministry of Justice advising the select committee. I will quote from the Ministry of Justice paper on this bill: “The proposals will add substantial direct costs to the justice system without creating any significant improved outcomes in terms of reducing the drivers of crimes, improving social outcomes or reducing reoffending and victimisation.” Those are the words of the Ministry of Justice. Those are the words of the Government’s chief advisers on justice issues, and this Government has chosen to ignore that advice, and—what is more—chosen to prevent a parliamentary select committee from having those people as their advisers on this issue. That is a disgrace, it is a mark against the chair of that Law and Order Committee, and it is a mark against the whole Government for preventing those parliamentarians from getting that advice.

I also note that the select committee did not hold oral submissions on the bill after, as the Minister herself has just acknowledged to us, it was substantially amended. No oral submissions were held on that; written submissions were required with 2 weeks’ notice to submitters. That is unacceptable for what we all recognise as an extremely serious change in our system. This whole process has been rushed through by this Government for political imperatives, rather than to trying to find the best possible law that can help protect New Zealanders and keep our communities safe.

Before I leave the whole question of process, let me say that the fact that the responsibility for this bill transferred from Simon Power as Minister of Justice to Judith Collins as the Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections speaks volumes for this bill. Some light was made of this in the Committee stage—that Mr Power was being rolled by Mrs Collins and having this bill, which he loves, taken off him. Well, I want to get serious in this third reading. I suspect that Simon Power is somebody who understands that this bill is unjust, unworkable, and simply should not be going through our Parliament today, and it has gone to Mrs Collins to put it through, leading the charge on behalf of the ACT Party. I think that as the Minister of Justice and the Ministry of Justice do not seem to want to be part of this bill, surely that must raise questions for this Government and for the country as to whether the bill should be passed.

I now want to move to some of the substance of the bill. The issues raised in the Committee stage in particular were about whether this bill can achieve the things we want it to achieve, and one of those things is deterrence. We all agree that we want people to be deterred from committing crimes, but no evidence was presented to us that this bill will do that. In fact, it was quite the contrary. The international evidence presented was that deterrence will not be improved by this bill. Greg Newbold and other experts said that this is simply not an effective way to improve deterrence of crime. We were offered no proof in that regard.

The Minister has already talked about the definition of “manifestly unjust”. There was an opportunity in the Committee stage for the Minister to take up the point that the regulatory impact statement says that this creates a disproportionate system, and that the Attorney-General, in his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act submission, said that it was disproportionate and severe, but the Minister made no attempt to do that. It is easier for the proponents of this bill to obfuscate and say that the “manifestly unjust” provision is in there. The bar is set so high that there is no doubt that there will be disproportionate outcomes from this bill.

Another area is the whole question of judicial discretion. It is very important to note that even the Police Association came out against that aspect of the bill. Even the Police Association felt that it would shift away from judges having discretion and move it into the hands of the police. We know that is the case. The only point in this process where the judicial system will continue to have discretion is at so-called “strike one”. After that it shifts to the police.

Let us hear what the Police Association has to say: “Judicial discretion provides a ‘safety valve’ for the myriad of possible circumstances surrounding any given case and is preferable to mandatory sentencing,”. So the officers themselves say they would like to see judicial discretion retained; but, no, the Government did not want to listen to that. There will be less transparency in the system as a result of moving away from judicial discretion to a system where the police play a much greater role. Our police are a great force, and I do not like the idea that they can be accused of corruption, but this puts them into that frame unwillingly, because the Police Association itself has said that it does not want that.

The other thing that a number of experts have raised is the fact that there will be fewer guilty pleas as a result of this legislation. Fewer guilty pleas mean greater costs on the system and more stress for victims. It will put victims in court when they need not be there. There is no doubt that people facing the consequences of this scheme will think twice about whether they want to plead guilty, and, as a result, there will be greater costs and more stress to victims.

One of the things that have been raised time and time again in this debate is the importance of community safety. During the Committee stage we attempted to get some measure of agreement that we all want our communities to be safer, but the problem with this bill is that it will not necessarily bring that about. The New Zealand Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society said in its submission that it does not support this bill, because it will not achieve a safer New Zealand. John Pratt, a criminologist from Victoria University, said that the realities of the “three strikes” bill are that it is more likely than a preventive detention sentence to endanger community safety.

So, on substance, this bill fails. But where it really fails New Zealand is in principle. We all want there to be less crime, but to get less crime we need some real leadership from this Government. This is the easy bit, because this is a populist bill. The hard work is about making sure that people do not end up in prison in the first place, that we address the causes of crime, we intervene early, we help with parenting, we reduce poverty, and then, when and if people do commit crimes, we support reintegration and rehabilitation. That requires leadership, and this bill does not deliver leadership. We need to solve the problems of crime at the beginning, not at the end. We should not be parking the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff; we should be trying to endeavour to build the fences and create the environment at the top of the cliff that will prevent crime. This bill gives false hope and it should not be passing through this House today.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

I am delighted to speak on the third reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, and I acknowledge the members of the Law and Order Committee for their hard work, and I acknowledge the staff, the Department of Corrections, the New Zealand Police, and David Garrett from ACT for the excellent work that has been done in the process of this bill.

