Third Readings

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this

I move, That the Sentencing Council Bill, the Bail Amendment Bill, the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3), the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

These bills together were previously part of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill. This legislation gives effect to measures arising from the Effective Interventions initiatives aimed at reducing criminal offending, increasing certainty around penalties given to those who break the law, and addressing the growth of the New Zealand prison population. The Effective Interventions programme works as three broad themes tilting the balance earlier to prevent crime, using alternatives to prison where this is appropriate, and adopting smarter uses of prison resources.

New Zealand finds itself in the anomalous situation of having a rising prison population despite decreasing overall crime rates. The Government is determined to maintain its tough approach with serious and dangerous repeat offending. Let me be clear that serious and dangerous offenders should, and will, continue to go to prison, and for a long time. The safety of the community remains our paramount consideration. However, the legislation increases the range of non-custodial sentences available to the courts so that sentences for lower-level offenders can be used to fit the specific circumstances around the offence, and the offenders, to address the factors that lead to their offending.

The Sentencing Council Bill will help to build safer communities by providing consistency and transparency in sentencing, as well as ensuring that an appropriate range of sentencing options is available to the judiciary. Part 1 provides for the establishment of a Sentencing Council, which will be responsible for producing sentencing and parole guidelines. I am confident that the council will increase consistency in decision making in these two important areas. New Zealand will be building on the example of the United Kingdom and several Australian jurisdictions in establishing a Sentencing Council.

I want to address some of the issues that were raised by Opposition members during the second reading debate and the Committee stage. The positions adopted by these members were, frankly, contradictory. On the one hand they argued that there was no need for guidelines, and on the other hand they said the Court of Appeal was perfectly well qualified to issue sentencing guidelines as it had already done in relation to a number of offences, so there was no need for a Sentencing Council. As I say, that is a contradictory point of view. First of all, the Law Commission report established that there is a clear need for sentencing guidelines. Research carried out for the commission showed wide disparities in sentencing levels for the same types of less serious offending in different parts of New Zealand. Clearly, this is unsatisfactory and unfair. The punishment an offender receives should not depend on the locality where she or he happens to appear for sentence.

Secondly, appellate court decisions are issued only in cases that reach the higher courts. They do not cover the full range of offences. Guideline judgments produced to date have been in relation to the most serious offences such as sexual violation and aggravated robbery. However, these are not the offences for which the majority of offenders are actually sentenced to imprisonment. There is a need for a comprehensive set of guidelines, and an appropriate council is needed to produce them. The argument that sentencing guidelines represent a challenge to judicial independence is, in my view, misguided. The guidelines will establish a framework for a judge to settle on the sentence in a particular case, having given prior consideration to the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. Where the interests of justice require the judge to depart from the recommended sentence, the judge will be free to do so, but he or she will be required to set out the reasons for this. This is not, in my view, unreasonable; nor is it an intrusion on judicial independence.

The council will comprise a mix of judicial and non-judicial members, and will be chaired by a judge appointed by the Chief Justice. Again, this really makes a nonsense of some of the criticism levelled by some Opposition members as to the membership of this organisation. The non-judicial members, further, will be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House of Representatives. It is my hope that this House will work cooperatively to ensure that suitably qualified people are selected for what is an important role. It is not an area where partisan considerations have any place.

The legislation provides for the House to scrutinise guidelines produced by the council. It is right that Parliament should play a role in this important area of public policy. Once again, I place on record my firmly held view that this House must exercise great care in consideration of the council’s guidelines. They will be the result of much careful work, and it is crucial that they form a coherent whole. Accordingly, I urge the House to exercise its power to dis-apply guidelines with great care.

Part 2 of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill makes important amendments to a number of pieces of legislation: the Sentencing Act, the Parole Act, the Bail Act, and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act. The changes to the Sentencing Act will increase the range of non-custodial sentences by introducing three new sentences: home detention, community detention, and intensive supervision. Home detention is a proven, successful measure for selected offenders, and I am confident that the courts will, in appropriate cases, welcome it as a useful alternative to a short sentence of imprisonment. Home detention has low reconviction and low reimprisonment rates when compared with prison sentences, and it has high levels of compliance by offenders. Community detention, which involves an electronically monitored curfew, can be viewed as a truncated version of home detention. The offender will be required to be at a particular address at a specified time. The judiciary has been very supportive of this new sentence, and I am sure it will be a very useful addition to its menu of sentencing options.

