Criminal Justice Reform Bill

I want to take the Committee back to 1999. The public made it perfectly clear through the Norm Withers referendum that they wanted tougher sentences. What was the response of this Government? Its response was to introduce law that allowed a rapist sentenced to 9 years in jail to be released in 3 years. The Government went up and down this country trumpeting that as its response to the referendum of 1999. Well, the public saw through that sham, and on this side of the House we pointed out to the Government time and time again the deficiency in its legislation. At best, at that time, the Government only tweaked the legislation. It did not deal with the core problem. It has taken until now, 5 years later, for the Government to recognise in clause 120 of this Criminal Justice Reform Bill that the two-thirds parole rule had some common sense—the very rule, in fact, that the Government repealed in its 2002 legislation.

This Government is always going on about how it is tough on law and order. This Minister, Mark Burton, says so. But in 2002 it actually weakened the sentencing laws of this country when it substituted a two-thirds parole system—which, actually, the public said was not good enough—with a one-third parole system. That was a total betrayal of public trust. It is no wonder the public were disgusted with the Government on this particular issue. Frankly, I am surprised that it has taken so long for the Government to return to what was, at the very minimum, a common-sense position.

I want to make absolutely clear that National is committed to the policy that violent repeat offenders shall have no parole rights. The public has made it perfectly clear that people like that, who represent an immense danger to society, should not earn entitlements for early release, and that when the judge has heard all the evidence and assessed the circumstances of the crime, the criminal should serve the sentence that he or she was given by the judge. That is what the public wanted in 1999. This Government betrayed them in 2002. It has made a modest rectification in clause 120. But we are very clear on the National side of the Chamber that we have heard that concern and that—as we said in 2005 and will say for the next election—violent repeat offenders will not be eligible for parole under National.

I ask this Government why it does not listen properly to the people of New Zealand. For that matter, why does it not listen to its support partner, New Zealand First? Members of New Zealand First do not believe in parole either, yet I imagine they will vote for this measure today. It makes one wonder where New Zealand First’s ability to influence the Government is. People who are part of that particular class of criminal—the violent and repeat offenders—have used up their chances. The public needs proper protection from them, and they ought to be serving a proper sentence.

I want to put that very clearly on the record so that it is absolutely clear to New Zealanders where Labour stands—a weak, vacillating Government—and where National stands. National is determined that the violent offenders, who are such a scourge in our country, will not be eligible for parole. That choice will be clearly put before the people of New Zealand in 2008. My colleagues have been speaking at length about the Sentencing Council, and we put in a minority report about that. We are concerned that the Sentencing Council does—

I will take one final call as we come to the close of this part. After considerable debate the member Wayne Mapp wandered back to Part 1, so I think he has clearly concluded his Part 2 contribution. But I think if members translate what he said, it seems that he pretty much supports overwhelmingly the measures the Government is advancing in Part 2. The member—clearly, from the comments he has made and the comments his colleagues have made—overwhelmingly supports the general provisions of this bill.

I can assure the member of numerous examples of measures both in speeches and, more important perhaps, in legislative measures, that this Government has advanced so that serious repeat violent offenders will be dealt with harshly—and they should be. The safety of the community must be first and foremost.

Secondly, the member made reference to the influence of other parties. Well, I have to say to the member that the best way to have influence is to engage and to cooperate. I want to acknowledge that this bill is the better for the engagement and cooperation of New Zealand First, and of Mr Mark in particular, who worked very closely on the development of the front-end home detention. I think that is a progressive measure that will significantly enhance sentencing options for the bench and provide an option that I think the bench and the community will welcome, along with the resources to make sure that it can, indeed, work.

I acknowledge the various contributions members have made, and I look forward to wide support from the Committee for Part 2.

I just want to make a few comments about Subpart 3 of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill, which deals with amendments to the Parole Act. These amendments were canvassed by the Justice and Electoral Committee at some length. They deal with the situation where there is an urgent application to the Parole Board for a confidentiality order. As can be seen by clause 83B, which proposes to insert new section 13AA in the Parole Act 2002, applications may be made by the Commissioner of Police or the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, and applications have to be supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant—they are not applications, in these extreme situations, that would be served on either the offender or the offender’s lawyer.