This bill has been a milestone. I am delighted that we are on its third reading and that it will be enacted, because keeping the public safe is one of the most fundamental obligations of any Government. It is not about being soft on crime, which is exactly what the Opposition is. Labour members say that this legislation could result in disproportionate sentences for offenders at stage three. This Government makes no apology for that, because by stage three an offender has been convicted of two previous violent offences and has been warned, both verbally and in writing, on two different occasions of the consequences of further convictions for serious violent offences.

This bill is about serious violent offending. I point out that all of these serious violent offences are identified in clause 5. The specifications for these serious violent offences are in the Crimes Act 1961. I say that because some queries were raised about the specifications for the serious violent offences. One of the queries was from the AIDS Foundation, which I have had the privilege of being a member of. I was pleased that the foundation raised the matter and that we were able to clarify that the specifications for its particular area of concern are in the Crimes Act, but the actual offence is identified in the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. Let us face it: it is a serious violent offence to wilfully inflict a disease—AIDS—upon another member of the public. If anybody accepts that it is otherwise then that person is deluding himself or herself. There is nothing acceptable about the wilful passing of such a disease on to another human being. It is a serious violent offence that is rightly identified in the schedule of serious violent offences, and the specifications for it can be found in the Crimes Act 1961. It has been around for a long time, so nobody should be in any doubt about the details of those particular offences.

This legislation recognises the repeat nature of offending by those few who fail to heed warnings and continue to offend, regardless of the consequences. These are the people whom we cannot necessarily do anything with. These people are a minority, which I think has been made abundantly clear time after time. The National-led Government promised to get tough on crime—to toughen up on criminals—and this bill does exactly that. I am proud to support this bill, with ACT as our coalition partner, in its passage through the House.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this

It is a sad day because it looks as though the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill will go through the House today. In the future those who supported this bill will look back with regret. This bill is intended to make society safer. It will fail to do that. It will make our prisons more dangerous for police, for guards, and for inmates. It will not achieve the goal of making our streets safe, and it will not make the public safer—or indeed feel safer.

It is interesting that when the Greens have spoken to oppose this bill there has often been some amusement from some of its proponents, who dismiss our objections because, after all, we are communists, watermelons, and the various other things that it amuses people to call us. I enjoy the irony of the fact that the most robust, comprehensive, and damning objection to this very poorly drafted and poorly conceived legislation I have heard was at a Maxim Institute event in Auckland recently. Two gentlemen, Professor Warren Brookbanks and Dr Richard Ekins, of the faculty of law at Auckland University, who are both people of considerable experience and extraordinary mana, have done a remarkable job and made a very objective assessment of this bill. I am sure that those gentlemen would have no objection to my calling them conservative in their views. That is their position. From that very objective academic and, indeed, informed judicial position they have come back and said that Parliament “should not enact” this bill.

I will quote from some of the reasons they give as to why this Parliament should not enact this bill. In their paper entitled Criminal injustice and the proposed “three strikes” law they state that the bill “departs from the central principle of just sentencing, which is proportionate response to wrongdoing.” They go on to say: “The ‘three strikes’ regime … especially on strike three, ignores the nature of the offences, which include conduct that ranges from the relatively minor to the very serious.” They point out that “The regime ignores almost all mitigating and aggravating factors”. They say “The application of the regime … will often be unjust.” There can be no clearer and more damning language from two respected, highly qualified, and capable judicial commentators to say that this legislation will often be unjust in its effect. They suggest that the regime will often impose grossly disproportionate punishments on relatively minor offences.

We are told that this bill will have some deterrent effect. In fact, there will be none. We know this. Throughout the discussion, from the analysis from all sorts of parties, we know that the deterrent effect simply is not there. I quote again Professor Brookbanks and Dr Ekins: “The application of the regime is unlikely to defer would-be offenders in general, or the offender with one or two strikes in particular.”

At the last reading of this bill we heard much about the fact that parole is a privilege and not a right for prisoners. Indeed, those two gentlemen in their analysis concede that point. They state, however, that “There is no need to cancel eligibility for parole to establish that parole is a privilege and not an entitlement.” We simply do not have to go there. The way this bill is structured suggests that we in this House—the majority in this House who will pass this bill—know better in every circumstance than a judge or a jury who will hear all the mitigating factors, the whole story, everything that is said and done about a particular case.

In terms of the cancellation of eligibility for parole, the two distinguished jurists go on to say: “Cancelling eligibility for parole for all second strike and most third strike offenders will not deter offenders but will undermine incentives for prisoners to reform or to refrain from further offending in prisons.” In other words, prisoners will have nothing to lose. They will have no opportunity, no possibility of parole. Therefore, what weapons, what tools, and what mechanism will prison officers have to manage prisoners’ behaviour, improve behaviour, or prevent further offending? This bill will make our prisons more dangerous places. It will make the job of the police more dangerous because they will be pursing people who know they have nothing to lose. This is not good law. It is not well-thought-out.

The executive summary of the paper by Brookbanks and Ekins goes on to state: “The regime will remove the incentive for offenders facing a strike three conviction to plead guilty (or to cooperate with the authorities), which will sharply increase trial costs and impose unnecessary trauma on victims.” In the last reading of the bill we heard that the removal of parole meant that victims would no longer need to address parole boards and relive their no doubt traumatic and unfortunate experiences. However, this simply will misplace, if you like, or relocate the trauma they will need to go through, because prisoners, or rather accused, who might otherwise plead guilty will have absolutely no incentive to do so, and, in fact, will have every incentive to plead not guilty.

