Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill, Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill

Third Reading

I move, That the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill be now read a third time. The purpose of this bill is to deny parole to repeat serious violent offenders and to offenders who are guilty of committing the worst murders, and to impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent offences.

This bill has changed significantly since its introduction and its referral to the Law and Order Committee. These changes will increase its effectiveness and its contribution to public safety. The bill creates a three-stage regime that will imprison the worst repeat violent and sexual offenders and the worst murderers for longer periods, with increasing sentences and reduced access to parole if they continue to commit serious violent offences. The changes have increased the certainty of the punishment that offenders will receive, mainly through offenders now qualifying for the regime following conviction rather than following a sentence of 5 or more years’ imprisonment.

I take this opportunity to again acknowledge the pivotal role played by the ACT Party in the passage of this legislation, and especially David Garrett. I thank the Law and Order Committee and its chair, Sandra Goudie, for guiding this bill through the select committee process. I also particularly thank the New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections for their tireless efforts.

For the benefit of the House, I will recap the main elements of the regime. When convicted of a serious violent offence for the first time, an offender will be sentenced as normal but will be very clearly warned that he or she will now be subject to the three-stage regime, and warned what will happen if he or she is convicted of a further serious violent offence. If the offender is convicted of a second serious violent offence, the implications are more serious. He or she will be sentenced as normal but any jail sentence will be served in full without parole. The offender will be warned again, both verbally and in writing, of the consequences of a third conviction for a serious violent offence. If the offender fails to heed the previous warnings and is convicted of a third serious violent offence, he or she will be sentenced to the maximum penalty for that offence, to be served without parole. The exception to this regime is for conviction for manslaughter, for which an offender will be required to serve a life sentence, with a minimum non-parole period of at least 20 years.

The bill has specific provisions for those convicted of murder. Those convicted of murder at either stage two or stage three of the regime will be required to serve a life sentence without parole. The bill also makes special provision for offenders convicted of the worst murders. These offenders can be sentenced to life without parole even if they did not have a record of previous violent offending. However, the bill provides for judicial discretion in those very rare cases where the circumstances of the offender and of the offence would be such that to serve a maximum sentence without parole at stage three, or a life sentence for murder at stage two or three, would be manifestly unjust.

By means of this bill, this Government is sending a strong message that we are serious when we say that parole is a privilege not a right. Parole is a privilege that will not be available to those who fail to take heed of warnings and continue to commit serious violent offences. This bill ensures that the rights of victims and their families are put before the rights of offenders who choose to continue to offend in this way.

Once again I thank all those members of the public who submitted on the bill, 94 percent of whom supported it. These people welcomed this new regime to address violent crime and to spare victims the stress associated with the current system, which many view as favouring the offender rather than the victim.

I turn now to the amendments proposed by Labour members during the Committee stage of this bill. Those amendments sought to weaken the impact of the regime on repeat serious violent offenders by supposedly reducing what they describe as the potential for disproportionate sentencing and unjust outcomes. These amendments did not receive the majority support of the Committee. The Opposition fails to understand that this bill deliberately puts in place an escalating regime of penalties for which I make no apology. An offender who is being sentenced at stage three has committed a third serious violent offence and has received two previous warnings about the consequences of reoffending in this way. It is also highly relevant that the regime includes only offences committed by people over the age of 18. The severity of the sentence reflects the repeat nature of the serious violent offending and the refusal of the adult offender to respect the rights of law-abiding citizens. The community expects and rightly deserves to be protected from those serious violent offenders for a lengthy period.

The Opposition also tried to discredit the legislation by citing some of the more controversial scenarios that have arisen from the Californian “three strikes” legislation, such as offenders whose juvenile offending record is taken into account and are given sentences of more than 25 years for shoplifting. I restate the fact that this regime will not apply to offences committed by those aged under 18 and will apply only to a specific range of 40 serious violent offences, all of which are punishable by a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment or more. Some members of the Opposition chose to overlook these two key differences.

Another issue that has been raised is the importance of the appropriate charges being laid by police. The Government is confident that the police have sufficient checks and safeguards in place to ensure that the appropriate charges are laid, particularly at the third stage of the regime. At stage three police will be referring all charges that qualify for the mandatory maximum penalty to the Crown solicitor for review, either pre-charge or by second appearance.

I also take this opportunity to reassure the public that this Government is committed to helping those offenders who genuinely want to turn their lives round. Some offenders are simply bad and the best thing we can do is make sure that they stay locked up. But for others, turning to crime is often the result of being poorly equipped to live law-abiding lives. Drug and alcohol problems and a lack of basic skills are a big impediment to offenders who want to make a change for the better. This Government made a commitment to increasing the number of prisoners gaining skills and work experiences by at least 1,000, to doubling the number of prisoners receiving alcohol and drug treatment to 1,000, and to expanding prisoner literacy and numeracy programmes. We are well on the way to achieving these targets in just 18 months. Over the past year 23,000 hours of literacy and numeracy tuition have been provided to prisoners. This is an increase of 10,000 hours over the same period in the previous year. We now have 4,428 prisoners employed in work activities, and this represents substantial growth towards the target of 1,000 extra prisoners in employment. International studies have shown that participation in employment can reduce the risk of reoffending by between one-third and one-half.

We are also providing more alcohol and drug treatment to prisoners. A new drug treatment station is in operation at Otago Corrections Facility and two more units are being built—one at Auckland prison and the other at Whanganui. The more prisoners we have who are learning to live productive, law-abiding lives, the less crime we will have in the community. Less crime in the community means fewer victims of crime, and everyone should agree with that.

In conclusion, this Government is very pleased to fulfil our election promise to deny parole to, and impose maximum terms of imprisonment on, the very worst repeat violent offenders. This bill sends a clear message to those offenders who think it is OK to use violence to get what they want that their behaviour will no longer be tolerated. If they continue to commit serious violent crime despite being warned of the consequences, they can look forward to being locked up for a long time. This Government is proud to put the interests of victims, their families, and the wider community ahead of serious violent criminals. I commend this bill to the House.

Third Reading

I rise on behalf of Labour to oppose this bill, as we have done throughout this process. I put on the record of the House that Labour is deeply concerned about increasing crime rates, we are especially concerned about reoffending rates, and we care deeply for victims of crime, no matter where that crime takes place in New Zealand. And those are some of the reasons why we oppose this bill, because, quite simply, this bill does not address the causes of those crimes, it does not seek properly to address the reoffending, and it certainly does not reach out to victims. In fact, it could be argued that in many ways it will put victims under more stress—and I will return to that shortly.

We oppose this bill because it gives false hope to victims and their families, and it is unworkable, unjust, and inequitable. If we continue to park ambulances at the bottom of the cliff of crime, we will not address the causes of crime, and we will not reduce crime and its impact on society. I will return to these specific matters shortly, but I raise now several process concerns that Labour has about this bill.

The major one is the role—or the lack of the role—of the Ministry of Justice throughout the process of this bill. It is important to know that the Ministry of Justice was prevented from having a role as adviser to the Law and Order Committee by National members of that select committee. That raises an extremely serious issue for Parliament around where Parliament gets its advice from—not where the executive gets its advice from, but where Parliament gets its advice from. In our system very important distinctions are made between the operational arms such as the police, and the Ministry of Justice, which is the policy arm. That has been blurred by this Government and it has prevented parliamentarians from being able to seek the advice they need to make decisions in this House. I believe that that represents a significant and a serious let-down by this Government.

But perhaps we can see why the Government did not want this Parliament to have the Ministry of Justice advising the select committee. I will quote from the Ministry of Justice paper on this bill: “The proposals will add substantial direct costs to the justice system without creating any significant improved outcomes in terms of reducing the drivers of crimes, improving social outcomes or reducing reoffending and victimisation.” Those are the words of the Ministry of Justice. Those are the words of the Government’s chief advisers on justice issues, and this Government has chosen to ignore that advice, and—what is more—chosen to prevent a parliamentary select committee from having those people as their advisers on this issue. That is a disgrace, it is a mark against the chair of that Law and Order Committee, and it is a mark against the whole Government for preventing those parliamentarians from getting that advice.

I also note that the select committee did not hold oral submissions on the bill after, as the Minister herself has just acknowledged to us, it was substantially amended. No oral submissions were held on that; written submissions were required with 2 weeks’ notice to submitters. That is unacceptable for what we all recognise as an extremely serious change in our system. This whole process has been rushed through by this Government for political imperatives, rather than to trying to find the best possible law that can help protect New Zealanders and keep our communities safe.

Before I leave the whole question of process, let me say that the fact that the responsibility for this bill transferred from Simon Power as Minister of Justice to Judith Collins as the Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections speaks volumes for this bill. Some light was made of this in the Committee stage—that Mr Power was being rolled by Mrs Collins and having this bill, which he loves, taken off him. Well, I want to get serious in this third reading. I suspect that Simon Power is somebody who understands that this bill is unjust, unworkable, and simply should not be going through our Parliament today, and it has gone to Mrs Collins to put it through, leading the charge on behalf of the ACT Party. I think that as the Minister of Justice and the Ministry of Justice do not seem to want to be part of this bill, surely that must raise questions for this Government and for the country as to whether the bill should be passed.

I now want to move to some of the substance of the bill. The issues raised in the Committee stage in particular were about whether this bill can achieve the things we want it to achieve, and one of those things is deterrence. We all agree that we want people to be deterred from committing crimes, but no evidence was presented to us that this bill will do that. In fact, it was quite the contrary. The international evidence presented was that deterrence will not be improved by this bill. Greg Newbold and other experts said that this is simply not an effective way to improve deterrence of crime. We were offered no proof in that regard.

The Minister has already talked about the definition of “manifestly unjust”. There was an opportunity in the Committee stage for the Minister to take up the point that the regulatory impact statement says that this creates a disproportionate system, and that the Attorney-General, in his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act submission, said that it was disproportionate and severe, but the Minister made no attempt to do that. It is easier for the proponents of this bill to obfuscate and say that the “manifestly unjust” provision is in there. The bar is set so high that there is no doubt that there will be disproportionate outcomes from this bill.

Another area is the whole question of judicial discretion. It is very important to note that even the Police Association came out against that aspect of the bill. Even the Police Association felt that it would shift away from judges having discretion and move it into the hands of the police. We know that is the case. The only point in this process where the judicial system will continue to have discretion is at so-called “strike one”. After that it shifts to the police.

Let us hear what the Police Association has to say: “Judicial discretion provides a ‘safety valve’ for the myriad of possible circumstances surrounding any given case and is preferable to mandatory sentencing,”. So the officers themselves say they would like to see judicial discretion retained; but, no, the Government did not want to listen to that. There will be less transparency in the system as a result of moving away from judicial discretion to a system where the police play a much greater role. Our police are a great force, and I do not like the idea that they can be accused of corruption, but this puts them into that frame unwillingly, because the Police Association itself has said that it does not want that.

The other thing that a number of experts have raised is the fact that there will be fewer guilty pleas as a result of this legislation. Fewer guilty pleas mean greater costs on the system and more stress for victims. It will put victims in court when they need not be there. There is no doubt that people facing the consequences of this scheme will think twice about whether they want to plead guilty, and, as a result, there will be greater costs and more stress to victims.

One of the things that have been raised time and time again in this debate is the importance of community safety. During the Committee stage we attempted to get some measure of agreement that we all want our communities to be safer, but the problem with this bill is that it will not necessarily bring that about. The New Zealand Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society said in its submission that it does not support this bill, because it will not achieve a safer New Zealand. John Pratt, a criminologist from Victoria University, said that the realities of the “three strikes” bill are that it is more likely than a preventive detention sentence to endanger community safety.

So, on substance, this bill fails. But where it really fails New Zealand is in principle. We all want there to be less crime, but to get less crime we need some real leadership from this Government. This is the easy bit, because this is a populist bill. The hard work is about making sure that people do not end up in prison in the first place, that we address the causes of crime, we intervene early, we help with parenting, we reduce poverty, and then, when and if people do commit crimes, we support reintegration and rehabilitation. That requires leadership, and this bill does not deliver leadership. We need to solve the problems of crime at the beginning, not at the end. We should not be parking the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff; we should be trying to endeavour to build the fences and create the environment at the top of the cliff that will prevent crime. This bill gives false hope and it should not be passing through this House today.

