Alexander Marc: Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Alexander Marc: Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:14194] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise for United Future to speak on the third readings of these bills and I have to preface what I want to say by making the observation that I was quite interested to hear Dail Jones from New Zealand First come out as the super crime-fighter talking tough and saying the word “tough” so often that we got the impression that he was trying to make himself believe his sense of toughness. It almost seems to me that he wants to go the full hog and to try to outdo the toughness of everybody else. He is going to institute a policy of mandatory life sentence and pray for reincarnation so that he could re-imprison the infant when reborn again to show just how tough he and New Zealand First really are. Of course they are not very tough at all. 
Stephen Franks 
: They’re wimps. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: That is exactly right—they are absolute wimps. They are not in favour of crucifixion they are not in favour of flogging and they are not afraid of eating at Bellamy’s. What I would like to say though getting a bit more serious is that we should have a look at the victimisation survey. In 2001 there were 70000 sex offences not including rape in this country. That is a very high rate of crime in New Zealand and despite the rhetoric of the behavioural apologists the recidivism rate for sex offenders shoots up to 70 percent if we take a 22-year study and have a look at what they do. They may not reoffend quite so quickly in the early years but in 22 years it shoots up to 70 percent and that compares with an 86 percent recidivism rate for all offences. 
So it is a very high recidivism rate and the damage done by sex offenders is enormous. It destroys young children if that is whom they prey upon—it destroys families and rips them apart. The hardest thing for most families to cope with is to see the destructive force of those sexual predators on their children. It is absolutely heartbreaking. These are the most vulnerable members of our society and they are preyed upon by a number of these sex offenders. Of course they prey on others besides children but particularly in regard to vulnerable children it seems all the more poignant that we do not have legislation in place to deal effectively with them. 
I have three major concerns—first of all the recognition that the sentences were too lenient in the first place and that has not really been addressed by this legislation; it is a patch-up job. Secondly the recognition that our parole provisions are a joke: 86 percent of individuals are back in prison within 5 years most of them let out through the parole provisions after one-third of their sentence. It is pathetic. Thirdly the culture that the rights of the offender are when in conflict with the rights of the victim often given primary importance has got to change. At some point we have to make a value judgment and say that victims’ rights and the rights of the law-abiding should supersede that of offenders. This should be made a standard practice. 
At some point we must recognise that the good guys—the victims and the law-abiding—have rights that supersede those of the offenders. We cannot say that often enough. A sentence must give full consideration in retribution to the interests of the victim. It should not be circumvented shortened or given a discount. That is exactly what parole does—it revisits the sentence and says it was too much. What has changed? What amelioration has there been in the impact of the crime on the victim? Absolutely none! Yet we are giving a discount. That has got to change. I do hope the Parole Board is listening to this debate and that the probation service is taking note of the concerns raised in the debate and is taking them on board because they will be held to account for this as will the Government. 
One thing I would like to highlight is that according to the Attorney-General the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was a cause of concern. Well again we are talking about the wrong thing. Whose rights? The rights of the victim must take supreme position over those of the offender. Quite frankly when an offender has already made the choice to offend and has been incarcerated and dealt with the offender has made a choice and that offender’s rights are of lesser concern. The real villains of the piece—the music behind the sad operatic tourniquet on the bleeding stump of what passes for our criminal justice system—are the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act of 2002. They are the clowns that maintain the circus of our justice parody and until they are dealt with until they are dragged back into this House and dealt with properly until the provisions of the parole system have been duly altered to reflect the 92 percent who wanted tougher and more justifiable sentencing we cannot proceed down the path of giving true justice to the people of this county. 
United Future will support this bill because it is better than not supporting it. We have to support it because it would be on our conscience not to support it and to allow predators out of prison to prey on unsuspecting innocent victims. But it is the Parole and Sentencing Acts that must be brought to trial for their culpability in allowing this farce to continue.