The important point I want to make is that when a confidentiality order is made, that information may not be disclosed or published to either the offender, which makes sense given the nature of the information that has been disclosed pursuant to the confidentiality order, or to the offender’s counsel. Now there were a number of us on the select committee who had to think long and hard about whether that was appropriate, because normally safeguards can be entered into to ensure that information can be given to the offender’s counsel in circumstances where one relies upon his or her professional obligations as an officer of the court. But it was decided that because of the nature of the information and the special circumstances that may cause the Commissioner of Police or the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections to make such an application, given the nature of the information, it would not necessarily be forthcoming if the offender’s counsel was to be given copies of it. So I want just to emphasise that that is a very extreme measure, and I hope such applications will be made in good faith because I note there is no requirement, as there is with applications of a similar nature made in a civil context, that they be certified to be true and correct. I would hope that such applications are going to be very rare indeed, and will be made in good faith by those persons.

The point is that solicitors and barristers have obligations to the court, and it should only be in very special circumstances that they should not be entitled to receive that information. The only other precedent I know of, and maybe Mr Fairbrother will be able to comment on it if he speaks, is under the Terrorism Suppression Act, where certain types of applications can be made under sections 35 or 55 of that Act, and in very special circumstances the Attorney-General can make an application to the court that it is desirable to protect the classified security information, and that the information not be given to either the entity that it is sought to designate under the Terrorism Suppression Act or any barrister or solicitor representing that entity. One can certainly understand in a terrorism context why one would not want to part with highly sensitive classified information. This is another step along the way, and I want to assure the Committee that great care has been taken by me and others on the select committee to satisfy ourselves that such an application could result in an order whereby information may not be disclosed to the offender’s counsel. But it is a slippery slope, and I would hope that we would not be making that kind of legislative change very frequently at all.

The second point I want to make in this Part 2 speech deals with my proposed amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 126 to Subpart 2, which deals with amendments to the Sentencing Act. Yesterday, in response to the statements that I made about my Supplementary Order Paper and the requirement that when a court was dealing with sentencing guidelines it should have regard to any sentencing guidelines rather than adhere to them, as the proposed clause 40 inserting new section 21A suggests, Mr Chauvel commented that one should read on a little further and go to the subordinate clause of new section 21A—namely, “unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.” But that is, with respect, a rather superficial response, because it is clear that the subordinate clause set out in new section 21A is to be the exception rather than the rule. Given the realities of sentencing practices, as I have explained, that subordinate clause will be the rule rather than the exception. The principal clause is going to be simply a redundancy because—I ask the Committee—how can one impose consistency when there is more than one guideline?

I explained last night that the only guidelines the National Party has seen are the guidelines that were given to me when I was in England. No one from the Law Commission or from the Minister’s office has condescended to provide them for us, although we know they are in existence in draft form. But we have a number of Sentencing Council guidelines. For example, a judge sentencing a person may have to consider a reduction in a sentence for a guilty plea. A judge may also have to consider a guideline entitled “new sentences”, or one concerning seriousness. If one is dealing with multiple guidelines provided by the council, the only sensible thing one can do is to have regard to them, and that reflects the reality of sentencing. What I have proposed is utterly consistent with the English statute. Section 172 of the Criminal Justice Act provides that every court must have regard to a relevant guideline.

When one is sentencing one cannot simply rely on the provision at the end of new section 21A, if it is enacted—namely, that it can be applied because the court would be satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice not to do so—and ignore, in reality, the first part of the section. If we are to be diligent parliamentarians, the section should be drafted in accordance with the reality of sentencing practice, and that reality is reflected in the proposals I have set out on my Supplementary Order Paper.

I come back to the point that, as drafted, the provision is redundant in reality, and I am also sure that, as drafted, it will be a recipe for meaningless appeals, because there will be constant challenges to decisions made on sentencing, with possibly both parties arguing that the sentence imposed is not consistent with guidelines. I think that if the provision is enacted, we will have a recipe for confusion and unnecessary litigation.

I wish to take just a short call to allay some of the concerns expressed by Dr Wayne Mapp. Yes, it is true that although New Zealand First is supporting the passage of this legislation through the House, we do have concerns about parole. Mr Mapp has informed members that the National Party now has a policy that it will repeal parole and there will not be parole for—I think he said—violent offenders. That is quite a turn of events, because in the 11 years I have been in Parliament this is the first time that the National Party has had such a policy.

