Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill

I urge Parliament to support the Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill. It is a worthy bill that is to be sent to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I urge parties to put aside any party political views and to look at the merits of the bill, which restores sentencing back to the judges, where it should be, instead of putting it on to the probation service and probation officials. We need sensible sentencing, which this bill will deliver. I urge members of the House to say yes to this bill, to let it go to a committee for it to do its work and to judge it on its merits.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I ask Dr Newman to indicate which select committee the bill would go to.

I intend to move that the Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee.

In addressing the issue of Mrs Newman’s bill on community sentencing—

💬 Jill Pettis: How did he get the next call?

I suspect that paint is being stripped in Wanganui. In bringing this bill to the House Dr Muriel Newman is focusing on one of the major weaknesses of this Minister’s administration of the criminal justice system in this country—that is, community work. Community work has become a byword for slap-happy mismanagement of people's sentences. I released figures last year that the Government did not want to release—that is, figures that showed in some parts of this country, such as the seat of Rotorua, fewer than a quarter of the people required to turn up for community work actually turned up.

💬 Russell Fairbrother: Ha, ha!

Mr Fairbrother can laugh, but he is the man who defended a lot of the crims who are not turning up for community work in the Hawke’s Bay. What is worse, is that this Minister was completely unaware of the mismanagement of community work in his portfolio. Worse still, this week fewer than half the people who should turn up for community work will actually turn up. What is the problem? The problem is that the Government has removed all the power and sanction of the community work supervisors. If someone does not turn up for community work, after a number of non-appearances the community work supervisor may sanction the non-attender by referring that case back to the judge for breaching his or her community work.

Do members know what happens? When those people are referred back to the judge for breaching community work, what is the sentence under this Government? If people do not turn up for community work more than half are sentenced to more community work. Under this Government’s liberal justice policies, if people do not turn up for community work more than half will be sentenced to more community work, and, believe it or not, I think that about a quarter of the people will have their community work wiped altogether. So if people do not turn up, the judges will wipe the community work when their non-attendance is brought to their attention.

This is just another example of the liberal justice system that New Zealanders have decided they have had enough of. If someone is to be sentenced to 300 hours of community work would members not expect that he or she does it? What about the young man in Rotorua who had something like $40,000 worth of fines wiped in return for 300 hours of community work? That is about $143 an hour for the community work that he will be doing in Rotorua. Does that sound fair? Does that sound right? We know that if people turn up to community work in Rotorua they are probably one of only about four who actually turn up. So Muriel Newman is dead right to bring this bill to the House, and the National Party in Opposition for a few months more will certainly support this bill.

However, in the select committee we would like to see changes made to give the community work supervisors power to sanction these people. In the past, the community work supervisors were able to provide immediate penalties for non-attendance, whether it was additional hours, or references to the judge, but now those sanctions have been removed and people know they do not need to turn up. Fewer than half of the people who should turn up for community work this Saturday actually will. If the system itself will not take the sentences seriously, then it is little wonder that the criminals do not.

This Minister has been informed of these changes. In fact, when he was a new Minister he became aware of these problems when I drew it to the attention of the public. He promised there would be a review of the community work scheme and the reporting mechanisms. Do members want to know what has happened? Absolutely nothing! New Zealand continues to be lumbered with a liberal justice system, with a liberal Government, and with a Minister who does not know what is going on in his department.

I would like him to take the next call and tell this House what he has actually done since he announced his review of community work at the beginning of last year. [Interruption] I am sorry—was that the Minister Mr Benson-Pope ringing the police and requiring them to collect his debts again? I wonder whether it was. I doubt it. This Government certainly needs to know that changes need to be made to the community work scheme. One of the reasons why I am suspicious of this Government’s crime statistics, which were released today—and I bet members do not know that the crime statistics were reviewed and corrected secretly in May last—

💬 Dr Muriel Newman: In May?

Yes, in May last year the 2003 calendar year statistics were amended without anyone knowing and without any announcement. Do members know that?

💬 Simon Power: How could that be so?

Well, that is just how this Government deals with statistics. Let us look at what these guys opposite were doing with the statistics for community work. The Ministers were saying: “There is 80 percent compliance with community work.” But what they were not telling the public was that when they looked at the form that has to be filled in, they looked at how many people did not turn up because they are regular non-attenders, and they removed them from the equation. The Government looked at how many people did not turn up because they were drunk, for example, or could not find a babysitter—and they removed them from the equation, as well. So the number the Government used in comparing the numbers of those who attend is a much lower number. It is the number arrived at after the Government has extracted all those groups, and the Government gets a percentage, and it can say: “Look, 80 percent turned up.”

