Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Recently, I had the opportunity to attend the ceremony where we recognised the great work of members of the Corrections team across my electorate for the work they do. Particularly, one of my areas is in reform and rehabilitation, and I just want to acknowledge that work as part of the contribution I’m making to this debate this afternoon. Because if they were listening to that contribution that’s just been made, they would think that their contribution to rehabilitation is not appreciated, and I want all of those corrections officers to know that it is, by this Government. I commend this bill to the House.

That was a very short speech. I thought we would have got a bit more from that member, but that’s fine.

This is an interesting debate we have because when we’re talking about being tough on crime, as we’ve heard, and the importance of this bill as a signature piece for the Government to demonstrate their commitment to being tough on crime, it comes in the context of where we’ve seen a 96 percent increase in the use of methamphetamine. So it’s important that if we’re curtailing the independence of the judiciary to impose sentences and saying that that’s tough on crime—but at the same time we have seen a deadly drug that absolutely devastates communities; that drives retail crime up, increases that; that increases violent crime; and it also adds to increased family violence. Business is booming for the gangs right now; they’re doing the best they’ve ever done before because they are selling record levels of methamphetamine in New Zealand.

I find it somewhat two-faced to profess that this Government and this bill are tough on crime when life has never been better for the gangs. The price point of methamphetamine is the lowest it has been in New Zealand’s history, and the purity of methamphetamine is the highest. We have a market that is absolutely flooded with cheap, high-quality methamphetamine, and those profiting from it—those doing well from it—are the gangs. So if this Government is so tough on crime, why is business booming for gangs right now in New Zealand? I’d love to hear from some of the members opposite to their answer to that question.

Because where in this bill lies the answer to curtailing the intricate web of organised criminal activity that peddles misery in our communities and causes increased poverty, increased violence, and increased retail crime within our communities? Because if this Government is, in fact, being tough on crime with this bill, you can ask any police officer, in any given city or area, who their top two or three retail crime offenders are, and you can ask them what is driving that retail crime. Those large-scale operations where you see a trolley full of meat being stolen from Woolworths or Pak’nSave? Those are meth users who are stealing to order, in order to feed their addiction.

Methamphetamine is a significant driver of retail crime in our community. So where is this Government’s answer to being tough on crime when we see gangs doing better than ever before in New Zealand? In fact, during a cost of living crisis—when every other food group has gone through the roof: rates, insurance, everywhere where we see communities, rents are all increasing—the one big price drop we’ve seen in New Zealand under this Government is the cost of a price point of methamphetamine. I think that demonstrates that bills like this one are window dressing. They tick the box of being able to say that they’re tough on crime, but the reality is demonstrated in the 96 percent increase in the use of methamphetamine—

💬 Rima Nakhle: Thanks to Labour. Six years.

—reported last week, done in one year. So in one year—to that member opposite who’s interjecting—from 2023 to 2024—

💬 Rima Nakhle: Six years.

—in one year—

💬 Rima Nakhle: $2.75 million to your friend, Harry. Great guy! Mongrel Mob!

—we have had a 96 percent increase in methamphetamine under their Government’s watch.

💬 Rima Nakhle: Just give him $2.75 million—Harry.

The other bill we’re seeing coming through this House today in terms of not being tough on crime—which undermines the whole purpose of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill—would be weakening our gun laws. On top of making methamphetamine cheaper than ever—

💬 Rima Nakhle: Thanks to Labour. Friends of gangs. Six years.

—and giving gangs more income than ever before, we’re weakening gun laws and paving—

💬 Dr Tracey McLellan: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I’m just sitting here listening to a very excellent speech, but also reflecting on Speakers’ rulings. In 64/3, it clearly states that a “running commentary of interjections is out of order;”. The members on the Government side of the House have plenty of opportunity to take calls. And we—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I understand the point of order. Thank you. Look, I tend to allow quite a free give and take within the House. There have been several interjections from both sides during this debate. It wasn’t rowdy, it wasn’t disruptive, but it was sustained. But I’ll ask the member to continue.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The point I was making was that if this bill is tough on crime, why has methamphetamine use gone up by 96 percent, meaning that business is booming for the gangs?

