Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill

The purpose of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, according to the purpose clause, is to deny parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worst murders. I think that there is a problem with that language, because it includes manslaughter as well. We have created an interesting juxtaposition in this legislation. The Minister will know that there are people who are found guilty of manslaughter who could not possibly be defined as guilty of the worst murders. I will mention a case that I became familiar with when we had the debate on provocation. I would like the Committee to reflect on the fact that this purpose clause refers to—

💬 Paul Quinn: Lot of reflecting, Lianne.

Well, I think it is worth doing. I am trying to be helpful and ensure that the Committee looks at all of these issues. A couple entered into what was a suicide pact, essentially—an elderly couple, both not very well. Unfortunately, in this suicide pact—the whole situation was unfortunate—the husband was successful in assisting his wife to complete suicide, but he was not successful in his own suicide. He was charged with murder, he pleaded guilty, and he was sentenced under our new law, which does not require life imprisonment as a mandatory sentence. It has to be imposed unless there are good reasons not to, but essentially it is no longer a mandatory sentence. One of the issues that came up in the course of that case was that the result, essentially, was that he was granted home detention. One could not possibly describe him as having been in this category of an offender guilty of the worst murders, when he had pleaded guilty to murder on the basis of not having a trial. He was not very well himself. I think there was recognition from the Crown that it would not prosecute for the life sentence that could have been given in that particular case. If there had not been the alternative to life imprisonment for murder at the time, then that judge would have found it very difficult. I personally think that the husband probably would have pleaded not guilty if there had not been the alternative to life imprisonment.

The trouble is that the language of this says that this is what it is for, but it means that it will capture a whole lot of people who are not in this category. So somebody, for example, who has had a “youthful” time, who has gone down the wrong track and committed two very serious offences when he was quite young, and who then has had a period of redemption—finding himself, making up with those he has offended against, and restoring himself on to a good path later in life—if he was that gentleman, he would face the maximum term of imprisonment because he would be regarded as a persistent repeat offender, even though he had committed only two serious offences at a time when he was young, not really fully grown, and not able to make the right decisions at that time in his life.

The purpose clause is trying to encapsulate what the Government is trying to achieve, but it fails to identify that there are always exceptions to these rules, and I do not know whether the exceptions are actually identified within the purpose as well. As I understand the bill—and I am not as familiar with this bill as I am with others because I did not sit on the select committee—there are provisions that enable the application of parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worst murders because there is an alternative provision in there for those cases where there is an alternative if the judge determines that it would be a breach.

I am speaking to clause 3.

💬 Paul Quinn: Are you going to help her out? She needs helping.

Mr Quinn seems to have a problem with women in this House. He constantly interjects whenever a woman on this side of the House gets to her feet. He is not on the side of a rugby field, so I would prefer if he was quiet when we start our speeches. I thank Mr Quinn.

I stand to discuss the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill with regard to clause 3, “Purpose”. Clause 3(a) states the purpose is to “deny parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worst murders:”, and clause 3(b) states it is to “impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent offences.” The overarching concern is that initially this bill in its entirety, and this particular clause, was pushed by the ACT Party and supported by National because it was deemed in their view to be some sort of deterrent to crime. From the outset, I say that it is unfortunate that all of the experts who have come through have said that in no way will this bill work as a deterrent to crime.

Our concern with the purpose outlined in this bill is in respect of some of the conditions the bill later sets out of what the different offences will be. We think that guilty pleas should be factored into sentencing, and that is something we have put forward an amendment on. The amendment would allow the court to take into account a guilty plea and reduce a sentence as a result. The proposed legislation does not provide any incentive to plead guilty, and officials have been warned that it will result in a decreased number of guilty pleas. We on this side of the House have that concern because fewer guilty pleas will be expensive for the State as there will be more defended hearings. Cases will be dragged out, which will cause victims more pain.

Along the way we have heard from the other side of the House that these punitive measures are supposed to bring justice to victims, but I cannot see how that will happen if they are dragged through the mud in these cases. Obviously, the offender will not want to have three strikes against his or her name, because there will be harsher penalties at the end. Offenders are less likely to plead guilty; therefore, victims will be dragged along as the case is drawn out. Later on, we will see more appeals being made, and that will result in victims having to relive the crime over and over again. We on this side of the House are very concerned about that.

