Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider this bill. It is with great pleasure that I get to make the opening speech on this bill. I certainly look forward to hearing from my good friend and colleague Kelvin Davis, who I am sure will get up in support of the bill. I want to acknowledge the chair of the Social Services Committee, my good friend Alfred Ngaro—and I see his deputy, Matthew Doocey, is in the House as well—who will be receiving the bill.

This bill amends the Social Security Act of 1964. It enables the Department of Corrections to instruct the Ministry of Social Development to withhold all or part of a person’s benefit where that person has repeatedly failed to comply with a community-based sentence. The bill seeks to provide the Department of Corrections with an additional tool, short of prosecution, to encourage compliance with community-based sentences. By withholding benefit payments after a prior warning, this bill will enable the department to manage offenders without burdening the court system. This bill will operate alongside a new measure implemented by the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Act of 2013, which has effectively managed persons with outstanding warrants for their arrest by withholding their benefit payments.

When this bill is implemented the Department of Corrections will be able to instruct the Ministry of Social Development to withhold part of or all of a benefit paid to an offender. The Department of Corrections will also be able to instruct the Ministry of Social Development to restore benefit payments if it is satisfied that the offender is complying with their sentence.

The bill enables the Department of Corrections to give a written warning if it reasonably believes (1) that it has exhausted all options other than prosecution in attempting to get that person to comply with that community-based sentence or instruction, or (2) that the person breaches or fails to comply with any term of the community-based sentence, or (3) fails to comply with an instruction from the Department of Corrections that relates to their community-based sentence. The warning must instruct the person to comply with a further instruction and warn that non-compliance with the instruction may result in the withholding of any benefit. A second written warning may be issued 14 days after the original warning. The bill provides that if the person fails to comply with the instruction within 14 days of the date of receiving their second warning to comply with the instruction, the department may instruct the Ministry of Social Development to withhold all or part of their benefit payment.

Section 17 of the Sentencing Amendment Act 2007, No. 27, states that in handing down a community sentence a court must take regard of the impact on an offender’s future work and living skills. Further prosecution for non-compliance will negatively impact the offender’s future work and living skills; hence, prosecuting an offender for non-compliance with a community sentence defies the initial purpose of the sentence in the first place. The bill considers the potential impact, both negative and positive, on the offender and their family. The deduction amount is to be determined by the Department of Corrections. However, the department may not deduct more than 50 percent of the gross benefit where that person is responsible for the care of a dependent child.

One of the intentions of this bill is to decrease the likelihood of offenders going through the court system again for non-compliance. As of Monday, 8 August there were 28,562 offenders on community sentences. Up to 50 percent of offenders on a community-based sentence are receiving some form of benefit. This bill is in line with National’s welfare reforms, which saw an offender with an outstanding warrant to arrest having their benefit suspended until they cleared that warrant. I believe this process should be extended to include those offenders who repeatedly fail to comply with their community sentence. This is a bill that is a sensible and much-needed addition to our current system.

I would also like to very quickly refer to the advice that I received from the office of the Hon Christopher Finlayson, as our Attorney-General. It relates to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It states: “The proposed amendment is similar to an amendment made in 2012 to the Social Security Act, which enabled the chief executive of the ministry to suspend a person’s benefit for failure to comply with a court warrant. Although that amendment possibly raised a prima facie issue of discrimination, it was considered that it was not discriminatory or, alternatively, that the discrimination was justified.”

The bill’s objective, to ensure compliance with community-based sentences, is sufficiently important to justify some limitation on the right to freedom from discrimination. New sections 183 and 185 of the Social Security Act, inserted by clause 5 of this bill, which limit the right of freedom from discrimination, are rationally connected to the objective of incentivising compliance with community-based sentences or related instructions issued by the department. This is because removing entitlements creates an incentive for compliance. Further, the limit operates under the rationale that taxpayers should not be financially assisting persons not complying with community-based sentences or related instructions.

New sections 183 and 185 impair the right to freedom from discrimination no more than is reasonably necessary because (a) compliance with a community-based sentence is a court-imposed penalty, and any individual subject to the sentence has an obligation to comply with its terms; (b) the benefit withholding measure is imposed only once an individual has not complied with both the community sentence or related instruction and two written warning notices that have been issued; (c) where the payment of a person’s benefit is withheld and the department is thereafter satisfied that that person is complying with the sentence or instruction, the department may instruct the ministry to restore that benefit; and (d) the bill prevents the department from issuing instructions to reduce a person’s benefit by more than 50 percent of the gross benefit where the person is responsible for the care of a dependent child—as I stated earlier in my speech.

