Burton Mark: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Burton Mark: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2007. Volume:640;Page:10632. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing Council Bill the Bail Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
.  
These bills together were previously part of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill. This legislation gives effect to measures arising from the Effective Interventions initiatives aimed at reducing criminal offending increasing certainty around penalties given to those who break the law and addressing the growth of the New Zealand prison population. The Effective Interventions programme works as three broad themes tilting the balance earlier to prevent crime using alternatives to prison where this is appropriate and adopting smarter uses of prison resources. 
New Zealand finds itself in the anomalous situation of having a rising prison population despite decreasing overall crime rates. The Government is determined to maintain its tough approach with serious and dangerous repeat offending. Let me be clear that serious and dangerous offenders should and will continue to go to prison and for a long time. The safety of the community remains our paramount consideration. However the legislation increases the range of non-custodial sentences available to the courts so that sentences for lower-level offenders can be used to fit the specific circumstances around the offence and the offenders to address the factors that lead to their offending. 
The Sentencing Council Bill will help to build safer communities by providing consistency and transparency in sentencing as well as ensuring that an appropriate range of sentencing options is available to the judiciary. Part 1 provides for the establishment of a Sentencing Council which will be responsible for producing sentencing and parole guidelines. I am confident that the council will increase consistency in decision making in these two important areas. New Zealand will be building on the example of the United Kingdom and several Australian jurisdictions in establishing a Sentencing Council. 
I want to address some of the issues that were raised by Opposition members during the second reading debate and the Committee stage. The positions adopted by these members were frankly contradictory. On the one hand they argued that there was no need for guidelines and on the other hand they said the Court of Appeal was perfectly well qualified to issue sentencing guidelines as it had already done in relation to a number of offences so there was no need for a Sentencing Council. As I say that is a contradictory point of view. First of all the Law Commission report established that there is a clear need for sentencing guidelines. Research carried out for the commission showed wide disparities in sentencing levels for the same types of less serious offending in different parts of New Zealand. Clearly this is unsatisfactory and unfair. The punishment an offender receives should not depend on the locality where she or he happens to appear for sentence. 
Secondly appellate court decisions are issued only in cases that reach the higher courts. They do not cover the full range of offences. Guideline judgments produced to date have been in relation to the most serious offences such as sexual violation and aggravated robbery. However these are not the offences for which the majority of offenders are actually sentenced to imprisonment. There is a need for a comprehensive set of guidelines and an appropriate council is needed to produce them. The argument that sentencing guidelines represent a challenge to judicial independence is in my view misguided. The guidelines will establish a framework for a judge to settle on the sentence in a particular case having given prior consideration to the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. Where the interests of justice require the judge to depart from the recommended sentence the judge will be free to do so but he or she will be required to set out the reasons for this. This is not in my view unreasonable; nor is it an intrusion on judicial independence. 
The council will comprise a mix of judicial and non-judicial members and will be chaired by a judge appointed by the Chief Justice. Again this really makes a nonsense of some of the criticism levelled by some Opposition members as to the membership of this organisation. The non-judicial members further will be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House of Representatives. It is my hope that this House will work cooperatively to ensure that suitably qualified people are selected for what is an important role. It is not an area where partisan considerations have any place. 
The legislation provides for the House to scrutinise guidelines produced by the council. It is right that Parliament should play a role in this important area of public policy. Once again I place on record my firmly held view that this House must exercise great care in consideration of the council’s guidelines. They will be the result of much careful work and it is crucial that they form a coherent whole. Accordingly I urge the House to exercise its power to dis-apply guidelines with great care. 
Part 2 of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill makes important amendments to a number of pieces of legislation: the Sentencing Act the Parole Act the Bail Act and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act. The changes to the Sentencing Act will increase the range of non-custodial sentences by introducing three new sentences: home detention community detention and intensive supervision. Home detention is a proven successful measure for selected offenders and I am confident that the courts will in appropriate cases welcome it as a useful alternative to a short sentence of imprisonment. Home detention has low reconviction and low reimprisonment rates when compared with prison sentences and it has high levels of compliance by offenders. Community detention which involves an electronically monitored curfew can be viewed as a truncated version of home detention. The offender will be required to be at a particular address at a specified time. The judiciary has been very supportive of this new sentence and I am sure it will be a very useful addition to its menu of sentencing options. 
The legislation also includes measures to improve the effectiveness of existing community-based sentences. With community work for example probation officers will be able to refuse to treat up to 10 percent of the total hours of the sentence as hours completed where the offender fails to work satisfactorily thus underscoring the obligation imposed on the individual by the courts. 
The Parole Board has a crucial role in protecting the public and the legislation includes a number of measures that will enhance the board’s ability to perform this role. This is an important part of these measures. The Parole Act will be amended to make it clear that release on parole is a privilege not a right. It will state explicitly that consideration for release on parole—and I emphasise “consideration” for release on parole—carries no entitlement to release. The Parole Board will be given the power to summon witnesses and the power to make confidentiality orders that will help to ensure that the Parole Board is in possession of all the relevant information when it is considering a case. In addition the Commissioner of Police will be given the right to apply for the recall of a parolee to prison in limited circumstances. 
The legislation also includes an important change to parole eligibility that will take effect when the sentencing guidelines come into force. Offenders serving determinate sentences will not be eligible to be considered for parole until they have served at least two-thirds of their sentence. This will increase the certainty around sentences imposed in the courts. It will mean that all those involved in cases—the victims the police and of course the offender—will know that the offender will be serving the lion’s share of the sentence from the outset. 
Finally I will comment on the amendments to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 that the Justice and Electoral Committee struck out. I am pleased that the Committee of the whole House saw fit to reinstate this provision as the Government believes that it is essential that the sunset clause as covered by the amendments be extended. This will give the time needed for the select committee inquiry into victims’ rights to report back and for any appropriate response to be made. In addition by 2010 it is anticipated that there will have been a new independent prison complaints regime in place that will both provide for a new complaints resolution forum and further greatly reduce the incidence of issues that currently lead to claims for compensation made by inmates. This should in turn remove the need for legislation such as the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act. 
Taken as a whole I am confident that the legislation will significantly improve the operation of the criminal justice system in our country. It will contribute to building safer communities for New Zealanders while helping to stem the growth of New Zealand’s prison population. I commend the legislation to the House.