We are also concerned about a few other things. Accidental and negligent manslaughter should be excluded from this bill. Everyone in this House would agree that manslaughter is an extremely varied offence. It can range from vicious assaults to tragic accidents. Sentences for manslaughter are extremely diverse and can range from preventive detention at the most serious end of the scale to community service in some cases of accidental manslaughter. I think it is important to talk about some of these aspects of the bill in relation to its purpose, which is to “impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent offences.” In talking about this, we are discussing what that side of the House determines to be a serious offence. We on this side think we need to take into consideration the varied offence that manslaughter is—it can be accidental and it can be negligent. Some would argue that if it is an offender’s third offence, he or she deserves what they get.

I take this opportunity to address some of the issues raised by the previous speakers as to the purpose of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. Quite clearly, this Government is very serious about repeat violent offenders and making sure we have penalties that fit the fact that these people have continued to commit violent offences where there are victims. Every one of the 40 offences listed is a serious violent offence. Whether of a sexual or of a non-sexual nature, they are all serious. The issue of manslaughter has been raised and whether accidental or negligent manslaughter could be excluded. I say there is a degree of negligence required to establish liability for manslaughter. It is one of the differences between manslaughter and murder, and it is why there is a provision in terms of the sentencing that is in the bill as presented to the Committee now to differentiate manslaughter from murder. There are also opportunities in the charging of offenders in the third stage for any third strike. The police will be referring those matters to the Crown solicitor for a review of the charging so there is not an overcharge. Where there is a true negligence situation, it will make sure that those people are not overly charged and, therefore, given a very long sentence.

I have heard a lot about victims. Ninety-three percent of submitters to the Law and Order Committee supported the bill, and many of those people were victims and victims’ families. On the argument that has been put this afternoon that offenders will not plead guilty, and will plead not guilty instead, I point out that offenders already plead not guilty for a lot of serious offences. On that argument we would be forced to reduce the penalty for sexual violation from the 20 years it is now; I am not proposing that, and I do not believe that anybody in this Parliament really believes that that would lead to more people admitting their guilt.

This has a deterrent effect, although it has been stated previously that the Department of Corrections was quoted as saying there was no deterrent effect. Well, no, the papers referred to the fact that when the Department of Corrections did its calculations on the number of extra beds it would need for prisons, it had not taken into account any deterrent effect, and that is because it has to work off what it knows. What we are talking about here are our worst recidivist violent offenders, and an extra 50 beds in 5 years’ time, or about that number. Those are the sorts of numbers we are talking about. We are not talking about the run-of-the-mill silly criminal. We are talking about very serious violent offenders, who will not learn and will always create victims. That is what is important, and that is what this bill is meant to address.

I have to confess that I come to this debate on the “three strikes” legislation with some reluctance. I find it very difficult to place myself in the shoes of a victim of a violent offence, particularly a victim of a violent offence committed by a repeat offender. I find it very difficult because I do not necessarily know how I would react if I was in that situation. Of course, I think all of the members of the Committee who speak on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill have a lot of sympathy for people who find themselves in that position. Our hearts certainly go out to them. It is understandable that they would look to the criminal justice system for an element of retribution, and for punishment of those who have perpetrated those crimes. That is very understandable, and I can certainly see why victims would regard that as important.

However, if I were asked to rank retribution versus prevention in order of priority, I would place prevention much higher up the list. Although retribution is certainly part of our criminal justice system, the prevention of crime in the first place has to be integral to what we do. One of the fundamental questions that we always need to ask about any legislation before the Committee is what it will do to prevent crime in the first place. One of the most pertinent questions in respect of this legislation is whether it will make an offender less likely to reoffend, and whether it will aid prisoner rehabilitation so that offenders are less likely to reoffend when they are released from prison. A lot of evidence has been presented from overseas and from within New Zealand suggesting that that will not be the case. It suggests, in fact, that these initiatives will not improve the rate of rehabilitation or reduce the rate of reoffending once somebody is released from prison. That has to be fundamental to this debate: what will make our communities safer? Yes, offenders are reoffending. That suggests that part of our criminal justice system—the retribution and punishment system that we have at the moment—is not working to rehabilitate prisoners and prevent reoffending. How can we improve that? I am not sure that doing more of the same, making the sentences longer and holding people in prison for longer, will necessarily contribute to a better outcome in that regard.