💬 Judith Collins: It was at the last election, Ron.

I say to Judith Collins that it had it at the last election; it did not have it at the election before that or at the one before that.

💬 Judith Collins: It was at the last election, Ron.

There she goes, catcalling across the Chamber. She is on her horse, racing it—here comes Judith Collins with her interjections. We all love and value them, do we not? I say to Judith Collins that the National Party did not have that policy in 1993 when it was in Government, it did not have it in 1996 when it was in Government, and it did not have it in 1999 when it was thrown out of Government. It did not have it in 2002, but it finally had it in 2005.

Mr David Bennett can shake his head all he likes. I know that it is a sorry story that the National Party, of which he is a member, should only then have finally come to New Zealand First’s position. But we are not surprised about that, because in The Hollow Men we all found out that the best research National got was from the New Zealand First website, so there are no surprises there.

New Zealand First has been consistent in its view on parole. We do not like parole and when we are in Government we will repeal the parole legislation. So I am looking forward—if history should deal the nation a New Zealand First - National Government arrangement—to discussions with National Party people about repealing parole completely. The National Party policy is not about repealing parole completely; it is about repealing it only for violent offenders. So I welcome Dr Mapp’s sensible—as always—contribution. I welcome the change and the shift in National Party policy. As always, it was a little late but it is finally there.

The question is: why are we in New Zealand First supporting this legislation and these amendments? It is simply because this is better than nothing. We cannot get everything we want. We did not get everything we wanted when we were in a formal coalition Government with National. Although we are unhappy that this does not fit in totally with our policy, at least we are making some progress on the parole conditions to address the situation we were left in with regard to Mr Burton and the Kuchenbecker murder. I do not think either the National Party or New Zealand First were happy with that outcome. Simon Power and I have had some interesting discussions.

Mr Bennett is still such a new member that he is shaking his head and pulling a face at everybody. He needs to know that Simon Power has told me privately that he supports the bill. He supports every clause in it except for the Sentencing Council portion.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: It’s actually in the minority report.

Dr Wayne Mapp can interject all he likes from the sidelines as he strolls his way through to his seat, but I can only tell Mr Mapp what Mr Power told me.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Read the minority report; it’s quite explicit.

I do not care what the minority report says. I can only tell Mr Mapp again what Mr Power told me. Mr Power told me that his primary concern was about the Sentencing Council, and that it was on that basis—and on the basis of the Government’s refusal to split the bill into two, which would have allowed National to vote against the Sentencing Council—that it is voting against this particular portion.

💬 David Bennett: Go out of the Chamber, as you should.

The very junior member Mr Bennett should understand that a lot of what I have heard from the National Party is like the shedding of crocodile tears. Mr Bennett is now smiling, so he knows I am right. I thank Mr Bennett. Deep down National members agree that the bill needs to go through, although they are not happy with all parts of it, and we agree and concur with that.

So I am looking forward to an opportunity in the future to work with some like-minded and similar-minded people who might seek to redress a couple of these things. The difference we have is on the Sentencing Council. New Zealand First likes it; National does not. On the issue of parole, New Zealand First would go further than National, and therein is where the differences lie.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, I have not heard from the ACT party yet.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I was just a little concerned that in the course of Mr Mark’s speech he referred to Dr Mapp when I think he was referring to me. He certainly did so on one occasion. I think he did it inadvertently. Although I am flattered to be known as Dr Mapp, it could be appropriate that—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order, Dr Worth.

I have put forward some amendments that I would like to bring to the attention of the various parties in this Committee. They are fairly simple in their nature, and they are all around the subject of victims’ rights and the ability of victims to present to the Parole Board. I would like to have subclause (3) omitted from clause 96, subclause (1) omitted from clause 97, subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of new section 45(7)(b) omitted from clause 98, clause 101 omitted, and also clauses 102 and 104 omitted.

The reason I want those amendments made by this Committee is simple. Although the ACT party was not represented on the Justice and Electoral Committee, I understand that the committee heard a large number of submissions from victims, but these have largely been ignored in the committee’s report. In fact, the victims of various crimes are feeling quite aggrieved—firstly, about that, but, secondly, about what they perceive as a lack of ability to be heard now before a Parole Board, except under exceptional circumstances. I would like to call on Parliament to cut out the provisions of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill that remove the victims’ right to be heard by this board on whether criminals should be let out of prison.

