Jones Shane: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
Jones Shane: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1435] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. I do not ordinarily speak about justice measures prison sentences etc. Naturally I support Clayton Cosgrove and my other colleagues. We will not be supporting the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill nor the foul mind that conceived it. The reality is that this is a vexing issue for those of us from the Maori community. On one level we acknowledge that Maori are disproportionately present in the gang scene. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but as the person who conceived this bill I take offence at being referred to as somebody with a foul mind. I wonder whether the member might like to reflect on that for a moment. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member withdraws and apologises. Thank you. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I mistakenly thought that the architect of the bill sat over there on my left. 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I similarly object to being described as a person with a foul mind. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: If the member said that I ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Indeed Mr Speaker. It is spelt ‘f-o-u-l’ and “f-o-w-l”. In our Maori community— 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member was asked to withdraw and apologise and he didn’t do it. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise unreservedly so that we can continue with the debate. Thank you. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
It is a vexing issue. On one hand we have the disproportionate presence of Maori associates and members of gangs creating all levels of havoc within communities and indeed infiltrating marae etc. and potentially using marae as recruiting grounds. A host of us in positions of leadership find that very very dangerous. On the other hand however this bill is very savage in terms of its impact not only on Maori offenders but also on the confidence that Maori families already have or might have in the future administration of the justice system. That is something that troubles me deeply because when a system does not enjoy confidence across the community and when elements of the community feel that system is completely stacked against them they either will show no respect for it or will continue to behave in such a fashion that they court personal or community disaster by refusing to modify their behaviour because of a deeply held belief that the system is stacked against them. I do not adhere to that point of view. 
David Garrett 
: They refuse to modify their behaviour now! That’s the problem. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: We know that Parliament is a wonderful institution but it causes us to deliberate gravely and think very deeply when we take a step like the one that is now being advanced by the Government and promoted particularly strongly by the ACT Party. Once it leaves our hands the legislation falls into the hands of the judiciary. Obviously the electoral tide brings all sorts of characters into Parliament and in the most recent tide-surge it brought in Mr Garrett. I cannot insult Mr Garrett other than to say that I worked for the Ministry for the Environment and I can remember when “snot grass” or didymo— 
Grant Robertson 
: “Rock snot”. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: —“rock snot” arrived in the form of ballast on a very high tide. Many of the ideas put forward by Mr Garrett today came from the same ballast and endeavour to convince the victims of crime that this bill will somehow bring criminal behaviour to an end and will give them the kind of solace that they seek after their mothers brothers sisters etc. have suffered at the hands of these villains. That not only is a fraud; it also makes this a very sad day for the more liberal and sensible members of the ruling party that is associated with that man. Of course that man will not be here in 3 years and in its current form this bill will go nowhere following its referral to the Law and Order Committee. We all know that. We know that the Prime Minister found it necessary to go to Peru. We know that it was necessary for him to form a relationship with Tariana Turia’s group and with Rodney Hide’s group. We also know that the warhorse Sir Roger Douglas came back to bolster the economic credentials of the ACT Party. That is fine. Some of us do not like that and some have no drama with it. But when Mr Garrett comes in with the promise of solving crime with “three strikes and you’re out” we know it is a joke. The reality is that it will not take effect for between 25 and 50 years and that makes it a very sad and misleading day for the families who have actually suffered as victims of crime. 
I would like to make an important point to the architects and Ministers who are shepherding through this legislation. The views in Te Ao Maori are mixed. There are people with views that are almost Old Testament ones and that come from the world of utu. Those people say that if they suffer an insult from someone they will deliver it back with fatal consequences. Then there are those who say that that is not actually a sustainable way to organise a society. I ask how much understanding offenders will actually have once Mr Garrett has sought to change the world with this foul proposed legislation. What will the actual consequences be? The research and indeed the regulatory impact statement show that there will be nothing—a minimal deterrent effect. 
David Garrett 
: Go and talk to your constituents. Go and see what they say. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Now when I hear the member speaking I am reminded of the people who join the Fire Service then quietly go around lighting fires. There is something unnatural about his contribution on these matters of criminal and penal policy. There is no point in coming to the House and in trying to establish a consensus of opinion when he is hell-bent with traffic lights—orange red and green—flashing in his pupils every time he speaks. That is why that member’s advocacy of this bill condemns it to irrelevance. We also know that the more judicious members opposite will tolerate it for a mercifully short period of time then replicate what the Labour Government did anyway. Labour increased quite significantly the parole provisions. At the moment we are waiting for members opposite to effect the final step which is the Sentencing Council but they are hanging back because they want to avoid the opprobrium of being seen to plagiarise and nick another idea. However that is the nature of politics. That which can be adapted will no doubt be modified. 
Let us go on to a matter that will no doubt interest Sir Richard Douglas and that is the financial cost of this policy. The financial cost of this policy represents exponential growth. It has not actually been funded or budgeted for. It is very likely that Bill English at some point in time will push the red button—the light we occasionally see flashing in the pupils of Mr Garrett—and it will be haere ra for that piece of this particular bill. 
In addition how much safer is “three strikes and you’re out” actually going to make the whanau of Aotearoa? Mr Garrett will no doubt say they will be a lot safer. He will talk about Mr Bell he will talk about Mr Burton and he will talk about a host of other people who quite frankly should never enjoy the privileges of freedom of wandering around amongst our children our nieces our nephews and our supporters in this House. But one cannot bring such a profound change to justice policy and have it translated into legislation on the whim of reciting half a dozen very ugly incidents. That is not a basis for good law. Good law requires long deliberate calculated considerations. The way to get emotions to boil—either in our community Te Ao Maori or just broad garden-variety Kiwis—is to seize upon an isolated example extrapolate it out and pretend that that is happening every day of the week. This is why that member there is actually ill-suited for the role that he has arrogated to himself. He comes like a sheriff into this House on behalf of unknown New Zealanders with a pair of six guns and he is going to blow all the opposition away. He has had an epiphany in the Nevada Desert and imagines that what has happened in the United States of America—where they are currently deliberating as to how they can release many of the inmates caught in this policy—is going to capture the popular imagination of New Zealanders. 
That will never ever happen which is why Labour will not be supporting this bill. We look forward to those portions of the bill that are basically a mirror image of what our party when we governed was proposing to do anyway. I have no doubt there will be sensible discussions at a high level on both sides of the House and given I use the word “sense” it would exclude that member Mr Garrett. At some point in time parole policy and the Sentencing Council will emerge but at this stage this bill like that member is going nowhere. Ka kite ano.