The final summary point they make that I will refer to states: “The regime has a substantial fiscal cost, which would be better spent on (among other things) victim support, intensive policing, and improving parole supervision.” It must be acknowledged that there are one or two provisions in the Budget, as we heard last week, that actually do improve the situation. Some useful money is being put into those things, and I see the hand of the Māori Party in those wins in the Budget. However, it is still a drop in the bucket. It is inadequate. It will not be sufficient to turn round enough lives. This bill will create many, many more problems than it could possibly resolve.

When there is opposition to proposed legislation as it goes through this House, it is often very easy to see the self-interest of the parties that are objecting to it, and that is the nature of the democratic process. When we are dealing with commerce bills, sectors within the business community will come and protect their vested interest by trying to support, or not support, a particular provision in a piece of legislation.

I reflect on some of the groups that are objecting very powerfully and publicly to the passing of this legislation: the Howard League, with over a century of history in supporting the human rights of accused and of prisoners; Caritas, the Catholic Church’s social services arm; the Rethinking Crime and Punishment group, directed by Kim Workman, a gentleman with experience as a police officer and as a consultant in the prison service, who is now a volunteer for the trust; and Prison Fellowship New Zealand, which is essentially a collection of church interests.

I look at those groups and I struggle to see anyone who could possibly be driven by self-interest to oppose this very vicious legislation. In this instance it is clear that their concerns or objections are coming from a commitment to basic humanity, to genuinely looking for ways of making our communities safer, to protecting the human rights of inmates and accused, and to making the workplace safer for prison guards and officers.

There has been reference to the Californian experience. The original proponents of this bill looked at California as a glowing example of a “three strikes” regime giving positive outcomes. The regime being proposed in this bill is different but the principle is the same: mandated sentencing, longer sentences, tougher sentences, and fewer basic human rights for prisoners. Of course, the analysis was that this bill would remove or reduce human rights for prisoners.

The Rev. Ron Givens has just been in New Zealand. He has given firsthand experience, and has shown images, of the direct impact of locking people away for longer; such as the fiscal cost, the human cost, the suffering, and the danger to police and guards. These are not things we need to invent, because there is evidence that the principle—

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this

I am very pleased to be able to stand in opposition to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. I am ashamed that Parliament is using its time to progress legislation that will not achieve one single point of what is described as being its aim.

This bill will do nothing at all to reduce offending. If there was legislation before the House to reduce offending and make our families and communities safer, there would be unanimous approval of it. This bill does nothing to reduce reoffending; something that we should all be very seriously concerned about. If the bill did something about reoffending, it would receive unanimous support from this House. The bill does nothing at all to support the victims of crime, which is something that the Minister who is now responsible for this legislation said she cared about when she spoke in this debate. If she does care about that, why does her legislation not do anything to better support the victims of crime in our community? Then Labour would support it. The bill does nothing about that. That view is backed up by the advice from many of the officials, although they were not able to give that advice directly to the Law and Order Committee. The bill does nothing to address the causes of crime.

Simon Power, the Minister of Justice, who should have been responsible for this bill, had a big get-together that was intended to look at the drivers of crime. He did it in a very inclusive way; he invited all sorts of people to that conference. He was serious about asking what the drivers of crime were, what caused crime in our community, and what we, as a Parliament, should do about it. Instead, we got this load of drivel, which, frankly, I think Simon Power is relieved not to be responsible for, because he knows that it is an embarrassment to him, his Government, and the big get-together that he called to look at the drivers of crime.

This bill offers false hope to victims, and I think that is actually the most despicable thing about it. We, as a Parliament, should be upfront about the fact that if there is not enough support for people whom we care about, we should agree to do more. Instead, the Government offers this drivel, driven by one of the biggest drivellers of all in terms of substantial policy, the Sensible Sentencing Trust representative in our Parliament, and it offers victims hope that will never be delivered on. I think that victims deserve better than that from our Parliament.

I will now pick up on the process point that my colleague Grant Robertson raised during his contribution earlier this afternoon. It is an absolute outrage that the proper officials—the Ministry of Justice officials—who are entitled to give their opinion to the executive and to Parliament through the select committee process—were stopped by Minister Judith Collins from giving their advice on this bill to the Law and Order Committee. I have never heard of such a breach of rights in an open, democratic parliamentary process. That was just extraordinary, and members in this House should be outraged about it. Actually, they should demand the Speaker’s consideration of that very point: that when members of the select committee asked for the proper Ministry of Justice officials to give advice to the select committee—they could have done it with other officials; that is a very common practice—the executive of the Government barred those officials from giving that advice. I think we have a right to obtain advice, and we have a right to obtain competing advice if that is what the officials recommend. That is the advantage of having a Public Service.