This bill, currently before us in the Committee stage, should take victims’ rights into consideration. I believe that this debate should be halted until the Government has lodged a Supplementary Order Paper to remove these provisions, but in the absence of the likelihood of this happening I have put forward these amendments myself.

When the select committee reported on the bill, none of the members on the committee bothered to comment on victims’ submissions, which begged them—and the victims were begging, because they felt personally aggrieved—to remove this right. Labour, National, and the Green members on the committee spent a lot of time looking at the confidentiality of evidence of prisoners’ wrongdoing. They worried a lot about the rights of criminals, but the victims of a large number of crimes felt that their voice would not be heard, at all. They feel, really, that no apology for the biggest impact of the bill on victims will be heard, and that provisions to shut victims out of Parole Board hearings will happen if this legislation is passed and these amendments are not made.

The committee did manage to spare a paragraph to endorse some meaningless words, which were put in to pretend that parole is a privilege, not a right. But it did not even note that the attendance of victims at hearings will now be a privilege, not a right. The Parole Board will grant the privilege only if victims agree to confine themselves to discussing the “risk to the safety of the community” posed by the criminal’s release, and “ways of managing any risks …”. No longer will they be able to protest about the simple injustice of a criminal’s early release and the hurt that it does to victims, who have already suffered far too much. So board members, by locking the door, can now protect their delicate ears against the demands that a meaningful part of a sentence be served. They need not hear these protests against the board’s conversion of a sentence into a trivial price for what very often are vicious crimes.

Parliament, it seems, is ganging up with those in the justice establishment who are contemptuous of the public demand for real penalties for crime. Time and time again communities and citizens of New Zealand have voiced their very loud concerns about real penalties not being served for crimes, and the rights of victims not being heard and certainly not being listened to. Victims are seeing the scandalous parole process put back behind doors that are firmly closed to them. That is surely not fair, and at worse is quite scandalous in itself. I would like the other parties in this Committee, when considering this stage of the legislation, to think very carefully about the amendments I have put before it, and to support them. Thank you.

I want to make two contributions in response to matters already raised by other members in this Committee stage. [Interruption] I am glad that Dr Mapp is so keen to hear those contributions. It is always good to have an appreciative audience. The first comment I want to make relates to the matter raised by Mr Finlayson, as to the additional protections inserted by the Justice and Electoral Committee in Subpart 3, which relates to the provisions concerning secret witnesses—so-called—before Parole Board hearings. The situation, as the member set out, is that we have sought to enhance the due process protections that exist when this scenario arises—that is, when an application is made for evidence effectively to be heard in a manner that will not be disclosed to the person applying for parole.

It will be recalled that Mr Finlayson spoke of the protection inserted whereby the select committee felt it was appropriate to require the grounds for making an application of this nature to be set out in an affidavit, on oath or by affirmation, by the statutory officer applying for the order. So it will be necessary for that person to depose as to the reasons why this extraordinary breach of the normal principle—that a person should know the evidence against him or her—should occur.

The other protection, which I do not think Mr Finlayson mentioned but which is worthy of recording, is that we have set out in the committee report, and in the bill, that these powers ought not to be delegable. It is a departure from the usual rule in the laws relating to the State sector that a chief executive may delegate functions to his or her employees. In this case, the power must be exercised only by the Commissioner of Police himself or herself or by the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections. Again, this is a token of how seriously the select committee took the provisions in order to try to make sure that they should not be able to be exercised except in the rarest of cases.

The other matter to which I want to refer relates to the contribution from Heather Roy. I have just looked over her proposed amendments. It seems to me that one of the difficulties with what is suggested is that all provisions in the legislation relate to Law Commission proposals to remove the right of victims to make oral submissions to the Parole Board. There is no change, as far as I can see, to the ability to make written submissions to the Parole Board. The omission of these provisions would simply maintain the status quo, where certain victims have a right to make submissions. I suspect this would not really be desirable, because parole decisions are, after all, supposed to be based on an assessment of risk, and victim submissions are relevant to that only in extremely rare cases: where the victim can provide information relating to the offender’s risk of reoffending.