Third Reading

I am delighted to speak on the third reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, and I acknowledge the members of the Law and Order Committee for their hard work, and I acknowledge the staff, the Department of Corrections, the New Zealand Police, and David Garrett from ACT for the excellent work that has been done in the process of this bill.

This bill has been a milestone. I am delighted that we are on its third reading and that it will be enacted, because keeping the public safe is one of the most fundamental obligations of any Government. It is not about being soft on crime, which is exactly what the Opposition is. Labour members say that this legislation could result in disproportionate sentences for offenders at stage three. This Government makes no apology for that, because by stage three an offender has been convicted of two previous violent offences and has been warned, both verbally and in writing, on two different occasions of the consequences of further convictions for serious violent offences.

This bill is about serious violent offending. I point out that all of these serious violent offences are identified in clause 5. The specifications for these serious violent offences are in the Crimes Act 1961. I say that because some queries were raised about the specifications for the serious violent offences. One of the queries was from the AIDS Foundation, which I have had the privilege of being a member of. I was pleased that the foundation raised the matter and that we were able to clarify that the specifications for its particular area of concern are in the Crimes Act, but the actual offence is identified in the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. Let us face it: it is a serious violent offence to wilfully inflict a disease—AIDS—upon another member of the public. If anybody accepts that it is otherwise then that person is deluding himself or herself. There is nothing acceptable about the wilful passing of such a disease on to another human being. It is a serious violent offence that is rightly identified in the schedule of serious violent offences, and the specifications for it can be found in the Crimes Act 1961. It has been around for a long time, so nobody should be in any doubt about the details of those particular offences.

This legislation recognises the repeat nature of offending by those few who fail to heed warnings and continue to offend, regardless of the consequences. These are the people whom we cannot necessarily do anything with. These people are a minority, which I think has been made abundantly clear time after time. The National-led Government promised to get tough on crime—to toughen up on criminals—and this bill does exactly that. I am proud to support this bill, with ACT as our coalition partner, in its passage through the House.

Third Reading

It is a sad day because it looks as though the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill will go through the House today. In the future those who supported this bill will look back with regret. This bill is intended to make society safer. It will fail to do that. It will make our prisons more dangerous for police, for guards, and for inmates. It will not achieve the goal of making our streets safe, and it will not make the public safer—or indeed feel safer.

It is interesting that when the Greens have spoken to oppose this bill there has often been some amusement from some of its proponents, who dismiss our objections because, after all, we are communists, watermelons, and the various other things that it amuses people to call us. I enjoy the irony of the fact that the most robust, comprehensive, and damning objection to this very poorly drafted and poorly conceived legislation I have heard was at a Maxim Institute event in Auckland recently. Two gentlemen, Professor Warren Brookbanks and Dr Richard Ekins, of the faculty of law at Auckland University, who are both people of considerable experience and extraordinary mana, have done a remarkable job and made a very objective assessment of this bill. I am sure that those gentlemen would have no objection to my calling them conservative in their views. That is their position. From that very objective academic and, indeed, informed judicial position they have come back and said that Parliament “should not enact” this bill.

I will quote from some of the reasons they give as to why this Parliament should not enact this bill. In their paper entitled Criminal injustice and the proposed “three strikes” law they state that the bill “departs from the central principle of just sentencing, which is proportionate response to wrongdoing.” They go on to say: “The ‘three strikes’ regime … especially on strike three, ignores the nature of the offences, which include conduct that ranges from the relatively minor to the very serious.” They point out that “The regime ignores almost all mitigating and aggravating factors”. They say “The application of the regime … will often be unjust.” There can be no clearer and more damning language from two respected, highly qualified, and capable judicial commentators to say that this legislation will often be unjust in its effect. They suggest that the regime will often impose grossly disproportionate punishments on relatively minor offences.

We are told that this bill will have some deterrent effect. In fact, there will be none. We know this. Throughout the discussion, from the analysis from all sorts of parties, we know that the deterrent effect simply is not there. I quote again Professor Brookbanks and Dr Ekins: “The application of the regime is unlikely to defer would-be offenders in general, or the offender with one or two strikes in particular.”

At the last reading of this bill we heard much about the fact that parole is a privilege and not a right for prisoners. Indeed, those two gentlemen in their analysis concede that point. They state, however, that “There is no need to cancel eligibility for parole to establish that parole is a privilege and not an entitlement.” We simply do not have to go there. The way this bill is structured suggests that we in this House—the majority in this House who will pass this bill—know better in every circumstance than a judge or a jury who will hear all the mitigating factors, the whole story, everything that is said and done about a particular case.

In terms of the cancellation of eligibility for parole, the two distinguished jurists go on to say: “Cancelling eligibility for parole for all second strike and most third strike offenders will not deter offenders but will undermine incentives for prisoners to reform or to refrain from further offending in prisons.” In other words, prisoners will have nothing to lose. They will have no opportunity, no possibility of parole. Therefore, what weapons, what tools, and what mechanism will prison officers have to manage prisoners’ behaviour, improve behaviour, or prevent further offending? This bill will make our prisons more dangerous places. It will make the job of the police more dangerous because they will be pursing people who know they have nothing to lose. This is not good law. It is not well-thought-out.

The executive summary of the paper by Brookbanks and Ekins goes on to state: “The regime will remove the incentive for offenders facing a strike three conviction to plead guilty (or to cooperate with the authorities), which will sharply increase trial costs and impose unnecessary trauma on victims.” In the last reading of the bill we heard that the removal of parole meant that victims would no longer need to address parole boards and relive their no doubt traumatic and unfortunate experiences. However, this simply will misplace, if you like, or relocate the trauma they will need to go through, because prisoners, or rather accused, who might otherwise plead guilty will have absolutely no incentive to do so, and, in fact, will have every incentive to plead not guilty.

The final summary point they make that I will refer to states: “The regime has a substantial fiscal cost, which would be better spent on (among other things) victim support, intensive policing, and improving parole supervision.” It must be acknowledged that there are one or two provisions in the Budget, as we heard last week, that actually do improve the situation. Some useful money is being put into those things, and I see the hand of the Māori Party in those wins in the Budget. However, it is still a drop in the bucket. It is inadequate. It will not be sufficient to turn round enough lives. This bill will create many, many more problems than it could possibly resolve.

When there is opposition to proposed legislation as it goes through this House, it is often very easy to see the self-interest of the parties that are objecting to it, and that is the nature of the democratic process. When we are dealing with commerce bills, sectors within the business community will come and protect their vested interest by trying to support, or not support, a particular provision in a piece of legislation.

I reflect on some of the groups that are objecting very powerfully and publicly to the passing of this legislation: the Howard League, with over a century of history in supporting the human rights of accused and of prisoners; Caritas, the Catholic Church’s social services arm; the Rethinking Crime and Punishment group, directed by Kim Workman, a gentleman with experience as a police officer and as a consultant in the prison service, who is now a volunteer for the trust; and Prison Fellowship New Zealand, which is essentially a collection of church interests.

I look at those groups and I struggle to see anyone who could possibly be driven by self-interest to oppose this very vicious legislation. In this instance it is clear that their concerns or objections are coming from a commitment to basic humanity, to genuinely looking for ways of making our communities safer, to protecting the human rights of inmates and accused, and to making the workplace safer for prison guards and officers.

There has been reference to the Californian experience. The original proponents of this bill looked at California as a glowing example of a “three strikes” regime giving positive outcomes. The regime being proposed in this bill is different but the principle is the same: mandated sentencing, longer sentences, tougher sentences, and fewer basic human rights for prisoners. Of course, the analysis was that this bill would remove or reduce human rights for prisoners.

The Rev. Ron Givens has just been in New Zealand. He has given firsthand experience, and has shown images, of the direct impact of locking people away for longer; such as the fiscal cost, the human cost, the suffering, and the danger to police and guards. These are not things we need to invent, because there is evidence that the principle—

💬 David Garrett: You should go and check the claims he made.

The images he showed us were from the corrections services’ own websites in California. They were not manufactured images. They showed inhumane conditions. They showed people who were being brutalised and were more likely to further offend.

Last Sunday on our own televisions we saw an example of two young men. One committed suicide in prison and one looks as though he will be going to prison. The young man heading for prison has committed a very serious crime—there is no question of that—but what that young man needs is treatment. That young man going to prison would be an unjust outcome, and it is that sort of injustice that this legislation will not only facilitate but positively encourage. We will continue to oppose this very poorly thought-out legislation. Kia ora.

Third Reading

I am very pleased to be able to stand in opposition to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. I am ashamed that Parliament is using its time to progress legislation that will not achieve one single point of what is described as being its aim.

This bill will do nothing at all to reduce offending. If there was legislation before the House to reduce offending and make our families and communities safer, there would be unanimous approval of it. This bill does nothing to reduce reoffending; something that we should all be very seriously concerned about. If the bill did something about reoffending, it would receive unanimous support from this House. The bill does nothing at all to support the victims of crime, which is something that the Minister who is now responsible for this legislation said she cared about when she spoke in this debate. If she does care about that, why does her legislation not do anything to better support the victims of crime in our community? Then Labour would support it. The bill does nothing about that. That view is backed up by the advice from many of the officials, although they were not able to give that advice directly to the Law and Order Committee. The bill does nothing to address the causes of crime.

Simon Power, the Minister of Justice, who should have been responsible for this bill, had a big get-together that was intended to look at the drivers of crime. He did it in a very inclusive way; he invited all sorts of people to that conference. He was serious about asking what the drivers of crime were, what caused crime in our community, and what we, as a Parliament, should do about it. Instead, we got this load of drivel, which, frankly, I think Simon Power is relieved not to be responsible for, because he knows that it is an embarrassment to him, his Government, and the big get-together that he called to look at the drivers of crime.

This bill offers false hope to victims, and I think that is actually the most despicable thing about it. We, as a Parliament, should be upfront about the fact that if there is not enough support for people whom we care about, we should agree to do more. Instead, the Government offers this drivel, driven by one of the biggest drivellers of all in terms of substantial policy, the Sensible Sentencing Trust representative in our Parliament, and it offers victims hope that will never be delivered on. I think that victims deserve better than that from our Parliament.

I will now pick up on the process point that my colleague Grant Robertson raised during his contribution earlier this afternoon. It is an absolute outrage that the proper officials—the Ministry of Justice officials—who are entitled to give their opinion to the executive and to Parliament through the select committee process—were stopped by Minister Judith Collins from giving their advice on this bill to the Law and Order Committee. I have never heard of such a breach of rights in an open, democratic parliamentary process. That was just extraordinary, and members in this House should be outraged about it. Actually, they should demand the Speaker’s consideration of that very point: that when members of the select committee asked for the proper Ministry of Justice officials to give advice to the select committee—they could have done it with other officials; that is a very common practice—the executive of the Government barred those officials from giving that advice. I think we have a right to obtain advice, and we have a right to obtain competing advice if that is what the officials recommend. That is the advantage of having a Public Service.

It is not surprising that that advice was stopped, though. I will give the House an example of what Ministry of Justice officials said about this bill. They said it was unlikely to be consistent with the Government’s publicly announced policy regarding the drivers of crime. The Ministry of Justice said this legislation goes absolutely against what the Minister of Justice said was the Government’s policy intention in terms of the drivers of crime. The issue is not just that this legislation fails to be very competent or very robust; it goes against the stated Government policy outlined by Simon Power. It was not only justice officials who said that; Te Puni Kōkiri, the Police, Treasury, and the Department of Corrections have all said this is a rubbish bill driven by a—no, they did not say it was driven by a rubbish member, because they are high-quality public servants. But they said this bill would not achieve the purpose that the Minister has outlined: that it will not reduce offending or reoffending, and it will not support the victims of crime. This bill is just a way of keeping ACT quiet. Well, I wish the Government good luck on that particular point.