I have spent a lot of time discussing these issues in my own electorate of Rimutaka. We have the country’s biggest prison in my electorate, Rimutaka Prison, and I am guided a lot by the work of Prison Fellowship New Zealand, which I think does some fantastic work at Rimutaka Prison, working with really difficult people. The last person to whom I spoke about this bill before coming to the Chamber was involved with the Prison Fellowship. He said to me that he had met some people in prison who he thinks are really bad people, and he would hate to think of them being out there in the community, but he has also met some people, while working in Rimutaka Prison, whom he would be proud to introduce me to. Those comments were made by somebody in the Prison Fellowship environment, who was trying to rehabilitate prisoners so that the rate of reoffending was decreased and offenders were properly reintegrated into the community once they were released. I really take that on board. That person does not think this bill makes good policy, because he sees a number of problems with it. For example, prison discipline could well become a problem if prisoners have all hope of being released from prison removed. If they know that they are in prison for a very, very long time and there is no chance of parole, what will provide them with the incentive to reform, to behave, and to try to better themselves in prison? That is the feedback I get.

I also have a number of prison officers in my electorate whom I interact with on a reasonably frequent basis. They do one of the toughest jobs I could possibly imagine. They deal with some of the most difficult people—actually quite awful people, quite often—and a lot of the prison guards I talk to are concerned about the implications this bill will have for their ability to control the people who are in prison. I have a lot of sympathy with that view, and I can understand the argument they put forward. In fact, I think that what we should be doing is looking to refocus the debate in this area on to how we can stop so many people landing up in prison in the first place. All of the evidence that I have seen so far suggests that putting someone in prison probably makes them more likely to reoffend. Quite often it makes them worse criminals as they come out the other end of it, because they become so disconnected from society.

We also need to think very carefully about what prompts a lot of the offending in the first place. Many of the perpetrators of violent crime are often victims of violent crime before they are perpetrators of it, and I think we need to look very carefully at that.

It is important to remember throughout this debate that the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is unashamedly about reducing the number of victims and about public safety in general. Since the election four more people have died at the hands of persons who, had this law been in place at the time they committed their crimes, would have been in jail. That is not rhetoric. It is not spin. It is a simple fact. I heard someone insultingly say the other day, when this subject came up in another forum, that we cannot say that about the numbers we talked about in the initial phase because some of those victims might have died of diseases. As the Americans say, “Puh-lease”.

I have been involved in debates recently with a number of people on both sides of the argument—in fact, Mr Lees-Galloway and I had a debate a week ago, and a very civil affair it was too—but the most interesting one was probably a debate in Auckland 2 or 3 weeks ago with Professor Warren Brookbanks, a respected academic at the University of Auckland, and Dr Ekins, who has published quite widely on this subject. Dr Brookbanks was good enough to agree several things in that debate. First, he readily agreed that only in the tiny pool that is New Zealand are most academics opposed to this legislation. Professor Brookbanks acknowledged that in the United States, opinion is about even on whether the “three strikes” laws, in the 26 US states that have them, have been effective.

But he went further. Professor Brookbanks also agreed with me that the two phenomena I pointed out to him were, in fact, evidence of a deterrent effect. One of them was that of the prison population in California who are “strikers”, about 60 percent are first-strikers, about 30 percent are second-strikers, and only about 10 percent are third-strikers. Professor Brookbanks agreed with me that that distribution indicated that although first-strikers were more numerous, a much smaller number wished to go back for another go, and a very much smaller number wished to go back for a third go. Secondly, Professor Brookbanks agreed on the fact that prior to 1994 there was a net inflow of parolees into the state of California. That was the year, of course, that the “three strikes” law was enacted in California. Prior to 1994, parolees came from other states to California, I presume because of the weather, because it was a nice place to live, and because of its lifestyle, etc. Post-1994 there was a net outflow of parolees, particularly among strikes offenders who got out after a second strike and quickly got across the border to Arizona or Washington state, which do not have “three strikes” laws. Professor Brookbanks agreed with me that that was evidence of deterrence.