In my view—and this was a matter raised in the select committee—to go down the path that the amendments suggest would be to hold out false hope to victims of crime, by suggesting that somehow their views will be taken into account in circumstances where the statue simply provides that they cannot be, because they are not grounds that the Parole Board can legitimately take into account when it assess risk, which is, after all, its job. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Those who have read the commentary from the Justice and Electoral Committee will see that the Green Party was particularly concerned about the confidentiality orders, whereby information would be provided to the Parole Board on a confidential basis. We then have under Part 2, in clause 83B, subsection (4) of section 13AB: “To avoid doubt, anything that may not be disclosed or published under a confidentiality order may not be disclosed—(a) to the offender; or (b) to the offender’s counsel or other representative of the offender.” It is very hard to get any justice in such a situation, and to stop people from giving false information, if even the lawyer of the person is not able to know the information. That would only encourage people to give prejudiced, biased, false, etc. information to the Parole Board, so I think it is a very dangerous way to go.

It was the National member Mr Finlayson who recently drew a parallel with the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, saying that the Act has a whole section about classified information not being given to the person or group accused of being terrorist. It is very hard to defend oneself in judicial proceedings against accusations if one is not aware of the information available. There is some provision in the Terrorism Suppression Act for, possibly—it is not obligatory—a summary of the classified evidence to be provided to the lawyers for the accused.

One of the things that worries members of the Green Party is that hiding from people and their lawyers information that is part of accusations made against those people that could be very detrimental to their future has now crept from the Terrorism Suppression Act into our criminal legislation. We see it in the Ahmed Zaoui hearing proceeding in Auckland. There are two stages to the hearing around his security risk certificate. The first stage is public source material, and, unfortunately, there is secrecy around that, in that the media are not allowed to cover those proceedings even though they concern material completely in the public domain. I have written to the Commonwealth Press Union about that, and I hope the media will make great play of their being excluded from a hearing that has publicly available material as the only content of it.

The second stage—which will start later—of the hearing in relation to Mr Zaoui’s security risk certificate concerns the classified information, which will be completely withheld from Mr Zaoui and his counsel. The special advocates appointed by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Stuart Grieve and Chris Morris, will be prevented from even talking to Mr Zaoui’s counsel after receiving that classified information and assessing it. They somehow have to act on Mr Zaoui’s behalf at some distance, without communicating with Mr Zaoui and his lawyers, even though they were appointed by the inspector-general.

Members can see the complications that are being introduced into our legal system in its various aspects: the Terrorism Suppression Act, the security risk certificate procedure, and now the Criminal Justice Reform Bill. We do not want to go too far down this track, because it gives the State, in effect, greater powers to determine the future of a person without judicial constraint. In this case, it is not just the State we are talking about; people who might be prejudiced against a particular prisoner or whomever can operate in secrecy and get away with providing information that is not tested.

No one else has spoken about Supplementary Order Paper 127. I am glad the Minister, the Hon Mark Burton, is in the chair, because I believe it would be helpful if he could offer a short explanation as to why that Supplementary Order Paper in his name lies before us. I know what its purpose is, but the question is why this is being done. What it is about is amending the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005. That legislation was due to expire on 30 June 2007, and the plan is to extend that date to 1 July 2010 in this particular, and critical, part of the bill.

Members of the House who were in Parliament in 2004 will remember that legislation. It was highly controversial, and it culminated in the passage of the Prisoners’ and Victims Claims Act in 2005. That legislation was about setting up a code to enable prisoners who believed they had been abused to make claims against the prison authorities. There was then to be established a compensation fund from which to provide payments if they were successful in those claims, and a priority was established for paying out any money that the prisoner got in compensation. If it was not possible to trace the victims, the prisoner got it all.

There was huge concern about that legislation on both sides of the Chamber, it is fair to say. A number of deeply philosophical and troubling questions arose from it. For example, if there was a fund, how was that fund to be allocated when there was more than one victim? Should the money go to the first victim, should it be spread equally, should a person who was more scarred get more money than a person who was less scarred, and issues such as that? It was made clear that because of the concern that Parliament had about this legislation, it should expire with the close of 30 June 2007. That is made very clear in Part 2 of the principal Act.