I will talk about another group of people, apart from the Ministry of Justice officials, who were not consulted about this bill: the Ministry of Health officials. That ministry was not asked for its opinion on the implications of transferring large sections of the Crimes Act into this bill, and completely redefining the nature of offending. Public health experts were not asked about the provision in the Crimes Act that has been moved into this “three strikes” bill. The public health advice would have been that including section 201 of the Crimes Act—the section referred to by the chair of the committee—which deals with infecting with disease, sends entirely the wrong message to people whom we want to be free of disease and free of infecting other people with disease. It gives them entirely the wrong message from Parliament about discrimination and stigmatisation, and it drives risk-taking behaviour underground. That would have been the public health advice if the select committee had bothered to ask for it.

The Minister of Health should know about those issues. He is responsible for public health in New Zealand, and he has recently been alerted to the concerns of the New Zealand AIDS Foundation in that regard. Transferring that section of the Crimes Act to this legislation sends the wrong message about public health. When the Minister of Health, the Hon Tony Ryall, was asked to put public health considerations first on the agenda of this Parliament, what did he do? He was asked to put public health first, and he referred those concerns to the Minister of Corrections. The Minister of Corrections, the Hon Judith Collins, interestingly enough, is not responsible for public health in New Zealand. I do not know why the Minister of Health collects his salary if, when he is asked about a major public health concern, he refers it to one of his colleagues. If he cannot do the job, he should hand the whole lot of it over to someone else.

Another interesting bit of information that has come to light during this debate is that the public health bill that is on the floor of Parliament will also be moved into a justice environment. So we will be putting public health messages and concerns into a criminal and justice framework. Clause 127 of the Public Health Bill will be moved into the legislation that deals with crimes against a person. I implore the Minister of Health to do better with regard to that legislation than he has done in his response to this legislation. When a public health issue is raised with the Minister of Health, he should take it seriously. He should have used the privilege of his position to respond to those concerns, even if it was a matter of delaying the progress of this legislation in order to get the concerns aired properly, debated, and hopefully resolved. I certainly would have been supportive of that. But the Minister of Health took no such measure; he washed his hands of it. It was bad news, it was a bit tricky, and it was a bit difficult, so he washed his hands of it and left it to Judith Collins to respond to.

If this legislation did anything to reduce offending or reoffending, or to better support the victims of crime in our community, Labour would support it. It fails on every single measure. It does not offer us safer prisons, safer communities, or safer families. It is a wasted opportunity.

Third Reading

I begin by repeating an acknowledgment I made during the Committee stage of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill that I am sure members on the other side of the Chamber are concerned about victims. Mr Robertson and Mr Hipkins made interesting and informed contributions, and I acknowledge them.

“Three strikes” was one of the ACT Party’s major policy planks at the last election, and it was No. 1 on the list of policies that we wished to advance in the confidence and supply agreement with National. I start by thanking the National caucus as a whole, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Police and of Corrections, and the Prime Minister for honouring the commitment in the confidence and supply agreement in both the letter and the spirit. I particularly acknowledge and appreciate the Prime Minister’s openness of mind in being prepared to look at the evidence that showed that including a qualifying sentence in the definition of a strike would have been fatal to the bill’s purpose and would have made it ineffective. I pay tribute to him for that.

I thank Dr Jennifer Walsh, an American academic who prepared a very comprehensive submission and came to New Zealand at her own expense to appear before the select committee and to speak to any member of Cabinet who wished to speak to her. Dr Walsh has provided invaluable help to me and to us by providing information to counter the misinformation about how the policy has worked in the 26 states of the United States that have laws of this kind, as well as very useful ammunition to counter the misinformation promulgated here in this House. Interestingly, that misinformation is the same kind of empty rhetoric that was seen in California in 1994.

In my maiden statement I said that I came to Parliament to try to make New Zealand a better and safer place. I truly and sincerely believe that this bill is a major step forward in that regard. Contrary to what has been said by members on the other side of the House and by some commentators, this measure is not contradictory to the Drivers of Crime initiatives that National wishes to advance; rather, it is complementary to them. I offer an analogy: imagine that our criminal justice system is a person suffering an acute overdose of drugs who is in dire shape. In that situation one saves the person’s life first and worries later about where they got the drugs, who sold them to them, and why they felt the need to take them. The imperative is to save the person’s life. With this bill we have sent a message that repeat violent offenders have a choice: they can change their ways of behaviour or they can condemn themselves by their own choices to spending most of their lives in jail. It is their choice.

Again, contrary to what has been said by members on the other side of the House and by people elsewhere, this bill is not about locking people up and throwing away the key, and it never has been. I re-emphasise what the Minister of Corrections said: the only people who will be locked up for life under this bill will be persons who have committed murder as a “third strike”, or the worst of our murderers—people like Graeme Burton, William Bell, Liam Reed, and, sadly, a number of others whose names are less well known.

This law is about protecting victims. I say again that it is about protecting victims. Since the election four more people have been killed by persons who would have been third-strikers, and thus in jail, had this bill been in force at the time they committed those killings. That means four more lives tragically lost at the hands of repeat violent offenders who are for the most part, if not all, beyond rehabilitation. We need to face that.

Contrary to Ms Dyson’s contribution, we say that there is absolutely no doubt that the policy will work. It will work in one of two ways: incapacitation and deterrence. The only question is how effective it will be. Incapacitation will put behind bars those who cannot and will not alter their behaviour. It will protect society from them. Members on the other side of the House pay lip-service to agreeing that that is where they should be. The other way that the bill—or the Act, as it will become very shortly—will work is by what is known as general deterrence, which means deterrence of others.

I put on record again that no one will be happier than me, personally, if there is never a third-striker locked up. I say again that no one will be happier than me, personally, if no one is ever exposed to the full extent of this regime. But, sadly, the reality is that within days or possibly hours of this bill passing, someone will commit a first-strike offence. The reality is that that person will probably already have a lengthy record of violent offending. When that person is convicted the media will report the first-strike conviction, I have no doubt, and possibly it will report the next several after that. When the first second-strike offender gets his or her final warning and a lengthy sentence, that will be big news too, and all the criminals will know about it.

Criminals know about this legislation now. Contrary to what members on the other side of the House think, criminals are not stupid. They may not have university degrees or even have finished high school, but they know about cause and effect as it affects them. All the criminals will know in 5, 6, or 7 years, when the first third-striker goes away for 14 years if their conviction was for aggravated robbery, or 20 years if it was for sexual violation. The crims will know about it, just as they know today when a child sex offender has been convicted and which prison that offender will turn up in. They know. They are not stupid.

They know about the bill and its effects. We know that because we were told so in the Law and Order Committee. An earnest young man came along and told us how terrible the legislation was, and how the criminals did not think and did not understand the consequences; then, without seeming to realise what he had said, he said that when he was in Pāremoremo Prison last week he was amazed that all of the 75 criminals he talked to knew about this bill. I asked him immediately whether they knew about the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill, which we had been debating in the same week. Of course they did not, because it did not affect them.

This bill is not for the criminals; it is for all the victims who have gone before, and for all those who will now not be victims, as a result of this law being passed. Sadly, there have been so many victims. This law says to John and Val Hargreaves and countless others who have lost loved ones that their loved ones did not die in vain. It says that they helped to spark a change of direction in our criminal law. I say to the mother of Emma Agnew, whom I have met, that her daughter did not die in vain. I say to the parents of Fitzgerald Risati, a Samoan choir boy who was out celebrating his birthday when he was stabbed to death by a scum gang member who was looking for a patch, that their son did not die in vain.

Contrary to the predictions from members opposite and from elsewhere, this bill is not the end of justice as we know it. It is not the end of compassion or justice. It is a turning point. It allows us, having dealt with the overdose, to focus on the children of today’s violent offenders and try to ensure that they do not follow their fathers. It is, in fact, a great day for New Zealand justice.

Third Reading

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Today is the anniversary of the arrests at Bastion Point on 25 May 1978. Back then 222 of us were hauled off to the clink and charged with trespass, which was not a big charge back in those days, but today things are different. As we saw from the police paranoia in the terrorist raids on Tūhoe a couple of years ago, even simple charges such as trespass seem to have taken on a greater seriousness, as the State targets those it wants to shut down, using charges that allow it to call out the armed offenders squad, and using the media to beat up stories that the court is showing have no substance whatsoever in the harsh light of day. So when we talk today about the list of 32 charges that will make up the “three strikes” criteria—

💬 David Garrett: Forty-one.

—well, I have just added another one—the 42 charges that will make up the “three strikes” criteria in this third and final reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, believe me, that is only today’s list. It will not be long before trespass and other similar charges will be added to the list by politicians too dumb, too lazy, and too mean-spirited to resolve issues intelligently, and who choose the big stick as the resort of first choice. To no one’s surprise, it will be Māori who suffer most when that happens. Prison statistics tell us that even though Māori are only 14 percent of the population, we are 50 percent of the prison muster, and have been so for more than 20 years. If members think that is bad, believe me, this “three strikes” bill will make it much, much worse, because without decent rehabilitation programmes, first-strikers and second-strikers will carry on getting it wrong because they will not be learning anything. They are simply reacting to problems in the only way they know, and they will get hammered.

Because I suspect that a lot of members in this House do not believe me, I recommend that they read the countless reports that vividly detail the historical tragedy of systemic bias and outright racism against Māori in respect of arrests, charges, convictions, and jail sentences in this country. These reports tell us that given equal number of Pākehā and Māori being arrested for similar incidents, the ones who are more likely to be charged are Māori; given equal numbers of Pākehā and Māori appearing in court on similar charges, the ones who are more likely to be convicted are Māori; given equal numbers of Pākehā and Māori being convicted on similar charges, the ones who are more likely to be sentenced to jail are Māori; and, given equal numbers of Pākehā and Māori being sent to jail on similar charges, the ones who are more likely to be given the longest sentences are Māori. For those who doubt this scenario, I urge them to give me a call and I will be happy to organise a seminar, with a Pākehā lecturer, to confirm what I am saying today. When I say that Māori are the ones who will cop the dirty end of this “three strikes” bill, members can believe it.

It is a short-sighted man who thinks that legislation that sends people to jail for a long time reduces crime rates. It is a blind man who sees justice in sentencing people to life imprisonment for responding to circumstances they have little control over. It is a bloody fool who thinks that this bill will do anything else but create frustration, anger, and violence within our prison population. This anger will explode for any reason and at any time, because when someone is in jail for life the only question that that person considers, when faced with conflict, is not: “Gee, what can happen to me if I do this?”. It is: “What else can they do to me?”. There is nothing they can do. I know, because I have been to jail. I have been in the mainstream wing, I have been in the remand wing, and I have been in the separation wing. An offender in the separation wing who is faced with conflict does not worry about what the bloody jailer will do or what the system will do. They cannot do any more, because the offender is already in jail. I know what I am talking about, and 100 percent of the MPs in this House do not.

When politicians talk about a safe society, let me ask this question. What about the next generation who have to grow up with the children of those who have been jailed for life? These children will grow up with a deep-seated and very real hatred of society for a life spent below the margins that they have been forced to lead. This hatred will be revisited on society, through ever-increasing rates of mayhem and murder. That, of course, will add weight to the calls for more guns for the police, and that will lead to more guns for civilians, which will lead to bigger guns for criminals. The only question we will have left to ask ourselves is when did we become the southernmost state of the gun-loving USA. That is the future we will be giving ourselves, with a bill like this. That is the only future for a society that treats the punishment of its members with the contempt being contemplated by this legislation, that refuses to take the steps of intelligent societies to reduce offending by reducing the causes of offending, rather than jailing offenders for life.

Heck, even our own Ombudsman admits that there are smarter ways than imprisonment to prevent crime and make criminals accountable, and that prison is not the most effective or efficient approach to reducing crime. Yet what are we doing? We are building more prisons, we are double-bunking prisoners, we are making plans to keep offenders in prison for life, and we are dumb enough to think we can tell how well we are dealing with crime by counting how many people we have put into prison.

The Department of Corrections received $500,000 in 2000, nearly a million dollars in 2008, and it is predicted that we will spend $2 billion by 2020, and that is without the “three strikes” bill being factored in. We could ask whether that is what this Government thinks our society should be spending its money on. Yes, we have a problem with violent crime in this society; there is no question about that. Yes, we have to do something about it. But let us at least be intelligent about it and look to other international examples where rehabilitation and reintegration into society have been proven to work, over the “lock ’em up and throw away the key” model. Research tells us that places that have trialled “three strikes” have higher murder rates, bigger prison populations, and leave a huge impact on marginalised populations—read Māori, when I say that—higher costs, and negative impacts on the families of offenders.

