Dalziel Lianne: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10934] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Parole has always been a privilege and it has a very important function: it enables the reintegration into society of those who are to be reintegrated in a supervised and managed way. There are always pressures and I thought it would be worthwhile quoting the pressures there are in the Californian system as that seems to be what we are modelling our new laws on. 
In California 70 percent of people released on parole will return within 3 years to the prison system and 90 percent of those will have breached their parole even if the breach was technical and that breach will take them back to prison. It has nothing to do with whether the particular breach would have attracted a prison sentence; it concerns just a breach of parole. An example that has been given is of somebody who was told not to drink while on parole. An officer turned up at home to find the person drinking so that person went back to prison. Drinking was not an offence in any other respect but not to drink was a condition of the parole. 
In California there is one parole officer for every 1000 people on parole. And that is the system we want to emulate! In California the Department of Finance spends 17.4 percent of its budget on corrections and rehabilitation. Do members know what the education budget is? It is 0.8 percent. I do not know why we think this is just such an amazing idea. I think we have to listen to what we are being told about how it will work in practice. 
The one issue that nobody has responded to yet is how we have chosen this particular range of offences. I am really really happy that Mr Madoff was sentenced to 150 years’— 
Grant Robertson 
: Bernie! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —that Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years’ imprisonment. His crime was motivated by greed. It was deliberate. He did not get drunk and accidentally remove a whole lot of money out of people’s back pockets. How does the fact that he did not do it with a gun a knife or the threat of physical injury mean that he is better than somebody who was addicted to drugs or somebody who ended up in a situation where he acted on the spur of the moment and did not think things through? A lot of the crimes we are talking about in the violence space are not premeditated. Often they are crimes that occur because of the circumstances in which people find themselves. Bernie Madoff did not find himself in a situation where he could rip millions and millions of dollars off innocent friends—they are no longer his friends—but the reality is that we say that his crimes are different from those described in this bill. 
Let us look at the range of crimes. What about sexual harassment? We know about sexual harassment. It is incredibly damaging particularly for young vulnerable women who meet older men who are in a position of power. For example someone may come to Parliament as a student as part of a student group and they may be told by their tutor not to complain about the MP who sexually harassed them because if they do the group will end up in a situation where the visits to Wellington will have to be cancelled and that is not wanted. So the student should just “suck it up” and put it to one side and the group will try to avoid that particular MP. Would Mr Garrett like me to name him? 
The point I make is that we are being selective about the range of offences. We have to think very very seriously about white-collar crime in the context of where deterrence works. I do not know why members of the Government do not get this point. If we want to operate a system that deters serious crime then we should put the deterrent where it will work. We should put it where people are very clear about the choice they are making in terms of the crime they are committing and its relationship to the risk of getting caught and the consequences of getting caught should they be convicted of the offence. That is what white-collar crime is all about. If we really wanted to do something about deterrence we would have an appropriate range of offences and mechanisms for enforcing deterrence activities in place. 
I will pick up on the point that was made about the quote from the report back of the Law and Order Committee. I am quoting from the minority report but the specific quote that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove referred to was an extract from the Cabinet paper so there is no issue in respect of what the Minister said in her most recent contribution. When the Department of Corrections was reporting on prison bed forecasts it said: “… there is an implicit assumption that the Bill will have no deterrent impact.” 
If the Minister’s own department thinks that there is an “implicit assumption” I cannot understand why the Minister would argue that her own department is not taking that particular point of view. Is the Minister denying that it was a genuine quote? Well perhaps we could have the entire quote because I cannot see anything other than the very clear statement that there is an implicit assumption that the bill will have no deterrent impact. I guess that relates to the fact that it is not budgeting for an increase in bed numbers and I assume the Minister will address that issue when she next addresses the Committee. 
The other thing I want to come back to is this whole question of the discretion that sits with the judges. In this particular case because it is the provision that deals with parole it is the question of the ability of the Parole Board to look at individual cases. Of course the discretion is taken away from judges. 
What I have not heard the Minister respond to and I think these are probably the two most serious issues—and they were raised by Rev. Ron Givens when he was here—is the danger to prison officers and the danger to police officers. It is clear that the fact that more people are desperate to escape the third-strike conviction has resulted in more police officers being killed. It has. The Minister can shake her head but perhaps she would like to respond to that issue because it is shown in the evidence that has been given to us. 
The other issue is the question of prison officers. If somebody is never going to get out of prison what on earth does that do to their mental well-being? The point made to us was that a significant percentage of people already have mental illness when they go into prison but for those who know there is no hope no ability for redemption and no capacity to rejoin the community no matter what changes they make to their lives what on earth is the incentive to sit down and address those underlying issues? It seems to me that that is something the Minister has not taken into account and it is putting more and more corrections officers at risk which is a tragedy that we could avoid. It is the same with police officers. In every single jurisdiction where legislation like this has been introduced people are desperately trying to avoid being arrested for that third strike. 
We also have the situation where people are essentially ground down into a state of mental illness that prevents them from participating in anything within the prison context. Essentially they become even more violent and create a greater risk for those who are supposedly looking after people in a humane containment environment within our prison system. I think that is probably the most serious matter that the Minister has not addressed at all in any part of the debate. The risks are serious they ought to be taken seriously by her and she ought to respond to those issues as they have been raised. 
I think that the issues concerning the general sentencing capacity are politicising justice by taking discretion away from the judges. It is politicising a system of parole that is about reintegration. How are people supposed to be reintegrated if parole is removed from the second-strike situation as we have had described in relation to the bill? I would really like the Minister to respond to those issues. They are serious and a lot of people are asking questions about them.