The legislation also includes measures to improve the effectiveness of existing community-based sentences. With community work, for example, probation officers will be able to refuse to treat up to 10 percent of the total hours of the sentence as hours completed, where the offender fails to work satisfactorily, thus underscoring the obligation imposed on the individual by the courts.

The Parole Board has a crucial role in protecting the public, and the legislation includes a number of measures that will enhance the board’s ability to perform this role. This is an important part of these measures. The Parole Act will be amended to make it clear that release on parole is a privilege, not a right. It will state explicitly that consideration for release on parole—and I emphasise “consideration” for release on parole—carries no entitlement to release. The Parole Board will be given the power to summon witnesses and the power to make confidentiality orders that will help to ensure that the Parole Board is in possession of all the relevant information when it is considering a case. In addition, the Commissioner of Police will be given the right to apply for the recall of a parolee to prison, in limited circumstances.

The legislation also includes an important change to parole eligibility that will take effect when the sentencing guidelines come into force. Offenders serving determinate sentences will not be eligible to be considered for parole until they have served at least two-thirds of their sentence. This will increase the certainty around sentences imposed in the courts. It will mean that all those involved in cases—the victims, the police, and, of course, the offender—will know that the offender will be serving the lion’s share of the sentence from the outset.

Finally, I will comment on the amendments to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 that the Justice and Electoral Committee struck out. I am pleased that the Committee of the whole House saw fit to reinstate this provision, as the Government believes that it is essential that the sunset clause, as covered by the amendments, be extended. This will give the time needed for the select committee inquiry into victims’ rights to report back, and for any appropriate response to be made. In addition, by 2010 it is anticipated that there will have been a new, independent prison complaints regime in place that will both provide for a new complaints resolution forum and, further, greatly reduce the incidence of issues that currently lead to claims for compensation made by inmates. This should, in turn, remove the need for legislation such as the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act.

Taken as a whole, I am confident that the legislation will significantly improve the operation of the criminal justice system in our country. It will contribute to building safer communities for New Zealanders, while helping to stem the growth of New Zealand’s prison population. I commend the legislation to the House.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this

We come to what is the last stretch for this legislation. Frankly, the delivery of this legislation to its third reading in the House can be described only as a bit of a shambles. We saw at the Justice and Electoral Committee the removal of the Government’s desire to see prisoners’ compensation extended until 2010. The select committee said to the Government that it did not agree with the Government on that provision and that it would remove it. The Government then had to reinsert that provision into the legislation in the Committee stage, with the assistance of some of the other political parties that agreed to the reinsertion of that clause, and we now find that it is back in the legislation. Then we had the debacle over the ability of victims to appear before Parole Board panels that was played out last Thursday, and we saw the Government yet again defeated by a body of Parliament—in that case, it was the Committee of the whole House.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this

It is a pleasure to rise in the third readings of the legislation arising from the Criminal Justice Reform Bill, as this legislation was titled when it began its life. As the Minister observed, and as the previous speaker also noted, that bill has been split into five bills: the Sentencing Council Bill, the Bail Amendment Bill, the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3), the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill.

It is a pleasure to be a member of a Labour-led Government, committed to a society where all families, young and old, can be safe and secure. Of course, central to this commitment is having a criminal justice system that protects our communities by more effectively rehabilitating offenders and by making better use of our prisons. It is great to see Mr Ardern on the opposite benches nodding his agreement, because even he can see that this is bold and enlightened legislation, based on the evidence and on the careful reports and research of the Law Commission.

Clearly, the recent increase in prison inmate numbers in New Zealand is no longer sustainable, financially or socially. New Zealand’s prison population has increased sharply over the last decade, and it is forecast to increase further over the next 5 years. This peak has been reached even though—and this is an important point—the rate of recorded crime is at its lowest level in over 20 years. That is an achievement of which I and members on this side of the House are extremely proud. None the less, we do have to do something about these increasing prison numbers. So it was that the Law Commission, in its report Sentencing Guidelines and Parole Reform, recommended significant changes to our justice system, not only to cut inmate numbers but to make sentencing more transparent and more effective in rehabilitating and punishing inmates.

The Government, as the Minister noted, based its Effective Interventions package announced last August on the commission’s recommendations. This legislation—this series of bills—puts the Effective Interventions programme in place. That package contains measures that are significant and far-reaching and, once passed, the bills under consideration will create a much better justice and corrections system in New Zealand.