I am not a great fan of British justice, but I note that the Justice Committee of the British House of Commons recently made the case for justice reinvestment. It called for a more holistic approach to crime reduction by tackling the conditions of criminality—poverty, low educational attainment, drug and alcohol problems, and the lack of housing and employment. The committee’s report came out of very clear evidence that prison is a very expensive way of dispensing justice and seeking reform, and concluded that justice reinvestment was a far more prudent, rational, effective, and humane use of resources.

Last week Dr Pita Sharples took a step down a similar path when he announced the establishment of two reintegration units where the focus will be on helping inmates to prepare for life outside the wire, using kaupapa Māori to help them get jobs and accommodation, and help them to improve relationships with whānau and with their communities. But, even still, it seems that our focus is elsewhere. Only 5 percent of the budgets of the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Corrections is spent on rehabilitation, reintegration, and crime prevention; only 5 percent. Most of the money is burnt up in administration, staffing, buildings, and beefed-up security measures for bigger prisons. When a department spends only 5 percent of its budget on rehabilitation, we can guarantee that all the highfalutin plans will not only fail but will eventually come back to bite us on the backside—if not us, then certainly our children and grandchildren.

The Māori Party opposes this bill with all its heart. We will work with whomever it takes to develop intelligent policy over knee-jerk idiocy, and rehabilitation over degradation. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Third Reading

I am pleased to speak on the third reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. After listening to the previous speaker, Hone Harawira, perhaps I can pose a question to him, as he posed one to us, in terms of the attitude of the son of a prisoner who was sentenced to life imprisonment. Perhaps we should also ask about the effect on the son of the man whom that prisoner may have killed. I think we need to understand that this bill is about victims. It is about the protection of our society.

For some time there has been a growing tide of concern at the rising rate of violent offending in New Zealand, and objection to the length of sentences given to serious repeat offenders. Almost 92 percent of voters in the 1999 referendum voted in the affirmative for the proposition that restitution and more support be provided for victims of crime, and that violent offenders be subject to longer prison sentences. Ninety-four percent of the 1,118 submissions made to the Law and Order Committee supported the bill. New Zealanders want sentencing to be tougher for the worst repeat violent offenders.

I acknowledge the issues that the previous speaker raised about addressing rehabilitation. This bill does not pretend to address those issues. This bill is about sending a signal to the people of New Zealand that this Government, in association with the ACT Party, is serious in its concerns about violent offending and is prepared to make sentences tougher and to ensure that repeat violent offenders do not get out on parole and thereby have the opportunity to repeat their crimes.

The 1999 referendum was instigated by Norm Withers after his elderly mother was brutally attacked in Christchurch. The offender had committed 56 previous offences but was released early on parole, which gave him the opportunity to attack Norm Withers’ mother. Since that time, we have had numerous cases of murders committed by offenders who were on parole. William Bell and Graeme Burton are the most well-publicised cases. Both had over 100 convictions. Both were convicted killers who committed murder while on parole.

When this reform bill was first proposed, the New Zealand Herald ran a poll because it believed that such a toughening of the law would damage our international reputation. I read through some of those comments to see what people on the streets of New Zealand thought. One particular comment amongst the many caught my attention. It was written by a person who identified himself or herself as Akiwi. At 9.30 a.m. on Friday, 20 March 2009, that person stated: “It’s shocking everytime some right steps are planned to be taken to fix the crime situation, some idiotic thinking tries to stop it in the name of human rights, as if all the human rights are meant only for criminals.” I think that comment puts it well. Our Prime Minister said some years ago that where there is a balancing of rights to be done between criminals and victims, we take a side, and that side will be on the side of the victim.

This bill is about supporting victims. This bill is about addressing the issue of repeat violent offending and ensuring that it does not happen to the extent that it has in the past. The purpose and the principles guiding the corrections system, as spelt out in the Corrections Act 2004, are “to improve public safety and contribute to the maintenance of a just society”.

I will finish my speech with an excellent quote from our Minister of Corrections, the Hon Judith Collins. She said recently that “none of the 41 qualifying offences for three strikes is relatively minor. All involve serious violence or sexual offending, and all have a maximum penalty of at least seven years in prison. Perhaps more importantly, they all have a long and profound impact on the lives of victims. In defending the rights of offenders, critics of three strikes downplay the goal of the legislation, which is to protect the public from criminals who have a track record of serious offending. The bill focuses on the repeat nature of offending rather than just the offence itself. An offender who has committed three serious offences will, in all likelihood, go on to commit a fourth. By imposing maximum sentences without parole, three strikes gives offenders much less opportunity to do so because they will be in prison.” Thank you.

Third Reading

I will refer to David Garrett’s speech. I point out that he is a staunch advocate for this Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and that he has pushed very strongly for it from the start. While he was speaking I was thinking about why I feel so concerned about what he had to say. The reason is that we hear over and over again from the ACT Party and from National that this “three strikes” bill is about the victims, but unfortunately when I listen, I hear that it is more about hatred for the offender than about compassion for the victim. When that is the driver for legislation, I think that members in this House need to be concerned.

A few weeks ago we had a judge from California here in New Zealand. His name is Judge Eugene Hyman. That judge spoke to us about his concerns with regard to this bill. We asked him questions about rehabilitation in California, and he made it very clear that the money in California with regard to the corrections system was overwhelmingly invested in incarceration, rather than in the rehabilitation of prisoners. I think most New Zealanders would look to the US and think that they would not see that country as being the model that New Zealand should to aspire to. I think most New Zealanders would think and say that our current system is much better as it stands, and the last thing that we would want our legislation to do is reflect the legislation in place over there.

We also had Rev. Ron Givens here recently, about 2 weeks ago. Rev. Givens is the executive director of prison chaplains in California. He has first-hand experience of what happens when a “three strikes” bill is reactionary and Draconian—like this bill—and he spoke of the consequences of California’s “three strikes” legislation, upon which this bill is based. He talked about skyrocketing rates of incarceration, unjust sentences, and unmanageable costs.

💬 David Garrett: Rev. Givens was always busy when I wanted to debate him. He had prior engagements on every evening.

I find it quite disconcerting that I took the time to listen to Mr Garrett, even though I disagreed fundamentally with everything he said, and he cannot sit there quietly while I am giving a speech that reflects my opinion and views on this bill. Rev. Givens knows exactly what will happen if this bill is passed, which is why he came to New Zealand to warn us against it. National should have been listening, but instead it was already tied into a deal that it had made with the ACT Party right at the beginning of its term as Government, despite the fact that, fundamentally, it disagreed with this measure. That is why the Minister of Justice has washed his hands of the bill. Still, National members know that it is bad legislation, but they are supporting it, because the deal gave them the power in the House. We look at those members and we think that that is incredibly sad, and it is quite bad for New Zealand, actually. The chair of the Law and Order Committee, Sandra Goudie, sits there laughing, because she finds it impossible to take anything seriously.

The Māori Party brought up an interesting point about the amount of money that goes into the corrections system and the amount of money that will have to go into the incarceration of prisoners. Quite frankly, most New Zealanders would agree that that is not where they want their money to be spent, yet we see that under this National Government more money is being invested into the corrections system. On the other hand, we see that less money is being invested into things that New Zealanders agree are important—things like early childhood education. We have more money spent on incarceration and less money spent on education. I think most New Zealanders would agree that that is a blight on the Government with regard to its decision making and with regard to what it sees as being priorities for this country.

A number of concerns arose as this legislation was going through the select committee process. I will talk to some of those. On 19 January 2010 the National Government and ACT announced that a revised “three strikes” policy would be incorporated into the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. The Law and Order Committee met to consider the revised bill for the first time on 10 February. Despite the significance of the changes made to this bill and the high level of public interest, the National and ACT members of the committee used the weight of their majority on the committee to ram through the following resolutions.

The first one was to “prevent the Ministry of Justice, the implementing authority for the bill, to have any role as advisors to the committee”. It is one thing that the Ministry of Justice was not the lead agency with regard to this legislation, but it is another thing when the chair and all of the members from the National and ACT side voted to block any role that the Ministry of Justice might have played with regard to advising on this legislation. The other thing that National and ACT members did was to “hold no further oral submissions on this bill, even though the substance of it has changed since submissions were last invited”. There is a recurring theme with regard to that matter. The recurring theme is National’s ongoing mission to block democracy, and that is what it has been doing since it became the Government.

Another thing National and ACT members on the select committee did was to “allow only written submissions on the revised bill from those who have previously submitted on the specific clauses that have been amended”. It makes one wonder what National and ACT members were concerned about. Obviously, they understood that, overwhelmingly, anyone who made a submission on this legislation would have submitted evidence that went against what National and ACT were trying to do—that is, it would have supported our side and what we were saying, which is that this bill would not be effective for what National and ACT were trying to achieve. The other thing it did was to “give those submitters two weeks or less notice to make further submissions”. It was a very small time frame. The process right from the start was flawed, and Labour members are concerned about that.

The Labour members of the committee voted against each of those resolutions. We believe that this is an unnecessarily rushed process, and that to close submissions to all but those who have already submitted on specific clauses affected by the National-Act “three strikes” announcement is to deny the public its right to submit on the revised bill. The select committee process is one of the most important parts of our democracy, as it provides an opportunity for the voting public to have their say. That opportunity was denied by National and Act with regard to this legislation.

One of the themes of New Zealand today is the shift from all decisions being made on behalf of citizens in a representative, democratic style, to a participative democracy in which institutions and processes are open to public submission. The denial of public access to submissions is a step backwards to a “We know best, we are in charge, and we make the decision.” attitude. That is unfortunate, but it is happening.

The original Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill was in the name of the Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power, and the Ministry of Justice was the lead advising agency. That made sense, because the bill aims to change sentencing laws, which are clearly under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice, through the courts. Without explanation, the revised bill was transferred into the name of the Hon Judith Collins, who is the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections. The New Zealand Police were made lead advisers, with the Department of Corrections as the assisting advisers.

We realise that there are serious constitutional issues with this legislation. There has always been a deliberate separation between the justice agencies such as the Ministry of Justice, the courts, the police, and the Department of Corrections. That is because it is considered constitutionally inappropriate for the same agency to undertake the roles of arresting offenders, trying and sentencing them, and imprisoning them.

We are concerned about a number of things with regard to the process. We are also concerned about the substance of the bill. We have said over and over again, and so has the Minister of Justice, that this bill will go no way to acting as a deterrent to crime. Although we have heard from members on that side of the House time and time again that this legislation brings about justice for victims, we have also seen with regard to the evidence that we will instead see victims dragged through the mud even more so, as people are more likely to appeal their cases, and less likely to plead guilty, because there is more at stake. We disagree with this bill. I say that as the chairperson of the Law and Order Committee continues to laugh and mouth funny things to me from the other side of the House. She cannot take this bill seriously, but we do. Thank you.

Third Reading

It gives me great pleasure to speak to the third reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. I have not been impressed at all by the contribution of the Labour Opposition, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, Labour members seem to have focused most, if not all, of their contributions to the debate on process. That is probably because 94 percent of the submissions supported the bill. So instead of bringing some rigour to the bill itself, they are left to wallow in the misery of process, for which they are the past masters.

Every speaker that I have heard on that side of the House has stood up and lectured this House about democracy. Can members believe that? Labour members are giving this House and the people of New Zealand a lesson on democracy simply because the Law and Order Committee felt that the Department of Corrections was the appropriately nominated adviser to the bill. This is the very party that rammed the Electoral Finance Act through this House against the desires of the overwhelming populace of New Zealanders. How dare they lecture us on democracy? How dare they lecture the people of New Zealand on democracy? Labour members have no grounds to tell us anything. That is the first point I wanted to make.

The second point I make is that I understand the heartfelt contribution of my erstwhile friend Hone Harawira. I understand his side of it, but the truth of the matter is that when we look at the statistics, we see that 70 percent of inmates have had 10 or more convictions before they go to prison for the first time, 70 percent of people who have been to prison reoffend within 2 years of their release, and 86 percent reoffend within 5 years of their release. So although I hear the argument for the carrot to encourage and to develop, we have to be mindful of the facts. The reality is that people are given chances, but they do not take them.