The limitation is proportionate to the importance of the bill’s objective because of several safeguards: new section 184 requires the department to issue written warning notices only when it reasonably believes it has exhausted all options other than prosecution in attempting to get a person to comply with a community-based sentence or instruction and when that person has, in fact, breached or failed to comply with that sentence or instruction.

Although there is no right of appeal the department must issue two warning notices before it can instruct the ministry to withhold the benefit, and an affected beneficiary may bring judicial review proceedings in respect of the department’s decisions. It is therefore considered, to the extent that the new sections 183 and 185 do engage the right to freedom from discrimination, the limitation is justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

We have given this bill much consideration, and, as most people in the House would know, when it comes to members’ bills we are actually quite fair-minded and usually are quite open to the idea of a bill going to select committee so that some consideration can be given to it. But, actually, after going over this and having some discussions with colleagues like Kelvin Davis and other colleagues, we have decided that this bill is a waste of time and does not deserve the attention of the Social Services Committee, so we will not be supporting this to select committee.

Firstly, the reason that this does not deserve the time of the Social Services Committee is that, actually, we have got a lot of other major issues that need to be considered at that select committee. We have got 305,000 kids living in poverty in this country. We have got a major housing problem on our hands. We have got a complete overhaul of Child, Youth and Family that is going through the select committee at the moment, and that member brings us a bill that will address a handful of people who may have issues. He is trying to use the stick on them when, in fact, the real implication of what that member is offering up is just further stigmatisation of beneficiaries—an absolute waste of the select committee’s time—so we are not going to support this bill.

If this issue was of significance to the Government, then we would not be seeing it brought here by Mark Mitchell. We would have seen the Minister of Corrections or the Minister for Social Development taking it through as a Government bill, not having it presented here through Mark Mitchell. I do wonder what the backbench members over there think. You know, they are sitting there, they have got time on their hands, and they get the opportunity to put a bill in the ballot and to make real change to the lives of New Zealanders. Then this guy, Mark Mitchell, is like: “I’m going to put in a bill that is stopping benefit payments for offenders who repeatedly fail to comply with community sentences.” This really implies that this is a major issue but we know that, actually, it is not.

Someone should tell Mark Mitchell that, actually, the vast majority of beneficiaries are not criminals. They are not going through the criminal justice system. This is not a big issue, Mr Mitchell, and so I am sorry that someone has given you the impression that it is, and that you took the time to draft this meaningless bill and bring it to the House. But, as I said, we will not be supporting this bill to select committee. And I do hope that other political parties in the House have the same level of common sense and will not be supporting this bill, either.

It is really worrying that we see the lines blurred so often by the National Government. Here we have an issue around corrections. We know it has a problem with corrections—it has really struggled to look after that portfolio, and so its only way of trying to address that is to do it through the social development system. So National cannot look after the corrections portfolio—we know the National Government has failed on that front—and so it is like: “OK, what do we do, how do we fix this? OK, we punish people through the social development portfolio and that will fix everything.” Well, actually, it will not. As I said, this is such a minute issue that it is embarrassing that we are even having a debate on it in the House tonight.

There are other major considerations that we should have a conversation about in the debate, and one of those is one that many NGOs, social services, and children’s advocacy groups have brought up, and that is with regards to the sanctions that have been imposed in lots of other different areas, and the implications that those sanctions have on children. It is really unfortunate that the whole time the National Government has been in, pushing its reforms, implementing these types of sanctions, it has never stood back at any time to actually monitor the implications of those sanctions on those children. That is concerning. And here they are looking to roll out another raft of sanctions in an area that is completely unrelated to social development, and undermines what our social security system was set up for in the first place.

I am not going to give this any more attention. I am not even going to let my speech get to the bell of 8 minutes, because this bill does not deserve further consideration, and should not be allowed to continue to the select committee. I do hope that the next bill Mark Mitchell puts in has a little bit more substance, and is a little bit more meaningful to New Zealanders, than what we have before us tonight.

I rise to take a call on this bill, and I want to acknowledge my good friend and colleague Mark Mitchell, whose name this bill is in. It is the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill, under the name of Mark Mitchell, the National MP for Rodney.

