Little Andrew: Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 26 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13814. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to make some comments on the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill. I begin by saying that we all acknowledge—in fact the Government spends a lot of time telling us—that we have a lower crime rate although I think that the reality is we have an increasingly lower prosecution rate. We know that police officers and the police force have been instructed to minimise the number of charges that they now lay against offenders and that therefore reduces the prosecution rate. It makes the figures look good but there is a real question about whether the crime rate is actually dropping.That said once we get to the offenders themselves and certainly the convicted offenders policies that are focused on both correction and rehabilitation are much better than those that are focused just on the more punitive elements that go with incarceration. So that is why as a general principle we in Labour are supportive of this bill of this legislation and indeed—as I think Kris Faafoi acknowledged credit where credit is due—of some of the measures that the present Minister of Corrections has taken to assist those who are presently incarcerated to make a real fist of adjusting post-release. We know that there are good programmes in the prisons now on literacy on work readiness and on community readiness if you like—getting ready to go back into the community. I was greatly privileged in the visit that I Kris Faafoi and Darien Fenton took toPāremoremo prison earlier this year to see one of the programmes in place and the efforts that had been taken to have people adjust ready for post-release.But it is better if we can avoid incarceration—acknowledging that there needs to be a punishment and acknowledging that there needs to be sanction. Where it is at all possible for sentences to be served in the community—whether through home detention through a curfew or through other community sentences—that is surely better. And just as we can say with some certainty that there are some people for whom prison is inevitable because of the nature of their offending their violent personality or their antisocial personality equally we can say that there are some people for whom prison is completely the wrong thing. They may act antisocially they may be committing crimes—certainly at the low end of the scale—and generally they will be younger people. They are the ones whom if we possibly can avoid it we should avoid sending to prison. So a community-based sentence is entirely appropriate.We welcome this legislation which tidies up some of those aspects and that enables the courts to deal with community sentences that need to be extended or adjusted or amended. There is now a process for doing that. That gives probation officers whose role is to get close to offenders in the community and manage their rehabilitation in the community greater scope to assist the offenders for whom they are responsible to adjust and to adapt. That hopefully—we are optimistic and we should be confident—will lead to a lower recidivism rate and a more effective process for rehabilitation. So we welcome all those aspects of it.We should not forget that people with community sentences particularly curfews and home detention and indeed those people who are required to provide work and contribute their efforts for a certain period of hours still have a restriction on liberty. There are plenty of people in the community who forget that it is the restriction on liberty that is the ultimate punishment for people whom when they offend against our criminal statutes we call for sanctions upon. It is that restriction of liberty that is the sanction. But we need to make sure that having done that in this sort of way themechanisms and the tools that we have to manage those sorts of sentences are effective and offer sufficient flexibility.We know with electronic monitoring that there has been a problem and I know that the regime or the governance of our electronic monitoring in the criminal justice system has been changed so that the Department of Corrections now has a responsibility for it. That is right. We have had people who have not only breached their electronic monitoring conditions but absconded while on home detention. We have had the dreadful and unfortunate situation of the offender in Palmerston North who was on home detention and being electronically monitored who managed to get away—not just get out of Palmerston North but get out of the country. He went to Canada and ended up murdering a person there earlier this year. So it is good that we are beefing that up.In terms of Part 2 the new arrangements or the flexible arrangements for amending and changing sentences make absolute sense. And in terms of new section 66A inserted by clause 18A I will acknowledge that I think that is a good change to allow some of that community service when it is for 80 hours or more to be regarded as training. I acknowledge that and congratulate the Minister on what I think will be a very good move. It will allow those who have to do work by way of penance for their offending to actually get something out of it beyond just work experience. They will get something that they can show for it—certification of what they have done and their skills. I think that will make a big difference to the sorts of people who find themselves as candidates for this sort of sentencing.I want to simply add a word of caution about one aspect of it. I know that this has been through the Law and Order Committee and my colleagues on the committee and indeed the Labour caucus have supported it but I do want to just make a note of caution really with my pedantic overzealous justice hat on—because you cannot be a justice spokesperson without being a zealot on occasions—in relation to new section 69JA inserted by clause 22A and new section 80FA inserted by clause 27A and that is about the role of the chief executive. We know that the way this operates is of course that it is not the chief executive. It will not be Ray Smith sitting in his office approving all these changes of residence and locations for the way these sentences are going to be served out; it is going to be somebody in the Department of Corrections who will have this responsibility.My concern is that these sentences are imposed by judges by officers of the court. They carry a judicial imprimatur and a proper judicial sanction. There is oversight by the probation service—that is kind of the operational end of the criminal justice system. I understand all that but I get a little nervous when it comes to adjusting and changing what are effectively orders of the court. They go to an official the identity of whom may well be unknown and therefore the accountability for that may be somewhat diffuse. I simply raise that point and get it on the record so that in the unfortunate event and hopefully unlikely event that something does go wrong with this administration that has been noted. I am sure that a conscientious Minister of Corrections for as long as she is in the role at least would at some point want to review the practices that emerge around all this and the track record and if it calls for it and if there are too many unfortunate events want to maybe look at whether it is appropriate for a senior official within the Department of Corrections to be making or mandating these changes or whether or not it should go back to the court—even the registrar of the court—or at least to have some expedited process within the court to ensure that the decisions that get taken with regard to the offender who is being managed at all times have the imprimatur of a judge in terms of the sentence the offender is serving and carrying out.Notwithstanding all that as my colleagues have said we support the legislation. It does have the potential to offer some good and effective changes and a more positivefuture for those offenders who find themselves in this situation but who can be managed in the community can serve out their time and suffer the sanction that is imposed on them and turn out to be good citizens at the end of that. That is a welcome development.