So we turn to this legislation, and the ultimate sanction is that 41 crimes now constitute the serious criminal offending that will mean the “three strikes”—that colloquialism. Those crimes fall under about four or five main headings: sexual violation, murder, manslaughter, use of a firearm against a law enforcement officer, kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. If Opposition members want to say in this House that they are not serious crimes against the community and society, then they do not deserve to be in the Opposition. When we consider these crimes, and the variations thereof, against the fact that 70 percent of prisoners who go to prison have committed at least 10 crimes before they go to prison for the first time, we see that the reality is that those Labour members deserve to leave their seats so we can bring someone else in. With those few words, it gives me great pleasure to support the third reading of this outstanding bill.

Third Reading

I think that Paul Quinn’s ability to lecture the House on democracy would have been enhanced significantly had he not voted in favour of taking away the right of Aucklanders to have a say on the structure of their local government, and had he not voted in favour of taking away the right of Cantabrians to have a say on the form of their local government. I think the public will be pretty sceptical about being lectured on democracy by Mr Quinn.

It is good to see Hone Harawira in the House debating the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. As I have previously stated when he has spoken on this matter, I have agreed with many of the comments that he has made. I look forward to seeing him vote against this bill. It is good to see when the Māori Party votes with its conscience, rather than voting with the Government, so we welcome him and his opposition to this legislation.

I come to this debate with some reluctance because, as with many debates on law and order, the comments of those who are opposed are likely to be misinterpreted and wrapped up in bumper sticker slogans. I think that those who perpetrate serious violent crime need to be held accountable for their actions. I think that we need to consider victims in all of this. But that does not mean that I agree with the “three strikes” bill. We have to get past the point in this House where anybody who disagrees with a particular measure on law and order is labelled as being soft on crime, not caring about victims, or condoning the actions of offenders. None of those are necessarily true. I do not condone the actions of violent offenders and I have a lot of compassion and sympathy for the victims of crime. I simply do not believe that the “three strikes” legislation will reduce crime or leave victims better off.

I do not think that it is right for anybody on any side of the House to suggest that members are hard or soft on crime depending on the way they are voting on this bill. I think the public of New Zealand deserve better in the debate on law and order. They deserve to see their elected members of Parliament actually debating these issues seriously and looking at the evidence and the submissions that were presented to the Law and Order Committee, including looking carefully and seriously at the minority submissions put forward by those who oppose this legislation. I know that the overwhelming majority submitted in favour of this legislation. It is easy to submit in favour when one is given a postcard and told to sign it, which is what the vast majority of the submissions in favour of this bill were. They were postcards that were signed by people, and were handed out, no doubt, by the Sensible Sentencing Trust. So I am very suspicious of the numbers when the Government says that people are overwhelmingly in favour of this bill.

I have a huge amount of compassion for the victims of violent offences and those who are associated with the victims of violent offenders. I understand, although perhaps do not necessarily feel it myself, the desire on the part of some of those people for vengeance against the offenders, but I hope we can move beyond that to look at the causes of criminal offending. I would much rather prevent the violent offending—any form of criminal offending—from happening in the first place than deal with it after the fact. I think we would really demonstrate that we take the concerns of victims seriously if we took action to ensure there were much fewer of them in the first place. Unfortunately, this legislation does nothing to reduce the number of victims who are created in the first place.

We have heard some disgraceful examples in this debate of political rhetoric that simply does not square up with the facts. We had the indignity of the Minister in the chair, Judith Collins, standing up in the Committee of the whole House to say that the only violent crime in New Zealand takes place in South Auckland and that anybody who lives outside of South Auckland has no right to talk about violent crime, because they could not possibly understand. I think that is an absolutely disgraceful position for the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections to have taken. First of all, it is a dreadful slur on all of the people who live in South Auckland, and, second of all, it is a slur on people from the rest of the country to suggest that they do not know anything about violent crime and that they cannot sympathise with the victims of violent crime. That is absolutely wrong.

I will mention the reporting of violent crime and crime statistics. We hear crime statistics bandied around the House in justification for this bill and along with a lot of other law and order measures. To some extent the increased reporting of violent crime is a good thing. A lot of violent crime previously got swept under the carpet. It went unreported; it went unnoticed, particularly in the case of domestic violence. A big contributor to the increase in violent crime statistics is domestic violence. I think the fact that it is now being reported and it is being properly handled is a really good thing. I think we should not be alarmist about the increase in reporting of domestic violence. I do not think that domestic violence is happening more than it used to; I think it is being brought out into the open and it is being dealt with. That is really good. We should be proud of that. We should be happy that people are not turning a blind eye to it but are reporting it, and it is being dealt with.

There are problems with the “three strikes” policy, and I will canvass some of the issues that have been raised. First of all, there is not much evidence to suggest that longer sentences reduce crime—they do not. Longer sentences do not reduce crime. The “three strikes” bill provides no incentive for good behaviour, and we should be very wary of that. We are sending prison guards into the prison at the same time as we are removing the incentives for violent offenders to reform their ways and shape up their acts. We are putting prison guards at risk if we remove all of the incentives for the prisoners to tidy up their acts and reform and behave properly in prison. We are placing even more of a burden through this bill on the victims themselves. We are less likely to see guilty pleas for violent offending, and we are more likely to see appeals. All of these things drag out the process for the victims of violent crime, and leave the victims of violent crime even more exposed.

This bill removes judicial discretion. One of the most fundamental parts of a fair law and order system is providing the judiciary with the discretion to cope with different situations. This bill removes that discretion. In fact, it hands it to the police, instead. It means that the police will have all of the discretion in the plea bargaining before charges are brought before the courts, rather than judges having the discretion in the sentencing. So we are more likely to see the police bargaining before a charge is brought, and saying that if offenders plead guilty to a lesser charge, which is not a “three strikes” offence, they will not put forward the “three strikes” offence as their charge. That circumvents the judicial process; it is not fair law and order. It is not fair and people could get off lightly. The offenders could end up getting off lightly if plea bargaining is going on between the police and the offender in order to lower the potential charge that is brought before the courts.

Mr Quinn mentioned the process issues. I think it is concerning that we are considering a significant justice issue, yet the Ministry of Justice was excluded from the select committee process. The regulatory impact statement raised a significant number of concerns about this bill but the ministry was not given the opportunity to flesh them out and debate them. I think that is an abuse of the democratic process, and I think the public should be concerned about that. The Attorney-General—one of the National Party’s own—raised similar concerns. He raised significant concerns with this bill, and they have not been adequately addressed.

The Labour Party agrees with tougher penalties for violent offenders. If one looks back on the track record of Labour in Government, one will see that we increased the minimum non-parole periods for serious violent offenders, we held people in prison longer, and we made it possible for people to be detained for longer if it was in the best interests of the victims—if they were likely to be repeat violent offenders again. We did those things.

We do not agree with the “three strikes” bill. I think it would be much better to give serious consideration to the causes of criminal offending in the first place, to have a serious and honest discussion about the role of mental health in criminal offending in New Zealand, and to have a serious and honest discussion about the role of illiteracy, innumeracy, and low levels of education in the role of criminal offending. We should be talking about the cycle of violence and victimisation, because many offenders are themselves victims and were victims beforehand. Many of our most violent offenders were quite often victims of violent crime in their childhood. If we turn a blind eye and we do not deal with that then they are more likely to become violent offenders, and we should have an honest discussion about that. We should look honestly and openly at the link between socio-economic status and criminal offending because crime is more likely to take place in low socio-economic areas, and criminal offenders are more likely to be from low socio-economic areas. Let us have a discussion about those causes of criminal offending, rather than using the “lock them up and throw away the key” mentality that too often characterises debate on law and order issues. Thank you.

Third Reading

Thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak on the third reading debate of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. The previous speaker made a valid point. We need to address the drivers of crime, and that is exactly what John Key’s principled and pragmatic National-led Government is doing. We are looking at ways to counter, to prevent, and to reduce offending in the first place. This is a work in progress. This bill is designed to protect the public from repeat serious violent offenders. These are offenders who have ignored verbal and written warnings of the consequence of their violence and shown a cavalier disregard for the rights of others.

A prisoner on remand, and one sentenced, is held under the care of the Department of Corrections. The facilities operated by the corrections service have four main roles: to deter a potential offender from offending, to punish a convicted offender, to protect the public from a convicted offender, and to rehabilitate a convicted offender. Let us look at rehabilitation. Drug and alcohol dependency is a problem for many prisoners, and often a causative factor in their offending. We have doubled the amount of drug and rehabilitation places available, from 500 to 1,000, and aim to increase the number of places further in the future when possible. We are also committed to rehabilitation through training programmes, which improve inmates’ skills.

Spring Hill Corrections Facility is an impressive correctional facility designed so that prisoners in the highest-security cells can view the medium and low security cells and prison workshops from where they are based. So in other words there is a path to rehabilitation clearly visible should a prisoner choose to take it. All the staff I met there impressed me with their professionalism and passion for rehabilitation through prisoner education. Prisoners assessed as suitable have a chance of training in carpentry, metalwork, catering, and farm work. Prior to their final release with the support of surrounding businesses, some prisoners may undertake day release-to-work programmes. The aim at Spring Hill Corrections Facility is ultimately to have 60 percent of prisoners able to take part in those rehabilitation programmes.

The day after my visit, corrections officer Jason Palmer was injured in the course of his duties and later died. His funeral was held yesterday. I offer my deepest sympathy to his family, who have lost a beloved husband, father, son, and brother, and to the Spring Hill staff, who have lost a friend and a valued team member.

The Government announced yet another rehabilitation initiative in this Budget. Whare Oranga Ake, which my colleague referred to earlier, will help to cut reoffending among Māori. Whare Oranga Ake is a kaupapa Māori reintegration unit “outside the wire”, where the focus will be on prisoners gaining employment, securing suitable accommodation, and improving family and wider social relationships. As well as offering rehabilitation, a correctional facility should deter, punish a convicted offender, and protect the public. As a member of the Law and Order Committee, I visited New Plymouth Prison, Auckland Central Remand Prison, Spring Hills Corrections Facility, and Rimutaka Prison. I have no wish to spend a protracted period of time in any of them. Sadly, a number of our citizenry, a prison muster of some 8,500 people, are not deterred. The prison muster continues to grow.

With a rising population, some increase in the muster is inevitable, but this Government is not complacent. We are seeking ways and new ideas to reduce it—in stark contrast to the late, unlamented, lackadaisical Labour administration, which had no answers, where legislative lassitude and lethargy reigned supreme. Their caucus, riven with fear, loathing, and mistrust, careered between querulous cavilling and contented catatonia. New ideas were as rare as a bikini on an Eskimo, as unknown as Vaseline on the hands of a trapeze artist, as scarce as a tsunami in the Sahara. That is in stark contrast to this Government. John Key’s National-led, principled, pragmatic Government is determined to explore every avenue to rehabilitate, every avenue to deter, but also to punish the persistent, repeat serious offender and to protect the public from their depredations. The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is part of this wide range of our initiatives. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill, in what is commonly known as the Budget debate, and to oppose the amendment proposed by the Hon Phil Goff. That amendment is an utter joke and it tells the public that the Labour Party has absolutely no sense of where public thinking lies. It is an amendment that clearly shows a party stuck in what it believed to be the best style of governance, during the 9 years in which it squandered opportunities to move this country forward. I find it offensive that no one on the other side of the House has had the temerity to stand up and say “We wrote that amendment prior to hearing the Budget delivered, and we now realise that we were completely wrong and want to withdraw it.”