💬 Dr Muriel Newman: Isn’t that dishonest?

Darn right it is dishonest! We had all these questions and answers in the House about the compliance rate with community work, but when we actually got the forms and asked how many of the people who should have turned up actually did turn up, we found that fewer than half did. That is absolutely appalling.

So what can be done about it? Muriel Newman’s bill proposes a number of changes, and the first of those—[Interruption] Oh, that was the member for Rotorua. Well, let us talk about the member for Rotorua, who chips in here. The member from Rotorua is the member who, when everyone else in the Bay of Plenty was saying: “Save our rescue helicopter.”, stood up and said: “Actually, the ACC plan is great and we want a fixed-wing aircraft.” That is what she said. She said the Accident Compensation Corporation plan was great, and that they should have fixed-wing aircraft.

💬 Simon Power: That will work in the hills!

Yes! That member is the only person in the Bay of Plenty who defended the Accident Compensation Corporation’s rescue helicopter plan. The only person in the Bay of Plenty who defended that plan was Steve Chadwick. She said it was a really good plan, and: “Let’s have fixed-wing air ambulances as well.” No wonder this woman is in trouble in Rotorua! She is so out of touch with ordinary people in Rotorua. Rotorua does not want prostitution legalised, Rotorua is not in favour of cannabis reform, and Rotorua is not in favour of civil unions—but Steve Chadwick is. Rotorua is not in favour of a liberal community work approach, which we have seen from this Government, but Steve Chadwick is. And that is the reason why Dr Gilbert Stehbens will be one of the great surprises of the election campaign when he is elected as MP for Rotorua. So I would like to ask Mrs Chadwick to go to her community work centre this Saturday and tell me how many people turn up.

One of the surprising things that happened on Monday night was that when the Oscars were handed out Tony Ryall did not receive one. He does a performance like that every day. He is all huff and puff and no action.

It is a bit rich for the National Party to be lecturing this House on toughening up on crime and law and order. The National Party always threatens to ride into town and sort out law and order, but do members know what happens when that party is in Government? Nothing happens! Do members know what is said about the National Party on law and order? It is all hat but no horse.

What about the 1999 referendum? What was that a referendum on? It was a referendum where the public in this country said that it had had a gutsful of crime, and that it wanted the Government to get tough on crime. It was a referendum on 9 years of total inactivity from the National Party in Government. That is what that referendum was on—9 long years of total inactivity. It is galling to hear National Party members, who did nothing for 9 years—all hat and no horse when it came to law and order—stand up in this Parliament and lecture people about how they will get tough on crime. People do not believe them, and that is why that party is languishing in the polls.

As far as this bill is concerned, I would describe it as political puffery from the ACT party. It is absolutely political puffery. The reality is that this bill is, if we like, part of ACT’s death rattle. It is a kind of attempt to try to show itself as tough. I mean, if it had been a “Take ’em out and hang ’em from the highest tree!” bill, or a “Take ’em out and flog ’em to within an inch of their lives!” bill, we could maybe understand that it was an ACT bill, but it is a “Let’s all get tough on community sentencing.” bill.

💬 Jill Pettis: Pitiful!

It is pitiful; it is pathetic. What it shows, in fact, is that ACT party members, really, have basically thrown in the towel—

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: They have given up.

They have given up, and they are saying: “Well, thank goodness! We can’t wait till September, when finally it is all over.” The great Roger Douglas dream is gone. The “values not politics” dream is gone. This bill is from the ACT party. People listening to their crystal sets, who are sitting around having a cup of cocoa, will be wondering what this bill is about. It is called the Sentencing (Community Sentencing to fit the Crime) Amendment Bill, and is from the “tough on crime”, law and order party that is called the ACT party.

💬 Jill Pettis: What does that mean?

The senior Government whip asks what that means. Well, it is a very good question. I have had a look at it. “Political puffery” is the way I would describe it. But the first thing one would say about the bill is that it purports to really toughen up on community sentencing. That is what it is trying to do. Of course, ACT never want to let facts get in the way of a good argument. The previous speaker talked about completion rates, and that sort of thing. Well, I know a bit about that. In fact, when we look at the figures going back over the last 10 years, we see that they have not changed much at all from those in the old days of probation. One of the reasons it was changed from “turn up on a Saturday” was that the New Zealand employment system had changed and people were working at weekends. Should we say to people: “Get sacked from your job and turn up on Saturday morning.”, then pay them a benefit?