It is not surprising that that advice was stopped, though. I will give the House an example of what Ministry of Justice officials said about this bill. They said it was unlikely to be consistent with the Government’s publicly announced policy regarding the drivers of crime. The Ministry of Justice said this legislation goes absolutely against what the Minister of Justice said was the Government’s policy intention in terms of the drivers of crime. The issue is not just that this legislation fails to be very competent or very robust; it goes against the stated Government policy outlined by Simon Power. It was not only justice officials who said that; Te Puni Kōkiri, the Police, Treasury, and the Department of Corrections have all said this is a rubbish bill driven by a—no, they did not say it was driven by a rubbish member, because they are high-quality public servants. But they said this bill would not achieve the purpose that the Minister has outlined: that it will not reduce offending or reoffending, and it will not support the victims of crime. This bill is just a way of keeping ACT quiet. Well, I wish the Government good luck on that particular point.

I will talk about another group of people, apart from the Ministry of Justice officials, who were not consulted about this bill: the Ministry of Health officials. That ministry was not asked for its opinion on the implications of transferring large sections of the Crimes Act into this bill, and completely redefining the nature of offending. Public health experts were not asked about the provision in the Crimes Act that has been moved into this “three strikes” bill. The public health advice would have been that including section 201 of the Crimes Act—the section referred to by the chair of the committee—which deals with infecting with disease, sends entirely the wrong message to people whom we want to be free of disease and free of infecting other people with disease. It gives them entirely the wrong message from Parliament about discrimination and stigmatisation, and it drives risk-taking behaviour underground. That would have been the public health advice if the select committee had bothered to ask for it.

The Minister of Health should know about those issues. He is responsible for public health in New Zealand, and he has recently been alerted to the concerns of the New Zealand AIDS Foundation in that regard. Transferring that section of the Crimes Act to this legislation sends the wrong message about public health. When the Minister of Health, the Hon Tony Ryall, was asked to put public health considerations first on the agenda of this Parliament, what did he do? He was asked to put public health first, and he referred those concerns to the Minister of Corrections. The Minister of Corrections, the Hon Judith Collins, interestingly enough, is not responsible for public health in New Zealand. I do not know why the Minister of Health collects his salary if, when he is asked about a major public health concern, he refers it to one of his colleagues. If he cannot do the job, he should hand the whole lot of it over to someone else.

Another interesting bit of information that has come to light during this debate is that the public health bill that is on the floor of Parliament will also be moved into a justice environment. So we will be putting public health messages and concerns into a criminal and justice framework. Clause 127 of the Public Health Bill will be moved into the legislation that deals with crimes against a person. I implore the Minister of Health to do better with regard to that legislation than he has done in his response to this legislation. When a public health issue is raised with the Minister of Health, he should take it seriously. He should have used the privilege of his position to respond to those concerns, even if it was a matter of delaying the progress of this legislation in order to get the concerns aired properly, debated, and hopefully resolved. I certainly would have been supportive of that. But the Minister of Health took no such measure; he washed his hands of it. It was bad news, it was a bit tricky, and it was a bit difficult, so he washed his hands of it and left it to Judith Collins to respond to.

If this legislation did anything to reduce offending or reoffending, or to better support the victims of crime in our community, Labour would support it. It fails on every single measure. It does not offer us safer prisons, safer communities, or safer families. It is a wasted opportunity.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

I begin by repeating an acknowledgment I made during the Committee stage of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill that I am sure members on the other side of the Chamber are concerned about victims. Mr Robertson and Mr Hipkins made interesting and informed contributions, and I acknowledge them.

“Three strikes” was one of the ACT Party’s major policy planks at the last election, and it was No. 1 on the list of policies that we wished to advance in the confidence and supply agreement with National. I start by thanking the National caucus as a whole, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Police and of Corrections, and the Prime Minister for honouring the commitment in the confidence and supply agreement in both the letter and the spirit. I particularly acknowledge and appreciate the Prime Minister’s openness of mind in being prepared to look at the evidence that showed that including a qualifying sentence in the definition of a strike would have been fatal to the bill’s purpose and would have made it ineffective. I pay tribute to him for that.

I thank Dr Jennifer Walsh, an American academic who prepared a very comprehensive submission and came to New Zealand at her own expense to appear before the select committee and to speak to any member of Cabinet who wished to speak to her. Dr Walsh has provided invaluable help to me and to us by providing information to counter the misinformation about how the policy has worked in the 26 states of the United States that have laws of this kind, as well as very useful ammunition to counter the misinformation promulgated here in this House. Interestingly, that misinformation is the same kind of empty rhetoric that was seen in California in 1994.

In my maiden statement I said that I came to Parliament to try to make New Zealand a better and safer place. I truly and sincerely believe that this bill is a major step forward in that regard. Contrary to what has been said by members on the other side of the House and by some commentators, this measure is not contradictory to the Drivers of Crime initiatives that National wishes to advance; rather, it is complementary to them. I offer an analogy: imagine that our criminal justice system is a person suffering an acute overdose of drugs who is in dire shape. In that situation one saves the person’s life first and worries later about where they got the drugs, who sold them to them, and why they felt the need to take them. The imperative is to save the person’s life. With this bill we have sent a message that repeat violent offenders have a choice: they can change their ways of behaviour or they can condemn themselves by their own choices to spending most of their lives in jail. It is their choice.

Again, contrary to what has been said by members on the other side of the House and by people elsewhere, this bill is not about locking people up and throwing away the key, and it never has been. I re-emphasise what the Minister of Corrections said: the only people who will be locked up for life under this bill will be persons who have committed murder as a “third strike”, or the worst of our murderers—people like Graeme Burton, William Bell, Liam Reed, and, sadly, a number of others whose names are less well known.