I find it amazing that a Budget that delivers a very, very low tax rate to three-quarters of all workers in this country can be described as a Budget that lacks vision and that raises taxes for working New Zealanders. That is quite untrue, and I would like the members on the other side of the House to tell us how they would respond to the simple facts that I will offer to the House. Firstly, let us take an average family on a $76,000 income a year, with two kids and a mortgage, who are receiving Working for Families. After the tax cuts and after the GST rise, and with the Working for Families increase, that family will be $25 a week better off. I would like Labour members to go to that family and tell them that the Budget is bad for them. Let us take the average earner, who is on $50,000 a year and renting a place to live, and who is saving towards a first home. After tax cuts and the GST rise, that earner will be $16 a week better off. Why does the Labour Opposition not go to the people who are in that category and tell them that they are worse off? Let us take a retired couple receiving New Zealand Superannuation, who own their own home and have no other income—which is the case for the vast majority of superannuitants in this country—so they rely entirely on their superannuation payments to get by. After the tax cuts, the GST rise, and the increase in their superannuation to compensate for that rise, they will be $11 a week better off. Why do Labour Opposition members continue to insist that they are not better off when patently they are.

We will hear this afternoon, no doubt, Labour members saying that all of the value of the tax cuts and the adjustments made to all of those State benefits and superannuation will in fact leave people worse off, or—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but there are very clearly defined rules about visual aids. They are to be used only while a member is speaking, and by that person. So those charts on the Labour front bench will be put down, please.

I was hoping that the cameras would catch a glimpse of those charts and the context in which they appear, and that people would compare them with the genuine information contained in the Budget documents, to prove that David Cunliffe, the poor fellow, is somewhat lacking in his ability to analyse these matters, as well as being quite out of step with what New Zealanders are feeling about these matters.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Treasury numbers.

He yells across the House “Treasury numbers.”, and it may well be that he has used some numbers to bodgie up those particular graphs. But the reality is that he is not Treasury, despite the fact that he has got one of the biggest intellects in the world, and he does not have the same capacity to impart that information to New Zealanders. I have no doubt that Mr Cunliffe will try to mount a case stating that after all these changes have come into effect—increases in State benefits, Working for Families, and superannuation, and more income in the pockets of New Zealanders by virtue of tax cuts—we will have inflation that will rip it all away from them.

A couple of points about that are worth noting. Firstly, yes, there has been a one-quarter spike in inflation, but the underlying inflation figure is still running at around 3 percent. I would like Mr Cunliffe to say why he was not worried about workers, superannuitants, beneficiaries, and families who relied on Working for Families payments when he left office with an inflation rate of 5.1 percent. It seems that it is another case of it being OK when Labour does it, but not being OK when anyone else does it. The point in this case, though, is that no one else is doing it—the high inflation records lie entirely with the previous Government of that member.

One might expect that in a Budget like this, where there are such large tax cuts—the largest in 25 years—a number of trade-offs might see other spending start to fall. But that is not the case. When one goes through this Budget, one can see that there is an increase in funding for housing, a massive increase in funding for health services—an extra $512 million over the next 12 months—and very large increases in the education portfolio, with an extra $417 million in just the next 12 months. There is funding for infrastructure, with a total spending programme over a 5-year period from now of $7.5 billion. There is also the huge commitment that the Government has made to science, innovation, and technology, in working with business to grow opportunities for this country, and a very, very sizable $243 million support for business research. That is not some sort of pie-in-the-sky, “maybe” figure, like the one that was being touted by the previous Labour Government for about 3 years prior to putting it in a Budget but never funding it. National’s increase in funding is real, it is available, it will be taken up, and it will make a difference.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: It’s less than half what Labour had.

The member over there says it is less than half of what Labour promised. The problem is that having promised it, Labour never delivered it. Those members had 9 years, but they never delivered it. National’s has taken just 18 months, and here it is, on the table and available. It is real, and it is for businesses to work with.

Another feature of the Budget is the Government’s ongoing commitment to taking out of the public sector the spending that is of pretty low value. A huge effort has been made across the public sector to remove that lower-priority spending—about $1.8 billion of it. To quantify that, I tell members that it is about 1,800 Saturday-night Lotto prizes. It is a huge amount of money, which was formerly spent on what can be described only as low-priority spending.

All Budgets have in them particular features, but normally they reach out to only a small sector of the community. This Budget is one that has reached out across the board. One of the most impressive things about this Budget is the way in which the business community has embraced it, and that will mean more investment and more jobs. The significant number of additional jobs calculated in this Budget—170,000 extra jobs predicted—will come to pass.

When it comes to the issue of a fairer tax system, some of the write-offs that were available to people who owned second properties or commercial properties have gone. There was no loss in value on a usual annual basis that they were able to claim. The Budget has been embraced by that sector. There are newspaper reports today that landlords throughout New Zealand are saying that this is a good Budget that will not have an adverse effect on the rental housing market.

This is a Budget that can be described as delivering on National’s promise to reduce taxation for New Zealanders, to ensure that there is genuine reward for work that is done. It sets the scene for real incomes in the pocket to grow over a number of years. I think that the Minister of Finance, the Hon Bill English, should be congratulated on this Budget. I hope that Mr Cunliffe, his opposing shadow spokesperson—and I will say his name again because not many people know it: Mr Cunliffe—might come into the House this afternoon and withdraw the amendment to the motion moved by the Hon Bill English, because that amendment is out of date, it does not mean anything, and it most certainly misses the mark as far as most New Zealanders are concerned.

I wish to second the amendment moved by the Hon Phil Goff, on behalf of one of your constituents, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy—Mr Henry Lindsay of Southland, who is an 84-year-old. His family has emailed me. Unfortunately, he has kidney cancer and heart failure. He used to receive a couple of hours of home help a week—that is, until the Government cut it. We have received a second email from his son telling us that, unfortunately, Mr Lindsay has been admitted to hospital suffering from exhaustion, and that he is still there. If the Minister of Finance cares to tote it up, the $700 a day that Mr Lindsay is now costing the taxpayer would have covered his home help for, probably, the rest of his natural life. The case of Henry Lindsay of Southland is just a taste of what people will suffer in the future because of this Government.

I turn now to “scene 2”. I was in a Noel Leeming store in Newmarket last weekend, which was the first weekend after the Budget. Signs were up everywhere, saying “Beat the GST rise. Buy your flat-screen TV today.” If this Government thinks that New Zealanders will suddenly save and enhance the national wealth because of the baubles and beads in this Budget, it has another think coming. There will be a roaring trade in flat-screen TVs all over Newmarket while the Mr Lindsays of this world struggle to get the care they need.

When the Budget hype lifts and the hangover sets in, ordinary Kiwis will know the truth—that they have been sold a pup. This is not a step-change Budget, a step-forward Budget, or even a small-step Budget. It is not a step-up; it is a set-up. It is a set-up because it is the sucker punch of the real blow that is yet to come. It is not an economic Budget; it is a political Budget. It is a Budget that is designed to try to do one thing, which is to get the National Party elected next year so that the real privatisations—and Bill English said what he thought about that on Friday last—and the real cuts can come in the second term. Let us hope that New Zealanders join together and stop that from happening.

Today I will ask three quick questions about what the Budget means for the ordinary Kiwi, for the country, and for the future. What does the Budget mean for the ordinary Kiwi? National has made it tougher for Kiwis to get ahead—to get better jobs and higher incomes. National has dashed the hopes of ordinary New Zealanders at the checkout counter.

Early in my time as an MP I was door-knocking in a place in New Lynn called Northall Road, and I met a young mum who was on the domestic purposes benefit. She had three young boys who were about the age of my own kids, and she had just come back from the doctor. The youngest one was calcium deficient, and as I talked to her she cried because she could not afford milk to feed her boys. She could afford milk powder but not milk, so she cried.

She would have done better under Labour in the 9 years that followed. She would have been able to use the training incentive allowance to get a job when the kids were old enough, but she has probably lost that job now in the wave of unemployment that has grown since the change of Government. One thing is for sure: she will not be better off following this Budget, and I will tell members why. My colleague Parekura Horomia is now holding up a bar graph of gross income for an average-wage earner. These figures are based on Budget numbers. When we put in the Budget document’s inflation rate, the average-wage earner, after his or her tax cut, will not break even until 2014—two elections away.

When my colleague holds up the second graph he will show what happens to minimum-wage earners under this Budget. They just break even after tax by 2014, but the average-wage earner does not even do that. That is why 75 to 80 percent of Māori and over 80 percent of Pasifika people will be worse off after this Budget. Ordinary New Zealanders will be worse off after this Budget. Henry Lindsay of Southland will be worse off after this Budget.

But let us not put it in terms of fancy graphs and statistics; let us talk about others who will be worse off. Anybody with a child who has been benefiting from 20 hours’ free early childhood education is at risk of paying up to $31 extra a week for that child to be in childcare.

💬 Paul Quinn: Outstanding Budget.

Oh, “Outstanding”, he says. The learning of our youngest New Zealanders is impeded, but only if their parents cannot afford to pay.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Paul Quinn said that.

Paul Quinn said that, and Hansard will show that Paul Quinn said “Outstanding” to ordinary Kiwis paying $31 a week for early childhood education.

What about the tenants in the Housing New Zealand flats in Rata Street in New Lynn, where some genius forgot to put an extractor fan in the bathrooms so that the flats are covered in mould, rot, and rising damp all winter? They desperately needed part of the money that was there for improvements and refurbishments in the State housing estate—the hundred million - odd that has been slashed out of this Budget. Those New Zealanders will not be better off. Those State housing tenants will have to live with the asthma and respiratory diseases that occur as a result of that rising damp.

If the Budget is not good for ordinary Kiwis is it at least justified, by some overwhelming result, for the nation as a whole? The answer, sadly, is no. By the Minister’s own admission, there will be no reduction in the widening gap between rich and poor. How could it be that a millionaire—a person who earns a million dollars a year—gets back $1,000 a week in tax? Fifteen percent of the total tax refund goes to the top 1 percent of earners. One-third goes to the top 5 percent. Shame! They are not the people who have had to tough it out through the recession. They are not the people who have done it tough and have tried to meet the grocery bill at the checkout counter—and those people will be disappointed when they still cannot meet the bill at the checkout counter every year from now until 2014.

Is there a great growth impact to make up for that social inequity? The answer is no. On the Budget’s own figures, it takes over 7 years to scrape up an extra 1 percent of growth. It takes over 7 years to accumulate 1 percent—actually, not even 1 percent—of extra growth. This Government promised a step change to catch up with Australia. It needed 2 percent a year, and what does it have? It has less than one-seventh of 1 percent each year over the next decade. It is pathetic. But, of course, the Government is pulling the wrong levers. Nobody on this side of the House would have put their faith in trickle down. Supply-side economics was dead and buried after Ronald Reagan.

In terms of employment—and this is important—fewer than 10,000 jobs are forecast, while unemployment widens by 60,000 and the Government creates less than half the jobs that Labour created in its term of office. This Budget is delivering only 3 percent of the total growth in employment. The rest would have happened anyway. The best the Government could do was 3 percent.

The external account more than doubles—from 3 percent of GDP to 7 percent of GDP—because of this Budget. We are not paying our way in the world. We are not exporting enough. We are not saving enough. We are not innovating enough. This was the Government’s big chance to turn the boat round, and it failed. Total national debt approaches 100 percent for the first time in our history. To be fair to Bill English, he had the courage to say that it was our biggest single vulnerability, and I agree with him on that. But what did he do in response? He made it worse by borrowing an extra $1.1 billion to give $1,000 a week to someone earning a million dollars a year.

💬 Carol Beaumont: Ridiculous.

It is ridiculous. He called it the biggest single vulnerability, and he broke his promise to be revenue-neutral on his tax package, therefore making that promise worse.

This Budget is not good for ordinary New Zealanders, and it is not good for the country. So why do it? That is the big question. Well, here is the rub. Here is the sucker punch, I say to New Zealanders. This is the hoodwink, to make them think they are better off, so they will vote for this lot one more time. Mr English has let the cat out of the bag. Kiwibank is the first of many State assets to go. We will see savage cuts in spending, the privatisation of assets, and New Zealanders will regret the day they entrusted these people with national office.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to look at one part of the Budget in particular. When it comes to transport, this Budget is a gambler’s Budget. The Government’s cards are now on the table, and they show that we do not have a Minister of Transport; we have a “Minister for Motorways”, a “Minister for Trucking”, and a “Minister for Corporate Welfare”. The Key-led Government is betting billions on uneconomic motorways that lock us into a future that is dependent on cars and oil. Like a gambling addict, this Government fools itself into thinking it does not have a problem—“Just one more win, and then I can finally quit.”, “Just one more motorway, then we can relieve congestion and finally stop building them.” But one motorway leads to another, then another, until we are building motorways to solve the problems caused by the other motorways.