💬 Jill Pettis: No!

No, that is ridiculous. This bill is totally unnecessary. There are a whole pile of things that I would talk about if I had the time. For example, the requirement that the offender specifically provide for reparation or fine repayment is unnecessary. The courts can require that to happen now. Clause 7 suggests that community work sentences should be cumulative. Well, they can be cumulative now. Clause 10 requires a court to take into account uncompleted community work when sentencing for a further offence. That is completely unnecessary, because that can happen now.

The ACT party has looked at what it can do to show that it is tough on law and order. This bill is not the “Hang ’em and flog ’em!” legislation that one might expect from the ACT party. It is “toughening up on community sentencing” legislation. It is a total waste of time, a total nonsense, and the Labour members will vote against it.

It was very interesting, was it not, to hear the speech from the Minister of Corrections. That is the same Minister of Corrections who has told the nation that the Government will tidy up home detention, yet I am aware of a case that will literally knock the socks off that Minister once it becomes public knowledge. We will deal with that in time.

His colleague the Minister of Justice told the House that after the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act of 2002 were passed, life became tougher for criminals. He then had to admit that the deferred sentencing aspect of those changes was an absolute nonsense. We have the ridiculous situation whereby people who are sent to jail do not go straight to jail. They go home for 2 to 3 months whilst they lodge an application for home detention, and—surprise, surprise—when it is denied, people cannot find them. That is what I call nonsense; that is what I call ridiculous. I have to say that New Zealand First will support this bill going through to a select committee, and we will participate—although I am not sure which committee it is going to; is it going to the Law and Order Committee? I will definitely be looking at this bill, because it is not all rosy in the Labour garden when it comes to community work.

The old system that we used to have until this Government got its pinky fingers into it was a good system. Let us just remind ourselves: when people were sentenced to periodic detention, they could receive up to 12 months. The compliance rate with periodic detention was 75 to 80 percent. The compliance rate with community service is very hard to determine, because people who are sentenced to community service have 12 months in which to complete their sentence. As we have already heard from Mr Ryall, if they do not complete their sentence or they do not appear, what do they receive? They receive more community service, or they can even have previous community service wiped, and a new community service sentence imposed that they do not have to do. How ridiculous is that? We went from a system where offenders were told when to be, where to be, and how to be on a particular day, and if they did not turn up, the courts got in and dragged them back into court. Not now; the people who supervise community service have no idea how many people they might be supervising tomorrow, because those people can simply ring up and tell the supervisors that they will not be there. They say that they have to work, they have a sick auntie, they have a hangover, or they still have not come down from their last dak, and that they will not be there.

💬 Russell Fairbrother: Don’t make it up.

Do not make it up? This is the problem. There is a member—Fay Richwhite; no, Russell Fairbrother—whose electorate committee in Napier is falling apart. His electorate committee and a whole bunch of members do not want him re-elected as a member. Members are leaving the Labour Party. He might be a big, hotshot, gun lawyer who defends men who ran down women with their cars by telling people that the Treaty of Waitangi, or their being colonised, made the offenders murderers; he may think it is absolutely correct to defend murderers who run down ladies with their vehicles with the justification that they have been colonised, but we know the truth about that member. [Interruption] What are the facts? I will give him the facts. [Interruption] The member wants to interject. The facts are here, and these facts come from people who do the job, I say to Mr Fairbrother, or whatever his name is. Those are the people who are stuck with this Government’s problems, and who say straight up that they do not know how to supervise people who they know will not turn up.

This bill is a good bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I say to Jill Pettis that she is the chief Government whip and she should set an example. I do not want to hear interjections from that member again.

💬 Jill Pettis: Well, Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Do not argue with me.

The clauses in this bill that should not cause upset amongst the Government ranks are the clauses that require people to be randomly drug tested. What is wrong with that? Surely it is an occupational safety and health issue when people turning up to do community service are whacked out on P. What is wrong with making them pay their fines? To hear the Minister of Corrections say that the fines are being recovered is an absolute joke. New Zealand First was the party that revealed that this Government had $470 million outstanding in fines. It still cannot collect it. It rose to about $500 million, which is even more than the Government is giving to Te Wānanga o Aotearoa—incredibly. And Government members still have the nerve to sit here and say that the fines have been recovered. What a load of nonsense!

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.