There have been some very unkind comments about the sincerity, and the intent, of Mr Mark Mitchell in regard to this bill. We know that his past history is that he has been involved in the police as a dog handler, and he did actually tweet about an incident then—there was a moment there—but he was very involved in the police. So he knows the importance of the role that both the police and the Department of Corrections play in our communities. I do think the comments were very unkind.

The previous speaker, Carmel Sepuloni, spoke about the lack of support from Labour. I know that Kelvin Davis, the Opposition spokesman on corrections, actually looked at us, and in his eyes he was saying: “I actually support this bill. I support this bill.” In fact, that member, I must say, goes to very unusual lengths to investigate the role of the Department of Corrections. It was some 3 months ago that we did the Shave for a Cure, for Leukaemia and Blood Cancer New Zealand. Both Mark Mitchell and I believe it was a way for him to have an inside job, a way of getting into the corrections system, into Serco, so he can get some added information. I am not sure whether it worked.

But back to the scope of the bill. We do know that there are 28,562 offenders who are on community service.

💬 Hon Members: How many?

There are 28,562. We are talking about those with a non-custodial sentence. We are talking about those whom the court felt it was appropriate not to incarcerate. Instead, it gave them a non-custodial sentence that gives them an opportunity. It mitigates the offending, allows them to have a process of rehabilitation, and allows them to reintegrate into the community and have a normal way of life. At the same time it implies that there are some conditions that are really important. Those are often bail conditions. Most of us would agree with that. In fact, all of us would agree that that is really important.

I cannot quite understand why there is not the support, because this is a tool that, in the hands of the Department of Corrections, along with the Ministry of Social Development, ensures that there is some compliance. There are those out there who say that this is not right. In fact, the member who spoke previously said that this is—again—about beneficiary bashing and being unkind. But, in actual fact, the member needs to realise that we are talking about those who have offended, who actually have broken the law, but have been given an opportunity, with a community sentence, to be able to comply, reintegrate back into the communities, and become normal citizens in our communities.

We are talking about a situation where they do not comply—not just the first time and not the second time, but the third time. We are talking about three times when there has been non-compliance. We are talking about a tool that the Department of Corrections has tried to engage. It has tried to ensure that they have complied. When does it get to a point where even Kelvin Davis will know that putting this bill through is simply saying: “You have got to be compliant.”? In other words: “If you do the crime, you have to do the time. If you’re not doing the time, then you have to comply. ” That is the simple basis of this bill. OK?

All this bill does is amend the Social Security Act 1964 to ensure that they comply. What is wrong with this bill? Nothing—absolutely nothing. I would like the next speaker from the Labour side to tell us the essence of what is wrong with this bill. They cannot. Instead, they go outside the scope of the bill and fluff around on a whole lot of other ideas, but when it comes to the intent of the bill, there is nothing wrong. [Interruption] Kris Faafoi knows that Mark Mitchell is right about this bill. This is a good bill.

I finish off with a little bit of the facts and figures. Here are some numbers for you. In 2014, the bill that Mark Mitchell talked about in regard to the welfare reforms, for the social sanctions, ensured that there were 2,804 benefits suspended When you think about a figure of 2,000-odd you see that this is not hard or mean-spirited. This is ensuring that we make people comply. As the chairperson of the Social Services Committee, I look forward to receiving Mark Mitchell’s bill. I look forward to ensuring that we do due diligence, hear the submissions throughout this process, and ensure that it returns back to the House in a way that will make a difference. It may be a small and simple bill, but what we are doing, along with with Mark Mitchell and his support, will truly make a difference. Thank you.

I rise to speak on the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill. The Green Party wholeheartedly opposes this bill, and I share the sentiments of my Labour colleague Carmel Sepuloni about what a waste of this House’s time this bill is. The issues facing the Social Services Committee—this should not be taking up our time. Like so much legislation introduced by this Government, this bill is more about image than it is about content, and certainly more than it is about care.

This bill promises to give the Department of Corrections the power to instruct the Ministry of Social Development to stop benefits to people who have been sentenced to community-based sentences who may have failed to comply with the terms of that sentence—

💬 Alastair Scott: Who may have? Who have failed.

—or who have failed—but it will be determined by a parole officer whether there are reasonable or unreasonable grounds, according to this legislation, when it would otherwise be decided by a judge. This puts court decisions in the hands of parole officers. It is changing the basis of the way our legal system works, I would argue. It also puts in place a double sentence, so that somebody who fails to comply who is in paid work will not get their paid work taken away from them, but for people who are beneficiaries it will take away their ability to feed themselves.

