Newman Muriel: Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Newman Muriel: Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19284] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I would like to start by reminding the House that if there is merit in a member’s bill there is a longstanding tradition that the bill will be referred to a select committee for further consideration. New Zealand now has the highest rate of violent crime than at any other time in our history and that crime is an absolute key concern of New Zealanders so any bill that seeks to improve the situation to make New Zealand a safer society merits consideration. I would like the Labour Party members to take that into consideration when they vote. 
At the ACT conference at the weekend we heard from Ray Mallen. He is the Mayor of Middlesbrough and was a police chief for 30 years. He told us how zero-tolerance policing works; it brings down crime. But he reminded us that the key to good policing is that it is accompanied by appropriate sentencing. This bill seeks to improve sentencing in New Zealand—not custodial sentencing but community sentencing and supervision. 
In this country we are suffering from a soft-on-crime Labour Party that has undermined sentences since it has been in power. It cares more about the needs of criminals than victims; it has effectively eliminated punishment as the key purpose of sentencing; it requires offenders to be kept in the community as far as possible rather than locking them up; it has slashed the length of prison sentences; and it has given the power over sentencing to probation officers and the probation service—stripping it away from the judges. 
This bill brings back common sense into sentencing for community work and supervision. It gives judges the power to determine things like random drug-testing alcohol bans and the fact that offenders should not associate with known criminals. Under this bill the judge could require offenders to write letters of apology to people whom they have intimidated people whom they have shoplifted from or whatever; require people to clean graffiti off walls; and require offenders to be publicly humiliated if that is what the judge believes will actually bring about remorse in the offender. We have lost all those common-sense approaches. The bill also brings cumulative sentences instead of concurrent sentences. If an offender receives a sentence of 1 year 6 months or 9 months it is all added up instead of being done in one sweep. 
I think the key point is that a judge knows better than anyone else in the court what will work for an offender. Under this bill he will be able to use sentencing as a tool not only to punish the offender but also to send out a strong signal that will discourage crime. The bill seeks to make the sentencing of offenders an effective tool to reduce crime in New Zealand and because of that it deserves the support of this House. 
I say to the Labour Party that if it votes down this bill and does not allow it to go a select committee then it is simply sending out the signal to New Zealand that Labour is indeed soft on crime. This bill is a genuine attempt to make our sentencing laws better in this country and because it is a member’s bill the Labour Party has a responsibility to support such a bill to a select committee so that the public of New Zealand can come along and have a say. 
In 1999 the people of New Zealand overwhelmingly sent a message to the Government that they wanted a Government to be tough on crime. It is an absolute tragedy to see the way the Labour Party has undermined crime and punishment in New Zealand. This bill is an attempt by an ACT party member to improve the situation and I urge the Government to support it.