Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill

The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill will apparently be called the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2008. That is what the title clause of the bill says. But that title implies that there has been a reform, that something positive and good has happened to sentencing and parole. I think a better title for this bill would be the “Removal of Discretion that Resides with Our Judges and with the Parole Board in Favour of Those who Want to Sloganeer Their Way into a Particular Position with the Public Bill”.

This bill is based on a fiction. It is based on a lie. It does not represent any truth in sentencing or in parole. It does not act as a deterrent. It does not make our communities safer. I say to every single person in this House who has stood up and has said that they are on the side on the victims of crime that we on this side of the House would like to see fewer victims of crime. We would like to put our energy and our effort into removing some of those drivers of crime, which I know that some elements of the Government are interested in addressing. We started off down that pathway, and I am glad that some members of the Government are willing to pick it up and run with it.

Maybe that explains why this Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is in the name of the Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections, instead of being in the name of the Minister of Justice, which is where this bill rightly resides. The Ministry of Justice develops policy for Governments based on the policy decisions that they make. It translates the policy ideas into legislation.

This bill started off life, I think, as the orphan child of one David Garrett as a member’s bill. I ask whether I am right about that. It was picked up by the Government as a Government measure as part of the arrangement that National has with the ACT Party. I think that that is a shame. We are hearing all of the language that is associated with the “three strikes” law in the United States of America when we know that the “three strikes” law in America has not made those states any safer than any of the other states of America. In fact, we know that the two groups of people who are less safe when this kind of law is passed are prison officers and police officers. They are much more at risk when there is nothing left to lose, and that is exactly what we will be saying to those who will remain in prison for the rest of their lives. The numbers will increase over time, and those individuals will be putting at risk police officers and prison officers.

The title clause states “Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2008”, but it is not sentencing and parole reform; it is removing discretion. It is mandatory sentences. This legislation should be called the “Mandatory Sentences Law Reform and No Parole in Particular Cases Bill”. People should think very seriously about the impact that this legislation will have on those two groups—the prison officers and the police officers. When one has nothing left to lose, then the person who is standing in the way of one confronting that reality will be very much at risk. There have been many examples in the United States of police officers who have been shot going to arrest somebody for what would be a third strike.

The other thing is the nature of the charges that will be brought against the individuals. This is another name we could give this bill: “How to Lock Up More of Our Māori Population Bill”. That name for the bill would have more truth in titling than anything that we have had before us today. We know that Māori are much more likely to be stopped in the street. We know that Māori are much more likely to be arrested if stopped. We know that Māori are much more likely to be charged if arrested. We know that Māori are much more likely to be charged with more serious offences if they are charged. They are much more likely to be convicted if they face a court hearing. They are much more likely to go to jail if they are Māori. That to me is an indictment on our entire system, and this bill will add to it.

Anyone who has had a misspent youth facing a charge will know that they are not all in the category that has been described to us. Of course we have very strong feelings about murder, rape, sexual violation, and those things, but there are other charges as well that are not as serious. They cover a magnitude—a full range of offenders are covered under the same charges.

💬 David Garrett: What is a minor one?

I am not saying that any of them are minor; I am just saying that there are circumstances where somebody gets a conviction for manslaughter because he was involved in a suicide pact with his wife. In that particular case, the man pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, murder. He had entered into a suicide pact with his wife. She was successful in completing her suicide with his assistance, but he was not successful in killing himself. He was resuscitated and charged with murder. He pleaded guilty and got home detention. Under this legislation, if he had also had a misspent youth, he would have been locked up for the rest of his natural life.

All I am saying is that there is no capacity in this legislation for any sense of forgiveness. There is no chance of redemption or for anybody to turn their lives round. How many senior gang members do people in this Chamber know who are now respected members of the community? We know that former gang members came to the ministerial Drivers of Crime meeting because they are now giving back to their communities. This bill says that they should never have been allowed out of jail and that they should have—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I just remind the member that we are on clauses 1 and 2. It would pay to mention the title and commencement. You have mentioned them a couple of times, but I would like you to come back to the title and commencement, clauses 1 and 2.

The title of this bill is misleading. It talks about reform. What I have just described to this Committee is not reform, but a huge backwards step. It says that nobody can change. It is unfortunate that this Committee is debating something that is called the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill when it should be called the “Misrepresentation of Three Strikes (a Failed Policy in the United States) Bill”. It should be called the “Let’s Make Our Communities Less Safe Bill”. It is about locking up more Māori and about making sure we give no chance to anyone to redeem themselves, no matter what crime they have committed. Some of those people now contribute to our society in an extremely positive way.

