Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Third Reading 
Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11226] 
Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill be now read a third time 
. The purpose of this bill is to deny parole to repeat serious violent offenders and to offenders who are guilty of committing the worst murders and to impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent offences. 
This bill has changed significantly since its introduction and its referral to the Law and Order Committee. These changes will increase its effectiveness and its contribution to public safety. The bill creates a three-stage regime that will imprison the worst repeat violent and sexual offenders and the worst murderers for longer periods with increasing sentences and reduced access to parole if they continue to commit serious violent offences. The changes have increased the certainty of the punishment that offenders will receive mainly through offenders now qualifying for the regime following conviction rather than following a sentence of 5 or more years’ imprisonment. 
I take this opportunity to again acknowledge the pivotal role played by the ACT Party in the passage of this legislation and especially David Garrett. I thank the Law and Order Committee and its chair Sandra Goudie for guiding this bill through the select committee process. I also particularly thank the New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections for their tireless efforts. 
For the benefit of the House I will recap the main elements of the regime. When convicted of a serious violent offence for the first time an offender will be sentenced as normal but will be very clearly warned that he or she will now be subject to the three-stage regime and warned what will happen if he or she is convicted of a further serious violent offence. If the offender is convicted of a second serious violent offence the implications are more serious. He or she will be sentenced as normal but any jail sentence will be served in full without parole. The offender will be warned again both verbally and in writing of the consequences of a third conviction for a serious violent offence. If the offender fails to heed the previous warnings and is convicted of a third serious violent offence he or she will be sentenced to the maximum penalty for that offence to be served without parole. The exception to this regime is for conviction for manslaughter for which an offender will be required to serve a life sentence with a minimum non-parole period of at least 20 years. 
The bill has specific provisions for those convicted of murder. Those convicted of murder at either stage two or stage three of the regime will be required to serve a life sentence without parole. The bill also makes special provision for offenders convicted of the worst murders. These offenders can be sentenced to life without parole even if they did not have a record of previous violent offending. However the bill provides for judicial discretion in those very rare cases where the circumstances of the offender and of the offence would be such that to serve a maximum sentence without parole at stage three or a life sentence for murder at stage two or three would be manifestly unjust. 
By means of this bill this Government is sending a strong message that we are serious when we say that parole is a privilege not a right. Parole is a privilege that will not be available to those who fail to take heed of warnings and continue to commit serious violent offences. This bill ensures that the rights of victims and their families are put before the rights of offenders who choose to continue to offend in this way. 
Once again I thank all those members of the public who submitted on the bill 94 percent of whom supported it. These people welcomed this new regime to address violent crime and to spare victims the stress associated with the current system which many view as favouring the offender rather than the victim. 
I turn now to the amendments proposed by Labour members during the Committee stage of this bill. Those amendments sought to weaken the impact of the regime on repeat serious violent offenders by supposedly reducing what they describe as the potential for disproportionate sentencing and unjust outcomes. These amendments did not receive the majority support of the Committee. The Opposition fails to understand that this bill deliberately puts in place an escalating regime of penalties for which I make no apology. An offender who is being sentenced at stage three has committed a third serious violent offence and has received two previous warnings about the consequences of reoffending in this way. It is also highly relevant that the regime includes only offences committed by people over the age of 18. The severity of the sentence reflects the repeat nature of the serious violent offending and the refusal of the adult offender to respect the rights of law-abiding citizens. The community expects and rightly deserves to be protected from those serious violent offenders for a lengthy period. 
The Opposition also tried to discredit the legislation by citing some of the more controversial scenarios that have arisen from the Californian “three strikes” legislation such as offenders whose juvenile offending record is taken into account and are given sentences of more than 25 years for shoplifting. I restate the fact that this regime will not apply to offences committed by those aged under 18 and will apply only to a specific range of 40 serious violent offences all of which are punishable by a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment or more. Some members of the Opposition chose to overlook these two key differences. 
Another issue that has been raised is the importance of the appropriate charges being laid by police. The Government is confident that the police have sufficient checks and safeguards in place to ensure that the appropriate charges are laid particularly at the third stage of the regime. At stage three police will be referring all charges that qualify for the mandatory maximum penalty to the Crown solicitor for review either pre-charge or by second appearance. 
I also take this opportunity to reassure the public that this Government is committed to helping those offenders who genuinely want to turn their lives round. Some offenders are simply bad and the best thing we can do is make sure that they stay locked up. But for others turning to crime is often the result of being poorly equipped to live law-abiding lives. Drug and alcohol problems and a lack of basic skills are a big impediment to offenders who want to make a change for the better. This Government made a commitment to increasing the number of prisoners gaining skills and work experiences by at least 1000 to doubling the number of prisoners receiving alcohol and drug treatment to 1000 and to expanding prisoner literacy and numeracy programmes. We are well on the way to achieving these targets in just 18 months. Over the past year 23000 hours of literacy and numeracy tuition have been provided to prisoners. This is an increase of 10000 hours over the same period in the previous year. We now have 4428 prisoners employed in work activities and this represents substantial growth towards the target of 1000 extra prisoners in employment. International studies have shown that participation in employment can reduce the risk of reoffending by between one-third and one-half. 
We are also providing more alcohol and drug treatment to prisoners. A new drug treatment station is in operation at Otago Corrections Facility and two more units are being built—one at Auckland prison and the other at Whanganui. The more prisoners we have who are learning to live productive law-abiding lives the less crime we will have in the community. Less crime in the community means fewer victims of crime and everyone should agree with that. 
In conclusion this Government is very pleased to fulfil our election promise to deny parole to and impose maximum terms of imprisonment on the very worst repeat violent offenders. This bill sends a clear message to those offenders who think it is OK to use violence to get what they want that their behaviour will no longer be tolerated. If they continue to commit serious violent crime despite being warned of the consequences they can look forward to being locked up for a long time. This Government is proud to put the interests of victims their families and the wider community ahead of serious violent criminals. I commend this bill to the House. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of Labour to oppose this bill as we have done throughout this process. I put on the record of the House that Labour is deeply concerned about increasing crime rates we are especially concerned about reoffending rates and we care deeply for victims of crime no matter where that crime takes place in New Zealand. And those are some of the reasons why we oppose this bill because quite simply this bill does not address the causes of those crimes it does not seek properly to address the reoffending and it certainly does not reach out to victims. In fact it could be argued that in many ways it will put victims under more stress—and I will return to that shortly. 
We oppose this bill because it gives false hope to victims and their families and it is unworkable unjust and inequitable. If we continue to park ambulances at the bottom of the cliff of crime we will not address the causes of crime and we will not reduce crime and its impact on society. I will return to these specific matters shortly but I raise now several process concerns that Labour has about this bill. 
The major one is the role—or the lack of the role—of the Ministry of Justice throughout the process of this bill. It is important to know that the Ministry of Justice was prevented from having a role as adviser to the Law and Order Committee by National members of that select committee. That raises an extremely serious issue for Parliament around where Parliament gets its advice from—not where the executive gets its advice from but where Parliament gets its advice from. In our system very important distinctions are made between the operational arms such as the police and the Ministry of Justice which is the policy arm. That has been blurred by this Government and it has prevented parliamentarians from being able to seek the advice they need to make decisions in this House. I believe that that represents a significant and a serious let-down by this Government. 