Now we have, by a side wind, a Supplementary Order Paper that seeks to perpetuate what is clearly an unsatisfactory circumstance. No one doubts that prisoners should be safe; that is not the argument. Where excesses occur, action should be taken. But I believe that the action that should be taken in respect—

💬 Darren Hughes: What kind of action?

—I will come to that—of excesses by prison staff is disciplinary action. Those prison staff should be punished. They perhaps should be charged. They perhaps should lose their jobs. There is a range of possible penalties. It was wrong in principle to create a special compensation fund.

So why, I ask the Minister, are we perpetuating that legislation, when it was clearly the wish of the Parliament that come 30 June 2007—19 days ago—that legislation should have ceased to exist?

The member who has just resumed his seat raises perfectly reasonable and considered questions. I perhaps would take him to task just a little on his final assertion. I do not think it is fair to assume that the House, by a majority, wanted the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act to expire. What it is fair to assume is that it certainly wanted it to run until 30 June. We find ourselves in a position that I think I could best summarise by saying this: the conditions that led to the creation of a short-term provision—as it was; around a 3-year provision—assumed that some other measures would be able to be completed within that time, relating, on the one hand, to the victims of crime, and, on the other hand, to the whole process of the structures, procedures, and provisions around the oversight of complaints made by prisoners, and compliance with rules of conduct around the oversight of prisoners.

As it happens, perhaps the most important measure that has not been concluded has to do with the rights of victims. As the member will know, a significant select committee inquiry is still in progress, and it will be an important part of advising the Government, and the House, on appropriate measures that will have some direct bearing. So that is the first thing. The second point is that work is well advanced, but not yet complete, on issues around the oversight of complaints procedures for prisoners.

Both those matters are best served by the extension of this provision. That is essentially what Supplementary Order Paper 127 seeks to do. It is a further extension, to preserve what is not a perfect provision at all, I readily admit, for the victims of crime, but is certainly better than the removal of it, until those other matters that I have now discussed are completed. So what the Supplementary Order Paper seeks to do is to maintain, for the time being, until 2010, the right of access for the victims of crime in the circumstances—and I will not repeat them all, because the member has given a good overview of that, and I have previously too. Its purpose is to maintain for the victims of crime access to compensation payments, should they become available in the way that is prescribed in the original 3-year provision.

It is on that basis that this Supplementary Order Paper is introduced. Of course, as the member has rightly pointed out, it replaces Supplementary Order Paper 121 as a result of a matter of timing, because we did not get Part 2 completed in the Committee stage in the last sitting block of Parliament. So the technical changes around timing were required; thus Supplementary Order Paper 127 was put in to replace Supplementary Order Paper 121.

I rise to take a call firstly to support the Minister in what I believe was a very sound explanation of the consideration being given to victims and of Supplementary Order Paper 127 in his name, relating to the sunset clause. I also want to speak in opposition to the amendments in the name of Heather Roy relating to the reported right of victims to make oral submissions to the Parole Board.

Certainly there was considerable discussion with the advisers from the Law Commission in terms of the admission of the provisions that maintain the status quo. It was argued that for victims to give an oral submission would serve to re-victimise the victims, if I can use that term. Parole decisions are based not on the crime but on information relating to the risk posed if the offender was again put within the community. Of course, victims can make written submissions, but there is the expectation of their going to the Parole Board and relitigating and reliving the pain and the trauma that they have experienced. In some instances, the belief that recounting the crime would have quite an influence on the Parole Board’s decision really raises false expectations. It certainly was the view of the Justice and Electoral Committee that that would be a disservice to victims. It would not give them a right, but really, it would raise expectations about what they believed their right to be.

So based on the information and the advice that the committee was given, the decision was not to hear oral submissions at the Parole Board but that written submissions could certainly be forwarded to it. That would mean that the process was fairer and did not raise victims’ expectations. The Parole Board would consider parole on the basis of the risk posed by the offender should he or she be put back into the community.

I would also add that the committee is currently carrying out an inquiry into victims’ rights. Very much of what we have heard and of what is in our minds—and I speak on behalf of all the committee members at this point in time—is a concern about victims during the process and about how they are supported. There should be transparency and integrity in the process, whether during the prosecution of the offender or at the parole end. We want to provide clarity and certainty for victims. Raising their expectations about the impact of an oral submission on the effect the crime has had on their life does them no service at all; it does them more of a disservice. That is why I stand and say I do not support the amendments proposed by Heather Roy. Thank you.