Secondly, if this bill and this Government propose to be tough on crime, why are they weakening gun laws by passing, under urgency later on today, a bill that will lay the foundations for taking the Firearms Safety Authority away from police, away from their best advice, away from protecting front-line safety; and actually enabling a far less regulated system for firearms ranges and guns and gun safety in New Zealand?

I guess it’s the importance of highlighting that this bill in itself—with its tick-box measure of attempting to show that it’s tough on crime—if we lift the lid, if we lift the hood on this car, then underneath it we see the real picture and we see criminals having, more readily, access to firearms; the easier diversion of firearms into the criminal underworld; and the free-flowing ability of selling and profiting from illicit drugs. Those things are the cycle of crime. If we are serious as a country to get on top of crime, we have to break that cycle. We want to look at where this continues to cause harm in our communities. We want to stop that from causing destruction and hurt in the next generation of New Zealanders.

But this Government has no interest in that. They want to simply demonstrate, over a short term, that they are tough, without actually looking at any clear evidence or actually taking some interest into looking at what works in New Zealand. This bill is a sad bill that will make them attempt to look like they’re doing tough things. But, in fact, it has no impact upon the real damage and harm that continues to be caused in communities. We’re still seeing record levels of retail crime. We’re still seeing those small-business owners being hurt in their businesses, and under the influence of drugs and other influences that come through their businesses, and who are being threatened with weapons in their place of work. Those areas are still a concern, and it is those areas that we need to look at in how we break the cycle of crime.

In terms of what this bill does and why we oppose it, the 40 percent cap on sentence discounts severely restricts judges’ ability to consider the full range of mitigating factors in complex cases. Judges, with their expertise and experience, we think, are the best positioned to weigh all relevant factors and determine appropriate sentences. But this Government thinks they know better—they think they know better and they will impose a regime to impede the discretion of the judiciary. This one-size-fits-all approach may lead to unjust outcomes in cases with unique circumstances. And we heard that very clearly at the Justice Committee.

Restricting discounts for younger offenders may place their rehabilitation in jeopardy. And that’s an interesting point: that if we were serious about breaking the cycle of crime, it is those early on, nipping that behaviour in the bud and making sure there are consequences for those actions and making sure that there is a programme in place that actually makes rehabilitation an attainable goal for young people. But it is under this bill that those young people will be disproportionately impacted, and particularly those from disadvantaged communities.

Interestingly, to that point, is the fact that it is those communities that are also disproportionately impacted by the vast increase of methamphetamine now available in New Zealand communities. That report, released last Friday—late on a Friday; interesting how the Government puts things out late on a Friday when they don’t want to talk about things. But it is interesting from that report that it is parts of the North Island, rural New Zealand that are most significantly impacted. It is those communities that are already suffering under the cost of living crisis that are further impacted upon by the increased availability of methamphetamine use in New Zealand.

The cumulative sentences for offences committed on bail and custody under this legislation and under its changes lead to much longer prison sentences. That’s where they get to tick their box, but it does not solve the problem; it does not break the cycle of crime. There is absolutely no interest in being able to demonstrate what the long-term goal or plan is. I think that is the reason why this Government has no plan on reducing methamphetamine.

To give credit to former National Governments, at least John Key could see that this was damaging our communities. At least he pulled together a group of experts to say, “Let’s get on top of this problem. We can see it’s hurting our people. We can see it’s destroying lives.” But this Government is not interested in a long-term plan. They don’t care about that. They just want to show that they’re tough and they’re going to give criminals tougher sentences. And they think that’s going to fix the problem, but, sadly, it’s not.