I really want to just address how misnamed this bill is as a social security bill. We have to recognise that the point of social security is that we have a safety net through which no one can fall. We are not living in Victorian times, when there was a concept that only the deserving were able to have an income. We have learnt as a society that when we have those basics provided only to people whom we believe deserve them, we all suffer. We end up with people committing crimes to be able to feed themselves. We end up with more people on the street. What this bill does is another deep attack on our social security system. It is bringing back Victorian values into our society. It is completely unworthy of this House and of our time.

I really want to recognise, as well, that there was a comment made before of “Well, these are people who have offended. They have committed crimes.” I want to point out that other people who have committed crimes and offended who are put in prison are given a warm roof over their head and three meals a day, because we recognise as a society that it would be inhumane for that not to happen. We have prison inspectorate systems set up to try to enforce that, because we recognise that as a society all of us are less human when other people are treated inhumanely in our care. Well, why should those who are sent to prison be given more protections than these people? When we take away people’s right to an income, we put every single thing in their life at risk. We force them into places where they have no other choices, and that destabilises our entire society.

The Green Party wants no part of this. I would recognise that this, a Government that has characterised beneficiaries as work-shy, baby factories, bad parents, drug takers, and criminals—even this Government would not support this bill as its own. That is how bad this piece of legislation is. I am very sorry, Mark Mitchell. I quite liked you, but this bill is rubbish and the Greens will not be supporting it.

I am feeling slightly uncomfortable in the middle of something there. It is a pleasure to rise in support of my colleague Mark Mitchell on his bill, the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill, in its first reading.

I would like to acknowledge the very hard-working member of Parliament for Rodney. I had the experience of going up there for a day and joining Mr Mitchell. We visited many health and social care services. It was very apparent from the response that we received from the people on the streets and the health and social care workers—the acknowledgment of the work he does in his electorate. He is someone who is known as caring for the people in Rodney, and he cares for all people in Rodney.

I would also like to acknowledge Alfred Ngaro as the chair of the Social Services Committee. Although it has been pointed out by the Opposition that it is a very busy select committee, it would be fair to say he is dispensing the work with ease, and very much we have got time and space for this very important bill. So I am looking forward to it coming into the select committee, where we will get submissions and kick it round the legislative process.

But let us be very clear. This bill is about crime, and this Government is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Let us be very clear that criminal behaviour is a blight on our communities. There are many small towns in my electorate of Waimakariri and they talk to me about how all it takes is a few people in those small towns to participate in this criminal behaviour and it is a blight on the whole community. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in public sector expense, expense to private individuals, and very much there are the social and emotional costs to those people in those small towns.

So what we are doing today with this very succinct bill is enabling people to do the work that they are employed to do—giving them the tools that enable them to make a difference in those people’s lives. Because I have no doubt that the people whom we are talking about today do not want to carry on with this criminal behaviour. They want to get rescued from this pattern of behaviour. For some people it is about compulsion. Unfortunately for some people they hit rock bottom and then it is the only way up. For some people it is about compulsion. This process will allow this.

💬 Kris Faafoi: What process?

When we look at the process that they ask about, across the House—will they bother to read the bill—it is a very clear process. People will be given a warning only if all other avenues have been exhausted, only if there have been breaches of or failures in their community-based sentence, and only if they fail to comply with instructions. I would call that a very clear process. Not only that but they get another warning. So they get two warnings, and then it takes 14 days. If that is not a careful process I do not know what is.

So people understand very clearly what is expected of them. Because in the end what we are talking about here is rehabilitation and public safety. So that Opposition, in voting down this bill, does not believe in rehabilitation and does not believe in public safety. That is why I support this bill and commend it to the House.

It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill. I just want to make it quite clear that New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill through this first reading. There are a couple of very important reasons why we are not.

First of all, before I get into those reasons, I would like to make it clear that this is not a social security matter. This is a corrections matter and it should not be brought to the Social Services Committee. The fact is that every single National member who has spoken on this bill has spent 99 percent of their time talking about corrections matters, talking about community-based sentences, community detention, or the compliance. The only words they mention about social security are in terms of when they take the benefit off them. That is the only time that they speak about social services.

This is not a social services matter; it is a crime matter. But once again this is a reactive policy from the Government and, basically, it is an admission of failure. It is reacting to the Government’s failed law and order policies, and it has to come up with this type of legislation to fill the gap—reacting once again. The fact is it is reacting to the consequences of its failed policies and the consequences of its failed policies are the consequences of those offenders who are repeatedly breaking their community sentences. That is the purpose of this bill.

