Ardern Jacinda: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1438] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am very proud to rise and give Melissa Lee the member opposite who just spoke briefly the Labour Party’s set of reasons as to why anyone sensible should not be supporting the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill but first I will point out that what we see here is the week of appeasement. This is the week in which National justifies the reasons why it went into its coalition agreement with ACT. If this is not the week of appeasement then I imagine we will see National supporting this bill when it comes back from the select committee—if indeed this act is not just an act of appeasement. 
Unlike some of my colleagues who have talked a little bit about the impact of this bill and at what stage it will be felt—whether it will be felt in 20 years 50 years or 100 years—I will not dwell on that because to my mind bad legislation is bad legislation whether we see its effect tomorrow or in 20 years’ time. But I do want to go back to first principles on this policy. I think that that is a good way to break down legislation. 
What are the first principles when we are considering sentencing legislation? Firstly almost all sentencing legislation comes to this House with the primary role of ensuring that a debt to society is repaid. That of course is done through the removal of an individual’s civil liberties. Of equal importance—and we have seen this every time that Labour introduced criminal justice reform—is the role of ensuring the safety of the community. That has always been the driver behind what we saw in 2002 with the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act where we increased minimum non-parole periods and that was why we made the primary consideration of the Parole Board the safety of the community. Labour has always seen those two factors as part of one very powerful line—extraordinarily powerful. It was a principle it was prescribed and it was clear. There were no bones about it; it was clear what our attempted impact was. Those have always been key principles when we are looking at sentencing legislation. 
What does this bill the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill do? We have already heard the technical description of the three stages of the strike so I will not dwell on those. But this bill does add an additional layer to sentencing. That additional layer essentially removes the discretion of the presiding judge. 
David Garrett 
: That’s right. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: At the point at which someone comes back before a judge for a third time it does not matter what the judge sees before him or her. 
David Garrett 
: That’s right. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: The member across the House says that that is right and is what he intends. 
Let us not talk about this in vague terms. Let us add to this debate some real descriptions some real-life scenarios of what might happen. We have heard about a few of the American examples. Aggravated burglary is one of the crimes that could be covered by this bill. It carries a maximum sentence of about 14 years which is well above the criteria that Mr Garrett has laid out via the National Government in this bill. Aggravated burglary could include an individual with a crowbar robbing a home. There is a wide descriptor of what constitutes a weapon in our law. So if an individual chooses to rob a home on more that one occasion and finds himself or herself in front of a judge for a third time this legislation will apply. And who knows what the personal circumstances of that individual are? I will not dwell on that here; I will leave that to individual members to decipher. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: There’s no excuse. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: There is no excuse and we would expect judges to deal with that. In fact they can deal with it with maximum prison sentences of up to 14 years which is quite punitive. Is it just for someone in those circumstances—let us say he is 24 years old and he has committed three burglaries—to go to prison for the rest of his life? We could be talking about more than 60 years. He could have stolen three stereos in that time using a crowbar. Is that what the Government intends by this legislation? I point out here that one of the most common crimes committed by young people who go through our Youth Court happens to be burglary and it is often a one-off offence. I do think the member should keep that in mind. 
A number of other unintended consequences are not dealt with here. Mr Garrett has already stated that on the first cut of his bill he decided he had been too liberal. I acknowledge the  
Hansard 
 in which Mr Garrett did state he was trying to avoid “the unjust consequences that have happened in California.” but he decided that he had been too liberal and that he needed to tighten it up and toughen it up even further. I will reflect on that. We have seen that this sort of measure has not worked in the USA. Twenty-two states have it; eight are currently trying to get rid of it. I think that the member may have tightened up the bill beyond his own comprehension. 
I do however defer to the advice from the Ministry of Justice. It is thinly veiled and it is coded this time. The Ministry of Justice has put forward its advice via the regulatory impact statement. I would like to dwell on the statement. I see the Chair may be rising to cut me off though so I am unsure whether I should launch into my hefty tirade. I see—that has been granted. One of the issues raised in the risk assessment by the Ministry of Justice is that of public safety. The explanatory note of the bill states that “it is not possible to conclude with any certainty to what extent any of the options will improve public safety.” Surely that was one of the intentions of both the Government and ACT when this bill was introduced. If public safety is not one of their intentions then the bill must be a solely punitive measure. That is all I can conclude. The second statement the ministry notes is: “However offenders who commit serious violent offences do not necessarily have previous sentences for serious violent offences.” 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Before the House rose for the dinner break I was reviewing the regulatory impact statement for this Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and had reflected on the community safety aspect. I will now quickly go over a second issue—public confidence. The regulatory impact statement states: “the worst repeat offenders policy raises the potential for disproportionate outcomes which may negatively affect public confidence in the criminal justice system …”. The final statement I will highlight relates to the unintended consequences of this bill: “An offender who commits a third qualifying offence that would otherwise be liable for around 5 years’ imprisonment could receive 4 years 11 months’ imprisonment”. This is a distortion of our criminal justice system that Mr Garrett would not have anticipated but I see every likelihood of this arising if this bill progresses past the select committee stage—which I doubt very much that the National Government would like to happen. 
One of the reasons I raise the community aspect of this bill and speak of the community’s expectations is that all law and order issues impact on public confidence. I strongly believe—as I am sure that many members of this House believe—that the bidding war around law and order must at some point come to an end. All of us very recently campaigned in our home electorates and we know how heavily law and order weighs upon the minds of our constituents—it is a major issue. We do our constituents a disservice if we imply that measures like this will make them safer because we know that that is not the case. 
The crime rate in New Zealand has decreased. 
Hon Members 
: Rubbish! 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: It has decreased. The Ministry of Justice states in its briefing on the  
Offender Volumes Report 
 that although crime rates are dropping the composition of recorded crime is changing. We know that sentencing levels are higher. Prisoners are serving a greater proportion of their sentences prior to release. This has led us to having one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world yet comparative to that our crime rates are decreasing. So we are doing the public a disservice if we state that legislation like this will make New Zealand a safer place. The regulatory impact statement states clearly that that is not the case. 
The rhetoric around toughness is misplaced—I want to highlight that. If we are talking tough I say that the toughest challenge we have as politicians is to restore faith in our justice system with honesty about what will and will not work. That means two things and I say to Mr Garrett that what is popular is not always right. Let us get back to evidence; let us use that evidence to decide between the two. I have seen no evidence on this. We need to invest in prevention. We have heard a lot of rhetoric around it. We already know the drivers and the risk factors that contribute to offending. It is time for members on the other side of the House to start talking more about addressing those risk factors and restoring confidence for the public and for us to make sure that we collectively bring a halt to the bidding war that is doing an absolute disservice to those in the electorates of New Zealand.