Another thing that impresses me is my ongoing communication with a lobby group in California, which I have referred to in the House before, called Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes. Note that the name of the organisation has the word “Amend”, not “Abolish”. I sent that organisation the original ACT version of this bill, which was quite different from the version we are debating today. I have the comment on record: “David, compared with what we’ve got here, yours is wonderful.” I spoke to the president of Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes a week or so ago, a lady called Geri Silva, and told her where things were at and what was happening. She again expressed great surprise that, as she put it, we do not have LWOP—life without parole—even for the really bad guys. When we visited Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes 3 years ago, together with Tai Hobson, the widower of Mary Hobson, one of William Bell’s victims, Geri could not believe that, as she put it, “this guy”—Bell—“was on the streets with 102 previous convictions”. So it is quite instructive that a left-wing lobby group seeks only to amend the law, and that it would be delighted with the legislation we will be passing. The organisation does not seek to abolish the law, because it can see that it is working.

Another thing that is interesting, and that has never been canvassed in this Chamber before to my knowledge, is that the Americans have a system called propositions, which we would call binding referenda. In fact, the original “three strikes” law came into being in California through a proposition. But in 2004 there was an attempt to weaken California’s Act to something pretty close to what we have, most notably in narrowing the focus down to what the state calls “serious violent felonies”. As I have said in other speeches, the undoubted injustices in California have arisen from this grey category called “technical felony”, and that is what has led to the cases that are much discussed, of people going to jail for life for stealing golf clubs, etc. A proposition was put on the ballot in 2004 to weaken California’s very wide law down to something very similar to what we have—and it was defeated. It was defeated most heavily in poor, black counties. Rich liberals from San Francisco wanted it weakened, because crime does not affect them. But poor black counties in Los Angeles rejected it by a country mile. I was reminded of that fact—that poor communities are those most affected—when I visited the Māngere Māori wardens a few weeks back, and I did not have to finish what I was saying about crime affecting poor people worst. They knew it. I was a bit nervous about presenting the “three strikes” argument to these people but they were right on board with it. They thought it was a great idea.

So this bill is indeed a victim-focused bill. It will, at the very least, reduce the number of victims through incapacitation; it cannot do otherwise. Aside from tragedies such as what happened to the corrections officer over the weekend—one of those who do that very challenging job on behalf of the rest of us—I cannot see any good reason why the deterrent effect that Professor Brookbanks acknowledges from the data overseas would not be replicated here, and we know that the adverse effects such as going to jail for stealing a pizza or stealing golf clubs simply cannot happen here. I am disappointed that some who are in opposition to this bill—I do not mean the parliamentary Opposition but those in the community—are being frankly dishonest in still saying that under the law we are going to pass, people can go to jail for life for stealing a chocolate bar, when they must know, if they have read the bill, that that is simply untrue.

ACT supports the bill; it was our idea in the first place. We believe very firmly and honestly that it will make a major change. I close by saying that of course we need to look at the causes of crime. I will take a later call, and give someone else a chance to speak. But we do need to look at drug treatment. I heard a very interesting lecture this morning by an American judge about drug courts in California and what they have done. We have to start somewhere and we are starting by making this change of direction in saying to violent offenders that if they cannot learn from being told twice by a judge, and by definition serving a lengthy period of imprisonment, adding first and second strikes together, then they have no place in the community. ACT makes no bones about that and we are unashamed of it. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Before I call the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, I just remind members that we are on clause 3, “Purpose”. I am not getting at anyone in particular, but I think we have progressed slightly to quite a broad debate, and I wish to not have it extend any further, because there are only two paragraphs in the purpose clause. Members should just have a look at them. There will be ample opportunity as we progress through Part 1 etc. to get into the broader parameters of what this bill is about. This is just a wee heads-up. Thank you.