The second reason why New Zealand First will be opposing this bill is that the Government is using the basic safety net that is provided as a tool for punishment. There is a minimum social floor that the Government and the State provides for our citizens, and the Government decided to use that as a punishment. That is the second reason why New Zealand First is not going to be supporting this bill.

Here is a question for Mr Mitchell: what happens to those people who are on community-based sentences who fail to comply but are not on a benefit? How many warnings do you give them? One? Two? Three warnings—three warnings? So if you have got such great interventions and processes in play that stop these people who are on community sentences and are not on benefits from reoffending in the first place, why do you have to extend and make an extra one for people who are on a benefit? Answer that question—answer that question. The fact is that, like I said, this legislation is an admission of failure by this Government.

Community sentences are a privilege for those who are given community sentences instead of a jail term. The fact is if they abuse that privilege they should go to jail. They should be prosecuted—that is plain and simple—not given one warning, not given two warnings, not given three warnings. This Government wants to stand up and say that it is tough on crime, but it is giving one written warning, 14 days later they are giving the second warning, and then only the third time do they strike. This Government is soft on crime. Just like the National Party is soft on crime, and just like the Labour Party is soft on crime.

The fact is that crime has been increasing in New Zealand and the reoffending rates have been increasing, and this Government has increased the number of offenders who have been given community-based sentences. Ever since 2008, this Government has increased the number of sentences that have been community-based. But I would just like to look very quickly at the explanatory note because it highlights quite a number of the flaws in the bill itself, and the actual reason for the bill. It is talking about “without burdening the court system”. So the bill wants some other steps in play without prosecuting and burdening the court system. That is the real reason this legislation is here: to stop the court system being even fuller than what it is at the moment because of the failing law and order policies of this Government. The priority is not justice, it is not about accountability; it is about keeping them out of the court system.

One last thing, it says here that they will be kind enough not to take more than 50 percent of the gross benefit for anyone with a child. I would like to know how the Government expects an individual or a family to live, when they have got a benefit and half of that is taken away. I want any National member—backbencher or Mark Mitchell, the author of this bill—to stand up and say how that individual would survive on half of the benefit. This bill will not be supported by New Zealand First. Thank you.

Well, it has been an interesting evening so far, when we have been debating this bill. I have heard people from the other side of the House say we are being too hard on criminals, and then we have heard from New Zealand First members saying we are too soft on criminals. We have just had a really interesting challenge from my colleague Darroch Ball who sort of dared any of us on this side to say how somebody would survive on half of their benefit, or survive on none of their benefit.

I think that is the point, actually. If somebody needs to take responsibility, as most people do, for ensuring that they continue to have income coming into their house, then, actually, there are some responsibilities that go with that. What we expect of those people is that they actually comply with their community sentence, and then they will never, ever, ever, ever have to worry about that issue that Mr Ball has just suggested.

Let us start with talking about offenders a little bit. Many offenders who are found guilty will find themselves in prison, and they will find themselves there because of the seriousness of their crime. There needs to be some sort of deterrent for them ever reoffending, or it might be for the sake of public safety or otherwise. But there are other offenders who in our wisdom over the years as a society, we have realised will actually do better by having a community sentence of some description, because their chances of being rehabilitated and reoffending are lessened than if they go to prison.

So we have community-based sentences for some people. But it is right and it is fair for society to expect that those people who have had the privilege of not going to jail and have had the privilege of actually serving their sentence in the community actually comply with that sentence. When someone is in prison it is pretty easy to enforce the rules and say what you can and cannot do, and that kind of thing. With community-based sentences there are fewer tools available to ensure that people will comply. This bill is about giving the Department of Corrections another tool in its tool box to actually ensure that people comply.

Let us think about why we want people to comply with those provisions. Why do people have provisions in their community sentences? The first one that I thought of was to ensure their best chances of rehabilitation. We put those conditions on them and they meet them, because we believe that by meeting those conditions we stand the best chance of rehabilitating them. Yet what I am hearing from the other side of the House is: “Let’s not make them, let’s not force them, let’s not make sure that they comply with those.” So, actually, by voting against this bill, what I hear from the other side of the House is: “We don’t care about rehabilitation; we don’t want to see these people rehabilitated, because we are not going to give probation officers the tools to have at their disposal to ensure that people will comply.”