I want to concentrate my remarks on the Sentencing Council. I know that the headlines will be all about the other bills, which are more sensational in the short term—and probably many of the speeches will be about them, as well—but I think that the Sentencing Council will be the most important and far-reaching of the reforms that we are considering in the House today. The legislation that constitutes the council is similar, in fact, to the legislation that constitutes similar entities in comparable jurisdictions, such as England and Victoria. The prime reason that it has been deemed necessary to introduce a creature such as the Sentencing Council is the extremely regrettable situation we have in New Zealand at the moment whereby people with similar situations who come before different courts in different parts of the country, or before different judges, can actually receive different types of sentences. In the District Court in particular, where 90 percent of all criminal sentencing occurs, there simply are no guidelines issued by the Court of Appeal to those inferior courts for many of the offences they are required to adjudicate on.

So the judges try to do their best. We saw the trend, as revealed in the Law Commission research, that when people charged with car theft come before judges in Hamilton they are very likely to go to jail, whereas similar offenders in other parts of the country are very likely, at the moment, not to receive a custodial sentence. How can anybody defend that position? It is scandalous that people who commit crimes of a similar nature and who have broadly similar circumstances should receive radically different measures of justice in terms of the punishment meted out to them simply because they come before different courts or different judges in New Zealand. The excellent thing about this legislation is that it will put an end to that practice, and it ought to guarantee that all New Zealanders in all parts of New Zealand coming before all courts receive broadly similar justice. That is something that all New Zealanders should be pleased and proud about.

The legislation is excellent. It is welcomed by a clear majority of the senior judiciary and also by the judges in the District Courts, and by reputable commentators in the criminal justice sector. Finally, as I have said, we will have a consistency of sentencing in like cases across New Zealand.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) Link to this

National has reservations about this legislation, and has not concealed, right from the outset, its deep dislike of it. It is not really a case of an Homeric nod by the Law Commission; rather, it is the case of a massive blunder. I simply cannot agree with the earlier speaker who made comments about the attractiveness and excellence of this legislation. I would rather say that there is no place for sophistry in this legislation, and that this legislation is unfailingly bad.

It started off life, of course, as the Criminal Justice Reform Bill. I would like to emphasise that word “reform”, because reform can have two meanings. Reform can simply mean change or it can mean change that has an element of added benefit, and it is that latter sense we generally understand the word “reform” to refer to. But here, in this criminal justice reform legislation, there is no element of added benefit. I make three general comments about this legislation as it proceeds through its final stages and is split up into four or five parts. In that splitting up, all pretence of reform is abandoned; in fact, in these divided parts there is no mention of reform at all—none at all.

I respond to some comments made by the previous speaker, Charles Chauvel, in relation to the Sentencing Council and the word “guidelines”. Guidelines are intended to be markers providing assistance, but these are not guidelines in that same sense that we see in this legislation. Clause 40 of the original Criminal Justice Reform Bill introduces new section 21A, which is headed: “Court must adhere to sentencing guidelines”. There is something very odd in the use of that form of the words “Court must adhere to sentencing guidelines”, when guidelines are simply guidelines. The provision, in fact, reads: “When sentencing an offender, a court must impose a sentence that is consistent with any sentencing guidelines that are relevant in the offender’s case, unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.”

I was intrigued when the Minister spoke by the view he propagated and that presumably we were asked to accept—because he is not legally qualified—that what was occurring with this legislation was something that was consistent with what is occurring in other common law jurisdictions. That is wholly wrong. Although others have a greater knowledge of this than I have, I ask members to look at three jurisdictions—and I take New South Wales as a starting point. We find there that the role of the New South Wales Sentencing Council is starkly limited. It is not into the world that this legislation is involved in; it is more concerned with reporting to the Minister on sentencing trends and practices—

RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this

I have to start by saying that the Criminal Justice Reform Bill was a rather hefty piece of legislation that has now been broken up into five bills. New Zealand First, although it has not had anyone on the Justice and Electoral Committee, has played some part in some pieces of the legislation. We support some of the provisions. We will support the legislation through its third reading, as we have told the Government we will do, but I signal very clearly and very loudly that we have some grave reservations about some of its aspects. We are putting the House, and the Government, on notice that we will monitor and watch very closely how this legislation actually rolls out in practice.