This law is about protecting victims. I say again that it is about protecting victims. Since the election four more people have been killed by persons who would have been third-strikers, and thus in jail, had this bill been in force at the time they committed those killings. That means four more lives tragically lost at the hands of repeat violent offenders who are for the most part, if not all, beyond rehabilitation. We need to face that.

Contrary to Ms Dyson’s contribution, we say that there is absolutely no doubt that the policy will work. It will work in one of two ways: incapacitation and deterrence. The only question is how effective it will be. Incapacitation will put behind bars those who cannot and will not alter their behaviour. It will protect society from them. Members on the other side of the House pay lip-service to agreeing that that is where they should be. The other way that the bill—or the Act, as it will become very shortly—will work is by what is known as general deterrence, which means deterrence of others.

I put on record again that no one will be happier than me, personally, if there is never a third-striker locked up. I say again that no one will be happier than me, personally, if no one is ever exposed to the full extent of this regime. But, sadly, the reality is that within days or possibly hours of this bill passing, someone will commit a first-strike offence. The reality is that that person will probably already have a lengthy record of violent offending. When that person is convicted the media will report the first-strike conviction, I have no doubt, and possibly it will report the next several after that. When the first second-strike offender gets his or her final warning and a lengthy sentence, that will be big news too, and all the criminals will know about it.

Criminals know about this legislation now. Contrary to what members on the other side of the House think, criminals are not stupid. They may not have university degrees or even have finished high school, but they know about cause and effect as it affects them. All the criminals will know in 5, 6, or 7 years, when the first third-striker goes away for 14 years if their conviction was for aggravated robbery, or 20 years if it was for sexual violation. The crims will know about it, just as they know today when a child sex offender has been convicted and which prison that offender will turn up in. They know. They are not stupid.

They know about the bill and its effects. We know that because we were told so in the Law and Order Committee. An earnest young man came along and told us how terrible the legislation was, and how the criminals did not think and did not understand the consequences; then, without seeming to realise what he had said, he said that when he was in Pāremoremo Prison last week he was amazed that all of the 75 criminals he talked to knew about this bill. I asked him immediately whether they knew about the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill, which we had been debating in the same week. Of course they did not, because it did not affect them.

This bill is not for the criminals; it is for all the victims who have gone before, and for all those who will now not be victims, as a result of this law being passed. Sadly, there have been so many victims. This law says to John and Val Hargreaves and countless others who have lost loved ones that their loved ones did not die in vain. It says that they helped to spark a change of direction in our criminal law. I say to the mother of Emma Agnew, whom I have met, that her daughter did not die in vain. I say to the parents of Fitzgerald Risati, a Samoan choir boy who was out celebrating his birthday when he was stabbed to death by a scum gang member who was looking for a patch, that their son did not die in vain.

Contrary to the predictions from members opposite and from elsewhere, this bill is not the end of justice as we know it. It is not the end of compassion or justice. It is a turning point. It allows us, having dealt with the overdose, to focus on the children of today’s violent offenders and try to ensure that they do not follow their fathers. It is, in fact, a great day for New Zealand justice.

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

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Today is the anniversary of the arrests at Bastion Point on 25 May 1978. Back then 222 of us were hauled off to the clink and charged with trespass, which was not a big charge back in those days, but today things are different. As we saw from the police paranoia in the terrorist raids on Tūhoe a couple of years ago, even simple charges such as trespass seem to have taken on a greater seriousness, as the State targets those it wants to shut down, using charges that allow it to call out the armed offenders squad, and using the media to beat up stories that the court is showing have no substance whatsoever in the harsh light of day. So when we talk today about the list of 32 charges that will make up the “three strikes” criteria—

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) Link to this

I am pleased to speak on the third reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. After listening to the previous speaker, Hone Harawira, perhaps I can pose a question to him, as he posed one to us, in terms of the attitude of the son of a prisoner who was sentenced to life imprisonment. Perhaps we should also ask about the effect on the son of the man whom that prisoner may have killed. I think we need to understand that this bill is about victims. It is about the protection of our society.

For some time there has been a growing tide of concern at the rising rate of violent offending in New Zealand, and objection to the length of sentences given to serious repeat offenders. Almost 92 percent of voters in the 1999 referendum voted in the affirmative for the proposition that restitution and more support be provided for victims of crime, and that violent offenders be subject to longer prison sentences. Ninety-four percent of the 1,118 submissions made to the Law and Order Committee supported the bill. New Zealanders want sentencing to be tougher for the worst repeat violent offenders.

I acknowledge the issues that the previous speaker raised about addressing rehabilitation. This bill does not pretend to address those issues. This bill is about sending a signal to the people of New Zealand that this Government, in association with the ACT Party, is serious in its concerns about violent offending and is prepared to make sentences tougher and to ensure that repeat violent offenders do not get out on parole and thereby have the opportunity to repeat their crimes.

The 1999 referendum was instigated by Norm Withers after his elderly mother was brutally attacked in Christchurch. The offender had committed 56 previous offences but was released early on parole, which gave him the opportunity to attack Norm Withers’ mother. Since that time, we have had numerous cases of murders committed by offenders who were on parole. William Bell and Graeme Burton are the most well-publicised cases. Both had over 100 convictions. Both were convicted killers who committed murder while on parole.