The other reason we have those provisions in community sentences is to help ensure public safety. Therefore, why would we not want people to comply? Oh! So maybe the people on the other side of the House say: “We’re not going to give probation officers another tool in their tool box to ensure that people comply with their community sentences because we are not concerned about public safety.” Well, on this side of the House we are concerned with the rehabilitation of offenders, to ensure that they stand less chance of offending in the future. We are concerned with public safety, and we will do what we can—we will use the tools that are available to us—to ensure that people are being rehabilitated properly; that there is going to be public safety.

They do not just get that thrown on them straight away. As has been well documented, there are warnings in place and so this is not thrust upon them. We are not forcing people to not get their benefit. Those people are making that choice for themselves. At the point where they say “We are not going to comply with the orders that the court has put on us”, they are making the choice themselves not to bring income into their own household. I am not going to stand here and make excuses for that, because those people need to take responsibility for themselves.

Finally, the bill is coming to the Social Services Committee. Why? It is because this bill is an amendment to the Social Security Act. That committee is a hard-working committee that will not shy away from hard work—we are quite happy to engage with this. Yes, primarily the bill is to do with the Department of Corrections, but it is going to make an amendment to the Social Security Act, which we are more than happy to take our parliamentary responsibility for. I look forward to this bill going through, coming to our committee, and ensuring that New Zealand will be a safer, better place because this legislation is in place.

Mr Assistant Speaker, I believe I have got 5 minutes, and I have to say that it is going to take me all of 5 minutes just to read out the title of this bill: the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill. I stand with a heavy heart because one of my heroes in the golden oldies Parliamentary Rugby Team and one of our esteemed co-captains, Mark Mitchell—I thought that when he was not in the House he would be out there on the streets, pounding the pavements, working on his aerobic fitness, and getting a bit of bulk in the thighs, definition in the abs, and a bit of mass in the shoulders. But, no, instead he has been wasting his time instructing some poor official in the Ministry of Social Development to write his speech for him. I must admit—I will give him credit—he delivered it well. Well done there, Mr Mitchell.

Let me say that this bill is a total waste of time. All Mr Mitchell is doing is just heaping more and more woes and responsibilities on the poor Department of Corrections. They are the people who are going to have to administer this. They are the people who are going to have to round up all of those people who have been jaywalking, riding bicycles without helmets, and riding their cycles on the footpath. Those poor people who go down to the local park on a Saturday while the probation service at the Department of Corrections watches over them as they rake the sandpit, rake leaves, and trim trees and all those sorts of things—those are the people who are going to be affected by this bill.

But what is so inhumane about the bill is the cutting of these poor people’s benefits by half if they have a child and cutting the benefit entirely if they do not have children. I just wonder why Mr Mitchell has not written into the bill: “Corrections’ latest punishment for people who don’t conform to whatever they are meant to conform to”. Maybe the Department of Corrections has been trialling this on the side and it might be an amendment to the bill later on, but the department today is being had up because it has been tying prisoners to the beds—tying prisoners to beds. Now, would that not be a lot kinder to poor beneficiaries—that instead of cutting their benefits, they just tied them to the beds? This has been happening in New Zealand’s prisons.

I have to congratulate the Chief Ombudsman, Judge Peter Boshier, on the great work he is doing. He is rapidly becoming a superhero of mine because he is holding this Government to account. He is making it actually accountable for some of its silly decisions, such as tying prisoners to their beds. This poor prisoner actually had mental health issues, and so he has been punished for being unwell, and that is just another example of this terrible Government—an absolutely shocking Government—having its priorities wrong and punishing people instead of helping them, in particular this poor guy who was tied down simply because he was unwell. The prison inspectorate is now being made to account for this. The prison inspectorate was meant to actually write weekly reports to the Ombudsman on this incident, and yet it did not. I think the prison inspectorate has got a lot to hide. I asked the Department of Corrections if I could go and talk to the prison inspectorate last week on a totally unrelated matter, and I was blocked at every turn.

This Government has got its priorities wrong. When it could be dealing with the housing crisis and making sure people are not living in those mobile apartments—also known as motor vehicles—when it could be putting money into Te Puea Marae and other real issues that are facing New Zealand, we have my hero, the co-captain of the golden oldies Parliamentary Rugby Team, presenting silly bills like this to the House.

It is a great opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill in the name of Mark Mitchell. I would like to start by congratulating Mark Mitchell on this bill. As far as I know, Mark Mitchell was in the police force before becoming a member of Parliament, and this reflects a lot on what police officers go through in their day-to-day life to keep crime down. There are people who keep causing trouble again and again and then we reach a point where we start thinking about other avenues.

