Goudie Sandra: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10677] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to talk to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill in the debate on its second reading. I acknowledge my Law and Order Committee colleagues for the excellent work that they did on this bill. I also acknowledge the Minister advisers the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the committee staff who also did an excellent job of assisting in the process on the bill. 
I point out to the previous speaker Lianne Dalziel that in January 2010 the Minister of Police who is also the Minister of Corrections took over responsibility for the bill for its remaining parliamentary stages due to the significant roles that the New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections will have in implementing the changes that are made in this legislation. So I correct the previous speaker: the Police were the advisers on the bill not Ministry of Justice staff and the comments about the Department of Corrections were also incorrect. 
It was particularly important for New Zealand Police officials to advise the select committee on whether we should change the threshold at which the new regime applies from a qualifying sentence to a conviction for a relevant offence. This change meant that police discretion as to which charges were laid and the charging process itself would be critical to the operational elements of the new legislation. Under the new regime all prosecutions involving charges that qualify for stage three of the regime will be referred to the Crown solicitor for peer review either prior to any charge being laid where circumstances allow or by the time of the person’s second court appearance. This provides an assurance that the appropriate charges will be laid in that case. I thought it was pertinent to actually point out those things to the previous speaker because she seems to have been somewhat incorrect in some of the things she was saying. 
Lianne Dalziel also spoke about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I recall that when she spoke to another bill she mentioned the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and suggested that we have a moral obligation to allow prisoners in that case to vote. I suggest that in the first instance the moral obligation is on the individual not to commit a crime. Yes this Government is taking action to find the drivers of crime and address them but also it is taking action to deal to the perpetrators of crime who fail to take responsibility for not committing crime. 
I will also talk about how many offenders are likely to be affected which was an issue raised by the previous speaker. The impact on the New Zealand prison population is estimated at 56 beds after 5 years 142 beds after 10 years and 288 beds after 20 years at the most. These figures are based on 1980-2008 figures and do not factor in the deterrent effect of the new policy. One must remember that there is a deterrent effect in a policy such as this and as such the estimate is conservative so the actual figure may indeed be much lower than that. One must also remember the victims in all of these crimes; this policy goes some way towards meeting the needs of victims. 
How much will this policy cost? Again this issue was mentioned by the previous speaker. After 5 years the operating cost is estimated to be $5.1 million per year with a total capital cost of $22.4 million. The previous speaker may like to be cognisant of that. We are certainly not soft on crime unlike the previous speaker from the Opposition. We believe that people have a moral obligation not to commit crime in the first place because once they commit a crime they give up their rights. That is a consequence of committing a crime: they give up those rights and they are subject to the full effect of the law. 
How will the bill work? This bill creates a three-stage regime that will improve public safety. That is the primary objective. Sentencing parole and bail should be driven by the need to put public safety first—that is the primary driver—and by giving some consideration to victims. I love to hear the comments from the Opposition members who did nothing in 9 long years and now start to get all soft and “touchy-feely”. We are committed to taking the tough steps needed in order to tackle violent crime and make people feel safer in their homes and on the streets. I think that is incredibly important. Do members know that the public are feeling that already? It is exactly what they asked for and that is what we are giving them. We are serious about better meeting the needs of victims and putting victims at the heart of our justice system rather than putting criminals at the heart of the justice system as the previous speaker seemed to do when she was in Government. We believe that there is a moral obligation on people not to commit crime and that once they relinquish that moral obligation they relinquish their rights. 
At stage one offenders who are convicted of a serious violent offence will be sentenced as normal but will be warned—as has been previously said—both verbally and in writing that they are on the first rung of the regime. They will also be warned about what will happen if they are convicted of another serious violent offence in the future. At offence one—at the first strike—they are told about the likely consequences if they do not take control of themselves and take some responsibility for their behaviours. 
At stage two an offender who is convicted for a second time of a serious violent offence—this is all about serious violent offences—and who has previously received a warning will be sentenced as normal but will be required to serve any sentence of imprisonment imposed by the court without parole. The sentence for that second offence will be served without parole. 
Melissa Lee 
: Good job. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Good job—absolutely. My colleague says: “Good job.” and I am sure most people out there will also be saying: “Good job.” Why should those offenders get parole? They have already been warned at the first offence and they have been told what the consequences of further offending will be. Why should they suddenly get parole on the second offence? They did not take responsibility for their actions so they must wear the consequences of that. 
At stage three an offender who is convicted for a third time of a serious violent offence and who has previously received a final warning at stage two must receive the maximum prison sentence for that offence and serve that sentence in full without parole. That is as it should be. If offenders are going to do the crime they need to do the time. They need to think more about their behaviours.