I would rather be debating something that was genuinely about reforming sentencing and parole so that we could have a safer society and so that those who were capable of redemption were able to redeem themselves and front up to the victims of their crimes. We keep forgetting that this is supposedly about the victims of crime, but how is this bill looking at the victims of crime when they are not even mentioned in the title of the bill?

Unfortunately, a lot of offenders leave prison saying that they have paid their debt to society. What about their debt to the victims of their crimes? What about their debt to their victims’ families and to the community, which has been upset by the crime that was committed in its midst? I think that if this bill was genuinely about sentencing and parole reform, as the title clause describes, it would be doing something quite different from what is presented here. This is about “three strikes”, about emulating the United States, and about not caring whether we end up spending 20 times the amount on our corrections system than we spend on our education system. If we go down the track the United States has, that is exactly the direction we will be going in. I think it is a tragedy that we are debating something called the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill when there is nothing reforming about it, at all.

I move, That the question be now put.

Referring to the title and the commencement of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, one could argue that, given the debate and the points that have been made tonight, this bill would be better called the “Sentencing and Parole (Hoax on Victims) Bill”.

I read an article that Deborah Coddington wrote. Deborah Coddington is a former member, as we know, of the ACT Party. She may have been a founding member—I do not know. But she made an interesting point. She said that even this bill was not an ACT Party bill; it was not a bill of the original—

💬 Chris Hipkins: The original liberals.

—Mr Hipkins is right, those are the words she used—liberal ACT Party, before Rodney Hide got his claws into it. The comments she made were interesting. She talked about the liberal reforms that the ACT Party was built on, not only in this area but in other areas of policy.

This bill could be described as a hoax on victims, because it does two things: it tugs at the heartstrings of victims, and it raises victims’ expectations substantially. I would wager that this bill, when passed, will for a time be eminently popular, because “three strikes” is a great slogan and everyone can remember it. It will be popular for a time. Victims will have a high expectation of what it can deliver for them. And that is fair enough. I do not blame victims, or members of our community who, sadly, may be future victims, or members of our community who truly believe that this bill will be the answer to all the ills in our criminal justice system. The bill will be popular, and I know what will be said about it at the next election, because given that we will not see the ultimate effects of it for 5 to 7 years, it will be very difficult to argue one way or the other on the election stump as to its merits or lack of them. That is part of a hoax that the ACT Party and National have put in place; it is a nice little strategic political triangulation. It is a bit like the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill, which comes into force in July of next year, not too many months before, I suspect, the next general election. The only time we will be able to really scrutinise and see the practical effects of this bill will be well after the next election cycle. That, I would argue, is very, very deliberate.

This bill will be a notch on the belt for Mr Garrett—a legislative notch on the belt. And Mr Hide will be able to tick the box for the Sensible Sentencing Trust and say that ACT has done the deal and delivered. The deal with the Sensible Sentencing Trust has been clinched.

💬 Hon Rodney Hide: We’re keeping our promise.

He says that, yes, the deal has been clinched. We all know what the deal was, too. But the time will come when members of Parliament have to revisit this legislation. And the crime figures will continue to go up. It is interesting that, under the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, we have, I think, the worst murder rate for 20 years. But that was all going to be absolved; everything was going to change when National got into power.

There will be people listening tonight who will disagree vehemently with me and with the Labour Party position. They will say we are wrong, and some will even say we are soft because we oppose the bill. I do not have any angst against those folks out there, at all, because they have a genuine belief that this legislation will deliver for them.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: They’ve been conned.

Yes, they have.

💬 Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You brought to the attention of the Hon Lianne Dalziel the matter of relevancy. I have let this speech go on for some time now without bringing the speaker to order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I hear what the member said. I mentioned to Mr Cosgrove’s colleague earlier that we are on clauses 1 and 2, the title and the commencement. The member has a minute to go, and I would like to hear the title and the commencement mentioned in the remaining minute.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You might recall that I mentioned my suggested amendment to the title in the first sentence I made.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a point of order. I am inviting the member to continue. He has the call.

I intend to continue, and I will repeat for your edification, because maybe the sound system is not working—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is a challenge to my ruling. I have ruled and I am inviting the member to continue. We do not need any further discussion on it.

I repeat the first sentence I made in my speech, which was that an appropriate title for this bill would be the “Sentencing and Parole (Hoax on Victims) Bill”. That is what I said in my first sentence of my speech.

💬 Chris Tremain: Don’t be a smart-arse—the way you spoke to the Chair.