This bill is to send a message to offenders, especially repeat offenders. It is important that we enforce compliance for community-based sentences. And to the member from the New Zealand First Party Darroch Ball, I want to clarify for him that it is the Ministry of Social Development that pays benefits, not the Department of Corrections, so it is relevant to the Social Services Committee. This bill will enable the Department of Corrections to instruct the Ministry of Social Development to withhold all or part of a person’s benefit when that person has repeatedly failed to comply with a community-based sentence. This National Government is highly committed to keeping crime down, and it is because of our commitment that crime is so low. Crime is low because we are harsh on criminals. Yes, we are harsh on criminals and we know how to use our resources efficiently. We are also ensuring that our justice system is focused on the rights of victims.

This bill will use benefit payments as a tool to improve compliance with community-based sentences. We do not want offenders to reoffend. We do not want to have more victims of crime. This bill will withhold benefit payments from those who repeatedly breach the conditions of their community-based sentences. It is really important that we ensure compliance, and by giving this power to the Department of Corrections, the Department of Corrections will be able to manage offenders at its level without sending all those cases to judges, because we do not want to burden the court system unnecessarily.

It does not seem just that we keep paying benefits to criminals on the run. But this bill is quite fair to criminals too, because they will be getting written notices. There will be enough warnings before their benefit payments are deducted, and also they will be provided help to comply with the conditions of their community-based sentence. After all that, if they still do not comply only then will their benefit payments be deducted. Also, benefit payments will not be deducted by more than 50 percent of their gross benefit if they have a dependent child or dependent children. So, overall, this bill is quite fair on both sides. This bill also provides for the Department of Corrections to inform the Ministry of Social Development if people start complying so their benefit can be reinstated. It is not a permanent reduction that is going to happen to these people, so the payment will be reinstated if they start complying with their conditions.

I fully support using welfare payment as a tool to improve compliance and also to encourage people to comply with their community-based sentence. The benefit system is to help people—those who are in real need. People who are on benefits have obligations towards the system. They have some conditions they have to meet to keep getting those payments. Similarly, these conditions should be introduced for people who are on community-based sentences so that they have to comply with their conditions, and if they do not comply with their conditions, their benefit payments will be deducted. This is a very effective tool, and this is also about sending the message to people that people have responsibilities to the system, people have to respect the system, and they have a responsibility to society too. I am looking forward to working on this bill in the select committee process. I support this bill. Thank you.

I would just like to begin in the spirit of goodwill engendered by my colleague Jan Logie. In that spirit, I have tried very hard to find something good to say about this bill. It has not been easy, but I have managed it. This bill does identify a problem. That is its one redeeming feature. We do have a problem with non-compliance with community work orders. However, this bill is so far from being a solution that it cannot even see it over the horizon. Sadly, it has identified a problem and come up with utterly the wrong response to that problem.

I would pose a question. There is some irony in the fact that we are talking about giving the Department of Corrections an authority to withhold payments from people and to withhold from them their means of support on the very day when the Department of Corrections has been revealed to be failing to comply with the reasonable requirements of the Office of the Ombudsmen. Perhaps senior staff management at the Department of Corrections should have their salaries withheld until such time as they comply with the Ombudsman’s requirement for them to report about the well-being of prisoners.

I think there is an interesting differentiation being made here, and that point has been made, not least of all by our friend Mr Ball. If the intention of this bill is to gain compliance from people who are not complying, why limit it to beneficiaries? The Government already has the power to withhold wages from people who fail to pay their tax, for example, or who fail to pay fines. If the intention is gaining compliance, why specify only beneficiaries? Is it about beating people when they are down? Is it about punishment and stigmatising those people? Why not? If the logic of this bill is to force compliance, why do you not go after wage earners as well? Explain to me the difference and the logic between those things if it is about compliance and not punishment.

If you actually want to know how to improve compliance with community sentences, take a leaf and look at our own experience. In Nelson in April this year the reporting point for people on community sentences was moved from Nelson to Richmond. They immediately got an increase in non-compliance, because for some people that was a 20 kilometre journey. It was a 20 kilometre journey for people who do not have drivers’ licences and live where there is very little public transport—and the Department of Corrections ceased providing transport in a van for these people. That would be a really simple way to resolve that specific problem: provide a van, pick these people up and get them to the point where they can then comply with their service.