This bill will strengthen the consequences of offending and ensure offenders take personal responsibility for the harm they cause. And what did Ginny Andersen in the Labour Party just say? “This is a sad bill.” Do you know what’s sad? For the victims in New Zealand who see the people who commit those crimes being tagged and released under that Labour administration and not serving the time for the crimes they’ve committed. And what are we doing? We’re bringing back real consequences. You commit the crime, and you will be held accountable for your actions. Not you, Madam Speaker, but the victims—[Interruption] Ha, ha! Those in community, the offenders who do the crimes, they will be held accountable for their actions. This side of the House care for victims; that side of the House, they do not care for victims. They simply do not care. We are restoring law and order back here in New Zealand; it’s a great day.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to take up this debating point, which seems to be that the people in the Opposition don’t care about victims. That is actually something that I would reflect on if I was a member of the Government. Is that a good starting point in any discussion, given that we are all here because we represent our communities and we have seen the harm that crime does in our communities? And so rather than be on a high horse, which actually obscures the view, let’s talk about the reality of people’s lives and the reality of the impact on victims of this particular piece of legislation, because it doesn’t do what it says on the tin.

This might make people feel good for two and a half seconds, but, actually, more people will die as a result of this piece of legislation. More people will be harmed as a result of this legislation, and it won’t fix the problem—and that’s what we’re here to do; we’re here to fix the problem, and it’s a serious problem in our society.

So let’s have a look at this piece of legislation through the eyes of a victim. Let’s talk about what would happen. What I think we also have to acknowledge is that these pieces of legislation don’t work just on their own. They’re part of a net and the net has actually got giant holes in it, in this case, because we have legislation in this House which simply misreads the problem and the solution.

We’ve heard people around this House today talk about things like the inadequacy of our imprisonment system, where we’re just simply not rehabilitating people, where we’re putting people into cells in double-bunking situations. And now we will be adding more youth to those cells and they will make connections in gangs. I can see a colleague across the House shaking his head and I wonder what reason he has for shaking his head, because that is the reality—we are putting more people into a place where they will be double-bunked.

I’m never a fan of double-bunking, where they will be in cells and in communication with people who are much more violent criminals. That will happen and they will learn and grow in those skills, and that’s the opposite from what we want for victims in this country, because those people will come out of prison and they’re much more likely to offend in violent ways, and that will hurt real New Zealanders.

Now, I wanted to talk about another piece of the net here that I think is going in place at the same time, and it’s got the same problem—it’s based on popularism—and that is the issue of citizens arrests. In a place like Sandringham, we’ve had deaths of people when coming out and actually trying to stop somebody who has shoplifted. We’ve had deaths of people, deaths of workers, as a result of that. In fact, what this Government keeps on doing is it keeps on talking about self-responsibility, and it just looks like abandonment. It abandons people through every system. People will be left to try and deal with that situation of an erratic person taking stuff from their shop. They’ll be left on their own to deal with it. And we’ve put it back on the worker and the little shop owner. That’s a shameful thing to do.

But then we promise them that in this bill, we’re going to imprison the person who offends by stabbing that shopkeeper. That’s what we’re promising them. And what are we actually doing? We’re taking a whole lot of people and imprisoning them and schooling them in crime in a way that is just not going to work. It is not going to help them in the slightest, because their loved ones are already going to be harmed from it. And now these people will be released into a situation which is even more harmful.

Now, I am not saying that we have got the system perfect or that we shouldn’t have good methods of dealing with people who are in what are crime waves. I’m not saying that. I think there is a lack of proportion here, and that does not mean that I’m belittling the crimes that are going on. But I’ve raised this before in another speech—I’ve talked about the issue of white-collar crime. I’ve talked about all those people who are causing harm, whom this doesn’t affect at all, and they actually affect our society. There is absolutely no proportionality here.

Finally, what worries me is that we have conceded there is problem here, because we’ve talked about problems where there is a manifest injustice and rectifying that. That means that we know that there’s going to be a lot of injustice in this law.