But perhaps we can see why the Government did not want this Parliament to have the Ministry of Justice advising the select committee. I will quote from the Ministry of Justice paper on this bill: “The proposals will add substantial direct costs to the justice system without creating any significant improved outcomes in terms of reducing the drivers of crimes improving social outcomes or reducing reoffending and victimisation.” Those are the words of the Ministry of Justice. Those are the words of the Government’s chief advisers on justice issues and this Government has chosen to ignore that advice and—what is more—chosen to prevent a parliamentary select committee from having those people as their advisers on this issue. That is a disgrace it is a mark against the chair of that Law and Order Committee and it is a mark against the whole Government for preventing those parliamentarians from getting that advice. 
I also note that the select committee did not hold oral submissions on the bill after as the Minister herself has just acknowledged to us it was substantially amended. No oral submissions were held on that; written submissions were required with 2 weeks’ notice to submitters. That is unacceptable for what we all recognise as an extremely serious change in our system. This whole process has been rushed through by this Government for political imperatives rather than to trying to find the best possible law that can help protect New Zealanders and keep our communities safe. 
Before I leave the whole question of process let me say that the fact that the responsibility for this bill transferred from Simon Power as Minister of Justice to Judith Collins as the Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections speaks volumes for this bill. Some light was made of this in the Committee stage—that Mr Power was being rolled by Mrs Collins and having this bill which he loves taken off him. Well I want to get serious in this third reading. I suspect that Simon Power is somebody who understands that this bill is unjust unworkable and simply should not be going through our Parliament today and it has gone to Mrs Collins to put it through leading the charge on behalf of the ACT Party. I think that as the Minister of Justice and the Ministry of Justice do not seem to want to be part of this bill surely that must raise questions for this Government and for the country as to whether the bill should be passed. 
I now want to move to some of the substance of the bill. The issues raised in the Committee stage in particular were about whether this bill can achieve the things we want it to achieve and one of those things is deterrence. We all agree that we want people to be deterred from committing crimes but no evidence was presented to us that this bill will do that. In fact it was quite the contrary. The international evidence presented was that deterrence will not be improved by this bill. Greg Newbold and other experts said that this is simply not an effective way to improve deterrence of crime. We were offered no proof in that regard. 
The Minister has already talked about the definition of “manifestly unjust”. There was an opportunity in the Committee stage for the Minister to take up the point that the regulatory impact statement says that this creates a disproportionate system and that the Attorney-General in his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act submission said that it was disproportionate and severe but the Minister made no attempt to do that. It is easier for the proponents of this bill to obfuscate and say that the “manifestly unjust” provision is in there. The bar is set so high that there is no doubt that there will be disproportionate outcomes from this bill. 
Another area is the whole question of judicial discretion. It is very important to note that even the Police Association came out against that aspect of the bill. Even the Police Association felt that it would shift away from judges having discretion and move it into the hands of the police. We know that is the case. The only point in this process where the judicial system will continue to have discretion is at so-called “strike one”. After that it shifts to the police. 
Let us hear what the Police Association has to say: “Judicial discretion provides a ‘safety valve’ for the myriad of possible circumstances surrounding any given case and is preferable to mandatory sentencing”. So the officers themselves say they would like to see judicial discretion retained; but no the Government did not want to listen to that. There will be less transparency in the system as a result of moving away from judicial discretion to a system where the police play a much greater role. Our police are a great force and I do not like the idea that they can be accused of corruption but this puts them into that frame unwillingly because the Police Association itself has said that it does not want that. 
The other thing that a number of experts have raised is the fact that there will be fewer guilty pleas as a result of this legislation. Fewer guilty pleas mean greater costs on the system and more stress for victims. It will put victims in court when they need not be there. There is no doubt that people facing the consequences of this scheme will think twice about whether they want to plead guilty and as a result there will be greater costs and more stress to victims. 
One of the things that have been raised time and time again in this debate is the importance of community safety. During the Committee stage we attempted to get some measure of agreement that we all want our communities to be safer but the problem with this bill is that it will not necessarily bring that about. The New Zealand Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society said in its submission that it does not support this bill because it will not achieve a safer New Zealand. John Pratt a criminologist from Victoria University said that the realities of the “three strikes” bill are that it is more likely than a preventive detention sentence to endanger community safety. 
So on substance this bill fails. But where it really fails New Zealand is in principle. We all want there to be less crime but to get less crime we need some real leadership from this Government. This is the easy bit because this is a populist bill. The hard work is about making sure that people do not end up in prison in the first place that we address the causes of crime we intervene early we help with parenting we reduce poverty and then when and if people do commit crimes we support reintegration and rehabilitation. That requires leadership and this bill does not deliver leadership. We need to solve the problems of crime at the beginning not at the end. We should not be parking the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff; we should be trying to endeavour to build the fences and create the environment at the top of the cliff that will prevent crime. This bill gives false hope and it should not be passing through this House today. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on the third reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and I acknowledge the members of the Law and Order Committee for their hard work and I acknowledge the staff the Department of Corrections the New Zealand Police and David Garrett from ACT for the excellent work that has been done in the process of this bill. 
This bill has been a milestone. I am delighted that we are on its third reading and that it will be enacted because keeping the public safe is one of the most fundamental obligations of any Government. It is not about being soft on crime which is exactly what the Opposition is. Labour members say that this legislation could result in disproportionate sentences for offenders at stage three. This Government makes no apology for that because by stage three an offender has been convicted of two previous violent offences and has been warned both verbally and in writing on two different occasions of the consequences of further convictions for serious violent offences. 
This bill is about serious violent offending. I point out that all of these serious violent offences are identified in clause 5. The specifications for these serious violent offences are in the Crimes Act 1961. I say that because some queries were raised about the specifications for the serious violent offences. One of the queries was from the AIDS Foundation which I have had the privilege of being a member of. I was pleased that the foundation raised the matter and that we were able to clarify that the specifications for its particular area of concern are in the Crimes Act but the actual offence is identified in the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. Let us face it: it is a serious violent offence to wilfully inflict a disease—AIDS—upon another member of the public. If anybody accepts that it is otherwise then that person is deluding himself or herself. There is nothing acceptable about the wilful passing of such a disease on to another human being. It is a serious violent offence that is rightly identified in the schedule of serious violent offences and the specifications for it can be found in the Crimes Act 1961. It has been around for a long time so nobody should be in any doubt about the details of those particular offences. 
This legislation recognises the repeat nature of offending by those few who fail to heed warnings and continue to offend regardless of the consequences. These are the people whom we cannot necessarily do anything with. These people are a minority which I think has been made abundantly clear time after time. The National-led Government promised to get tough on crime—to toughen up on criminals—and this bill does exactly that. I am proud to support this bill with ACT as our coalition partner in its passage through the House. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 It is a sad day because it looks as though the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill will go through the House today. In the future those who supported this bill will look back with regret. This bill is intended to make society safer. It will fail to do that. It will make our prisons more dangerous for police for guards and for inmates. It will not achieve the goal of making our streets safe and it will not make the public safer—or indeed feel safer. 
It is interesting that when the Greens have spoken to oppose this bill there has often been some amusement from some of its proponents who dismiss our objections because after all we are communists watermelons and the various other things that it amuses people to call us. I enjoy the irony of the fact that the most robust comprehensive and damning objection to this very poorly drafted and poorly conceived legislation I have heard was at a Maxim Institute event in Auckland recently. Two gentlemen Professor Warren Brookbanks and Dr Richard Ekins of the faculty of law at Auckland University who are both people of considerable experience and extraordinary mana have done a remarkable job and made a very objective assessment of this bill. I am sure that those gentlemen would have no objection to my calling them conservative in their views. That is their position. From that very objective academic and indeed informed judicial position they have come back and said that Parliament “should not enact” this bill. 