Well—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We do not need to get into this sort of nonsense. I am inviting the member to continue. [Interruption] I am on my feet. In the spirit of the hour, I ask the member to continue. We are talking about clauses 1 and 2. I hear what the member said. Please continue.

I will not respond to the member opposite. He may choose to use unparliamentary language, but I will not. As I have said—

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Get on with it.

Oh, we will get on to it, I say to the member. We will be back debating this legislation in some years, whether or not that member is in the House, and we will revisit the Hansard of that member, who I do not think has made a contribution in the whole debate. I invite him to get up and make a contribution. I think he has a legal background. He may be able to make a substantial contribution on the bill, rather than standing over there and doing an imitation of the member who is based in an electorate near Trevor Mallard’s—what is his name?

💬 Chris Hipkins: Paul Quinn.

Mr Lotu-Iiga is doing an imitation of Paul Quinn squawking from the sidelines. This is very, very important legislation. Whether or not we disagree with it, it is substantial and it will have a huge impact—Labour would argue a negative impact. I say to that member that if he would like to make a contribution, he should get on his feet and make one, because we would enjoy listening to it. But I do not think that will happen, as he sips his glass of water.

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: You don’t want to talk about the bill.

I will talk about the bill, all right. There is a very, very high expectation of this legislation among victims.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: That’s the problem.

That is the problem, yes, because those victims expect this bill to deliver for them. They expect that it will have a deterrent effect. They expect that, as they have been told, criminals, before they commit a crime, will think: “Hang on, I am on a first strike or a second strike.” or “I have been warned by the judge.”, and they will walk out of the house without doing what they had gone there to do, whether that be murder, rape, or any heinous crime. I do not have faith in the criminal element to make those sorts of mental calculations as they are about to commit a crime. They will not stop and think about what the judge warned them would happen if they committed this kind of crime again.

I think there are dangers for victims. It may well be the case that the ultimate tactic of the criminal element is not to maim but to kill, because if they kill there will be one fewer witness who can testify against them. There are dangers, as my colleague Lianne Dalziel has said, for our police force and for our corrections officers. If an offender would be incarcerated for the rest of his days, he has nothing to lose. Look at Graeme Burton—as I speak to the title of the bill—and at the activities that he has engaged in because he is not getting out of prison any time soon. He will not be getting out at all. I suspect that he has determined that, given that, anything goes. The human carnage that he has left, and the threat that he poses to prison officers and to others who come into contact with him, are an awful prospect going forward. He should never be allowed out. But his case shows what can happen.

A more appropriate name for the bill is the “Sentencing and Parole (Hoax on Victims) Bill”. I repeat that the Law and Order Committee was told by officials that it is eminently possible—we asked them repeatedly—that a person who commits a first-strike offence, a grievous offence, may get a shorter sentence than a third-striker who commits a less grievous offence. We asked the officials that specific question—whether that was possible under this legislation. We have professional officials, and they answered that, yes, it was possible.

I am glad to see that the Minister of Justice is in the Chamber. I am sure that after his long absence from the fight, his absence from the debate—I do not mean physical, of course; I mean his verbal absence—his absence from the process, Simon Power, being the reformer that he says he is, will want to take a call in support of his Minister of Police, who wrenched this bill from his grasp. He tried to hang on to the bill for so long. The Cabinet paper was pot-riveted to his part of the Cabinet desk; he had held on to it for so long that he was superglued to it. He did not want to get away from it. He wanted to take it through all stages, but he was rolled by the Minister of Police, who said that, no, she would do it. I suspect that that is the alibi, anyway. I say to the Minister of Justice, given that he is here, that it will be his agency, the core Crown agency that deals with justice bills, that has to administer this legislation. He might like to take a call and tell us why his Ministry of Justice was barred from the second part of the process as the amendments were put through the select committee. He might want to tell us why his Ministry of Justice continues to be gagged on a number of pieces of legislation and processes here. He might want to tell us that, given that the Police told us that it will not be the key agency that deals with the bill, and neither is the Department of Corrections.

💬 Amy Adams: What has this got to do with the title?

The bill is, in respect of the title, a hoax on victims. It could also be called “The Bill I Wanted to Put Through as Justice Minister but I Was Rolled by the Police Minister Bill”. It could also be called the “Ton of Guts Bill”. A ton of guts was shown by various Ministers in fronting this legislation, like the “Great Reformer”, the Minister of Justice. He said that he would get tough and sort it out. He showed a ton of guts in fronting up to this bill: there he was, all through the debate, silent.

I move, That the question be now put.