Power Simon: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10226] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The Minister in the chair Mark Burton started his contribution to this Committee stage by saying that he was looking forward to a constructive discussion about Part 2 of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill. I will give him a constructive discussion because during the select committee stage National was keen to split this bill into its two natural parts: the part that deals with the Sentencing Council and the part that is essentially the criminal law reform part of the bill. In fact there is a Supplementary Order Paper 125 in my name that will attempt to do that at a later stage. I also note the Minister’s further Supplementary Order Paper—one of five I think at last count—which will create five different bills as a result of the natural flow-on of different changes to different Acts. 
I want to make clear that although National was opposed to the Sentencing Council and remains opposed to the Sentencing Council and pending changes not being agreed to by the Government during the Committee stage will vote against the third reading of this bill National will be supporting the changes to sentencing bail and parole legislation in Part 2. Our minority report made clear that we were opposed to the Sentencing Council. Our minority report made clear that we will not support an extension of the sunset clause in respect of victim compensation paid to offenders who are incarcerated. But I can say for the Ministers listening that National will support the introduction of home detention as a sentence in its own right. We believe this to be a positive move not because we believe alternatives to custodial sentences are essential in order to reduce the prison population but because we believe home detention could be a useful tool to reduce reoffending over time. Public safety is the No. 1 consideration for National on the issue of home detention. Sir Douglas Graham was the person who introduced home detention to this House in the first instance—it would be nothing short of churlish for National not to recognise that at this point—and I say to the Minister that Part 2 will get our support in respect of the home detention provisions. 
Part 2 will get our support with changes to the Parole Act. In respect of the two-thirds eligibility for those sentences over 2 years we say that it should always have been two-thirds. Let us not escape what is sitting under our noses tonight which is that in 2002 when Phil Goff came down to this Chamber and passed the sentencing legislation to change the eligibility for parole to having only one-third of the sentence served we said to the Minister then that no good would come of it. Tony Ryall our justice spokesperson at the time said to Mr Goff that no good would come of it. Sure enough it has taken the Government another 5 years but it has worked out that the public will not stomach eligibility for parole at only one-third of a sentence served. It is a hard lesson that the Government has had to learn. If it had listened to National in the first place it would not have changed from two-thirds eligibility. So we will support the reintroduction of a two-thirds hurdle for eligibility for parole. We think that is something that should never have changed in the first place. 
The third thing that National is supportive of—although not without controversy as we found out during the Justice and Electoral Committee—are the new confidentiality orders. The select committee took some care to get the provisions around these new confidentiality orders done in a sensible and constructive way. Let us be frank: this is the reaction to the Graeme Burton fiasco. This is the Government’s response to the Graeme Burton fiasco whereby information that comes to light whether proven or not will end up before the Parole Board subject to a confidentiality order for the board to take those facts into consideration at the point parole is considered. National supports that move. All information should be placed before the Parole Board at that point. We know from the tragedy that surrounded the Graeme Burton fiasco that there was information that had the Parole Board had it to hand a different decision might have been forthcoming to avoid that tragedy. I emphasise that the use of these confidential orders is pretty exceptional. Charles Chauvel will no doubt speak to this because he was quite heavily involved in the drafting of these provisions. These orders are exceptional and should not become the norm but they will be useful to the Parole Board in certain circumstances and we will certainly support the Government on those provisions. 
Having said those two or three things it is clear that National will be voting for Part 2 of this bill. We think that the introduction of a Sentencing Council will ultimately outweigh the good done by Part 2. But be in no doubt that National supports parole eligibility at two-thirds of sentences not one-third and be in no doubt that National supports confidentiality orders being accessible to the Parole Board where information at hand could make a difference to the granting of parole. We also support home detention as a stand-alone sentence. 
We will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 121 relating to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act. I want to remind a couple of the other parties in the Chamber of their positions at the time the third reading of that bill passed in 2005. New Zealand First was opposed to the legislation and the Green Party agreed to a sunset clause on the following basis. I give a direct quote from the contribution made by Nandor Tanczos in the third reading debate: “It is exactly what the Greens have secured—a written commitment”—this is in exchange for agreeing to the sunset clause—“to establish an independent prison complaints authority by the end of 2006.” The reason the Greens gave the Government its support on this legislation in 2005 is that they got a “commitment to establish an independent prison complaints authority by the end of 2006”. Well I say to Green Party members it has not happened. It has not happened. Green Party members were duped in 2005. They got a commitment from the Government to get an independent prison inspectorate. That has not happened. I tell them to vote against an extension of the sunset clause. 
We will be attacking this particular Supplementary Order Paper with some vigour during the course of the next 2 to 3 days because this legislation has no place in our law. It is nothing that an independent prison inspectorate could not deal with. Prisoners should go to the police if they are assaulted rather than making victims relive their crimes by applying to trust accounts to get money that has been awarded to offenders. There is nothing in this for victims of crime. Victims are forced to relive those crimes in order to access these moneys. National is opposed to that as was New Zealand First in 2005. 
We will be going through this part of the bill piece by piece over the next short while. Let me make the position clear again. National will be supporting Part 2 at the Committee stage. We will not be supporting the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 121 relating to the amendments to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act.