Andersen GinnyVIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this interesting bill the Crimes (Increased Penalty for Providing Explosive to Commit Crime) Amendment Bill. When I went down to the desk to pick up a copy of this bill I picked up five but I thought I was just going for one. So it's quite short this bill and the purpose of the bill is to amend the Crimes Act 1961 to increase the penalty for providing explosives to commit an offence from a maximum of two years to a maximum of five years. Isn't that interesting?One of the things I'd be really keen to hear from the member who put this bill forward is where the idea came from. I'm assuming maybe it was the Law Commission's view but often with a member's bill there's a moment of clarity or greater good for all of humanity where you see this great opportunity to make the world a better place and you can tweak a piece of legislation in order to bring that wish or hope to fruition. I fail to see how increase this crime to a maximum of five years really makes any huge difference.I will talk about the difference between the Law Commission's view and the view from the Ministry of Justice that was debated at select committee and look at those two different points of view. But before we get to that I'd like a more general discussion around the value of increasing penalties because that's exactly what this member's bill does—it simply increases a penalty from two to five years. So I'd like to know—and I'm interested to hear from members opposite as to how any given problem that society is faced with is addressed by increasing a penalty.When I was thinking about this I thought back on the things I've worked on in my past where time after time previous National Governments have gone ahead and increased penalties. One of the areas that I worked in was fleeing drivers or failure to stop and this is a fascinating area to look at. Time and time again we've seen increased fines and increased penalties for those and guess what? They still do it. Do you really think that the person—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!VIRGINIA ANDERSEN: —sorry—whether they be carrying explosives or whether they be fleeing from police pause for a moment and think Oh that's right I just looked up law online and I realised that that penalty's gone up by three years. I'll pull the car over right now and say sorry." That doesn't happen. Increasing penalties in general as this bill proposes to do does not address the underlying problem.If we have an underlying problem in New Zealand of more individuals carrying explosives of there being a greater risk of terrorism then those are issues of social cohesion. Those are issues of how we have a good healthy community where everyone can celebrate their differences and feel like they belong to New Zealand. That's the kind of society that disincentivises people blowing up things not increasing a penalty to five years. So I question the ability to change and influence the benefit of New Zealand by simply increasing prison penalties. As we have seen what that does is fill up our jails. As we have seen what this does is increase the amount of money that taxpayers pay to keep somebody in prison.In 2009 when there was a problem with boy racers as they were called—illegal street racing—we saw the failure to stop penalty increase. The fine was increased to $2000. Lo and behold in 2015 we have Michael Woodhouse the then Minister of Police with the following quote: "Increasing these penalties"—this is four years after they'd been increased already—"enhances the deterrent effect and sends a strong message from government that failing to stop is a dangerous [risk] and [it] … will not be tolerated." And yet still we face the problem of the same issue occurring. So my problem the fundamental problem with this bill as it's proposed—we can talk about the nuances around the different views from the Ministry of Justice and the Law Commission but the underlying problem is that a straight-out increase of penalties does not address the underlying problem.Right so let's have a wee look at the differences between the two points of view that we examined at the Justice Committee. There's one interesting point here—so what this bill I understand is endeavouring to do is to disincentivise those who may use explosives by enabling a harsher penalty for before the crime has been committed. It's almost a bit sci-fi Tom Cruise movie stuff where you can have thought crimes. So they've not actually committed the crime but they've got a detonator or they've got a cellphone even and so that is example enough that a crime is going to be committed with explosives and that in itself warrants a harsher penalty.It's quoted here from the Ministry of Justice that "A person does not become guilty of a crime by merely thinking about it. There must always be some external manifestation of conduct to transform a criminal thought into culpable conduct. … Accordingly"—this is where the Ministry of Justice and the advisers do not agree—"while section 272 provides a mechanism to allow the Police to act in circumstances necessary to prevent another offence from occurring we do not consider that a case has been made to justify a greater penalty than already provided. Indeed the academic view expressed"—which I've just explained—"in [the paragraph above] may suggest that only a relatively low penalty is appropriate for such an offence." So the view from the Ministry of Justice is the fact that the crime has not been committed means that it cannot be the same as the two compared. So it is not the same as section 55 in the Arms Act and it in fact is a crime that has not been completed so therefore it does not justify having a greater sentence.I would like to round up by saying that to be honest I think that we could spend time in this House considering more significant issues than increasing penalties on the potential to blow things up. I think there are far greater issues that confront New Zealand in terms of housing in terms of jobs in terms of the state of our hospitals in terms of the state of our schools. We should be looking at those issues that matter far greater than having to comb our minds for small pieces such as this to try and cobble together a member's bill. I have a fundamental belief—and so I'm pleased does the Labour Party—that an outright increase in penalties might look tough and might come across as looking like some action has been taken but it does not address underlying problems that are causing what will be happening in that space. I've already outlined that yes there are big concerns internationally with the threat of terrorism. There are big concerns in terms of how we enhance social cohesion not just in New Zealand but right across the globe but by threatening and by putting greater penalties and by alienating communities—that is not the way to go about it.We have here in New Zealand a difference from other countries. We have the Treaty of Waitangi that provides a strong foundation for all cultures to work together to communicate in partnership and to have a greater understanding of the principles that are important to each other's cultures. That is the pathway forward: greater understanding greater communication and greater ability to work together; not by standing over by trying to increase penalties as a threat to make people work together more comprehensively. So for that reason that's why the Labour members of the Justice Committee did not support this legislation going further and that is why we will not be commending this bill for further consideration. Thank you."