I will quote from some of the reasons they give as to why this Parliament should not enact this bill. In their paper entitled  
Criminal injustice and the proposed “three strikes” law 
 they state that the bill “departs from the central principle of just sentencing which is proportionate response to wrongdoing.” They go on to say: “The ‘three strikes’ regime … especially on strike three ignores the nature of the offences which include conduct that ranges from the relatively minor to the very serious.” They point out that “The regime ignores almost all mitigating and aggravating factors”. They say “The application of the regime … will often be unjust.” There can be no clearer and more damning language from two respected highly qualified and capable judicial commentators to say that this legislation will often be unjust in its effect. They suggest that the regime will often impose grossly disproportionate punishments on relatively minor offences. 
We are told that this bill will have some deterrent effect. In fact there will be none. We know this. Throughout the discussion from the analysis from all sorts of parties we know that the deterrent effect simply is not there. I quote again Professor Brookbanks and Dr Ekins: “The application of the regime is unlikely to defer would-be offenders in general or the offender with one or two strikes in particular.” 
At the last reading of this bill we heard much about the fact that parole is a privilege and not a right for prisoners. Indeed those two gentlemen in their analysis concede that point. They state however that “There is no need to cancel eligibility for parole to establish that parole is a privilege and not an entitlement.” We simply do not have to go there. The way this bill is structured suggests that we in this House—the majority in this House who will pass this bill—know better in every circumstance than a judge or a jury who will hear all the mitigating factors the whole story everything that is said and done about a particular case. 
In terms of the cancellation of eligibility for parole the two distinguished jurists go on to say: “Cancelling eligibility for parole for all second strike and most third strike offenders will not deter offenders but will undermine incentives for prisoners to reform or to refrain from further offending in prisons.” In other words prisoners will have nothing to lose. They will have no opportunity no possibility of parole. Therefore what weapons what tools and what mechanism will prison officers have to manage prisoners’ behaviour improve behaviour or prevent further offending? This bill will make our prisons more dangerous places. It will make the job of the police more dangerous because they will be pursing people who know they have nothing to lose. This is not good law. It is not well-thought-out. 
The executive summary of the paper by Brookbanks and Ekins goes on to state: “The regime will remove the incentive for offenders facing a strike three conviction to plead guilty (or to cooperate with the authorities) which will sharply increase trial costs and impose unnecessary trauma on victims.” In the last reading of the bill we heard that the removal of parole meant that victims would no longer need to address parole boards and relive their no doubt traumatic and unfortunate experiences. However this simply will misplace if you like or relocate the trauma they will need to go through because prisoners or rather accused who might otherwise plead guilty will have absolutely no incentive to do so and in fact will have every incentive to plead not guilty. 
The final summary point they make that I will refer to states: “The regime has a substantial fiscal cost which would be better spent on (among other things) victim support intensive policing and improving parole supervision.” It must be acknowledged that there are one or two provisions in the Budget as we heard last week that actually do improve the situation. Some useful money is being put into those things and I see the hand of the Maori Party in those wins in the Budget. However it is still a drop in the bucket. It is inadequate. It will not be sufficient to turn round enough lives. This bill will create many many more problems than it could possibly resolve. 
When there is opposition to proposed legislation as it goes through this House it is often very easy to see the self-interest of the parties that are objecting to it and that is the nature of the democratic process. When we are dealing with commerce bills sectors within the business community will come and protect their vested interest by trying to support or not support a particular provision in a piece of legislation. 
I reflect on some of the groups that are objecting very powerfully and publicly to the passing of this legislation: the Howard League with over a century of history in supporting the human rights of accused and of prisoners; Caritas the Catholic Church’s social services arm; the Rethinking Crime and Punishment group directed by Kim Workman a gentleman with experience as a police officer and as a consultant in the prison service who is now a volunteer for the trust; and Prison Fellowship New Zealand which is essentially a collection of church interests. 
I look at those groups and I struggle to see anyone who could possibly be driven by self-interest to oppose this very vicious legislation. In this instance it is clear that their concerns or objections are coming from a commitment to basic humanity to genuinely looking for ways of making our communities safer to protecting the human rights of inmates and accused and to making the workplace safer for prison guards and officers. 
There has been reference to the Californian experience. The original proponents of this bill looked at California as a glowing example of a “three strikes” regime giving positive outcomes. The regime being proposed in this bill is different but the principle is the same: mandated sentencing longer sentences tougher sentences and fewer basic human rights for prisoners. Of course the analysis was that this bill would remove or reduce human rights for prisoners. 
The Rev. Ron Givens has just been in New Zealand. He has given firsthand experience and has shown images of the direct impact of locking people away for longer; such as the fiscal cost the human cost the suffering and the danger to police and guards. These are not things we need to invent because there is evidence that the principle— 
David Garrett 
: You should go and check the claims he made. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: The images he showed us were from the corrections services’ own websites in California. They were not manufactured images. They showed inhumane conditions. They showed people who were being brutalised and were more likely to further offend. 
Last Sunday on our own televisions we saw an example of two young men. One committed suicide in prison and one looks as though he will be going to prison. The young man heading for prison has committed a very serious crime—there is no question of that—but what that young man needs is treatment. That young man going to prison would be an unjust outcome and it is that sort of injustice that this legislation will not only facilitate but positively encourage. We will continue to oppose this very poorly thought-out legislation. Kia ora. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to stand in opposition to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. I am ashamed that Parliament is using its time to progress legislation that will not achieve one single point of what is described as being its aim. 
This bill will do nothing at all to reduce offending. If there was legislation before the House to reduce offending and make our families and communities safer there would be unanimous approval of it. This bill does nothing to reduce reoffending; something that we should all be very seriously concerned about. If the bill did something about reoffending it would receive unanimous support from this House. The bill does nothing at all to support the victims of crime which is something that the Minister who is now responsible for this legislation said she cared about when she spoke in this debate. If she does care about that why does her legislation not do anything to better support the victims of crime in our community? Then Labour would support it. The bill does nothing about that. That view is backed up by the advice from many of the officials although they were not able to give that advice directly to the Law and Order Committee. The bill does nothing to address the causes of crime. 
Simon Power the Minister of Justice who should have been responsible for this bill had a big get-together that was intended to look at the drivers of crime. He did it in a very inclusive way; he invited all sorts of people to that conference. He was serious about asking what the drivers of crime were what caused crime in our community and what we as a Parliament should do about it. Instead we got this load of drivel which frankly I think Simon Power is relieved not to be responsible for because he knows that it is an embarrassment to him his Government and the big get-together that he called to look at the drivers of crime. 
This bill offers false hope to victims and I think that is actually the most despicable thing about it. We as a Parliament should be upfront about the fact that if there is not enough support for people whom we care about we should agree to do more. Instead the Government offers this drivel driven by one of the biggest drivellers of all in terms of substantial policy the Sensible Sentencing Trust representative in our Parliament and it offers victims hope that will never be delivered on. I think that victims deserve better than that from our Parliament. 