When this reform bill was first proposed, the New Zealand Herald ran a poll because it believed that such a toughening of the law would damage our international reputation. I read through some of those comments to see what people on the streets of New Zealand thought. One particular comment amongst the many caught my attention. It was written by a person who identified himself or herself as Akiwi. At 9.30 a.m. on Friday, 20 March 2009, that person stated: “It’s shocking everytime some right steps are planned to be taken to fix the crime situation, some idiotic thinking tries to stop it in the name of human rights, as if all the human rights are meant only for criminals.” I think that comment puts it well. Our Prime Minister said some years ago that where there is a balancing of rights to be done between criminals and victims, we take a side, and that side will be on the side of the victim.

This bill is about supporting victims. This bill is about addressing the issue of repeat violent offending and ensuring that it does not happen to the extent that it has in the past. The purpose and the principles guiding the corrections system, as spelt out in the Corrections Act 2004, are “to improve public safety and contribute to the maintenance of a just society”.

I will finish my speech with an excellent quote from our Minister of Corrections, the Hon Judith Collins. She said recently that “none of the 41 qualifying offences for three strikes is relatively minor. All involve serious violence or sexual offending, and all have a maximum penalty of at least seven years in prison. Perhaps more importantly, they all have a long and profound impact on the lives of victims. 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. The bill focuses on the repeat nature of offending rather than just the offence itself. An offender who has committed three serious offences will, in all likelihood, go on to commit a fourth. By imposing maximum sentences without parole, three strikes gives offenders much less opportunity to do so because they will be in prison.” Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) Link to this

I will refer to David Garrett’s speech. I point out that he is a staunch advocate for this Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and that he has pushed very strongly for it from the start. While he was speaking I was thinking about why I feel so concerned about what he had to say. The reason is that we hear over and over again from the ACT Party and from National that this “three strikes” bill is about the victims, but unfortunately when I listen, I hear that it is more about hatred for the offender than about compassion for the victim. When that is the driver for legislation, I think that members in this House need to be concerned.

A few weeks ago we had a judge from California here in New Zealand. His name is Judge Eugene Hyman. That judge spoke to us about his concerns with regard to this bill. We asked him questions about rehabilitation in California, and he made it very clear that the money in California with regard to the corrections system was overwhelmingly invested in incarceration, rather than in the rehabilitation of prisoners. I think most New Zealanders would look to the US and think that they would not see that country as being the model that New Zealand should to aspire to. I think most New Zealanders would think and say that our current system is much better as it stands, and the last thing that we would want our legislation to do is reflect the legislation in place over there.

We also had Rev. Ron Givens here recently, about 2 weeks ago. Rev. Givens is the executive director of prison chaplains in California. He has first-hand experience of what happens when a “three strikes” bill is reactionary and Draconian—like this bill—and he spoke of the consequences of California’s “three strikes” legislation, upon which this bill is based. He talked about skyrocketing rates of incarceration, unjust sentences, and unmanageable costs.

PAUL QUINN (National) Link to this

It gives me great pleasure to speak to the third reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. I have not been impressed at all by the contribution of the Labour Opposition, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, Labour members seem to have focused most, if not all, of their contributions to the debate on process. That is probably because 94 percent of the submissions supported the bill. So instead of bringing some rigour to the bill itself, they are left to wallow in the misery of process, for which they are the past masters.

Every speaker that I have heard on that side of the House has stood up and lectured this House about democracy. Can members believe that? Labour members are giving this House and the people of New Zealand a lesson on democracy simply because the Law and Order Committee felt that the Department of Corrections was the appropriately nominated adviser to the bill. This is the very party that rammed the Electoral Finance Act through this House against the desires of the overwhelming populace of New Zealanders. How dare they lecture us on democracy? How dare they lecture the people of New Zealand on democracy? Labour members have no grounds to tell us anything. That is the first point I wanted to make.

The second point I make is that I understand the heartfelt contribution of my erstwhile friend Hone Harawira. I understand his side of it, but the truth of the matter is that when we look at the statistics, we see that 70 percent of inmates have had 10 or more convictions before they go to prison for the first time, 70 percent of people who have been to prison reoffend within 2 years of their release, and 86 percent reoffend within 5 years of their release. So although I hear the argument for the carrot to encourage and to develop, we have to be mindful of the facts. The reality is that people are given chances, but they do not take them.

So we turn to this legislation, and the ultimate sanction is that 41 crimes now constitute the serious criminal offending that will mean the “three strikes”—that colloquialism. Those crimes fall under about four or five main headings: sexual violation, murder, manslaughter, use of a firearm against a law enforcement officer, kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. If Opposition members want to say in this House that they are not serious crimes against the community and society, then they do not deserve to be in the Opposition. When we consider these crimes, and the variations thereof, against the fact that 70 percent of prisoners who go to prison have committed at least 10 crimes before they go to prison for the first time, we see that the reality is that those Labour members deserve to leave their seats so we can bring someone else in. With those few words, it gives me great pleasure to support the third reading of this outstanding bill.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this

I think that Paul Quinn’s ability to lecture the House on democracy would have been enhanced significantly had he not voted in favour of taking away the right of Aucklanders to have a say on the structure of their local government, and had he not voted in favour of taking away the right of Cantabrians to have a say on the form of their local government. I think the public will be pretty sceptical about being lectured on democracy by Mr Quinn.

