Woodhouse Michael: Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2053. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take the last call in the first reading on this very important bill the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill. For the benefit of less experienced colleagues in the House I think it is fair to say that it is not that unusual that peace breaks out around much of the Government legislation. Indeed there are many times when the Greens will support the Government on certain bits of legislation and indeed New Zealand First although it is extremely hard to tell sometimes certainly from those members’ speeches.  
We have heard some really interesting discourse though throughout this first reading debate. I want to touch on issues that were raised by both Messrs Chauvel and Goff at least in my listening and then by Ms Genter right at the end here about this apparent causation with the correlation between sentencing and reoffending. Mr Goff I think used the following statistics and I trust that they are correct: 22 percent of offenders on community sentences reoffend and 50 percent of offenders on short prison sentences reoffend. The inference then is that the shorter the sentence the less the likelihood of the reoffending and he said: “We need to use sentences that work”.  
Hon Simon Bridges 
: No it’s because there’s more serious offending. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well that is absolutely right Mr Bridges. What we are actually talking about is not a scientific study where the scale of the offending is equal in each case. It is actually an insult to the justice system to suggest that for the same level of offending some will get community sentences and some will get prison sentences.  
Charles Chauvel 
: Now I understand. It’s clear now.  
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well that member may be better off going and speaking to that inexperienced member Mr Goff because frankly it is absolutely spurious to suggest that less is better automatically when it comes to sentencing because that is what we have heard in some of the contributions tonight. The simple fact is: the greater the level of offending the greater the sentence. The very important responsibility that this House has and then the judiciary is to ensure that the punishment fits the crime and that those three principles—four actually if you count the deterrent factor that Mr Tirikatene mentioned—are actually achieved.  
So I do wonder what a community sentence would be given for and members on the other side might be interested in this perhaps. Theft for example might warrant a community sentence. Perhaps receiving stolen property and passing it on when that authorisation has not been granted I do not know or maybe assault or fighting in a public place where diversion clearly has not worked with the particular individual. I think there are certain members on the other side who need to read this bill very very carefully and take some heed because there is a degree of recidivism in some offenders where community sentences simply will not be appropriate again in the future.  
I support this bill.  
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.