This Budget announces $714 million on new State highway construction, on top of the billions already announced for the roads of national significance. This massive amount gambles away our national wealth in some sort of 1950s fantasy, the major beneficiaries of which will be the trucking lobby. Like a gambling addict, most of the money goes directly into feeding the addiction. From Government funds, for every dollar spent on sustainable modes of transport like buses, trains, walking, and cycling National is spending $7 on roads. Why would the Government place all of our bets on roads, as a measure to reduce congestion, when all the local and international experience shows it just does not work?

Steven Joyce’s big gamble is simple economic mismanagement. The recent OECD report, referenced in the national infrastructure plan, showed there is no evidence of a positive relationship in New Zealand between motorways and macroeconomic growth, but a strong, positive link between growth and investment in rail. Research from the United States shows that the economic stimulus spending of public transport created twice as many jobs per dollar as spent on motorways. To look at but one example, the Government is planning to pour $1.7 billion of our national wealth on the Pūhoi to Wellsford holiday highway. This “road of National Party significance” has a benefit-cost ratio of only 0.8 percent, which means the Government is not even staking on an economic return from it. This is coupled with the possible closure of the main trunk rail line north of Auckland, which will see more trucks on Northland’s roads and State Highway 1. The agenda is clear: this is a road of trucking significance. Like gamblers who borrow from friends and make hollow promises about paying them back, the Minister has even managed to convince finance Minister Bill English to give him massive amounts of cash for his politically based mega-monuments.

This Budget is not allocating resources according to a rigorous assessment of the economic benefits, but, rather, according to a misguided belief that building expensive infrastructure for high-carbon, land-hungry, job-poor imported cars and trucks is somehow good for the economy.

As with many addicts, often it is those who live the closest who get hurt, like the 205 Waterview residents who will now have their homes bowled and paved for State Highway 16. Also, there are the job opportunities we have missed out on in general, at Woburn and Hillside in particular, and the $547 million we are spending in Auckland on health costs, from the extra one billion kilometres travelled by car in Auckland over the last 5 years. This Budget invests $250 million for KiwiRail’s turn-round plan, which is a start towards addressing 15 years of infrastructure neglect. But, coupled with likely line closures, increased fares for public transport users, and increased costs for local bodies, this Budget is still a Budget for and by the roading lobby, and it comes at the expense of local communities and the resilience of our transport network.

What will the legacy of this Budget be for transport issues? Mr Joyce’s big bet locks us into a model of car dependence that makes our roads less safe, makes our communities less walkable, and reduces choices for people to get around. Under this Budget, our cities will continue to sprawl outwards, with more suburban big boxes. Unlike Europeans, Kiwis will keep paying more of their incomes on commuting and will spend more of their days stuck behind cars and stuck on our congested motorways. New Zealand will keep borrowing $250 million a week to pay the bills on our oil imports, which last year were $5.7 billion. That is a significant cause of our current account deficit.

Like betting against the casino, this Budget takes a punt that the price of oil will stay stable and affordable, but on both counts the odds are stacked against us. It is like gambling to pay off gambling debts, and it is high time we stopped using the same ideas that got us into this mess to get us out of it.

The first step to health is acknowledging that there is a problem—a motorway addiction. The next step is seeking help. Luckily, the Greens are there for the Government, with real options and new solutions. The Greens are not anti-car or anti-roads; we are pro - transport choice. The Greens believe in sustainable, smart transport investments that balance roads with sustainable transport options in order to deliver jobs, safety, and livable towns and cities. The Minister could read the Auckland Regional Council’s regional land transport strategy for some inspiration for next year’s Budget.

The biggest loss of this Budget is the opportunity cost. Mr Joyce could have surprised us all with his leadership and vision, and he could have earned himself a place in history as the Minister of Transport who started Auckland’s central business district rail loop, which is the single most effective thing that he could do to get Auckland moving. He could have announced Wellington’s urban light rail system, paid for by the funds scrapped from Transmission Gully. Most important, Mr Joyce could have taken the opportunity to announce a fundamental overhaul of our transport planning in New Zealand that would balance funding between roads and other transport modes. This Budget could have announced the shift to corridors of national significance. For around $100 million, he could have linked the main trunk railway line with Northport, near Whangarei, and saved more than $1 billion and taken trucks off our congested roads.

We have heard this Government loudly trumpet that it is spending more than Julius Vogel did on roads. However, Vogel looked to the future in his investment decisions. We could be doing that, too. We could be investing in integrated transport options, in fast, modern public transport—bus rapid transit, light rail, and underground rail in our biggest city—in walking and cycling, and in telecommuting and flexible working hour solutions. This Government, however, looks to the 1950s. It is as if Vogel would be borrowing to build bullock tracks.

I look forward to the day when we have a Minister of Transport who is a transport choice champion, who has an inspiring vision for how livable our towns and cities could be, and who is prepared to lead. I welcome the chance to be on record today, because it provides a stark contrast to the deficit of vision espoused in this Budget. Kia ora.

There is a buzz in the air; New Zealanders are excited. They see an opportunity for themselves, and they are simply saying: “Thank you, Bill English. Thank you, John Key.” This Budget delivers to New Zealanders. This Budget delivers hope. It delivers opportunity. It makes us see a future that is full of opportunity for our children, for our young people, and for the people who are here now. It is exciting. It is really exciting to see a country that can move ahead and develop those sorts of opportunities. Economic growth matters, and it matters most to those I work with in the social sector. It matters most to those who are at the vulnerable and hard end of some of the choices made. I am so proud to stand up and say that it is the only way that we can lift incomes, create opportunity, create permanent jobs, and build the kind of country that young people not only need but also simply deserve.

We have steered our way through the worst of the recession. We have steered our way through some of the toughest times. The social services that have held on to that money have made sure there has been opportunity for the people who have needed it. We have been able to shorten waiting times within Work and Income. We have been able to stand up and create opportunities for our young people, ranging from Limited Service Volunteers to Job Ops and Community Max.

This is a great time to talk about Job Ops, and about exactly what it is doing for our young people. We have stepped up. At the weekend, when I read the papers that come to me, I saw there were 5,649 jobs via Job Ops at the moment; more than 5,000 of them have been filled. Those young people throughout New Zealand are in jobs at the moment. Of those young people who have finished their Job Ops placements, 86 percent have stayed off a benefit. That is pretty remarkable. This Government is pumping in more places. We are saying that we can put up another 6,000 places, and I am optimistic that those places will be picked up quickly by our business community. We feel energy in the air and we feel that bit of optimism in the business community. Members of the business community are excited to see taxation coming down from 30 percent to 28 percent for companies. I think that business people are ready to step up, and to say that with a bit of a hand from the Government they will take on young people and give them an employment opportunity. There are 6,000 more places for Job Ops in this Budget—$26.7 million extra funding is going there.

I am responsible for those who are on benefits and for those on the superannuation we pay out. There has been a key focus on making sure that those people are treated fairly through the taxation changes. We have stepped up, and in this package we have $159 million more going into compensation for the increase in GST—$2.2 billion will be going in over the next 4 years. That will cover the main benefits. It will cover the obvious ones that we can think of, such as the unemployment benefit, the domestic purposes benefit, the sickness benefit, and invalids benefit, but it will also go into the student allowance, the veterans pension, and Working for Families. It will provide payments equivalent to just over that 2 percent, as members would have seen. To give a bit of an example, I tell members that someone on the domestic purposes benefit will receive $9.79 in GST compensation.

I will give a further example, because this Budget is good news for those on benefits. We are hearing about how we can help those people who are on benefits at the moment, and how these measures will create real opportunities for them. Someone on the domestic purposes benefit, for example, who works 15 hours a week, is already better off because we are raising the abatement this year. At the moment, those on the domestic purposes benefit can earn $80 but are taxed quite highly on earnings after that, so we are raising that threshold to $100. The $80 threshold was not good enough for this Government, because we really do want to create opportunities and the right incentives for people to be getting into part-time work. So we have raised the second abatement level. People on that benefit are already substantially better off; they can earn $100 before their benefit is abated. They will also get an extra $5.62 in GST compensation, which is on top of the extra $14 a week they will be getting from the abatement.

As well, someone who is working 15 hours a week at $20 an hour will pay $10.50 less because of personal tax cuts. This measure has not been picked up on widely yet, but the secondary tax level coming down is really exciting. It is a great opportunity for people to see the benefits of abatements and of the secondary tax rate coming down so significantly from 21 percent to 17.5 percent, and then to see the way they can get a bit more money in their own pockets. So it is good news, good news, and good news again for those who need it most.

In particular, members know that I always go on the side of those who are on the domestic purposes benefit with their children; I personally want to see them supported the most. We have the single biggest spend on teen parents ever seen in a Budget—the single biggest spend on teen parents ever seen in a Budget. The National Government started the teen parent units in 1997, which is something that I have always been particularly proud of, as a member of the National Party, because we recognised the needs of teen parents. In this Budget we are seeing $14.9 million being spent on teen parents. That will boost the number of teen parent coordinators from nine to 19, and get them into a role where they are using more intensive management in relation to what those needs are. This Budget goes towards coordinating what those teen parents most need: helping them to stay in work and education, and ensuring that they get antenatal care at the very beginning of the process, as well as budgeting advice, parenting advice, and everything else. We have seen teen parent coordinators working in some places; we reckon that we can take it a step further. We are also bringing in voluntary support and financial support with regard to those advisers, so that they can be making sure that teen parents get what they need.

In respect of support in homes, which is a biggie, we all know the stories. I know that members opposite will be hearing those stories, as well. We see teen parents who are struggling to the point where they are probably getting pretty close to notifications to Child, Youth and Family, quite frankly, and involvement in some pretty awful stuff. But where do they go for help? Where do they get that live-in assistance that they not only need but also deserve in a country like New Zealand? Will people step up next to them? I think that support in homes with trained staff available 24/7 so that teen parents can live in, is a most worthy spend. If we want to have the economic argument, then I think that the benefits, as far as how those children develop and how they—hopefully—stay out of the system, are brilliant.

Then we have that group that is always overlooked: our teen fathers. I do not think that we focus so well even on teen mothers, to be honest—I would like to see more going on there—but we do not actually focus on teen fathers, at all. There are some good programmes around the country, but we can coordinate them better. We can give teen fathers the resources they need to get some best practice, and I am particularly proud of what we are doing there.

We are also increasing the number of Child, Youth and Family social workers in hospitals. When we talk about what is happening for our most vulnerable, we need to step up, stand up, and listen up well. We are talking about support for teen parents. We are talking about compensation for those on benefits. We are talking about more Child, Youth and Family social workers in hospitals. One baby under 2 years old is hospitalised in this country—at the hands of someone who should be caring for babies and looking after them—every 5 days; we have to do better than that. The rate of re-abuse, quite frankly, is far too high. There needs to be better coordination of what happens to those children when they get into hospital, and we need to look at what we can do differently. The $6.6 million coming out will cover each district health board in this country, and, again, I am proud to stand up and advocate for that spend. I think it is a good use of money, and I am proud to say that that is part of the Budget.

Then there is the Pathways to Partnership programme, and, no, we do not hear a roar from Opposition members, because they know that we are standing up and giving more power back to communities than they have ever had before. Local solutions simply cannot be driven from Wellington by officials here; they should be driven locally. It was not enough to take the money allocated to Pathways to Partnership and put that back into our communities. We have taken the family and community services spend of $110 million, which is already there, and we have added that to the Community Response Fund. We have said that we trust communities to know what is best. We will put that money into the hands of local community people—some retired business people and local officials—and we will look at that measure closely.

We ask whether what we are doing now is working well. We are looking at the current Government spend, and adding $90.5 million into that fund over 4 years, to make sure that we are identifying where services can collaborate better, and where that training and supervision is going for those fantastic people who work at the grassroots and on the ground level. We are stepping up and giving them resources.

This Budget supports the people of New Zealand and those who need it most. I am incredibly proud to stand up and advocate for it.