I will now pick up on the process point that my colleague Grant Robertson raised during his contribution earlier this afternoon. It is an absolute outrage that the proper officials—the Ministry of Justice officials—who are entitled to give their opinion to the executive and to Parliament through the select committee process—were stopped by Minister Judith Collins from giving their advice on this bill to the Law and Order Committee. I have never heard of such a breach of rights in an open democratic parliamentary process. That was just extraordinary and members in this House should be outraged about it. Actually they should demand the Speaker’s consideration of that very point: that when members of the select committee asked for the proper Ministry of Justice officials to give advice to the select committee—they could have done it with other officials; that is a very common practice—the executive of the Government barred those officials from giving that advice. I think we have a right to obtain advice and we have a right to obtain competing advice if that is what the officials recommend. That is the advantage of having a Public Service. 
It is not surprising that that advice was stopped though. I will give the House an example of what Ministry of Justice officials said about this bill. They said it was unlikely to be consistent with the Government’s publicly announced policy regarding the drivers of crime. The Ministry of Justice said this legislation goes absolutely against what the Minister of Justice said was the Government’s policy intention in terms of the drivers of crime. The issue is not just that this legislation fails to be very competent or very robust; it goes against the stated Government policy outlined by Simon Power. It was not only justice officials who said that; Te Puni Kokiri the Police Treasury and the Department of Corrections have all said this is a rubbish bill driven by a—no they did not say it was driven by a rubbish member because they are high-quality public servants. But they said this bill would not achieve the purpose that the Minister has outlined: that it will not reduce offending or reoffending and it will not support the victims of crime. This bill is just a way of keeping ACT quiet. Well I wish the Government good luck on that particular point. 
I will talk about another group of people apart from the Ministry of Justice officials who were not consulted about this bill: the Ministry of Health officials. That ministry was not asked for its opinion on the implications of transferring large sections of the Crimes Act into this bill and completely redefining the nature of offending. Public health experts were not asked about the provision in the Crimes Act that has been moved into this “three strikes” bill. The public health advice would have been that including section 201 of the Crimes Act—the section referred to by the chair of the committee—which deals with infecting with disease sends entirely the wrong message to people whom we want to be free of disease and free of infecting other people with disease. It gives them entirely the wrong message from Parliament about discrimination and stigmatisation and it drives risk-taking behaviour underground. That would have been the public health advice if the select committee had bothered to ask for it. 
The Minister of Health should know about those issues. He is responsible for public health in New Zealand and he has recently been alerted to the concerns of the New Zealand AIDS Foundation in that regard. Transferring that section of the Crimes Act to this legislation sends the wrong message about public health. When the Minister of Health the Hon Tony Ryall was asked to put public health considerations first on the agenda of this Parliament what did he do? He was asked to put public health first and he referred those concerns to the Minister of Corrections. The Minister of Corrections the Hon Judith Collins interestingly enough is not responsible for public health in New Zealand. I do not know why the Minister of Health collects his salary if when he is asked about a major public health concern he refers it to one of his colleagues. If he cannot do the job he should hand the whole lot of it over to someone else. 
Another interesting bit of information that has come to light during this debate is that the public health bill that is on the floor of Parliament will also be moved into a justice environment. So we will be putting public health messages and concerns into a criminal and justice framework. Clause 127 of the Public Health Bill will be moved into the legislation that deals with crimes against a person. I implore the Minister of Health to do better with regard to that legislation than he has done in his response to this legislation. When a public health issue is raised with the Minister of Health he should take it seriously. He should have used the privilege of his position to respond to those concerns even if it was a matter of delaying the progress of this legislation in order to get the concerns aired properly debated and hopefully resolved. I certainly would have been supportive of that. But the Minister of Health took no such measure; he washed his hands of it. It was bad news it was a bit tricky and it was a bit difficult so he washed his hands of it and left it to Judith Collins to respond to. 
If this legislation did anything to reduce offending or reoffending or to better support the victims of crime in our community Labour would support it. It fails on every single measure. It does not offer us safer prisons safer communities or safer families. It is a wasted opportunity. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I begin by repeating an acknowledgment I made during the Committee stage of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill that I am sure members on the other side of the Chamber are concerned about victims. Mr Robertson and Mr Hipkins made interesting and informed contributions and I acknowledge them. 
“Three strikes” was one of the ACT Party’s major policy planks at the last election and it was No. 1 on the list of policies that we wished to advance in the confidence and supply agreement with National. I start by thanking the National caucus as a whole the Minister of Justice the Minister of Police and of Corrections and the Prime Minister for honouring the commitment in the confidence and supply agreement in both the letter and the spirit. I particularly acknowledge and appreciate the Prime Minister’s openness of mind in being prepared to look at the evidence that showed that including a qualifying sentence in the definition of a strike would have been fatal to the bill’s purpose and would have made it ineffective. I pay tribute to him for that. 
I thank Dr Jennifer Walsh an American academic who prepared a very comprehensive submission and came to New Zealand at her own expense to appear before the select committee and to speak to any member of Cabinet who wished to speak to her. Dr Walsh has provided invaluable help to me and to us by providing information to counter the misinformation about how the policy has worked in the 26 states of the United States that have laws of this kind as well as very useful ammunition to counter the misinformation promulgated here in this House. Interestingly that misinformation is the same kind of empty rhetoric that was seen in California in 1994. 
In my maiden statement I said that I came to Parliament to try to make New Zealand a better and safer place. I truly and sincerely believe that this bill is a major step forward in that regard. Contrary to what has been said by members on the other side of the House and by some commentators this measure is not contradictory to the Drivers of Crime initiatives that National wishes to advance; rather it is complementary to them. I offer an analogy: imagine that our criminal justice system is a person suffering an acute overdose of drugs who is in dire shape. In that situation one saves the person’s life first and worries later about where they got the drugs who sold them to them and why they felt the need to take them. The imperative is to save the person’s life. With this bill we have sent a message that repeat violent offenders have a choice: they can change their ways of behaviour or they can condemn themselves by their own choices to spending most of their lives in jail. It is their choice. 
Again contrary to what has been said by members on the other side of the House and by people elsewhere this bill is not about locking people up and throwing away the key and it never has been. I re-emphasise what the Minister of Corrections said: the only people who will be locked up for life under this bill will be persons who have committed murder as a “third strike” or the worst of our murderers—people like Graeme Burton William Bell Liam Reed and sadly a number of others whose names are less well known. 
This law is about protecting victims. I say again that it is about protecting victims. Since the election four more people have been killed by persons who would have been third-strikers and thus in jail had this bill been in force at the time they committed those killings. That means four more lives tragically lost at the hands of repeat violent offenders who are for the most part if not all beyond rehabilitation. We need to face that. 
Contrary to Ms Dyson’s contribution we say that there is absolutely no doubt that the policy will work. It will work in one of two ways: incapacitation and deterrence. The only question is how effective it will be. Incapacitation will put behind bars those who cannot and will not alter their behaviour. It will protect society from them. Members on the other side of the House pay lip-service to agreeing that that is where they should be. The other way that the bill—or the Act as it will become very shortly—will work is by what is known as general deterrence which means deterrence of others. 
I put on record again that no one will be happier than me personally if there is never a third-striker locked up. I say again that no one will be happier than me personally if no one is ever exposed to the full extent of this regime. But sadly the reality is that within days or possibly hours of this bill passing someone will commit a first-strike offence. The reality is that that person will probably already have a lengthy record of violent offending. When that person is convicted the media will report the first-strike conviction I have no doubt and possibly it will report the next several after that. When the first second-strike offender gets his or her final warning and a lengthy sentence that will be big news too and all the criminals will know about it. 
