Alexander Marc: Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Alexander Marc: Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19282] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to debate what I think is actually quite an important bill. I want to know from the Minister after listening to his speech why he is afraid to send this bill to a select committee to debate its merits openly. What is he frightened of? This bill actually talks about a lot of the things the public is talking about—but not the politicians who hide behind things. 
 Through things like the Norm Withers referendum the public wants answers to the very real crime crisis in our community. We can hide behind the silly numbers the police try to play down as far as the crime rate is concerned and we can try to hide and obfuscate things about how the court system operates but ultimately this bill is about some of the things we need to talk about. Whether or not the Labour Government decides to support the bill at least the bill should see the light of day through the select committee process in order to debate the very important issues it presents. 
The Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill restores discretion and power in relation to community sentencing back to judges for the sentencing of criminal offenders. This bill if passed will return to the judge the power to define the sentence of an offender before the bench rather than to have the judge be nothing more than the mouthpiece of officials from the probation service and the Parole Board. The real need for this bill has been brought about because the Sentencing Act of 2002 reduced to one-third the sentence that must be completed before parole becomes possible. Whether it does that is not what matters; what matters is the effect of putting that into the hands of the Parole Board. 
One of the things that is interesting for me is the fact that the Sentencing Act was much mooted by this Government as providing tougher legislation and a tougher regime than there was previously. But the fact of the matter is that the average sentence has been increased since 2002 since this Act by only 6 measly months. A lot of that can be explained sure enough by high-end criminals having had longer sentences but it does not explain that for the main lot of offenders sentencing still remains a joke. 
The fact is that the police pick people up and then there are 35000 cases still to go to court still to see the light of day. What does that tell offenders? It tells them that they are not accountable. What does that tell victims? It tells victims that they do not matter. I do not see any reason why bills such as this that want to try to put a bit of initiative back into the hands of judges ought not be discussed and pushed forward into a select committee. I think the Government ought to reserve the right to decide ultimately whether it supports the bill but at least we should have the debate. I say to the Government: “Don’t hide; don’t run away from the problem; don’t stick your head in the sand and pretend it is not there. Face it!” This bill is one way we can address some of those concerns. 
An obvious question to ask is why courts should have control over the nature and effect of sentences which is actually the question that Muriel Newman’s bill poses. Firstly the judge sees all the evidence. It equips him or her to decide on all the relevant information including the courtroom demeanour of the offender. Other than the defence counsel no one else from the criminal justice system has greater one-on-one time with the evidence. I think that is an important point. 
Secondly section 47 of the Sentencing Act provides that where a court imposes a sentence of supervision in respect of two or more offences the sentences must be served concurrently. That is absolutely against the interests of victims and against the interests of the law-abiding public. The bill proposed by Muriel Newman seeks to repeal that provision and I for one would absolutely agree with doing that. I think most members of the public would as well. We are sick and tired of people getting discounts for committing multiple offences simply because our criminal justice system is run by ideology rather than by common sense and the pragmatism shown by the public. 
Thirdly the bill allows for the court to require offenders to submit to routine or random drug tests if it sees fit. How can that be an abrogation of offenders’ rights? That is an absolutely key issue. If a drug culture is part and parcel of the offending it ought to be subject to the court’s discretion. 
The bottom line is that United Future will support this bill because we should demand sentencing that is appropriate and in proportion to the crime.