Our observations of amendments to the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act in the past, since I came to the House 11 years ago, have been those of dismay and dissatisfaction, generally. I must say to the House that there have been many occasions in select committees where we have sat and listened to criticism of bills being put through—be they members’ bills or Government bills, and whether of a Government led by a blue party or of a Government led by a red party—and where citizens have expressed dissatisfaction and dismay at the legislation.

What people sometimes fail to realise is that behind the legislation is a key number of advisers—advisers from ministries and advisory organisations, be they the Law Commission, the Law Society, or whatever. It does not go without noting by New Zealand First that the wonderful advice many people gave about the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Parole Act 2002—which the Hon Phil Goff trumpeted would be the be-all and end-all of all our sentencing and parole problems for ever, amen, and which were enacted to serve the interests of the people who campaigned so hard in support of Norm Withers’ referendum for longer and harsher sentences—has proved to be, contrary to the advice given by officials to the Minister and the Government of the day, wholly lacking. This legislation has not been the be-all and end-all; it has not been the panacea. The very fact that we are standing here today and debating and amending those Acts is proof of that.

It was interesting to hear Bill English, in his great speech earlier this afternoon on a different topic, asking where the accountability was. Well, on behalf of New Zealand First, I ask: where is the accountability for this? Here we are again amending legislation, on the advice, without a doubt, of the very same people who advised the previous time, 5 years ago. So what are we doing here?

One of the bills we are amending is the reversion of the move that reduced the qualifying period of time for parole from two-thirds of a sentence down to one-third. New Zealand First opposed that move on the day. New Zealand First supports the reinstatement of the longer provision now. But we ask the question as to why the provision was ever changed.

We are now supporting the reversion of some of the things regarding periodic detention that were repealed in 2002. New Zealand First opposed those changes. Let me give the House a couple of examples. Periodic detention was thought by some politically correct people, both in this House and outside it, to be too harsh, too prescriptive, and too imposing on the poor offenders, who were having their poor little lives turned upside down by virtue of having to report at a time they were told, and to do work and complete that work when they were told. So the Government went ahead in 2002 and repealed those provisions.

What did we find? We have had probations officers and Department of Corrections staff tearing their hair out and saying: “We don’t know on any one day how many people are going to turn up to do their community work. We don’t know whether we’re going to have one or 101. We can’t staff for it. With this provision to allow them to complete their community work within 12 months, they hold out, hold out, and hold out; they have got all the excuses in the world why they can’t attend. Then, when the 11th month comes along, they are rushing and panicking to try to get their community work done. They can’t, and they end up back before the courts, and it ends up being remitted.”

Well, this legislation seeks to overturn some of those stupid changes that were implemented in 2002. When we look at clause 58 and clause 59 of the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3), we start to see a little bit of common sense coming back in. That is why I say to Shane Ardern, in answer to his question, that that is why I am voting for this bill. It ain’t perfect, Shane, not by a long margin. Let me tell you, Shane—

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) Link to this

In the very few minutes remaining before the dinner break I begin my speech on this series of bills by saying that the New Zealand prison rate is simply too high. I think this is something that is widely recognised. We have the second-highest prison rate in at least the Western World—second after that of the United States of America. It is to our continuing shame that this is the figure we have to face the rest of the world with.

It is interesting that some would have us follow the United States’ model as an appropriate way of dealing with criminals and of amending our criminal justice system. That seems strange, because what is the example we would be following? It is simply a dead end. What we have in the United States, and what we have all around the world, is a self-perpetuating criminal justice system.

Members may have been quite interested to attend the speech by Angela Davis when she came to speak in this country recently. I do not think I saw any other members of Parliament there. Were you there, Charles?

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Kua tau mārika te wā kia tirohia ngā huringa o te pūnaha ture taihara. Hei tērā wiki, hei tēnei wā tonu ka kati ngā tāpaetanga mō tētahi arotakenga whānui i ngā kaupapa here mā Aotearoa whānui. Ko tā te Komihana mō ngā Tamariki, i a ia e whakahē ana i tā Aotearoa Tuatahi pire tērā e whakawākia ai e ngā kooti ngā tamariki i te wā e tino tamariki ana te hunga taiohi, kia āta tautohetohetia ngā take e pā ana ki Te Whai Ture mō ngā Rangatahi. Kua whakautua e Te Komiti Uiui mō ngā Take Māori, tā Te Pāti Māori kia kōkiritia te rangahau e pā ana ki ngā kaupapa katoa e hāngai ana ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi, ā, e whiriwhiri ana taua komiti i te rārangi o ngā uiuitanga i tēnei wā tonu. E uiui ana te katoa o te motu, me pēwhea ngā kēnge. I oti i Te Reo Irirangi Waatea, he rangahau e whakaatu ana e 46 ōrau o te hunga i uiuitia e whakaaro ana me whakarongo tātau ki ngā kēnge ake, kia taea e tātau te mahi tahi ki te whakakore i tēnei mea tūkinotanga.