Criminals know about this legislation now. Contrary to what members on the other side of the House think criminals are not stupid. They may not have university degrees or even have finished high school but they know about cause and effect as it affects them. All the criminals will know in 5 6 or 7 years when the first third-striker goes away for 14 years if their conviction was for aggravated robbery or 20 years if it was for sexual violation. The crims will know about it just as they know today when a child sex offender has been convicted and which prison that offender will turn up in. They know. They are not stupid. 
They know about the bill and its effects. We know that because we were told so in the Law and Order Committee. An earnest young man came along and told us how terrible the legislation was and how the criminals did not think and did not understand the consequences; then without seeming to realise what he had said he said that when he was in Paremoremo Prison last week he was amazed that all of the 75 criminals he talked to knew about this bill. I asked him immediately whether they knew about the Tariff (Malaysia Free Trade Agreement) Amendment Bill which we had been debating in the same week. Of course they did not because it did not affect them. 
This bill is not for the criminals; it is for all the victims who have gone before and for all those who will now not be victims as a result of this law being passed. Sadly there have been so many victims. This law says to John and Val Hargreaves and countless others who have lost loved ones that their loved ones did not die in vain. It says that they helped to spark a change of direction in our criminal law. I say to the mother of Emma Agnew whom I have met that her daughter did not die in vain. I say to the parents of Fitzgerald Risati a Samoan choir boy who was out celebrating his birthday when he was stabbed to death by a scum gang member who was looking for a patch that their son did not die in vain. 
Contrary to the predictions from members opposite and from elsewhere this bill is not the end of justice as we know it. It is not the end of compassion or justice. It is a turning point. It allows us having dealt with the overdose to focus on the children of today’s violent offenders and try to ensure that they do not follow their fathers. It is in fact a great day for New Zealand justice. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. Today is the anniversary of the arrests at Bastion Point on 25 May 1978. Back then 222 of us were hauled off to the clink and charged with trespass which was not a big charge back in those days but today things are different. As we saw from the police paranoia in the terrorist raids on Tuhoe a couple of years ago even simple charges such as trespass seem to have taken on a greater seriousness as the State targets those it wants to shut down using charges that allow it to call out the armed offenders squad and using the media to beat up stories that the court is showing have no substance whatsoever in the harsh light of day. So when we talk today about the list of 32 charges that will make up the “three strikes” criteria— 
David Garrett 
: Forty-one. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: —well I have just added another one—the 42 charges that will make up the “three strikes” criteria in this third and final reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill believe me that is only today’s list. It will not be long before trespass and other similar charges will be added to the list by politicians too dumb too lazy and too mean-spirited to resolve issues intelligently and who choose the big stick as the resort of first choice. To no one’s surprise it will be Maori who suffer most when that happens. Prison statistics tell us that even though Maori are only 14 percent of the population we are 50 percent of the prison muster and have been so for more than 20 years. If members think that is bad believe me this “three strikes” bill will make it much much worse because without decent rehabilitation programmes first-strikers and second-strikers will carry on getting it wrong because they will not be learning anything. They are simply reacting to problems in the only way they know and they will get hammered. 
Because I suspect that a lot of members in this House do not believe me I recommend that they read the countless reports that vividly detail the historical tragedy of systemic bias and outright racism against Maori in respect of arrests charges convictions and jail sentences in this country. These reports tell us that given equal number of Pakeha and Maori being arrested for similar incidents the ones who are more likely to be charged are Maori; given equal numbers of Pakeha and Maori appearing in court on similar charges the ones who are more likely to be convicted are Maori; given equal numbers of Pakeha and Maori being convicted on similar charges the ones who are more likely to be sentenced to jail are Maori; and given equal numbers of Pakeha and Maori being sent to jail on similar charges the ones who are more likely to be given the longest sentences are Maori. For those who doubt this scenario I urge them to give me a call and I will be happy to organise a seminar with a Pakeha lecturer to confirm what I am saying today. When I say that Maori are the ones who will cop the dirty end of this “three strikes” bill members can believe it. 
It is a short-sighted man who thinks that legislation that sends people to jail for a long time reduces crime rates. It is a blind man who sees justice in sentencing people to life imprisonment for responding to circumstances they have little control over. It is a bloody fool who thinks that this bill will do anything else but create frustration anger and violence within our prison population. This anger will explode for any reason and at any time because when someone is in jail for life the only question that that person considers when faced with conflict is not: “Gee what can happen to me if I do this?”. It is: “What else can they do to me?”. There is nothing they can do. I know because I have been to jail. I have been in the mainstream wing I have been in the remand wing and I have been in the separation wing. An offender in the separation wing who is faced with conflict does not worry about what the bloody jailer will do or what the system will do. They cannot do any more because the offender is already in jail. I know what I am talking about and 100 percent of the MPs in this House do not. 
When politicians talk about a safe society let me ask this question. What about the next generation who have to grow up with the children of those who have been jailed for life? These children will grow up with a deep-seated and very real hatred of society for a life spent below the margins that they have been forced to lead. This hatred will be revisited on society through ever-increasing rates of mayhem and murder. That of course will add weight to the calls for more guns for the police and that will lead to more guns for civilians which will lead to bigger guns for criminals. The only question we will have left to ask ourselves is when did we become the southernmost state of the gun-loving USA. That is the future we will be giving ourselves with a bill like this. That is the only future for a society that treats the punishment of its members with the contempt being contemplated by this legislation that refuses to take the steps of intelligent societies to reduce offending by reducing the causes of offending rather than jailing offenders for life. 
Heck even our own Ombudsman admits that there are smarter ways than imprisonment to prevent crime and make criminals accountable and that prison is not the most effective or efficient approach to reducing crime. Yet what are we doing? We are building more prisons we are double-bunking prisoners we are making plans to keep offenders in prison for life and we are dumb enough to think we can tell how well we are dealing with crime by counting how many people we have put into prison. 
The Department of Corrections received $500000 in 2000 nearly a million dollars in 2008 and it is predicted that we will spend $2 billion by 2020 and that is without the “three strikes” bill being factored in. We could ask whether that is what this Government thinks our society should be spending its money on. Yes we have a problem with violent crime in this society; there is no question about that. Yes we have to do something about it. But let us at least be intelligent about it and look to other international examples where rehabilitation and reintegration into society have been proven to work over the “lock ’em up and throw away the key” model. Research tells us that places that have trialled “three strikes” have higher murder rates bigger prison populations and leave a huge impact on marginalised populations—read Maori when I say that—higher costs and negative impacts on the families of offenders. 
I am not a great fan of British justice but I note that the Justice Committee of the British House of Commons recently made the case for justice reinvestment. It called for a more holistic approach to crime reduction by tackling the conditions of criminality—poverty low educational attainment drug and alcohol problems and the lack of housing and employment. The committee’s report came out of very clear evidence that prison is a very expensive way of dispensing justice and seeking reform and concluded that justice reinvestment was a far more prudent rational effective and humane use of resources. 