It is good to see Hone Harawira in the House debating the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. As I have previously stated when he has spoken on this matter, I have agreed with many of the comments that he has made. I look forward to seeing him vote against this bill. It is good to see when the Māori Party votes with its conscience, rather than voting with the Government, so we welcome him and his opposition to this legislation.

I come to this debate with some reluctance because, as with many debates on law and order, the comments of those who are opposed are likely to be misinterpreted and wrapped up in bumper sticker slogans. I think that those who perpetrate serious violent crime need to be held accountable for their actions. I think that we need to consider victims in all of this. But that does not mean that I agree with the “three strikes” bill. We have to get past the point in this House where anybody who disagrees with a particular measure on law and order is labelled as being soft on crime, not caring about victims, or condoning the actions of offenders. None of those are necessarily true. I do not condone the actions of violent offenders and I have a lot of compassion and sympathy for the victims of crime. I simply do not believe that the “three strikes” legislation will reduce crime or leave victims better off.

I do not think that it is right for anybody on any side of the House to suggest that members are hard or soft on crime depending on the way they are voting on this bill. I think the public of New Zealand deserve better in the debate on law and order. They deserve to see their elected members of Parliament actually debating these issues seriously and looking at the evidence and the submissions that were presented to the Law and Order Committee, including looking carefully and seriously at the minority submissions put forward by those who oppose this legislation. I know that the overwhelming majority submitted in favour of this legislation. It is easy to submit in favour when one is given a postcard and told to sign it, which is what the vast majority of the submissions in favour of this bill were. They were postcards that were signed by people, and were handed out, no doubt, by the Sensible Sentencing Trust. So I am very suspicious of the numbers when the Government says that people are overwhelmingly in favour of this bill.

I have a huge amount of compassion for the victims of violent offences and those who are associated with the victims of violent offenders. I understand, although perhaps do not necessarily feel it myself, the desire on the part of some of those people for vengeance against the offenders, but I hope we can move beyond that to look at the causes of criminal offending. I would much rather prevent the violent offending—any form of criminal offending—from happening in the first place than deal with it after the fact. I think we would really demonstrate that we take the concerns of victims seriously if we took action to ensure there were much fewer of them in the first place. Unfortunately, this legislation does nothing to reduce the number of victims who are created in the first place.

We have heard some disgraceful examples in this debate of political rhetoric that simply does not square up with the facts. We had the indignity of the Minister in the chair, Judith Collins, standing up in the Committee of the whole House to say that the only violent crime in New Zealand takes place in South Auckland and that anybody who lives outside of South Auckland has no right to talk about violent crime, because they could not possibly understand. I think that is an absolutely disgraceful position for the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections to have taken. First of all, it is a dreadful slur on all of the people who live in South Auckland, and, second of all, it is a slur on people from the rest of the country to suggest that they do not know anything about violent crime and that they cannot sympathise with the victims of violent crime. That is absolutely wrong.

I will mention the reporting of violent crime and crime statistics. We hear crime statistics bandied around the House in justification for this bill and along with a lot of other law and order measures. To some extent the increased reporting of violent crime is a good thing. A lot of violent crime previously got swept under the carpet. It went unreported; it went unnoticed, particularly in the case of domestic violence. A big contributor to the increase in violent crime statistics is domestic violence. I think the fact that it is now being reported and it is being properly handled is a really good thing. I think we should not be alarmist about the increase in reporting of domestic violence. I do not think that domestic violence is happening more than it used to; I think it is being brought out into the open and it is being dealt with. That is really good. We should be proud of that. We should be happy that people are not turning a blind eye to it but are reporting it, and it is being dealt with.

There are problems with the “three strikes” policy, and I will canvass some of the issues that have been raised. First of all, there is not much evidence to suggest that longer sentences reduce crime—they do not. Longer sentences do not reduce crime. The “three strikes” bill provides no incentive for good behaviour, and we should be very wary of that. We are sending prison guards into the prison at the same time as we are removing the incentives for violent offenders to reform their ways and shape up their acts. We are putting prison guards at risk if we remove all of the incentives for the prisoners to tidy up their acts and reform and behave properly in prison. We are placing even more of a burden through this bill on the victims themselves. We are less likely to see guilty pleas for violent offending, and we are more likely to see appeals. All of these things drag out the process for the victims of violent crime, and leave the victims of violent crime even more exposed.

This bill removes judicial discretion. One of the most fundamental parts of a fair law and order system is providing the judiciary with the discretion to cope with different situations. This bill removes that discretion. In fact, it hands it to the police, instead. It means that the police will have all of the discretion in the plea bargaining before charges are brought before the courts, rather than judges having the discretion in the sentencing. So we are more likely to see the police bargaining before a charge is brought, and saying that if offenders plead guilty to a lesser charge, which is not a “three strikes” offence, they will not put forward the “three strikes” offence as their charge. That circumvents the judicial process; it is not fair law and order. It is not fair and people could get off lightly. The offenders could end up getting off lightly if plea bargaining is going on between the police and the offender in order to lower the potential charge that is brought before the courts.