I waenga i te whakarongotanga i ērā tāpaetanga, me ērā arotakenga, i tau mai a Angela Davis ki Aotearoa. I roto i tāna pukapuka whakamutunga, Kua kore he Take o ngā Whareherehere?, ka kōkiri mai a Ahorangi Davis i ngā take hei tautoko i te mauheretanga kore—e ākiaki ana i ngā whenua o te ao ki te whakakore i te takahi i ngā matatika tāngata i roto i ngā momo whareherehere kei reira te 9 miriona tāngata e tūkinotia ana. Ko tāna e wero ana: “Kua whakahoahoatia ngā momo whareherehere ki te whawhati i ngā tāngata, kia huri rātau, kia rite ki ngā momo o tētahi whare kararehe—e tūpou noa ana ki ngā kaipupuri i ngā kī engari, ka noho tonu he mea tūkino tētahi mauhere ki tētāhi.”

Heoi, he aha te urupare e tika ana kia rere puta noa i Aotearoa mō te pānga ki ngā iwi katoa o te motu o te nui o te mauherehere? Ko ngā pire e rima e tautohetohetia ana e tātau i te rā nei, he huri i ngā tikanga e pā ana ki ngā whiu ā-hāpori, ki te mauhere ā-kāinga, ki te utu here, ki ngā ritenga tuku whakamātau, me te whakatū Kaunihera Whakatau Whiu. Ko ā matau i te wā e tere ana ngā pire i te Whare Pāremata, he whakaū i tō mātau hiahia kia matapakitia whānuitia e tātau katoa, me mutu tā tātau whirinaki nui ki te mauheretanga ki te whakautu i ngā hara. Nā mātau hoki i hura i te tauākī whakahurihuri tērā i whakapāohotia e Te Tari Ture i roto i tāna mahere mahi: Ehara i te te mea he tangata hara, mehemea he tangata Māori.”

Heoi, ko te wero kei mua tonu i a tātau, kia whakatauria ēnei pire hei ture, ka pēhea ka noho tonu ai ēnei mātāpono matua. Ka pēhea tātau, e noho nei hai whenua kotahi, e aro ana ki te huarahi e kitea nei e tātau te maha rawa o te mahi hara, o te whiu, o te whakamauhere, o te mahi hara anō? Ka pēhea tātau e whakarite ai i tētehi pūnaha ture e whakakaupapatia ana ki te whakatika me te whakahoa, kaua ki te whakawhiunga me te whai utu? Me pēhea tātau e whakaohooho ai i ngā iwi kia kitea ai ko ngā kura me ngā hāpori kē ngā kōwhiringa mana, kaua ko ngā whareherehere me ngā herenga pirihimana? Kia whakatūria he tāhuhu rautaki e whakaritea ai ko te hauora me te painga o ngā tāngata katoa e noho matua ana, kaua ko te pakanga hōkeka ki te mauherehere i ngā tāngata ki rō rore? Ā, i te wā e kaha tautohetohe ana, ka pēhea te wāhi ki ngā whānau, ki ngā hapū, ki ngā iwi e whakatakoto i te huarahi anga whakamua?

Kua tautoko Te Pāti Māori i ngā huringa o ngā ture pūnaha taihara, hei whakaū i tā mātau e hiahia ana kia wehe tātau i te huarahi whiu, aupēhi, kia huri kē ki ngā kōwhiringa whai tikanga whakahōu. I pōhiri mātau ki te whakahōutanga tērā i puta i te wāhi ki ngā whiriwhiringa a te komiti i ēnei pire e pā ana ki ngā matatika o ngā marurenga—he whakatauiratanga i tā te pūnaha whirirua whakatinahia ana. I whakaorangia ō mātau ngākau ki te kite i ngā rōpū katoa e whakaae ana me mau tonu i ngā marurenga ō rātau matatika o te wā nei. Ko te whakaū i ngā matatika o ngā marurenga ki te puta i mua i te Poari Tuku Whakamātau, he mea nui i roto i tā tātau tikanga kāwantanga whai pōti.