I have taken some advice on the amendment that Heather Roy has put forward. I have also listened to my colleague on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think Heather Roy’s amendment is well intentioned. I have no question at all that her concern is genuine, as I think it is for every party in the House, that in advancing this bill we should be advancing the interests of the victims of crime, first and foremost. I think we could have had considerable debate, and had we had the luxury of time we could also have gone away and everyone could have taken advice, consulted widely around the community, and reached an informed view as to whether this particular amendment adds, in any meaningful way to the value of this legislation for victims, in terms of their participation in the parole process, and, in particular, the Parole Board hearing process.

The problem we have is a practical one. The Committee is reaching the very, very end of the debate on Part 2, and it has to make a decision on whether the amendment the member has put forward is to be supported. If it is not supported, then it will be lost. If it is supported and comes in, it may prove to make little effective change. But I have reached the conclusion, and I have discussed this with officials, that it does little harm, if any. I have concluded, as the Minister responsible for the bill, that I will support Heather Roy’s amendment. I think it basically reflects reasonably the views genuinely held by members around the Chamber that we can make progress on the bill in a sensible way and take it on good faith that the intent is positive. The advice I can give members is that the officials’ advice is that, whether or not it does great good, certainly it will do little harm. I thought it would be useful to members to give an indication that I am prepared to support this amendment, on behalf of the Government.

I just want to rise and thank Heather Roy for bringing that matter to the Committee and placing an amendment before us. I have to say that eleventh-hour advice from her friend Stephen Franks, a man whom I consider a colleague, is often better if it is received well before the eleventh hour. I have no doubt that Heather will take that very firm advice and guidance back to Stephen Franks, to ensure that we are more timely in our submissions and in expressing concern over issues in future.

I thank the Minister. New Zealand First stands with victims—it always has and it always will do. We strongly criticise the Victims’ Rights Act the Labour Government passed last term, because we do not think it goes anywhere near far enough. We are a party that believes that if it is OK to give inmates compensation, then we should be giving compensation to the inmates’ victims for the actions that resulted in those inmates becoming inmates in the first place.

That leads us to the other issue, which is the amendment to deal with the sunset clause. Suffice to say that we will be supporting the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 127 reluctantly and on the condition—which the Minister has accepted from New Zealand First—that this Supplementary Order Paper will give the Government time to readdress this issue, once and for all and finally.

We have a fundamental difference from National and Labour on this issue. It is very simple and this is how it goes. If I am prosecuted for assaulting the Minister and I go to jail, then the Minister gets absolutely no compensation for that whatsoever. He gets the satisfaction of knowing that justice has been done. If, while I am in prison, I am being guarded by Mr Simon Power and I, as an inmate, am assaulted by prison officer Power, then how is it that I, an inmate, get compensation for Mr Power’s common assault on me as an inmate? It does not make sense to New Zealand First members. New Zealand First members believe that what should happen is simply that Mr Power should be treated in exactly the same way that I was when I assaulted the Minister. He should be charged, he should be tried, and if he should be found guilty, then he should be sentenced. If he ends up in the cell with me, then that is it—end of story. There is no compensation for the Minister when I assault him, and there should be no compensation for me when Mr Power assaults me when I am an inmate. It is pretty simple. No one should get compensation for that act.

The fact is that we now have a system where that compensation is being paid out, so the Government has at least tried to mitigate that circumstance by making the compensatory payments available to the victims in the first place.

💬 Simon Power: But you voted against it.

Well, if we vote against the amendment, I say to Mr Power, we end up with the first situation, which is what we had at the outset—that is, inmates would continue to get the $300,000 or $400,000 worth of compensation—but the difference is that they get to keep it. New Zealand First will not be party to allowing inmates to keep compensation.

💬 Simon Power: You were opposed to the bill.

Yes, I tell Mr Power, we were opposed to it then, and we are opposed to it now. But if we do not—

💬 Simon Power: Well then, why are you voting for it?

I would ask Mr Power to please listen. Our view is that if we do not extend this, then tomorrow the member will see inmates getting compensation and keeping that compensation. So the member should not play games with me.