Last week Dr Pita Sharples took a step down a similar path when he announced the establishment of two reintegration units where the focus will be on helping inmates to prepare for life outside the wire using kaupapa Maori to help them get jobs and accommodation and help them to improve relationships with whanau and with their communities. But even still it seems that our focus is elsewhere. Only 5 percent of the budgets of the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Corrections is spent on rehabilitation reintegration and crime prevention; only 5 percent. Most of the money is burnt up in administration staffing buildings and beefed-up security measures for bigger prisons. When a department spends only 5 percent of its budget on rehabilitation we can guarantee that all the highfalutin plans will not only fail but will eventually come back to bite us on the backside—if not us then certainly our children and grandchildren. 
The Maori Party opposes this bill with all its heart. We will work with whomever it takes to develop intelligent policy over knee-jerk idiocy and rehabilitation over degradation. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on the third reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. After listening to the previous speaker Hone Harawira perhaps I can pose a question to him as he posed one to us in terms of the attitude of the son of a prisoner who was sentenced to life imprisonment. Perhaps we should also ask about the effect on the son of the man whom that prisoner may have killed. I think we need to understand that this bill is about victims. It is about the protection of our society. 
For some time there has been a growing tide of concern at the rising rate of violent offending in New Zealand and objection to the length of sentences given to serious repeat offenders. Almost 92 percent of voters in the 1999 referendum voted in the affirmative for the proposition that restitution and more support be provided for victims of crime and that violent offenders be subject to longer prison sentences. Ninety-four percent of the 1118 submissions made to the Law and Order Committee supported the bill. New Zealanders want sentencing to be tougher for the worst repeat violent offenders. 
I acknowledge the issues that the previous speaker raised about addressing rehabilitation. This bill does not pretend to address those issues. This bill is about sending a signal to the people of New Zealand that this Government in association with the ACT Party is serious in its concerns about violent offending and is prepared to make sentences tougher and to ensure that repeat violent offenders do not get out on parole and thereby have the opportunity to repeat their crimes. 
The 1999 referendum was instigated by Norm Withers after his elderly mother was brutally attacked in Christchurch. The offender had committed 56 previous offences but was released early on parole which gave him the opportunity to attack Norm Withers’ mother. Since that time we have had numerous cases of murders committed by offenders who were on parole. William Bell and Graeme Burton are the most well-publicised cases. Both had over 100 convictions. Both were convicted killers who committed murder while on parole. 
When this reform bill was first proposed the  
New Zealand Herald  
ran a poll because it believed that such a toughening of the law would damage our international reputation. I read through some of those comments to see what people on the streets of New Zealand thought. One particular comment amongst the many caught my attention. It was written by a person who identified himself or herself as Akiwi. At 9.30 a.m. on Friday 20 March 2009 that person stated: “It’s shocking everytime some right steps are planned to be taken to fix the crime situation some idiotic thinking tries to stop it in the name of human rights as if all the human rights are meant only for criminals.” I think that comment puts it well. Our Prime Minister said some years ago that where there is a balancing of rights to be done between criminals and victims we take a side and that side will be on the side of the victim. 
This bill is about supporting victims. This bill is about addressing the issue of repeat violent offending and ensuring that it does not happen to the extent that it has in the past. The purpose and the principles guiding the corrections system as spelt out in the Corrections Act 2004 are “to improve public safety and contribute to the maintenance of a just society”. 
I will finish my speech with an excellent quote from our Minister of Corrections the Hon Judith Collins. She said recently that “none of the 41 qualifying offences for three strikes is relatively minor. All involve serious violence or sexual offending and all have a maximum penalty of at least seven years in prison. Perhaps more importantly they all have a long and profound impact on the lives of victims. In defending the rights of offenders critics of three strikes downplay the goal of the legislation which is to protect the public from criminals who have a track record of serious offending. The bill focuses on the repeat nature of offending rather than just the offence itself. An offender who has committed three serious offences will in all likelihood go on to commit a fourth. By imposing maximum sentences without parole three strikes gives offenders much less opportunity to do so because they will be in prison.” Thank you. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I will refer to David Garrett’s speech. I point out that he is a staunch advocate for this Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and that he has pushed very strongly for it from the start. While he was speaking I was thinking about why I feel so concerned about what he had to say. The reason is that we hear over and over again from the ACT Party and from National that this “three strikes” bill is about the victims but unfortunately when I listen I hear that it is more about hatred for the offender than about compassion for the victim. When that is the driver for legislation I think that members in this House need to be concerned. 
A few weeks ago we had a judge from California here in New Zealand. His name is Judge Eugene Hyman. That judge spoke to us about his concerns with regard to this bill. We asked him questions about rehabilitation in California and he made it very clear that the money in California with regard to the corrections system was overwhelmingly invested in incarceration rather than in the rehabilitation of prisoners. I think most New Zealanders would look to the US and think that they would not see that country as being the model that New Zealand should to aspire to. I think most New Zealanders would think and say that our current system is much better as it stands and the last thing that we would want our legislation to do is reflect the legislation in place over there. 
We also had Rev. Ron Givens here recently about 2 weeks ago. Rev. Givens is the executive director of prison chaplains in California. He has first-hand experience of what happens when a “three strikes” bill is reactionary and Draconian—like this bill—and he spoke of the consequences of California’s “three strikes” legislation upon which this bill is based. He talked about skyrocketing rates of incarceration unjust sentences and unmanageable costs. 
David Garrett 
: Rev. Givens was always busy when I wanted to debate him. He had prior engagements on every evening. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: I find it quite disconcerting that I took the time to listen to Mr Garrett even though I disagreed fundamentally with everything he said and he cannot sit there quietly while I am giving a speech that reflects my opinion and views on this bill. Rev. Givens knows exactly what will happen if this bill is passed which is why he came to New Zealand to warn us against it. National should have been listening but instead it was already tied into a deal that it had made with the ACT Party right at the beginning of its term as Government despite the fact that fundamentally it disagreed with this measure. That is why the Minister of Justice has washed his hands of the bill. Still National members know that it is bad legislation but they are supporting it because the deal gave them the power in the House. We look at those members and we think that that is incredibly sad and it is quite bad for New Zealand actually. The chair of the Law and Order Committee Sandra Goudie sits there laughing because she finds it impossible to take anything seriously. 
The Maori Party brought up an interesting point about the amount of money that goes into the corrections system and the amount of money that will have to go into the incarceration of prisoners. Quite frankly most New Zealanders would agree that that is not where they want their money to be spent yet we see that under this National Government more money is being invested into the corrections system. On the other hand we see that less money is being invested into things that New Zealanders agree are important—things like early childhood education. We have more money spent on incarceration and less money spent on education. I think most New Zealanders would agree that that is a blight on the Government with regard to its decision making and with regard to what it sees as being priorities for this country. 
A number of concerns arose as this legislation was going through the select committee process. I will talk to some of those. On 19 January 2010 the National Government and ACT announced that a revised “three strikes” policy would be incorporated into the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. The Law and Order Committee met to consider the revised bill for the first time on 10 February. Despite the significance of the changes made to this bill and the high level of public interest the National and ACT members of the committee used the weight of their majority on the committee to ram through the following resolutions. 
The first one was to “prevent the Ministry of Justice the implementing authority for the bill to have any role as advisors to the committee”. It is one thing that the Ministry of Justice was not the lead agency with regard to this legislation but it is another thing when the chair and all of the members from the National and ACT side voted to block any role that the Ministry of Justice might have played with regard to advising on this legislation. The other thing that National and ACT members did was to “hold no further oral submissions on this bill even though the substance of it has changed since submissions were last invited”. There is a recurring theme with regard to that matter. The recurring theme is National’s ongoing mission to block democracy and that is what it has been doing since it became the Government. 
