Tanczos Nandor: Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Tanczos Nandor: Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:14192] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Like Mr Worth I would like to refer to some of the contributions of previous speakers. It has been instructive and interesting to hear members across the Chamber talk about the different and very serious issues that this legislation raises. We could characterise the contributions from the National Party New Zealand First and ACT as basically saying that the legislation does not go far enough that it is weak legislation and it is just showing the Government’s soft-on-crime credentials. As is usually the case that has been done without offering any real solutions as to how those things should be fixed. 
I say that but it is not quite fair because New Zealand First and ACT did offer some solutions—unworkable solutions rhetorical devices meaningless and impractical—but they did offer solutions unlike the National Party members who criticised but had nothing to say about how they would address this serious problem and given that the legislation does not go far enough what they would do to make it go further. Of course National does not need to express a policy because it will leave that to ACT and New Zealand First which are desperate to get in on the tough-on-crime rhetoric for the last week that they can claim that prize. Come Sunday all their policies will be stolen by Dr Brash! Mr Worth has told us exactly what will happen. He said that it would be on 4 July—a good date in deference to their American idol. 
Darren Hughes 
: Without reservation! 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: That is right. So Mr Brash will be stealing the policies of ACT and New Zealand First on Sunday in order to have another attempt at pushing the emotional buttons of the New Zealand electorate to get a quick rush in the polls. It will be interesting to see whether that works for the National Party. 
Darren Hughes 
: But it’s never the same the morning after. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: That is right. Who knows what sort of headache they will wake up with? This is serious legislation. At the heart of the debate is a real question about whether extending supervision is double jeopardy and whether it is punishment. The Justice and Electoral Committee talked a lot about the issue. Lianne Dalziel spoke very strongly at the committee and made her point just now in the debate on the third reading. Her opinion is that it is not punishment. I think that that is a semantic device to get around the problem. I do not see how we can say that adding restrictions to a person against his or her will is not a punishment of some form. The question is whether that punishment is justified and I have already indicated to the House this evening that I think it is justified in light of the serious risk and the serious consequences we are talking about when it comes to child sex offenders. 
Unfortunately the Committee did not support my Supplementary Order Paper that proposed a sunset clause. One of the things we have to remember is that this legislation was an attempt to patch up and fix up a legacy of National Government inactivity during its last term in Government. Many of the people sentenced today under the Sentencing Act 2002—the kinds of people we are talking about—are likely to get preventive detention which would allow restrictions and supervision to be put on them for the rest of their lives. That did not happen under the old regime. One of the principal things about this bill is that it is an attempt to create a situation to catch those people who were sentenced to a finite sentence under the old regime. They have been in prison because they are too high a risk to let out and because they have reached the end of their sentence no supervisional restrictions can be put on them. It is unfortunate that that sunset clause did not get picked up. 
I do support the legislation but let us not forget that it is a patch-up. The real issue is about how we increase justice and how we reduce crime. It is not about sentencing. It is about justice. What we need is a package of solutions that will reduce crime in this country. That means we have to start focusing on early intervention and crime prevention and start moving away from an adversarial system that is concerned only with technical questions of guilt and innocence. We have to take restorative justice and Maori justice processes more seriously. We have to look at prison reform. We should look at the Roper report which was written in 1989 and has a lot to teach us today and we should look at reintegration.