Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6878] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 New Zealand has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world. I am profoundly ashamed of that fact and have been since I have known it. I think that fact causes embarrassment to just about every New Zealander who hears it. But the fact itself is not a surprise really because since I have been in Parliament I have seen almost all the other parties—the Labour Party the National Party ACT New Zealand First and United Future—competing to be the most punitive party on crime. I remember many of the debates on justice and law and order in this House were truly odious in terms of the way they were conducted. Some members seemed to relish wading into the tragic details of horrible crimes although I accept that many of those members are no longer with us. Nevertheless that is the backdrop to the various justice and sentencing changes we have seen over the last few years. 
So I am really happy to see a bill finally that focuses on reducing crime rather than on simply locking people up. It recognises that a sharply increasing prison population is actually a symptom of failure rather than a symptom of success which was the mentality here for so long. I am particularly pleased of course with the stance taken by the Maori Party and with the comments it has made since it has been represented in this House in terms of promoting some of the same things that the Green Party has been promoting around restorative justice Maori justice processes and the like. I note the indication we have had that legislation around restorative justice may be under way and I will be very pleased indeed to see that come before the House. 
I agree with Mr Power that this bill does not address the real issue which is crime prevention. Although that has to be our focus I also accept that it is a matter for another bill and that a Criminal Justice Reform Bill is not the place to address issues such as that. So I look forward to seeing initiatives on crime prevention come before the House as well as this bill. 
In relation to this bill specifically I am pleased to see some of the clauses in Part 2 that relate to non-custodial sentences. I was very supportive of the approach taken in some of the provisions in the Sentencing Act 2002 where there is a clear presumption that a sentence should be the least restrictive sentence that is commensurate with public safety and where there is a preference for reparation and fines rather than custodial sentences. I supported that. I think there have been some real difficulties in terms of how the Sentencing Act has actually been put into practice in the courts and some of the things in this bill will help to tidy that up. 
In particular the provision to introduce home detention as a sentence in its own right is incredibly sensible and deserves support. We know that some of the advantages of home detention include low rates of reconviction and reimprisonment high rates of compliance and positive support for offenders’ reintegration and rehabilitation. Those are crucial matters when it comes to reducing crime particularly recidivist crime. I think that the making of the stand-alone sentence of home detention provides clarity and makes it more efficient. It has just been crazy that a judge has been able to say an offender is eligible to apply for home detention yet then the case goes off to another body to decide whether that will happen. It makes sense that a judge should be able to use home detention as a sentence in its own right and I think that will lead to better decision-making. 
The bill also introduces a couple of reforms around community-based sentences in relation to more intensive supervision and community detention. Community detention involves an electronically monitored curfew. The explanatory note of the bill says this is suitable particularly for offenders whose offending has a specific pattern or tends to occur at particular times. This reform is somewhat contentious. The introduction and extension of electronic monitoring is something we need to view with some caution because when this monitoring was introduced we were told it would be only for very serious sexual offenders in terms of extended supervision and the like. Although it is a contentious provision nevertheless there are real and obvious advantages in extending the use of non-custodial sentences in ways where the safety of the public can be better assured such as through electronic monitoring. So I think it is something to be supported although as I say there are mixed views on that. Then there is the higher level of restriction that can come through intensive supervision. The reforms to community-based sentencing also include a greater emphasis on the acquisition of basic work and life skills. That is obviously vital and has been needed for some time. 
One of the things I am unhappy about is that the bill comprises only three parts. Increasingly we have seen a tendency by Governments to aggregate clauses into fewer and fewer parts simply as a way of shortening the Committee stage debates. Those debates tend to be part by part now and in Part 2 a whole bunch of stuff has been put together that could for the purpose of debate quite usefully have been separated into more parts. One example is the reforms to the Parole Act of 2002. I want to be clear: I do not believe in truth in sentencing. The phrase is a cliché that has been used to try to attack what I think is an important part of the criminal justice system which is parole. Parole actually has enormous and proven benefits in terms of reducing reoffending and I think we get rid of that to our danger. It also clearly has benefits in terms of behaviour control in our institutions. 
The other point—which to me is a point of principle—is the issue of why we keep people in prison if they are not a risk to the community. One of the reasons I strongly supported the Parole Act 2002 was that whereas previously people had been automatically released at one-half of their sentence now they can be kept in prison for the whole of their sentence or released at one-third of their sentence with the deciding factor being the risk to the community. To my mind no consideration other than risk to the community should determine whether a person stays in prison. That has to be the most important thing. Prison is really about keeping people out of circulation because of the risk they present to the community. If they do not present such a threat why keep them in prison? 
One miscellaneous matter I have noticed is the extension of the sunset provision in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act of 2005. That provision concerns me because it has been sneaked into the bill and is not actually in line with any of the other reforms. Members should take notice of that. 
The last thing I will touch on is the issue of the Sentencing Council which I have real concerns about. I agree with Mr Power that it should be looked at with great caution because it is a significant change. Sentencing is already subject to parliamentary influence through legislation that sets maximum and minimum sentences but the Sentencing Council would appear to have far more direct power without the same parliamentary accountability and that is an issue. Nevertheless I recognise the arguments about inconsistency in sentencing particularly around minor offences. It is a question of whether we prize judicial discretion more than consistency. In particular with regard to the inconsistency around sentencing for minor offences I would very much like to see a breakdown along ethnic gender and class lines. I would not be at all surprised to see a correlation between those and that inconsistency because we know that Maori are treated disproportionately heavily throughout the criminal justice system. It is the same with young males and poor people. I think that analysis is worth bringing to that debate. 
Although as I said the Sentencing Council needs to be looked at with caution I think there are arguments to support it. I look forward to receiving submissions in the Justice and Electoral Committee. The Green Party will vote for this bill to go to the select committee but we remain cautious around that particular proposal.