Finally, we are at the third reading of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, and this is absolutely a reformative bill when it comes to victims, because on this side of the House, we actually put victims first—not the Mongrel Mobs of society that received $2.75 million under the last Government; no, we put victims first.

And what’s really sad, actually, is to hear members opposite say that “This is a sad day.” Yes, actually, it’s a sad day for criminals because now they know that there’s actually going to be tougher consequences for their crime. It’s actually a very good day for victims, for victims in South Auckland that even this morning and yesterday were contacting me about when are tougher consequences for crime going to materialise for them? This is a good day for them.

What disgusts me is hearing across the House, “More young people will be harmed.” On 25 July 2024, the New Zealand Herald published an article where the title was: “Timaru teen sex offender Blake Miller avoids jail after 75 percent sentence discount after offences against child”. The child was 11 years old.

This bill that we’re passing today—thank you, God—would have made him go to jail, but he’s on home detention, which is disgusting. Shame on you across the House for saying that this is going to harm young people. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an interesting bill, isn’t it, because at the at the heart of almost all of the contributions that we’ve heard, not just today but through this process, has been a couple of key themes, and it’s as if sometimes we talk at cross-purposes. If this was a high school debate where there was some sort of moot and then an opposition, it might seem OK. But this is actually Parliament where people make laws and it’s incumbent upon the Government to try and do a better job and to step up and, and not kind of stoop to that level.

The Government members, the people opposite us in this House, have said several times today that this is about putting victims first, and that’s just vacuous. That’s just an utterly rubbish, vacuous comment that doesn’t make any actual sense. It’s as if you say it out loud and that makes it true. Rima Nakhle can sit there and shake her head but just because she stands up and says this is about making victims’ lives better doesn’t actually make it true. There is nothing in this bill that does that. So it’s lazy, vacuous thinking to think that you have the audacity to come here, wave a piece of paper around in the form of this bill, and say, “Job done, tick that one off, we’ve made things better for victims.”, because that does not work and it has not happened within the confines of this bill.

The Government is proposing this sentencing amendment bill as part of what they keep insisting on as a broad law and order reform package, and we have yet to see anything that’s broad about it. We are yet to see anything that actually tackles law and order. It is virtue signalling, it is lazy, and it is simply saying things. It is push-poll politics. It is push-poll defining of policy and it is lazy and you should know better. It’s no surprise that Labour strongly opposes this bill, and we do so for several reasons—mainly because it doesn’t do what the Government says it’s going to do, so we can chuck that one out, and it actually has some unintended consequences that are dangerous.

So we think that the fundamental objective of this bill is to undermine judicial discretion, which obviously is a bad thing. Arguing that judges don’t know what they’re doing, arguing that individual considerations shouldn’t be taken into account is a slippery slope to creating a system that just creates a revolving door that creates more crime, that creates more victims, and then creates more victims.

💬 Tom Rutherford: The victim was 11 years old.

You can stand up and take a call if you feel so passionate about it, Mr Rutherford. So, several key points to consider here, and one is, as I said, judicial discretion—severely limited. The bill caps total sentence discounts for mitigating factors at 40 percent, regardless of how many personal and situational factors may apply. It also formalises what it describes as a sliding scale of 25 percent for early guilty pleas, and on the surface you may think that there is some merit in that and you can see how that would be. The earlier someone fesses up and does a guilty plea during the process, the more their remorse is likely to be perceived as genuine, the less court expense, the less impact on the judicial system is in place, which, again, could show that their remorse is genuine.

But we didn’t find through the committee of the whole House or at any stage during this process, or the regulatory impact statement or anything else, that there was any robust analysis behind that or anything else that is in this bill. If it was worthwhile doing, we would all be able to sit here and get behind it. If it was actually robust and evidence-driven, we would all be able to go and support this bill because, fundamentally, everybody’s got the same intentions in place, and that is to make New Zealand a better place to live and to make fewer victims.