I appreciate the advice you have given, Mr Chair. I was not in the House for the first reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, but I want to make a couple of comments, bearing in mind your advice regarding clause 3, the purpose clause. It says, in essence, the purposes of the legislation are to “deny parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worst murders”, and to “impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent offences.” On the face of it, and given the debate in the community that Mr Garrett has referred to, it would be reasonably hard to argue against some of those sentiments, until one delves into the detail of the proposals.

I say, firstly, there is a problem with regard to these sorts of debates for those of us who oppose these sorts of measures. I have never been a victim—not ever. As such I have to be careful, as a politician, even if it is just in relation to the purpose clause, about pontificating to the people who have been and are the victims of heinous crime. I acknowledge that, and I also acknowledge in this debate that had my partner or my family been dealt to in the way that many in our community have been through tragic circumstances and heinous crime, I suspect I would be less logical, more emotional, and possibly more extreme in my attitude than I am. I accept that, because the closer that crime gets to one’s home the more personal the issue becomes, and, of course, the bigger the impact that it has.

But in this Chamber we are actually charged with trying to piece together, with the best will in the world, good, solid legislation that has a positive effect. Let us put aside the argument that if one is not an extremist and a hard-liner one is soft on crime, or that if one is interested in reform one is soft on crime—that sort of drivel, which we hear often in this Chamber. If we put the political claptrap aside, I would wager and take a political risk in saying that probably every member of Parliament on either side of the Chamber cares about victims and believes that the guilty should be punished, but also believes that the behaviour of offenders should be changed—that they should be rewired. I would wager that we all want to pass effective legislation that actually works.

As we look at the purpose clause the problem for the Labour Opposition is that I am sure that as we go through this debate, sadly, we will have the usual sort of comment made that anyone who is opposed to this legislation is a hand-wringing liberal who is soft on crime. That is probably where it will go; it has degenerated into that right through the debate on this bill. But those of us who are opposed to this purpose clause are opposed to it because we do not believe that this legislation will work. We do not believe that it will have the effect suggested by its promoters. We believe that this purpose clause, along with every other clause in the bill, is more about political posturing, is more about bluntly tugging at the heartstrings of victims, and more about raising the expectations of victims than it is about having the effect that has been suggested. In the years to come, I suspect that we, or maybe others, will be back in this place, looking at what this debate was about and what—[Interruption] Well, there we go; the utterances from that member prove my point. We will be back here to look at this legislation—either to amend it or dispose of it—because it will not have had the practical effects or provided the deterrence that its supporters and promoters say it will.

I bow to Mr Garrett, who is a lawyer. I am sure we could dredge out all sorts of statistics from all sorts of places—and that has been done by members from both sides in this debate—about whether paragraph (a) of the purpose clause, regarding the denial of parole to repeat offenders, will have the practical effect that the promoters want to achieve in terms of deterring crime and, I presume, changing people’s behaviour. It is interesting that Mr Garrett quoted an American judge. We had an American judge come to our caucus: Judge Hyman. I think he went around the country. As a judge in California, he had administered the Californian version of this law. I acknowledge Mr Garrett’s point that someone will not receive a life sentence for stealing a stick of gum—I accept that. But Judge Hyman’s thesis, based on his experience of administering a law where, as in the purpose clause of this bill, there are aspects of denying parole and imposing maximum sentences, was that that did not work. We will back what works, and we will oppose what does not work.

The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is just part of this Government’s review of law and order issues after years of supervised neglect by the late, unlamented, Labour administration, whose languor, lassitude, and legislative listlessness and flaccidity mired our country in a miasma of torpor and despond. We are addressing the issues. This principled, pragmatic National-led Government is listening to New Zealanders and finding solutions to their concerns.

