Chauvel Charles: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10532] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to begin by addressing some of the comments made by the previous speaker Chris Finlayson. What a shame it is that he did not quote in full the new section 21A to be inserted in the Sentencing Act by clause 40. The section states: “When sentencing an offender a court must impose a sentence that is consistent with any sentencing guidelines that are relevant in the offender’s case”. So that is how the courts are able to get to the relevance of the individual case. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: He didn’t tell us that one did he? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: No conveniently not. 
And the section goes on to provide “unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.” In other words the court has complete discretion to do what is required by the interests of justice in the individual case to recognise the individual circumstances of the offender. Indeed great care was taken with the casting of this section to ensure that the principles of judicial independence and the need to do justice in individual cases were carefully preserved. So it is a shame that the Committee was not quoted the section in full. I hope my setting it out like this demonstrates the nonsense of the member’s Supplementary Order Paper 126 and shows that the bill as reported back along with the Supplementary Order Papers proposed by the Minister of Justice will serve very well to achieve the very important principles set out in the purposive parts of the legislation. 
I also note that the previous speaker spoke of the odiousness as he put it of the new section 6A to be inserted in the Sentencing Act by clause 35 which requires judges to consider and apply where applicable the guidelines whether or not they were in force when an offence was committed. We heard evidence from the judges that because there are no guidelines in respect of most offences that come before the District Court except for those guidelines that they manage to come up with by exercising common sense there is actually no way of telling whether a sentence given under a guideline would be more or less onerous than if the guideline were not in force. This is simply because there is no guidance at the moment for District Court judges who confer 90 percent of the sentences in this country as to what to do. What a compelling case that is for the guidelines that this legislation would bring into force. 
I will speak just briefly to the rest of Part 2. I will speak of it in the round because it is important in my view to recognise the achievement that the bill as reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee represents. There will be a clear hierarchy of sentences. There will be three new non-custodial sentences including a change to the parole eligibility regime. 
It is also important to note that home detention will become a sentence in its own right rather than being a way of serving a sentence of imprisonment as it is currently. Home detention will be an option only for offenders who are a low risk to the community and it will have a maximum term of 12 months. The new sentence will replace front-end home detention which is currently available for eligible prisoners who are serving prison sentences of less than 2 years. Those who are nearing parole for more serious crimes will no longer be able to apply for back-end home detention which was introduced by the previous National Government in 1999. The effectiveness of home detention is well established. It has low re-conviction and re-imprisonment rates when compared with prison sentences and a high level of compliance. Home detention also clearly aids rehabilitation by ensuring that offenders maintain pre-existing responsibilities to their family and community. 
Both of these new community-based sentences community detention and intensive supervision will provide a higher level of restriction and supervision of offenders than either of the existing community-based sentences. So these measures are tough on crime and suitably so but they are based on the science as opposed to being based on rednecked rhetoric. Community-based sentences will also include a greater emphasis on offenders gaining basic work and living skills. These changes mean that judges will have a greater range of options when sentencing offenders particularly at the lower levels of offending. 
So rather than curtail judicial independence as Mrs Collins suggested in fact the changes will enhance the independence and freedom that judges have to confer appropriate sentences in individual cases—sentences that can be used to genuinely fit the specific circumstances of the offence and the offender. If a judge believes that home detention is the appropriate sentence the judge can make that decision at the time of sentencing. 
This certainty in sentencing also extends to planned changes to the parole regime. Under the bill inmates serving sentences of more than 12 months will not be eligible for parole until they have served at least two-thirds of their sentences. In this regard I note that Mr Power in an earlier speech claimed that it was the Labour Government that brought in one-third parole eligibility in 1993. Well of course— 
Simon Power 
: I didn’t say 1993; I said 2002. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I am sorry—in 2002. Well of course that is wrong. It was brought in in 1993 by the National Government. The 2002 Sentencing Act simply maintained the status quo. So that was another error from the Opposition on this important legislation. 
Other salient points in the bill as reported back include that of prisoners sentenced to 12 months or less having to serve their whole sentence. All those involved in the case—the victims the police and of course the offender—will know from the outset that the offender will serve the lion’s share of the sentence. 
At last we have a chance to have truth in sentencing in this country through enlightened and scientifically based legislation brought in by the Minister of Justice and considered carefully by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I commend the bill to the Committee of the whole House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I call Ron Mark— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: A member of the Government for heaven’s sake!