Another thing National and ACT members on the select committee did was to “allow only written submissions on the revised bill from those who have previously submitted on the specific clauses that have been amended”. It makes one wonder what National and ACT members were concerned about. Obviously they understood that overwhelmingly anyone who made a submission on this legislation would have submitted evidence that went against what National and ACT were trying to do—that is it would have supported our side and what we were saying which is that this bill would not be effective for what National and ACT were trying to achieve. The other thing it did was to “give those submitters two weeks or less notice to make further submissions”. It was a very small time frame. The process right from the start was flawed and Labour members are concerned about that.  
The Labour members of the committee voted against each of those resolutions. We believe that this is an unnecessarily rushed process and that to close submissions to all but those who have already submitted on specific clauses affected by the National-Act “three strikes” announcement is to deny the public its right to submit on the revised bill. The select committee process is one of the most important parts of our democracy as it provides an opportunity for the voting public to have their say. That opportunity was denied by National and Act with regard to this legislation. 
One of the themes of New Zealand today is the shift from all decisions being made on behalf of citizens in a representative democratic style to a participative democracy in which institutions and processes are open to public submission. The denial of public access to submissions is a step backwards to a “We know best we are in charge and we make the decision.” attitude. That is unfortunate but it is happening. 
The original Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill was in the name of the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power and the Ministry of Justice was the lead advising agency. That made sense because the bill aims to change sentencing laws which are clearly under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice through the courts. Without explanation the revised bill was transferred into the name of the Hon Judith Collins who is the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections. The New Zealand Police were made lead advisers with the Department of Corrections as the assisting advisers. 
We realise that there are serious constitutional issues with this legislation. There has always been a deliberate separation between the justice agencies such as the Ministry of Justice the courts the police and the Department of Corrections. That is because it is considered constitutionally inappropriate for the same agency to undertake the roles of arresting offenders trying and sentencing them and imprisoning them. 
We are concerned about a number of things with regard to the process. We are also concerned about the substance of the bill. We have said over and over again and so has the Minister of Justice that this bill will go no way to acting as a deterrent to crime. Although we have heard from members on that side of the House time and time again that this legislation brings about justice for victims we have also seen with regard to the evidence that we will instead see victims dragged through the mud even more so as people are more likely to appeal their cases and less likely to plead guilty because there is more at stake. We disagree with this bill. I say that as the chairperson of the Law and Order Committee continues to laugh and mouth funny things to me from the other side of the House. She cannot take this bill seriously but we do. Thank you. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to speak to the third reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. I have not been impressed at all by the contribution of the Labour Opposition for a couple of reasons. Firstly Labour members seem to have focused most if not all of their contributions to the debate on process. That is probably because 94 percent of the submissions supported the bill. So instead of bringing some rigour to the bill itself they are left to wallow in the misery of process for which they are the past masters. 
Every speaker that I have heard on that side of the House has stood up and lectured this House about democracy. Can members believe that? Labour members are giving this House and the people of New Zealand a lesson on democracy simply because the Law and Order Committee felt that the Department of Corrections was the appropriately nominated adviser to the bill. This is the very party that rammed the Electoral Finance Act through this House against the desires of the overwhelming populace of New Zealanders. How dare they lecture us on democracy? How dare they lecture the people of New Zealand on democracy? Labour members have no grounds to tell us anything. That is the first point I wanted to make. 
The second point I make is that I understand the heartfelt contribution of my erstwhile friend Hone Harawira. I understand his side of it but the truth of the matter is that when we look at the statistics we see that 70 percent of inmates have had 10 or more convictions before they go to prison for the first time 70 percent of people who have been to prison reoffend within 2 years of their release and 86 percent reoffend within 5 years of their release. So although I hear the argument for the carrot to encourage and to develop we have to be mindful of the facts. The reality is that people are given chances but they do not take them. 
So we turn to this legislation and the ultimate sanction is that 41 crimes now constitute the serious criminal offending that will mean the “three strikes”—that colloquialism. Those crimes fall under about four or five main headings: sexual violation murder manslaughter use of a firearm against a law enforcement officer kidnapping and aggravated robbery. If Opposition members want to say in this House that they are not serious crimes against the community and society then they do not deserve to be in the Opposition. When we consider these crimes and the variations thereof against the fact that 70 percent of prisoners who go to prison have committed at least 10 crimes before they go to prison for the first time we see that the reality is that those Labour members deserve to leave their seats so we can bring someone else in. With those few words it gives me great pleasure to support the third reading of this outstanding bill. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I think that Paul Quinn’s ability to lecture the House on democracy would have been enhanced significantly had he not voted in favour of taking away the right of Aucklanders to have a say on the structure of their local government and had he not voted in favour of taking away the right of Cantabrians to have a say on the form of their local government. I think the public will be pretty sceptical about being lectured on democracy by Mr Quinn. 
It is good to see Hone Harawira in the House debating the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. As I have previously stated when he has spoken on this matter I have agreed with many of the comments that he has made. I look forward to seeing him vote against this bill. It is good to see when the Maori Party votes with its conscience rather than voting with the Government so we welcome him and his opposition to this legislation. 
I come to this debate with some reluctance because as with many debates on law and order the comments of those who are opposed are likely to be misinterpreted and wrapped up in bumper sticker slogans. I think that those who perpetrate serious violent crime need to be held accountable for their actions. I think that we need to consider victims in all of this. But that does not mean that I agree with the “three strikes” bill. We have to get past the point in this House where anybody who disagrees with a particular measure on law and order is labelled as being soft on crime not caring about victims or condoning the actions of offenders. None of those are necessarily true. I do not condone the actions of violent offenders and I have a lot of compassion and sympathy for the victims of crime. I simply do not believe that the “three strikes” legislation will reduce crime or leave victims better off. 
I do not think that it is right for anybody on any side of the House to suggest that members are hard or soft on crime depending on the way they are voting on this bill. I think the public of New Zealand deserve better in the debate on law and order. They deserve to see their elected members of Parliament actually debating these issues seriously and looking at the evidence and the submissions that were presented to the Law and Order Committee including looking carefully and seriously at the minority submissions put forward by those who oppose this legislation. I know that the overwhelming majority submitted in favour of this legislation. It is easy to submit in favour when one is given a postcard and told to sign it which is what the vast majority of the submissions in favour of this bill were. They were postcards that were signed by people and were handed out no doubt by the Sensible Sentencing Trust. So I am very suspicious of the numbers when the Government says that people are overwhelmingly in favour of this bill. 
I have a huge amount of compassion for the victims of violent offences and those who are associated with the victims of violent offenders. I understand although perhaps do not necessarily feel it myself the desire on the part of some of those people for vengeance against the offenders but I hope we can move beyond that to look at the causes of criminal offending. I would much rather prevent the violent offending—any form of criminal offending—from happening in the first place than deal with it after the fact. I think we would really demonstrate that we take the concerns of victims seriously if we took action to ensure there were much fewer of them in the first place. Unfortunately this legislation does nothing to reduce the number of victims who are created in the first place. 