If this worked, we would support it. You’ve had ample opportunity to prove that it works; you’ve had ample opportunity to show some reasons as to why you shouldn’t have unanimous support around the House—not you, Madam Speaker, obviously; Madam Speaker would have tried—but you haven’t done that. And we’ve been open to that argument. On this side of the House, we would have absolutely been open to a sensible argument if a sensible argument existed. Giving an example, a person who confesses and cooperates extensively with police, shows genuine remorse, and has no prior convictions, may still be unable to receive a sentence reduction that would otherwise fairly reflect their circumstances. This one-size-fits-all is not going to do anything to improve the justice system.

There is one opportunity, often, in a young person’s life to come before the courts to face the circumstances of their offending and to actually turn a corner and to be provided with some societal help to do things differently and to live better and to create a whole new path for themselves. If we chuck away all of those tools that we have at our service, via the judicial process, then we are wasting the opportunity to do just that.

In terms of harms, the rehabilitation of youth and marginalised groups, the bill also prevents the discount for youth and for remorse. If we think about the youth discount in particular, we’ve heard several people talk, through this process and particularly at the committee of the whole House stage, about the fact that you don’t stop being young just because you did a bad thing and now you’ve done a second bad thing a short time afterwards, You’re still young. The fact that young people maturate, that they’re finding their way in the world, that their brain development isn’t going to happen until, you know, their early 20s and sometimes longer, that there can be a whole host of societal, cultural, and lifestyle factors, including poverty and including stigma and all of those other things. It doesn’t stop you being young and it doesn’t stop—and it shouldn’t stop—the discretion of a fully formed judge, of a fully formed judicial process, to be able to take things into account.

You may say, “Well, that’s tough luck.”, and want to take a much more punitive approach, but that young person is going to come back round. That young person is going to react in an equally proportionate way to how they’ve been treated, and that will actually impact how they decide to live the rest of their life. We have limited opportunities to make profound impacts on people, and I think we should leave it in the hands of judges who do this day in, day out and who know much more about it than the people sitting opposite me right now.

We’ve also heard contributions today about the increased prison population and the costs of that and that, as a society, we have a choice about—depending on how you look at it—where we spend our money. The fact is that putting people in prison is incredibly expensive; incredibly expensive. At the moment, we are almost at capacity. The Government is going flat out trying to negotiate with unions to be able to open up more prison beds. It’s flat out trying to invest huge swaths of taxpayer money in building new prisons—mega prisons, in one case, in Waikeria—and that just seems like a very convenient way of locking people up.

They try and balance that with this promise, this golden egg, of being able to provide more rehabilitation, but there’s no more rehabilitation happening. The rehabilitation for remand prisoners is yet to start and yet we’ve heard on the other side of the House several references to that over the last few weeks as being something good that the Government has done. It hasn’t even started. We don’t know how it’s going to work, and it’s, again, ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

Unnecessary age aggravating factors: as I said, Labour says that many more of these scenarios are already covered in existing law, and we just don’t value the contribution that this bill makes. We’ve called this a political stunt and we believe that that’s exactly what it is. It’s dressed up as reform. It’s not reform as, again, through the committee of the whole House stage, we heard several much more viable suggestions for an appropriate title that would have been a bit more true to form.

We’ve heard about the fact that methamphetamine use is up; it has absolutely skyrocketed—another example of this Government taking the opportunity to say things but not actually doing them. That has a consequence and that consequence is playing out on the streets of this country as we speak. Business is booming for the gangs. Their tough on crime rhetoric hasn’t worked for anything they’ve done to date, and it certainly is not demonstrated in this bill either. So we do not commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Very many statements have been made in this debate, but they’re simply out of scope of this debate. The Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill is very specific in its purpose to amend the Sentencing Act of 2002. We in this National Party and this Government strongly support the strengthening of accountability for crimes. It is about consequences, it is about personal responsibility, and being held to account for the damage that crime inflicts on victims. I commend this bill to the House.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Customer and Product Data Bill.