Pillay Lynne: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10688] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I start my speech on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill by congratulating the member from the Maori Party Hone Harawira on a fantastic speech. On this side of the House we agree with the member and that is not always the case. For its key platform this Government said—if I can remind members in the House—that there would be 100 days of action. Enough was enough there was blood on the streets and this Government was going to get tough on crime and fix things! Eighteen months later we see that that is simply not the case. The National Government has brought in that legislation which is very similar to the legislation we see before the House today and what have we seen? What are the results of that legislation? Violent crime has escalated dramatically under the National Government. Now we are seeing the highest homicide rates in New Zealand in decades under a Government that said it would fix it. It said it had the remedies and its 100 days of action would get tough on crime and fix it. Well it simply has not. This Government should hold its head in shame for the record that it has. 
I would be very interested to hear the Minister of Justice Simon Power to take a call on this. I would be very interested for Chris Finlayson the Attorney-General to take a call. They know that this legislation will not fix things. If anything this legislation will make things worse. 
I pause for a moment because this week is Rape Awareness Week and it is important in this House that we acknowledge the victims of sexual assault and their courage in terms of what they have been through and what they go through with re-victimisation during the court process. It is also important to acknowledge the agencies that advocate for victims of serious crime and to acknowledge the support they give. 
When Rodney Hide gave his speech he spoke about keeping New Zealand safe—that was the key focus of this legislation; it was about keeping New Zealand safe. I say to this Government and to the ACT Party that one of the key principles should be about supporting victims and ensuring that they are treated fairly through the system. It is about crime prevention. It is about ensuring that agencies have the funding they need to work with people to cut the cycle of crime. It is about ensuring that police have the funding and support they need. All we are seeing is the funding for those very services that would actually have an impact on violent crime in this country being cut. The results speak for themselves. The escalating violent crime rates are an absolutely clear picture of what this Government through its policies has brought about. 
One of the consequences in terms of the victims of crime and I will talk about it in terms of the “three strikes” policy is that this will result in fewer guilty pleas. If an offender is on stage three or even on stage two that offender will not think “Oh goodness I must not be naughty any more.” At this point these people will think they cannot possibly admit it they cannot plead guilty because all that will happen is that they will get the worst-case scenario so they have no choice. Whereas an offender could possibly be in a position where he or she thinks “Right I will be accountable for what I have done.” and will plead guilty. But where is the incentive when they know that if they do that they will get the toughest sentence possible? There is no logic to that. 
What does that mean for victims? It means they are re-victimised. So many victims say that that is exactly what the court process does when they have to go through the lengthy trial because there is no incentive at all for offenders to plead guilty. 
I also remind this House that Labour tried to bring in sentencing guidelines. The recommendation from the Law Commission was to introduce sentencing guidelines so there would be consistency in sentencing and a steer in terms of serious crime. That would have been a really good initiative and it was strongly supported but not by National and not by ACT. If we did have that consistency then that would go a long way to addressing many of the concerns that have been raised by victims. 
I also will talk about the research that—as the previous speaker said—found that imprisonment has little if any deterrent effect. There is a great deal of evidence saying that it does exactly the opposite. This “three strikes” legislation due to its cost—and I will talk about the cost in a moment—will not achieve anything except a sweetheart deal with the ACT Party to keep it sweet in order to keep National in Government. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Cynical. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is very cynical. We on this side of the House are very cynical about the motivation behind that. If this were good legislation then we would see the Minister of Justice standing up— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: And the Attorney-General. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —and the Attorney-General standing up in support of it. Do we see that? No we do not. 
I will talk about the financial cost. We all know the financial cost and that every cost—every cent let alone dollar—that is put into prisons is money that is not spent in preventing crime or in supporting victims. I will explain for the other side of the House—I do not know that National members know the figures—that this policy requires an extra 50 prison beds after 5 years 142 prison beds after 10 years and that increases to 725 prison beds after 50 years. After 5 years the operating cost is estimated to be $5.1 million a year with a total capital cost of $22.4 million. After 20 years the operating cost will be $26.2 million with a total capital cost over $115 million; and after 50 years the operating cost will be $66 million per year and the capital cost will be a total of $290 million. 
We are not saying that there are no offenders who would get the maximum penalties; indeed they do. We on this side of the House are not saying that. We are saying that to have that as the cost for everybody found guilty on his or her third offence irrespective of what has happened or irrespective of the case is absolutely ludicrous. There is no evidence at all in summary that longer sentences reduce crime—none whatsoever. If we look at the US we see that the evidence is exactly the opposite. Therefore the policy is absolutely ineffective. 
There is no parole for good behaviour so what is the incentive for prisoners to go into rehabilitation schemes and address what they have done? What is the incentive when they know that no matter how impeccably behaved they are—and we know that that is not the case in prison—there is no parole even if they face up to their crimes and try to fix their problems so that when they are back in the community they will not reoffend again? There is absolutely no incentive whatsoever. This legislation is absolutely flawed. It does nothing. It does nothing for victims and it does nothing to halt crime. The previous Labour Government was not soft on crime; as people know we brought in tougher sentences when we were in Government. There is no incentive whatsoever for criminals to plead guilty or to improve themselves when in prison.