The Department of Corrections in Canterbury, in November last year, identified a serious problem with non-compliance. The compliance levels got so low that its solution was to fire some of the supervisors, because they did not need that many. What a perverse response that was. How about getting more supervisors—people who can monitor, inveigle, inspire, encourage, and harass people to turn up on the day—to be on their case and make sure that they actually come along and fulfil their sentence requirements? Would that not be an actual real solution, rather than this phony attempt at a solution, this punitive stigmatising solution provided in this legislation?

In Tauranga in 2013 this problem was in evidence. They discovered that a lot of the non-compliance was because people were choosing to go and do a day’s seasonal work rather than go and do their community work obligation. The rather enlightened response of the probation service in Tauranga was to accept that as a legitimate reason and endeavour to get the community service so that there was no conflict with the ability of these people to go out and earn money, particularly in fruit harvesting and these sorts of things.

We do have a problem in New Zealand. The number of people who comply 100 percent with community work sentences is something as low as 36 percent. Many more do ultimately comply, but it is a low compliance rate. We do need to address the problem. This is absolutely not a solution. There are some sensible, well-founded solutions that mostly revolve around investing in people, treating them well, and treating them sensibly. This bill is not a solution. We will not support it. Kia ora.

I call Mark Mitchell—5 minutes in reply.

I have made a point of speaking, because I do want to be able to make some serious responses to the issues that were raised by the members across the House. This is going to be somewhat of a challenge, to be honest with you. Carmel Sepuloni: her contribution was that she is too busy to really look at it. She did manage to make some comment around keeping them out of court. Actually, this bill, if you look at it, is about keeping offenders out of court. It is avoiding the stigmatisation that puts them back into court. Then we came to Jan Logie—that was a really interesting contribution. She is too busy as well to look at this, and I found out that she does not like me any more—somehow I am going to have to try to deal with that; I am not sure how. She felt that it was a deep attack on beneficiaries.

This bill is really simple. People who are actually on a benefit, I believe, have got a contract with the taxpayers of New Zealand, who are paying them. If beneficiaries are given community service as part of a sentence, often this is actually a real opportunity for them to get into their communities and do something positive. If they choose not to be compliant, then I think that we should take steps to make sure we encourage them to be compliant.

I will come to Mr Ball’s comments in a minute because he raised a very interesting point. He raised a question with me of what happens to people who fail to comply with a community sentence who do not collect a Government benefit. The answer is very simple: at the moment, if they are not a beneficiary, if the taxpayer is not funding them and they are getting their revenue from another source—whether it be the private sector or whether you are self-employed—then, basically, if they are non-compliant, they will be warned, and then they will be taken back into court, and they will be dealt with in court.

What this bill is actually doing, Mr Ball, is it is actually giving offenders who have been convicted an opportunity to come and engage in their community sentence, and it relates directly to people who are being funded and paid by the taxpayer. I come back to that social contract that they have and that responsibility that they have. This country is built on some pretty important values: personal responsibility and individual freedoms, Mr Ball. So I am very surprised that you are standing up and saying that you are tough on crime, and yet you want to let off offenders, whom the taxpayer is actually paying and funding. You do not want them to be held to account and to actually come along and engage in their community sentence. That is a very interesting position that you are taking, and I will be very interested to hear you get up in the House and try to defend that position.

So let us move on from Mr Ball, and let us go to Kelvin. Kelvin’s contribution: I was really looking forward to this, and he did not let me down, right? He spoke about the Parliamentary Rugby Team, which is very important, Kel, I admit that. Then he talked about tying prisoners to beds. I can assure you that there is nothing in this legislation that relates to tying prisoners to beds—thank goodness. Then, to give him his dues, eventually he admitted that he wanted to talk about things that actually were totally unrelated to the bill.

But Mr Clendon surprised me, and it was a pleasant surprise. He got up and it sounded like he was going to support the bill. He understood what it is about. It is about non-compliance.

💬 Hon Member: Did he trick you?

He did. We thought he was going to cross the floor there for a minute—that is right. He did highlight that it is about non-compliance, and he is absolutely right. This bill is about non-compliance. It is about the non-compliant behaviour of offenders who have been convicted of a crime who are receiving a Government benefit funded by the taxpayer. The expectation is this: that they front up and do their community service. They get into the community and they take the opportunity that they have been given to do something positive. If they do not do that, then we will send a warning letter to them—not once but twice—to say that if they break the contract, then we will start to reduce their benefits. I think that is fair. Thank you.