Clendon David: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Clendon David: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10681] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill purports to improve public safety and increase confidence in the justice system by imposing longer sentences and making certain offenders ineligible for parole. Those are admirable intentions. We would all like to practically increase both public safety and people’s perception of safety which is equally important. Unfortunately nothing in this bill will contribute to either of those things—confidence or safety. In fact all the evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion—that these sorts of regimes do nothing for public safety and will probably make our societies more dangerous more unequal and more divided. 
This bill is a very punitive and reactive approach a very reactive proposal and for a host of reasons that have been alluded to it is unlikely to have any real effect. It cannot have any effect for at least another 10 years even if it were imposed in legislation and that is something that has not been made clear to people. The Ministry of Justice has said that the deterrent effect of the regime is uncertain which I think is very polite language. The Department of Corrections has also demonstrated real scepticism that there will be any deterrent impact from this bill. Again in relation to their language one does not have to read very carefully between the lines to see that the expertise in those two key departments is telling us that this legislation simply will not work. 
The provisions in the bill will not reduce offending and after having heard so many promises and so many assurances the public expectation will be disappointed. The bill will serve to diminish people’s confidence in our justice system. They again will ask: “Why has it failed? Why do we not feel safe? Why are the crime numbers not telling us we are in a better situation?”. 
This bill is a classic example of an end-of-pipe solution. The Government is attempting to tidy up the mess. It is dealing with the symptoms at the end of a process rather than going to the root cause to the beginning of whatever process is causing the mess in the first place. Putting the focus on locking offenders away for longer and giving them a tougher time while they are in prison is simply an exercise in storing up trouble. 
Eventually those offenders will be released into society be it after 5 10 or 20 years—however long. With very few exceptions offenders will come back into society so alienated and so brutalised that they will be almost impossible to reintegrate. We are literally storing up trouble for ourselves by putting serious offenders in prison for longer and treating them in the way that is proposed in the bill. 
The time and effort that has been frittered away on this non-solution this attempt to put a band-aid on a gaping wound would have been much better spent on some real solutions. There are some truly sensible people in this country who despair of us breaking the cycle of offending and reoffending of people entering jail for the first time as offenders and coming out as very skilled criminals. 
The Greens agree with the many in the community who do not share the obsession with retribution and punishment for its own sake. We look for evidence-based solutions and we look for solutions that will work for the community. The legislation being debated today simply fails to meet those simple tests of value. 
We know there are numerous changes that could be made to lower the incidence of violent offending and to reduce offending. A study done by the Department of Corrections 10 years ago into the prevalence of mental illness revealed that of the total prison population some 90 percent had a current substance abuse or dependence diagnosis and that only 35 of those were receiving adequate treatment at that time. The report also noted that substance abuse disorders are known to contribute to reoffending among offender populations. It is almost taken as a given. 
Ten years on the recent Law Commission paper on liquor includes a summary of the relationship between crime alcohol and other drug abuse and dependence. It estimates that something like 76000 people are currently in need of intervention. These are people who come into the justice system either as accused or as offenders and they are in need of some sort of drug or alcohol treatment. Of those 76000 in need of help in the last 12 months or so judges were able to order scarcely more than 6000 only about 7 percent of that number to attend a substance abuse programme simply because those programmes are not there. They are not funded; they do not exist. 
There is a massive need for more drug and alcohol abuse prevention programmes. Without more such programmes people will stay on the treadmill of repeated and increasingly serious offending. The National Committee for Addiction Treatment suggests that at least a doubling of funding would increase the number of people able to be treated to perhaps 50000 which still leaves a significant gap between those needing help and those in front of the justice system. Until we begin to adequately address some of the primary causes like drug and alcohol abuse and dependence these longer sentences and other make-believe solutions are just window dressing. 
The second area where the investment of relatively small sums of money could have a real and positive effect on reducing the number of offenders is the provision of better support and assistance to the families of offenders. This can improve prisoners’ behaviour while they are serving their sentences and it will certainly increase the likelihood of their keeping out of trouble when they come out of jail. On occasion family backgrounds are part of the root cause of offending but in many more cases positive family relationships and maintaining those relationships will go a long way towards breaking the reoffending cycle. 
Comparative studies in Europe demonstrate that a combination of shorter sentences—not longer sentences; shorter sentences—and family-oriented prison policies and practice is a major factor in protecting children from the harmful effects of parental imprisonment and in breaking the intergenerational cycle. If families are adequately supported then the children are much less likely to become offenders during an offender’s term in jail. 
The relevant research in New Zealand around the relationship between imprisonment and the effect on families is some 10 or 20 years old. No decent work has been done for nearly two decades. All the work that has been done points to the fact that some really simple strategies could help us to reduce offending such as small amounts of financial assistance for travel improving prison visiting conditions and facilities and information on prison protocols being made available to families. There is no current research but there is overwhelming anecdotal evidence from the base organisations the voluntary and community organisations that work in this area that very little has changed in the last two decades. 
I have spoken personally to families of inmates as I am sure other members have and we hear the same stories again and again. It is incredibly difficult for people even for educated people to get basic information about where a family member is what ways they can assist their family member and how they can maintain a relationship with him or her. It is difficult even for people who are confident in dealing with bureaucracies and Government departments who are resourced and who have jobs and incomes. 
It is exponentially more difficult for someone from a disadvantaged background somebody without an education and without an income or someone on a benefit with dependent children. It is almost impossible for those people to break through those barriers. I have heard that from the families of inmates and I have heard acceptance of that point from officers in the Department of Corrections the people who work in the prisons. It is time we put some real resource into those areas because those are the real solutions. Locking offenders up and throwing away the key is a 19th century approach. It is not even worthy of our attention and it should not come before this House. 
My final comments are I am sure ones that have been made elsewhere. The process of getting this bill to this stage has been suboptimal to say the least. Despite very significant and substantive changes to the original bill there was completely inadequate opportunity for a second round of submissions and a highly prescriptive approach to engaging with the communities of interest and that begs the question: what were the proponents of the bill afraid of? Why would they not allow a decent and comprehensive second round of submissions to a significantly changed bill? 
As members may have gathered from my comments the Greens will continue to oppose this legislation and we hope that significantly better and more intelligent proposals will come to this House. Kia ora.