We have here in front of us the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. This bill has two main purposes. The first is to deny parole to repeat serious, violent offenders, and to offenders who are guilty of committing the worst murders. What could be arguable about that? The second purpose is to impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent crimes. I put it to you that that is an entirely reasonable sanction to place upon violent repeat offenders. This bill is specifically focused on those offenders who show no regard for others. They show no regard for their victims, no regard for their families or their community, and are repeatedly convicted for serious and violent offending. All of those offences have a maximum penalty of at least 7 years in prison. The bill ensures also that victims of repeat offenders and their families do not have to experience the additional stress of attending regular parole hearings or worry that an offender may be released on parole.

So how will this bill work? It creates a three-stage regime that will improve public safety by imprisoning the worst repeat violent and sexual offenders for longer periods and under increasingly strict regimes if they continue to offend. At stage one, offenders who are convicted of a serious violent offence will be sentenced as normal but will be warned both verbally and in writing that they are on the first rung of the regime and of what will happen if they are convicted of another serious violent offence in the future. Now, critics of that have said that offenders do not consider the consequences of their actions when they commit crimes, so longer sentences are not an effective deterrent. However, the road to a third strike is a long one, which involves clear warnings, delivered by a judge, about the consequences of various serious offending, and considerable time in prison, where, it is hoped, they will reflect on their actions.

So at stage two, offenders who are convicted for the second time of a serious violent offence, and who have previously received a warning, will be sentenced as normal, but will be required to serve without parole any sentence of imprisonment imposed by the court. That is eminently reasonable. They will also be warned both verbally and in writing of the consequences of a further conviction for a serious violent offence. So in no way can those offenders be in any doubt of the consequences of their actions.

At stage three an offender who is convicted for a third time of a serious violent offence and has previously received a final warning at stage two must receive the maximum prison sentence for that offence and serve that sentence in full without parole. However, this bill recognises that in some very rare cases the circumstances of the offender and the offence will be such that a sentence served without parole would be manifestly unjust. The bill takes that into account and makes provision for the court, where it is satisfied that a no-parole order would be manifestly unjust, to not make such an order at stage three when imposing the maximum term for a serious violent offence. I commend this bill to the House.

First, I give the condolences of the Green Party to the family of the prison guard who was so tragically killed recently by a prisoner. I think that hangs over what we are debating here today. We want to reduce violence in our society and violence in our prisons. David Garrett says that the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is about reducing the number of victims. I believe he is sincere that that is the aim of the bill; I just happen to disagree that this bill will reduce the number of victims of crime, including serious violent crime, in our society. I think Chris Hipkins was right when he said, in an earlier speech, that we really should be focusing on prevention, which includes rehabilitation, and not on retribution. So partly here we are discussing a different philosophy of how to deal with people in prison who have committed crimes.

There was an interesting article in Time magazine of 10 May about Norway’s second-largest prison, which opened on 8 April and has a completely different focus from our prisons as they currently are—well, not completely different, but it has a very strong emphasis on rehabilitation. The concept is that being in prison is itself the punishment, and all the effort should be placed on rehabilitation. The prison governor said that in the Norwegian prison system there is a focus on human rights and respect. Later on the article talks about the prison guards having meals with inmates, and all kinds of things that really push people on the road to rehabilitation. It gives some statistics. Twenty percent of Norway’s prisoners end up in jail again 2 years after their release. I do not have the exact New Zealand figures to hand, but they are much, much higher. As a result of that relatively low rate of reoffending, Norway, which has about the same population as New Zealand, has 3,300 prisoners, whereas the current figure in New Zealand is, I do not know, 8,500 to 9,000—about three times as much. I think we can learn from that. To just say we should abolish parole for a certain category of prisoners—and parole is essential for prisoners’ transition from prison to society—is going in completely the opposite direction, and will only raise the rate of reoffending and the rate of violent crime, which this bill is intended to deal with.

Judith Collins, in her speech, said that there are those who will never learn. That comment was directed at a section of the prison population. Sure, some prisoners may be so distorted in their personalities, etc., that they will never learn, but I think the approach is not to define prisoners, due to the nature of the crimes they commit, as beyond rehabilitation. The potential for rehabilitation is partly an independent factor, and we must try every possibility, particularly for the most violent criminals, to get prisoners on the right path when they leave jail. We must not just hold over their heads the “three strikes” policy or elimination of parole, but have an approach that involves some empathy for the prisoners.