Mr Quinn mentioned the process issues. I think it is concerning that we are considering a significant justice issue, yet the Ministry of Justice was excluded from the select committee process. The regulatory impact statement raised a significant number of concerns about this bill but the ministry was not given the opportunity to flesh them out and debate them. I think that is an abuse of the democratic process, and I think the public should be concerned about that. The Attorney-General—one of the National Party’s own—raised similar concerns. He raised significant concerns with this bill, and they have not been adequately addressed.

The Labour Party agrees with tougher penalties for violent offenders. If one looks back on the track record of Labour in Government, one will see that we increased the minimum non-parole periods for serious violent offenders, we held people in prison longer, and we made it possible for people to be detained for longer if it was in the best interests of the victims—if they were likely to be repeat violent offenders again. We did those things.

We do not agree with the “three strikes” bill. I think it would be much better to give serious consideration to the causes of criminal offending in the first place, to have a serious and honest discussion about the role of mental health in criminal offending in New Zealand, and to have a serious and honest discussion about the role of illiteracy, innumeracy, and low levels of education in the role of criminal offending. We should be talking about the cycle of violence and victimisation, because many offenders are themselves victims and were victims beforehand. Many of our most violent offenders were quite often victims of violent crime in their childhood. If we turn a blind eye and we do not deal with that then they are more likely to become violent offenders, and we should have an honest discussion about that. We should look honestly and openly at the link between socio-economic status and criminal offending because crime is more likely to take place in low socio-economic areas, and criminal offenders are more likely to be from low socio-economic areas. Let us have a discussion about those causes of criminal offending, rather than using the “lock them up and throw away the key” mentality that too often characterises debate on law and order issues. Thank you.

Dr CAM CALDER (National) Link to this

Thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak on the third reading debate of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. The previous speaker made a valid point. We need to address the drivers of crime, and that is exactly what John Key’s principled and pragmatic National-led Government is doing. We are looking at ways to counter, to prevent, and to reduce offending in the first place. This is a work in progress. This bill is designed to protect the public from repeat serious violent offenders. These are offenders who have ignored verbal and written warnings of the consequence of their violence and shown a cavalier disregard for the rights of others.

A prisoner on remand, and one sentenced, is held under the care of the Department of Corrections. The facilities operated by the corrections service have four main roles: to deter a potential offender from offending, to punish a convicted offender, to protect the public from a convicted offender, and to rehabilitate a convicted offender. Let us look at rehabilitation. Drug and alcohol dependency is a problem for many prisoners, and often a causative factor in their offending. We have doubled the amount of drug and rehabilitation places available, from 500 to 1,000, and aim to increase the number of places further in the future when possible. We are also committed to rehabilitation through training programmes, which improve inmates’ skills.

Spring Hill Corrections Facility is an impressive correctional facility designed so that prisoners in the highest-security cells can view the medium and low security cells and prison workshops from where they are based. So in other words there is a path to rehabilitation clearly visible should a prisoner choose to take it. All the staff I met there impressed me with their professionalism and passion for rehabilitation through prisoner education. Prisoners assessed as suitable have a chance of training in carpentry, metalwork, catering, and farm work. Prior to their final release with the support of surrounding businesses, some prisoners may undertake day release-to-work programmes. The aim at Spring Hill Corrections Facility is ultimately to have 60 percent of prisoners able to take part in those rehabilitation programmes.

The day after my visit, corrections officer Jason Palmer was injured in the course of his duties and later died. His funeral was held yesterday. I offer my deepest sympathy to his family, who have lost a beloved husband, father, son, and brother, and to the Spring Hill staff, who have lost a friend and a valued team member.

The Government announced yet another rehabilitation initiative in this Budget. Whare Oranga Ake, which my colleague referred to earlier, will help to cut reoffending among Māori. Whare Oranga Ake is a kaupapa Māori reintegration unit “outside the wire”, where the focus will be on prisoners gaining employment, securing suitable accommodation, and improving family and wider social relationships. As well as offering rehabilitation, a correctional facility should deter, punish a convicted offender, and protect the public. As a member of the Law and Order Committee, I visited New Plymouth Prison, Auckland Central Remand Prison, Spring Hills Corrections Facility, and Rimutaka Prison. I have no wish to spend a protracted period of time in any of them. Sadly, a number of our citizenry, a prison muster of some 8,500 people, are not deterred. The prison muster continues to grow.

With a rising population, some increase in the muster is inevitable, but this Government is not complacent. We are seeking ways and new ideas to reduce it—in stark contrast to the late, unlamented, lackadaisical Labour administration, which had no answers, where legislative lassitude and lethargy reigned supreme. Their caucus, riven with fear, loathing, and mistrust, careered between querulous cavilling and contented catatonia. New ideas were as rare as a bikini on an Eskimo, as unknown as Vaseline on the hands of a trapeze artist, as scarce as a tsunami in the Sahara. That is in stark contrast to this Government. John Key’s National-led, principled, pragmatic Government is determined to explore every avenue to rehabilitate, every avenue to deter, but also to punish the persistent, repeat serious offender and to protect the public from their depredations. The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is part of this wide range of our initiatives. I commend this bill to the House.