E whakamaumahara ana mātau i te Whare Pāremata i ngā whakaaro o te Kaiwhakawā, a David Carruthers—ko te tiamana o te Poari Tuku Whakamātau o Aotearoa—ko tā te tupu tauirakore o ngā mauhere e whakaatu mai ana ko te pānga ki ngā whānau, kua noho hoki ko rātau he marurenga o ngā hara, i te wā kua ngaro tētahi o rātau i roto i ngā whareherehere.

Ko te rongoā matua e huri ai te pūnaha ture, e whakamanahia ana e ngā Pire e rima nei, ko te Kaunihera Whakatau Whiu. E tautoko ana Te Pāti Māori i te whakatūnga o tēnei taiwhanga hōu e rite tonu ai te pānga o te tika, ahakoa ka whiua tētahi i Whangārei, i Ōtepoti, i Te Tonga o Tāmaki-mākau-rau, i Te Wai Pounamu. E kaha nei tā mātau whakahau ko te tohungatanga o te tangata whenua me noho matua i te wā e whiriwhirihia ana ngā mema mō te Kaunihera nei.

E hoki nei au ki ōku whakaaro ki tā Ahorangi Davis i kī, Kua kore he Take o ngā Whareherehere?. E whakaarangia ake ana e ia te wero kua pērā te tere o te tupu o te tauporitanga o ngā whareherehere o Amerika kia pēnei ai tana kōrero: “Ka nui ake te tūponotanga he tokomaha ngā tāngata o ngā hāpori mangumangu, Pāniora, tāngata whenua ka mauheretia i ērā ka whai i te mātauranga pai.” E toko ake ana te whakaaro, e tere nei tā tātau whakaeke ki tērā tūāhuatanga i kōnei. I roto i te toru tau iti iho, i peke te tokomaha o ngā mauherehere Māori mai i te 2,883 i te tau 2002, ki te 3,481 i te tau 2005. Engari, i taua wā tonu, i roto i te pūrongo ā-tau 2005-06 a Te Ara Poutama i kumea kia toru o ngā kaupapa e rima i taea ai e ngā whānau te whai pānga ki ngā mahi kia tautokohia kētia ko “ētehi kaupapa nui ake”.

Ko te uruparetanga te mea nui, ko te whai wāhi o te katoa i roto i taua uruparetanga anō hoki. Ki te piki haere te tokomaha o tētahi hāpori e mauheretia ana, he aha tātau e kore ai e pātai ki taua hāpori me pēhea e kaupare atu ai te waipuke? Me matua whakarite te uruparetanga mō ngā huarahi pai ake e whakaitia ai te maha o ngā Māori e tūkinotia ana e ngā mahi hara. Me matua matapaki e tātau kia whiriwhiritia ai ngā rautaki whai hua ki te whakaiti i te tokomaha o ngā Māori e mauheretia ana, e whiua ana, e tukuna ana ki ngā whareherehere i roto i te pūnaha ture.

E tautoko mārika ana mātau i ngā whakaaro o Ahorangi Davis e wero ana i te ahu mahi wharehere - te hangaanga e pupuri ana i te tokomaha o ō tātau iwi ki te whai i te ōranga wawata kore. Ko te whakahōu i te Ture Taihara he mea me whai i ngā tūāhuatanga hou rawa, kia hōu ai ō tātau whakaaro kia kaua ngā ritenga mō te ture ā-hāpori e whakakaupapatia ki ngā wharehere hei whakahaere, hei whakatikatika rānei.

E wawata ana mātau ko ngā amenamana ki te Ture Whakarite Whiu mā reira e tika ake ai te wāhi ki te mauhere ā-kāinga, ki ngā whiunga ā-hāpori, e heke iho ai te maha o ngā mauheretanga. E kaha nei tā mātau tautoko i te aronga kētanga ki te whakatupu o ngā pūkenga mahi tūāpapa, o ngā pūkenga whai ōranga hei wāhanga o te mauhere ā-hāpori me te tikanga mō te tino mātakitakitanga. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

