Collins Judith: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10922] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to reply to some of the statements made in this debate. First I think I will refer just to a matter that the member Chris Hipkins raised in relation to a regulatory impact statement that he said the police had made. I tell him that no it was the Ministry of Justice. It related to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill as first introduced to the House. In addition to that this bill has been significantly changed since it was first introduced. It is a far more reasonable and fair bill. It is much more tightly worded. 
There have been some personal attacks on members in this Chamber and I will not bother to deal with those. However I will talk about rehabilitation. I think there have been some comments made about how we should be doing more rehabilitation. That is exactly right. It is why we are doubling the amount of rehabilitation available in our prisons. For any members of the House who would like to come and see some of the rehabilitation being done for prisoners I am very happy to be able to help facilitate that through my office with the Department of Corrections because the Department of Corrections would love to be able to show off the rehabilitation that it does. Mr Garrett has certainly taken up that offer. Some other members have— 
Chris Hipkins 
: I visit them all the time. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Hipkins tells me that he visits all the time. I ask him whether he has seen some of the rehabilitation work—there is some excellent work being done. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It started years ago. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Of course Mrs Chadwick says that it started years ago. Yes it did and it continues. That is why we are doubling rehabilitation I say to Mrs Chadwick. We are happy to say that— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Good but it started— 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am glad she is saying that she is happy. Mr Cosgrove has dealt with some issues that he has put on a typescript amendment paper. I have had a look at those amendments but no we will not be supporting them for very good reason. It is nothing to do with him not coming cap in hand because frankly we would rather that he did not come cap in hand. We are very happy to have him come and talk to us but not cap in hand because the sight would be too bad and I do not think my stomach would be able to cope with it. 
The proposed amendment to clause 5 to amend new subsection 86D(2) would actually reduce the certainty of the penalty. That moves away from the fact that a stage three sentence is meant to be a very serious penalty in all cases because the offender is continuing to commit very serious offences that victimise people. It would reduce any deterrent force of the bill. If it is going to deter people from this sort of offending it needs to be very certain. 
The proposed amendment to clause 5 to amend new section 86A says that we should exclude accidental or negligent manslaughters. Well actually there is a degree of negligence required to establish liability for manslaughter as it is now. Mr Cosgrove has pointed out that he is not a lawyer and this is one of the issues that somebody could mistake. So I am sure he has just made a mistake there. 
The amendment to clause 5 amends new section 86D by introducing a discount of 25 percent for a guilty plea at stage three. Well this would reduce a 20-year sentence for sexual violation to one of 15 years. We are talking about a third-striker on an extremely serious offence. Despite everything that the Opposition has talked about tonight these people generally commit hundreds of crimes along the way to get to that and have had loads and loads of opportunities to reform. Mr Cosgrove would rather they got off lightly on their third offence if they want a 25 percent plea discount. 
Another of his amendments to clause 5 seeks to insert the words “resulting in a custodial sentence” after the words “(a) is a serious violent offence” to amend the definitions of “stage-1 offence” “stage-2 offence” and “stage-3 offence” in new section 86A instead of just a conviction. That goes back towards the bill as introduced. To change the conviction threshold was necessary otherwise we would probably never have anybody locked up under this from the third strike and Mr Cosgrove knows that. We are not prepared to buy into that. 
Then we have his amendment to clause 5 to amend new subsection 86C(4)(a) to authorise judges not to order a prison sentence at stage two to be served without eligibility for parole. I think that is basically the status quo now. We have campaigned very firmly on being able to remove parole for the worst repeat violent offenders. Parole is not a right it is a privilege. It is about time that people recognise that. Clearly the Opposition does not. It is very important to understand that when someone is on parole he or she has to be looked after by the Department of Corrections. The Department of Corrections will be the ones who have to try to look after parolees. For some of the violent recidivist offenders frankly it is just too unsafe for the community. I am not prepared to be the Minister who goes out and says that I cared more about trying to look after the prisoner than I cared about the victim. That is not the sort of Minister I am prepared to be.