We have heard some disgraceful examples in this debate of political rhetoric that simply does not square up with the facts. We had the indignity of the Minister in the chair Judith Collins standing up in the Committee of the whole House to say that the only violent crime in New Zealand takes place in South Auckland and that anybody who lives outside of South Auckland has no right to talk about violent crime because they could not possibly understand. I think that is an absolutely disgraceful position for the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections to have taken. First of all it is a dreadful slur on all of the people who live in South Auckland and second of all it is a slur on people from the rest of the country to suggest that they do not know anything about violent crime and that they cannot sympathise with the victims of violent crime. That is absolutely wrong. 
I will mention the reporting of violent crime and crime statistics. We hear crime statistics bandied around the House in justification for this bill and along with a lot of other law and order measures. To some extent the increased reporting of violent crime is a good thing. A lot of violent crime previously got swept under the carpet. It went unreported; it went unnoticed particularly in the case of domestic violence. A big contributor to the increase in violent crime statistics is domestic violence. I think the fact that it is now being reported and it is being properly handled is a really good thing. I think we should not be alarmist about the increase in reporting of domestic violence. I do not think that domestic violence is happening more than it used to; I think it is being brought out into the open and it is being dealt with. That is really good. We should be proud of that. We should be happy that people are not turning a blind eye to it but are reporting it and it is being dealt with. 
There are problems with the “three strikes” policy and I will canvass some of the issues that have been raised. First of all there is not much evidence to suggest that longer sentences reduce crime—they do not. Longer sentences do not reduce crime. The “three strikes” bill provides no incentive for good behaviour and we should be very wary of that. We are sending prison guards into the prison at the same time as we are removing the incentives for violent offenders to reform their ways and shape up their acts. We are putting prison guards at risk if we remove all of the incentives for the prisoners to tidy up their acts and reform and behave properly in prison. We are placing even more of a burden through this bill on the victims themselves. We are less likely to see guilty pleas for violent offending and we are more likely to see appeals. All of these things drag out the process for the victims of violent crime and leave the victims of violent crime even more exposed. 
This bill removes judicial discretion. One of the most fundamental parts of a fair law and order system is providing the judiciary with the discretion to cope with different situations. This bill removes that discretion. In fact it hands it to the police instead. It means that the police will have all of the discretion in the plea bargaining before charges are brought before the courts rather than judges having the discretion in the sentencing. So we are more likely to see the police bargaining before a charge is brought and saying that if offenders plead guilty to a lesser charge which is not a “three strikes” offence they will not put forward the “three strikes” offence as their charge. That circumvents the judicial process; it is not fair law and order. It is not fair and people could get off lightly. The offenders could end up getting off lightly if plea bargaining is going on between the police and the offender in order to lower the potential charge that is brought before the courts. 
Mr Quinn mentioned the process issues. I think it is concerning that we are considering a significant justice issue yet the Ministry of Justice was excluded from the select committee process. The regulatory impact statement raised a significant number of concerns about this bill but the ministry was not given the opportunity to flesh them out and debate them. I think that is an abuse of the democratic process and I think the public should be concerned about that. The Attorney-General—one of the National Party’s own—raised similar concerns. He raised significant concerns with this bill and they have not been adequately addressed. 
The Labour Party agrees with tougher penalties for violent offenders. If one looks back on the track record of Labour in Government one will see that we increased the minimum non-parole periods for serious violent offenders we held people in prison longer and we made it possible for people to be detained for longer if it was in the best interests of the victims—if they were likely to be repeat violent offenders again. We did those things. 
We do not agree with the “three strikes” bill. I think it would be much better to give serious consideration to the causes of criminal offending in the first place to have a serious and honest discussion about the role of mental health in criminal offending in New Zealand and to have a serious and honest discussion about the role of illiteracy innumeracy and low levels of education in the role of criminal offending. We should be talking about the cycle of violence and victimisation because many offenders are themselves victims and were victims beforehand. Many of our most violent offenders were quite often victims of violent crime in their childhood. If we turn a blind eye and we do not deal with that then they are more likely to become violent offenders and we should have an honest discussion about that. We should look honestly and openly at the link between socio-economic status and criminal offending because crime is more likely to take place in low socio-economic areas and criminal offenders are more likely to be from low socio-economic areas. Let us have a discussion about those causes of criminal offending rather than using the “lock them up and throw away the key” mentality that too often characterises debate on law and order issues. Thank you. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak on the third reading debate of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. The previous speaker made a valid point. We need to address the drivers of crime and that is exactly what John Key’s principled and pragmatic National-led Government is doing. We are looking at ways to counter to prevent and to reduce offending in the first place. This is a work in progress. This bill is designed to protect the public from repeat serious violent offenders. These are offenders who have ignored verbal and written warnings of the consequence of their violence and shown a cavalier disregard for the rights of others. 
A prisoner on remand and one sentenced is held under the care of the Department of Corrections. The facilities operated by the corrections service have four main roles: to deter a potential offender from offending to punish a convicted offender to protect the public from a convicted offender and to rehabilitate a convicted offender. Let us look at rehabilitation. Drug and alcohol dependency is a problem for many prisoners and often a causative factor in their offending. We have doubled the amount of drug and rehabilitation places available from 500 to 1000 and aim to increase the number of places further in the future when possible. We are also committed to rehabilitation through training programmes which improve inmates’ skills. 
Spring Hill Corrections Facility is an impressive correctional facility designed so that prisoners in the highest-security cells can view the medium and low security cells and prison workshops from where they are based. So in other words there is a path to rehabilitation clearly visible should a prisoner choose to take it. All the staff I met there impressed me with their professionalism and passion for rehabilitation through prisoner education. Prisoners assessed as suitable have a chance of training in carpentry metalwork catering and farm work. Prior to their final release with the support of surrounding businesses some prisoners may undertake day release-to-work programmes. The aim at Spring Hill Corrections Facility is ultimately to have 60 percent of prisoners able to take part in those rehabilitation programmes. 
The day after my visit corrections officer Jason Palmer was injured in the course of his duties and later died. His funeral was held yesterday. I offer my deepest sympathy to his family who have lost a beloved husband father son and brother and to the Spring Hill staff who have lost a friend and a valued team member. 
The Government announced yet another rehabilitation initiative in this Budget. Whare Oranga Ake which my colleague referred to earlier will help to cut reoffending among Maori. Whare Oranga Ake is a kaupapa Maori reintegration unit “outside the wire” where the focus will be on prisoners gaining employment securing suitable accommodation and improving family and wider social relationships. As well as offering rehabilitation a correctional facility should deter punish a convicted offender and protect the public. As a member of the Law and Order Committee I visited New Plymouth Prison Auckland Central Remand Prison Spring Hills Corrections Facility and Rimutaka Prison. I have no wish to spend a protracted period of time in any of them. Sadly a number of our citizenry a prison muster of some 8500 people are not deterred. The prison muster continues to grow. 
With a rising population some increase in the muster is inevitable but this Government is not complacent. We are seeking ways and new ideas to reduce it—in stark contrast to the late unlamented lackadaisical Labour administration which had no answers where legislative lassitude and lethargy reigned supreme. Their caucus riven with fear loathing and mistrust careered between querulous cavilling and contented catatonia. New ideas were as rare as a bikini on an Eskimo as unknown as Vaseline on the hands of a trapeze artist as scarce as a tsunami in the Sahara. That is in stark contrast to this Government. John Key’s National-led principled pragmatic Government is determined to explore every avenue to rehabilitate every avenue to deter but also to punish the persistent repeat serious offender and to protect the public from their depredations. The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is part of this wide range of our initiatives. I commend this bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Bill read a third time.