We understand the reality, but we will not accept a further extension of this sunset clause again. We expect that there might well be an election before then, and some like-minded people might be able to sit down and put some sensible law in place. We would welcome that opportunity, but we are supporting this extension only. That is how we see it in New Zealand First. We see it under the firm understanding—and the Minister has a clear understanding—of what we want. We will not support a further extension of this same clause. We have 12 months in which to sort it out, I think. When does the sunset clause kick in—again? Well, let us sort it out, because the current situation is a nonsense. It denies the original victims true justice, and we agree with fixing that situation. So let us get beyond this point and do some work after this legislation is passed, because we will not be extending it again.

I move, That the question be now put.

We now have some further amendments. They are all in the name of the member, the honourable Heather Roy. The first is to clause 96. It is an amendment to omit subclause (3).

I seek leave for the amendments in Heather Roy’s name to be taken together, unless any member has objections, because they basically all relate to the same part of the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that? There is none.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Heather Roy to Part 2 be agreed to:

to omit subclause (3) of clause 96;

to omit subclause (1) of clause 97;

to omit subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) from new section 45(7)(b) in clause 98;

to omit clause 101;

to omit clause 102; and

to omit clause 104

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 127 and 122 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 2 be agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would just like to correct the Green vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is the member seeking leave to do that?

Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member but I think some confusion has arisen because of the replacement of Supplementary Order Papers between, I think, 122 and 127. Because you are following the numbers and not the clauses, I just want to make clear, and check with you Mr Chairman for the benefit of the Committee, that Supplementary Order Paper 127 is the one from the Minister that would extend the sunset clause on victims’ and prisoners’ compensation. That is correct, is it not?

Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I actually did say it was the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 127 and 122.

I think the point the member is trying to make, though, is that Supplementary Order Paper 127 replaced Supplementary Order Paper 121, and the last time the member was a party to the debate he may have been expecting 121 to be the number before him and it is now 127. So I am sure the member was just confused by the change in the Supplementary Order Paper numbers.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think all the Committee needs to know is that if the Chairman would take the time to just make sure that the Committee is aware of the content of Supplementary Order Paper 127. The Minister is confirming it by nodding. But perhaps it would help the Green Party if the chairman gave us a brief description of what is in that Supplementary Order Paper.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just suggest to the member that the Supplementary Order Paper has been on the Table for some time, and any member is free to look at it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like to correct the Green Party vote on Supplementary Order Paper 127. We would like to cast a vote against that particular Supplementary Order Paper.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): So the member wants his vote reversed—to vote against?

Yes

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say that the voting on the Supplementary Order Paper was done as a bloc. The vote cannot be split. The vote for the two Supplementary Order Papers cannot be split.

The Green Party will vote against both those Supplementary Order Papers.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Green Party is voting against both? Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can you please clarify for me that the member is seeking leave to have those votes changed but the votes have already been tallied and the result of that vote announced, therefore—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member can do that under Speaker’s ruling 68/5. The member sought leave and it has been granted. The question now is that Part 2 as amended stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question that Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Before you took the vote on the question that Part 2 as amended stand part, I am not sure whether you gave the Committee the result of the previous vote on Supplementary Order Paper 127. If I am wrong I apologise, but if I am not I would not mind hearing the result, please.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. The member is absolutely right. The vote in that part particular case, on the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 127 and 122 is: Ayes 64, Noes 57.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That is precisely what my previous point of order was. I wanted to know whether the result of the vote had been announced. You said it had and that leave had been given. The reason I asked that question is that the Standing Orders require leave to be sought—

Mr Mark, please, I am on my feet. There is no need to relitigate this. The issue has been voted on. It has been agreed to by the Committee and we need to move on.

💬 RON MARK: Can I finish my point of order, Mr Chairperson?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes.

💬 RON MARK: I might not have given leave from New Zealand First had you answered my question. Mr Power has just clarified exactly what I thought to be the case. You sat me down, and said that the vote had been counted. Clearly, it had not. New Zealand first might not have allowed that leave at that point in time.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say that I was under the impression that leave had been granted for the vote to be changed. That can be done under Speaker’s ruling 68/5 and also Standing Order 153(2). Leave was put. There was no disagreement.