I will make a couple of general comments about equity before going on to try to undermine the myth the Government is portraying that this Budget achieves a significant rebalancing of the economy.

First, I think it is important to put on record that this Budget should be valued according to how much one values one’s word. There are three broken promises in this Budget. The first promise was made by John Key on behalf of the National Party before the election, and that was that National would not increase GST. That promise was broken. The second promise was that National would not borrow for tax cuts. This Budget increases Government debt in order to fund tax cuts. It is not a mere tax switch, as the Government pretends. It is increasing Government borrowing to fund tax cuts. That is the second broken promise—the Government promised it would not do that. The third promise, which was made before the election, was that National would roll out more free early childhood education. In actual fact, this Budget cuts provision for quality early childhood education, and this imposes a future cost on parents whose children are currently receiving that free early childhood education. So if one values the keeping of one’s word, one would not value this Budget, because those three promises have been broken.

Other speakers have spoken about the fact that some of the benefits in terms of income tax cuts are largely dissipated through the effects of inflation and the increase to GST. That is true, except, of course, for the highest income earners. We know that a full one-third of the cuts to income tax accrue to the top 5 percent of income earners. I think that bears repeating because it is easy to say too quickly. It does not bear scrutiny, because it seems unfair that a full one-third of the total value of those income tax cuts goes to the top 5 percent of income earners. That is disproportionate, and it shows that the overall effect of this Budget is what we always see from National, which is that the proportion of taxes that are paid by low and middle income earners goes up, and the proportion of total taxation paid by highest income earners goes down. Stripped bare, that is what the Budget does.

I will turn to the issues relating to whether this Budget is fiscally responsible, and then I will deal with the issue of whether it rebalances the economy. David Cunliffe noted earlier that the Government borrows more than a billion dollars extra as a consequence of the tax cuts in this Budget. That is correct. In the first year, the extra borrowing of the Government will be something like $450 million. I ask whether that is prudent at a time like this. Well, I think it is not yet clear that the world is clear of the serious problems following the world financial crisis. New Zealand is better placed than most countries because of the previous Labour Government, notwithstanding the protestations of John Key, when he was Opposition spokesperson on finance, followed up by Bill English, who said exactly the same thing. Every time Labour ran a Budget surplus they said that we ought not to be have been running surpluses in those times and that we ought to have been giving tax cuts.

If we had done that, New Zealand would have been closer to the position of those European countries that have such high levels of Government debt, which is causing problems not just in countries like Greece but also in Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Great Britain, Japan, and the USA. In those countries, high levels of Government debt are constraining Government action. The risk of this so-called double dip has been highlighted again by economists as being a consequence of the problems that we are presently seeing in Europe, which has some serious problems with sovereign debt. Europe has some serious problems that go to the stability of the eurozone generally, and many pundits are now predicting that the eurozone will break up because of the strictures that are being imposed on the Latin countries by Germany, in particular, and because of the imbalances that have been allowed to build up in Europe. There are massive trade surpluses in countries like Germany, and there are trade deficits in countries like Greece, which means that those countries have current account deficits as well as Government deficits.

The prospect of the so-called double dip—of a second whammy, if you like—besetting the world is real. It will not necessarily happen, but the risk is substantial. In the last week I have seen reports that in Beijing there has been a 90 percent decrease in the volume of property transactions, which has been holding up demand in Australia and, therefore, in this part of the world. A 90 percent decrease in the volume of transactions suggests that its property boom is coming, or has come, to an end. That could have some pretty big implications in this part of the world.

That is significant because the Government has made some brave assumptions in this Budget as to future tax revenue. Those assumptions are very brave, and they may not come to pass. I think Business and Economic Research Ltd has put it well in its Budget commentary. It states: “New Zealand’s largest single vulnerability is now its large and growing net external liabilities. New Zealand now owes the world $168bn, or around 90 per cent of GDP.” I say good on it for acknowledging that it was right that the Minister of Finance acknowledged this as being the biggest risk to New Zealand at the moment.

But the Budget commentary, having identified this as “the largest single vulnerability”—and those were the words used by the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech—goes on to state that that vulnerability will get worse over the next few years. Of course, that is because we have not only a Budget deficit as a result of the Government spending more than it collects in tax but also we have the country spending more than it earns in the world, with the current account deficit going up to 7 percent of GDP by 2014.

That points to a couple of things. It points to the fact that the so-called rebalancing of the New Zealand economy that the Government talks about is baloney. This Budget does not rebalance the economy. It rebalances taxes so that more tax is being paid by the low to middle income workers, and less is being paid by the higher-paid workers. It rebalances only taxes; it does not rebalance the economy. The effect of this in terms of New Zealand’s overall net asset position in the world, as predicted by Treasury, is that by 2014 New Zealand’s net assets will be negative 100 percent of GDP. That is an enormous figure—negative 100 percent of GDP will be the sum of our net debt in the world. That should be worrying to New Zealanders because it is not sustainable.

To have a current account deficit going forward in the future of 7 percent means that we are not exporting or saving enough. We are not rebalancing the economy towards savings in this Budget. If we contrast that with Australia, we see that the big difference between the New Zealand and Australian economies is that Australia has a better savings record, and therefore Australia has more investment capital available to it. It is no surprise that Australia, with its better savings record, owns our banks—we do not own our own. Every year we export to Australia not just the interest that we pay on our current account deficit but also the profits of those four big banks, because those banks are Australian-owned. We do not own our banks, because we do not save enough. The economy is not rebalanced to address that.

In addition to that, the Business and Economic Research Ltd analysis asks: if it is not the net external sector that is rebalancing and causing growth in the economy, where is it coming from? Where is the Government going to see the growth in the economy driving a growth in revenues to get the Government deficit back to neutral? The commentary notes that the Treasury forecast assumes a rebound in non-residential private investment. It notes that this business investment will grow, according to the forecast, by 6.2 percent in the current year, followed by 10 percent in the following year, 4.7 percent in the year after that, and then 3 percent in the following years. The commentary notes that that is a hugely optimistic forecast, given that at the moment businesses have cash-flow problems. They are having difficulty accessing credit for expansion, even if they are not having cash-flow problems. If they need to borrow some money from banks, they are having difficulty accessing credit for expansion.

The summary of the commentary by Business and Economic Research Ltd states: “Yes, an investment rebound of this magnitude would be welcome news indeed. We are just unsure as to how confident we are of it occurring. But, it is the basis upon which government revenue forecasts and, hence, the affordability of the tax cuts rests.” I think that is a good summary. So if this investment rebound does not come to pass as it is predicted to, where does this leave the Government? Well, it leaves the country with rising Government debt, so the Government will have only three choices. It will have to cut spending and cut services, it will have to increase taxes, or it will have to flog off capital assets. The Government already knows that it has put us in that position, because it is signalling that it will flog off capital assets—the silver that has been accumulated through years of prudent management by prior Governments—such as Kiwibank and electricity State-owned enterprises. State-owned enterprises will be flogged off in order to pay the operating deficit that the Government is accruing.

There is no doubt that this Budget has been well-received by the public at large. There is also no doubt that this Budget is vastly superior to the Budget of last year. It is also superior to anything that Labour produced during its 9 years in Government. There are some good measures in this Budget, but I will not dwell on that. I raise questions about two areas—and the last speaker, David Parker, raised a third area; I am not going to touch on that—where this Budget, in my view, does not stand up to the test of examination.

The first area is that of expenditure. Prior to the Budget the Government talked about expenditure increasing by around $1.2 billion. In fact, Government expenditure under this Budget increased by around $5.8 billion, or around 9 percent. That 9 percent figure is around four times the current rate of inflation. It is fair to say that in looking at the increase in Government expenditure, we should allow for the costs of offsetting the increase in the rate of GST, but even allowing for that, we see a situation where expenditure is increasing by around three times the rate of inflation. As a nation, we simply cannot put up with that or continue to do that for much longer. The unwillingness, frankly, of the Government to deal with expenditure, either in last year’s Budget or this year’s Budget, will see debt-servicing costs rise from around $2.4 billion this year to $4.5 billion in 2014. To put it another way, had this increase in debt not occurred, we could have had a corporate tax rate that is 4 cents lower and a personal income tax rate that is 4 cents lower than they are. That would do a lot more to get growth going in this country than the increases in expenditure will.

There were options to reduce expenditure, if we had been brave enough to take them. For example, there is approximately $3 billion of what I would call corporate welfare in this Budget. Frankly, in my view, most of the people who are the so-called beneficiaries of that corporate welfare would have rather had a 4c or 5c extra cut in the corporate rate of tax and paid 4c or 5c less in the personal income tax rate than actually receive that corporate welfare. I have never seen a Government that can pick winners or spend the money as well as individuals can.

In my view, the problem with this Budget, in terms of expenditure, is also that it takes a short-term view of expenditure. This Budget has undoubtedly been tough on expenditure for a lot of departments—undoubtedly. We have put a cap in place, and that cap lasts for 3 or 4 years in some cases. But although caps work for a while, they do not work in the long run, and they put pressure on the system. What is required is much more fundamental change if it is to work. Fundamental change requires of a Government that it asks the right questions. The first question it needs to ask is whether a particular department should actually exist. If it says yes to that, it should move on and ask about the functions that the department carries out and which of them should continue. In terms of the functions that will continue, the Government needs then to ask whether it is delivering those functions in the most effective way, or whether they should be opened up to competition—should they become contestable? Even when we determine that an item is desirable, we still have to weigh up whether that item is as desirable as some new request for Government expenditure. Only by following that approach will we get expenditure under control.

The second issue I want to raise—and it is, I think, an important one; and the last speaker, David Parker, touched on it—is the whole issue of the growth framework outlined in the Budget, which, I have to say, is totally inadequate. It will not enable us to catch up with Australia by 2025, nor 2035, nor 2045. The Budget outlined the six factors that comprise the Government’s growth framework. The fact is that the most important item, if we are to have growth, was not even mentioned—it was not even mentioned. The most important item if we are to get growth back is the introduction of competition, particularly the introduction of competition within the State monopolies of health, education, and welfare. If one does not want to privatise and open up those sectors to the private sector, then one has to design a system that enables competition to take place within those departments. I personally want to see them opened up.

The health, education, and welfare services are approximately 30 percent of this economy. They pose a huge problem because of the lack of productivity within those areas. We have seen over the last 6 or 7 years a decline in productivity in health of 15 percent for doctors, and of 11 percent for nurses. Nothing in this Budget—nothing in this Budget—will do anything about that. The way that we avoid facing up to the lack of productivity is to increase expenditure. The same is true in education, where we have a system that is 70 years old, and that system is failing 25 percent of our kids. Each year 30,000 kids come out of school inadequately prepared for the future. The idea in this Budget that somehow we can flat-line future expenditure growth in education and in health is nonsense, given the present system. I know that the Government will say there is a $1.1 billion allowance for new expenditure, but, frankly, that is not much more than the rate of inflation in the areas of education and health, and it is simply not realistic.

What are the six factors that the Government mentioned in its growth strategy, and how is the Government doing on each of them? There is the regulatory environment for business, the area of education and skills, and the need for quality infrastructure. That is a nice idea, but it is hardly the reality.

I will wind up by saying this: the real cost of taxes is not the money that individuals send to Wellington. Instead it is the dead-weight loss that arises when taxes alter how people behave, and we need to learn that. A review of OECD countries over a 40-year period revealed that those that had the fastest growth, averaging 6.6 percent a year, were those that spent less—spent less—than 25 percent of their GDP through the Government. If a country jumped to spending between 25 and 30 percent of its GDP in that sector, the average growth rate fell from 6.6 percent to 4.7 percent, or approximately a 2 percent drop. The trend continued all the way up. When Government expenditure was above 60 percent of GDP, the average growth rate fell to 1.6 percent. Over time the compounding effects of adding just 1 percentage point to GDP growth are enormous, let alone the 4 to 5 percent we could achieve. The difference between countries that achieve 6.6 percent growth and those with 1.6 percent growth—5 percent a year—means that it takes 45 years to double their income in the case of those that achieve 1.6 percent growth, whereas those that achieve 6.6 percent growth double their income every 11 years. Over a 44-year period that happens four times for that group and 1.6 times over a 44-year period for the other.

I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill

Third Reading