Mr Chauvel, Mr Tanczos, and, just now, Dr Sharples have all praised the ideal of greater consistency in sentencing, and so does the National Party. Indeed, the National Party takes on board what Mr Tanczos said about the unacceptability of different sentences for essentially the same criminal offence, depending on whether one is sentenced in Porirua or in Wellington Central. But it is, in our submission, no answer to endorse the proposed Sentencing Council, as it is set out in this legislation, in such an un-inquiring manner, because one has to look at the detail of the legislation, and when one does, one can see that what is proposed is unconstitutional and odious. As a young person I used to sit in the public gallery in the months and years after Sir Geoffrey Palmer was elected in the by-election for Christchurch Central after Bruce Barclay’s death, and I remember him time and time again caning the Muldoon administration for alleged unconstitutionality. But it seems that Sir Geoffrey in his later years has gone over to the dark side, and what is proposed by the Law Commission and followed through by this Government in this legislation is, as I have said, unconstitutional.

From the time of the first reading of this legislation, I have focused on the wording of the bill and the structure of the council. The concerns I raised in my first reading speech still remain, because in the Justice and Electoral Committee I took a good look at foreign precedents to see whether there was some way in which we could reach a middle ground that would be acceptable to all parties.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) Link to this

I rise to speak to the third reading of these five bills on behalf of ACT New Zealand. I am pleased to see that the legislation that started off life as the Criminal Justice Reform Bill has been broken down into five separate bills, because ACT will be opposing three and supporting two of the bills.

Many of the comments I would ordinarily stand up and make at these third readings have already been made while I was listening to the debate on my radio in my office. ACT is opposing the Sentencing Council Bill, the Bail Amendment Bill, and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill, and is supporting the other two bills. I will confine myself to the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) and I will just revisit for a moment, if I may, the amendments that I put in the Committee stage last week with regard to victims’ rights when it comes to making a presentation to the Parole Board.

ACT feels very strongly about victims’ rights, as I know some of my other colleagues in this House do, and there seemed to be a lot of confusion. ACT members did not have the joy of being on the Justice and Electoral Committee—we do not have a position on this particular committee—but I know that many victims and many victims’ rights groups presented submissions to the select committee on this portion of the combined legislation. It seems from my having talked to many of those people, and from reading the commentary, that most of their concerns were completely ignored by the select committee. Certainly, there is no mention of their submissions in the commentary, and very good submissions they were, too. One is left thinking that very little credence was given by the committee to any thoughts or worries that those submitters may have had as a result of its hearing their submissions.

My former ACT MP colleague Stephen Franks needs to be mentioned in this debate. He played a large hand in having the amendments come forward. He spoke to me about the victims’ rights that he felt were about to be lost. As a result of that conversation with him, I put forward the six amendments last week. The situation in the legislation as it stood on Thursday, when I came to participate in the Committee stage of the bill, was that perhaps victims would be invited to appear before the Parole Board when their offenders came before it. There would have been no automatic right for them to appear, as currently exists, but they would be invited to appear. My amendments were intended to remove those invitation clauses—for want of a better word. I think that is very important.

Victims certainly feel very strongly about this matter. They feel that they have been wronged. In many cases, far too often, they feel they are hung out to dry, although the rights of the offenders are given paramount importance. So I was delighted when the Committee voted to support my amendments so that the status quo would be retained in this instance. Victims now automatically have the right to appear before the Parole Board when the parole of offenders comes up for consideration. My thanks go to Mr Ron Mark of New Zealand First and, ultimately, every other member in the Committee for voting for these amendments.

The other reason I am pleased to support this Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) is that the legislation talks about the privilege of coming before the Parole Board, because that is exactly what it is. These offenders, these criminals, have been sentenced. They have been given a sentence, but before that sentence is fully served, they receive the privilege of appearing before the Parole Board and having a cut in their sentence considered. That is, indeed, a privilege; it is not a right. I am pleased to see that at least in this case the right wording has come before this House.

I will support the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) and I am very happy to do so. Victims play a very important role in this whole procedure, and their concerns and worries are very often paid little heed. I think that is a sad indictment on our society, and we, as legislators, have a core role in leading and promoting victims’ rights.

The Criminal Justice Reform Bill was very wide-ranging legislation and, quite rightly, it has been divided into five separate bills. I will not talk about any of the other bills. As I mentioned when I stood up to speak, I think all the comments I could have made about those bills have been reflected in other speeches, particularly in those made by National members. I share their concerns, particularly with regard to the three bills we oppose.

When it comes to the voting, I think that ACT can be proud of the fact that it has always been consistent on the issue of crime and justice. No one, I think, will be surprised at the voting when that happens.