One thing that worries me is that if we define a certain category of these prisoners as “evil” or “beyond rehabilitation”, we are almost denying in ourselves empathy, and that is a part of the criminal psyche. The criminal who commits violent robbery, murder, and so on is usually lacking the empathy towards the victim that would enable that crime to be prevented. We have to turn it the other way round and try to get those prisoners, while they are in jail, to have some social concern and to think beyond their own narrow interests.

I think that when we look at the purpose clause, we see, as my colleague Clayton Cosgrove said before, that there would be quite widespread acknowledgment across the Committee that we are concerned about reoffending. We have to be concerned about reoffending in our communities. When people go and spend time in prison, then leave, and recommit crimes, we have to ask ourselves why that is so, and what we can be doing about it. It is clearly defeating the purpose of people going to prison if they are constantly reoffending when they come out, and I think there is a shared concern about that across the Committee. There is a shared concern about what underlies the purpose clause there, which is that the safety of the public should be paramount when it comes to how we operate within the criminal justice system. There is a shared concern about that, right across New Zealand society.

As my colleague Clayton Cosgrove also said, in our jobs as MPs we all meet the victims of crime. Some of us have been the victims of various types of crime but we also meet many victims of crime, and feel the pain they have had and the experiences they have to continue to go through, day after day—well beyond the time the crimes were perpetrated. All of those things lie behind the concerns of everybody in this Chamber, and I am sure they lie behind the purpose clause we are debating at the moment. But in the end, as a Parliament our job is to pass laws that will be effective and will work, and that have evidence to support them in doing that. I do not believe, and Labour members do not believe, that this bill will do that, or that this purpose clause can be supported, despite what might lie behind it as a commonly held concern.

The problem with this bill is that it is unworkable, it is also inequitable, and it will not lead to just sentences in the way, perhaps, that the promoters would like it to. Mr Garrett said we needed to start somewhere, but my problem with this bill is that this is not where we should be starting. We should be starting by working to stop people from committing crimes, and by investing in the early years to ensure that people do not move into a life of crime. We need to be ensuring that we are properly supporting rehabilitation and reintegration into society, and that we are not undermining the organisations that do that work or cutting the funding for the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society, a 132-year-old organisation that does remarkable work on reintegration. We should actually be devoting ourselves to starting where we can have the greatest impact—that is, starting by working with young people who are heading in a direction we do not want them to go down. We should be starting at an even younger stage, with people who have learning difficulties, who cannot stay in school, and who have behavioural problems. We should be supporting parents to be able to bring up those young people. That is where we should be starting.

But the purpose clause—and the drive behind this bill—is a poster; it is a slogan, it is an emblem. It is not real change, not real development; it is something the ACT Party has promoted and National has gone along with, but it is not actually starting in the place where we should start. I am sorry to say that I think the purpose clause there gives false hope to people. It gives false hope that somehow this bill will solve the violent crime that is out there, but there is no evidence to support that. Internationally there is no evidence to support that, and nothing has been presented to us here that does that. The regulatory impact statement for this bill actually challenges, time and time again, the issue of whether public safety will be enhanced, whether there is a deterrent effect. We cannot stand in this Chamber now and give to the victims of crimes and their families the false hope that somehow or other this legislation will wish away all of that violent crime. I believe that that is what is going on here, in terms of the ACT Party and National. They are providing false hope to people. This regime is unlikely to deter would-be offenders; that is the evidence internationally. The regulatory impact statement raises that question.

Mr Garrett talked about California. It is easy to throw around different statistics in this debate, and, yes, there has been a drop in crime in parts of California. But that started before the “three strikes” bill. In the United States, the greatest, the sharpest, drop in crime in the last decades has actually been in New York, a state that does not have a “three strikes” law. So I ask Mr Garrett why we are not looking at that. In California, the counties that aggressively enforce the “three strikes” laws did not see the greatest drop in crime. The greatest drop in crime was seen in the counties that did not enforce the law as strongly. It is easy to throw up these statistics and get them out there, but that is not always the way to get the change we want.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.