Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:9997] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Let me begin by saying a word in support of both Te Ururoa Flavell and Ron Mark in relation to what they said about the problems in our prison system. I totally support the comments made about the excessive prisoner population figures we have in this country and the scandal that Maori are disproportionately highly represented in those figures. I totally support the need for change. 
Mr Flavell talked a lot about restorative justice which is something the Green Party has supported basically since we have been an independent Green Party. We think that that is something that shows real promise of addressing—at least in some cases; it is not appropriate in all cases—both the needs of victims and the problems of offenders in terms of finding ways to reduce offending. It is important to acknowledge that the way the sentencing guidelines in this bill are envisaged to work is that there is likely to be explicit recognition of restorative justice because the bill sets out a process for establishing sentencing guidelines. The courts must adhere to those sentencing guidelines except in certain cases particularly when it is contrary to the interests of justice. One of those cases is likely to be explicitly stated as where a restorative justice programme or similar conferencing programme has outlined an alternative approach. So it is good that as I envisage it there will be some express recognition of restorative justice. 
It is also good that some progress is being made in the area of restorative justice. We discussed this with the Minister in the Justice and Electoral Committee just the other day in relation to the estimates and we learnt of the work being done in terms of the certification of restorative justice facilitators training and best practice. All of that is most welcome because these kinds of processes can work only if they have credibility. That means they have to be done properly and be enforceable as well. 
I also want to touch on Mr Mark’s comments particularly in relation to drug addiction treatment and mental health issues in the prison population and among the offending population. I think he is spot-on with those comments. It is absolutely right that we have to get serious about addressing the things that lead to crime. If we do not start to get serious about things like early intervention alcohol and other drug addictions and mental health issues then we will not be able to address those problems. It has always astounded me that we seem to have an open cheque book for building prisons but a very very tight budget when it comes to keeping people from getting on the path to prison in the first place. That is to our shame and our detriment. 
It is good that the Government has acknowledged that and has in fact said that one of the motivating things behind this bill is a desire to start to address the burgeoning prison population. So the Green Party does support this bill. We are aware also that it is part of a greater package of measures many of them non-legislative. They are policy and budgetary initiatives and we support those. When we deal with these kinds of issues we have to deal with them in a coherent way across legislation policy the Budget and the like and we welcome the Government’s moves in that regard. 
I refer now to some of the specifics of the bill. Part 2 deals with sentencing issues. One of the things it does is establish a hierarchy of sentences and orders. That is most welcome. Section 10A inserted by clause 37 sets out a hierarchy of sentences and orders from the least restrictive to the most restrictive. Subsection (2) states: “(a) discharge or order to come up for sentence if called on: (b) sentences of a fine and reparation: (c) community-based sentences of community work and supervision: (d) community-based sentences of intensive supervision and community detention: (e) sentence of home detention: (f) sentence of imprisonment.” I think it is the first time there has been such a clear schema for judges to look at when sentencing so that they can see where on that continuum a particular case should sit. That will be most helpful and welcome. 
The other thing particularly useful is that the legislation expands the tools available to the judiciary when sentencing. I have to say that I think imprisonment is a very blunt instrument. In a lot of cases it is counter-productive and it seems to me that many of the people in prison actually should not be there. There are more effective ways of dealing with them. So anything like this measure which increases the number of tools available to the judiciary and also increases the sophistication with which judges can apply sentences is to be welcomed—particularly at the level below imprisonment. 
One thing I am very pleased about is the new sentence of home detention. We have that option in this country of course. As people are sentenced to imprisonment they may be given leave to apply for home detention and they may or may not get it. Sometimes it is given at the end of a sentence; sometimes it is a substitute. But we have not had home detention as a sentence in its own right. When we think about it we realise that it is crazy we did not have that before. At the moment judges say whether a case is suitable for home detention then the Parole Board is given the decision as to whether the person will get it. It is much more sensible that at the time of sentencing the judge looks at all the factors involved and tells the person that he or she will be sentenced to home detention. So this development is most welcome and as I have said the range of new kinds of sub-imprisonment sentences is very welcome. 
One of the areas that has been talked about a lot is of course mental illness as well as that of alcohol and drug addiction. The select committee looked at the special conditions a court may impose when applying various combinations of supervision or intensive supervision. It is important that in relation to any condition that requires an offender to take prescription medicine or to take part in programmes and the like—certainly in cases of medical intervention and cases where prescription medication is involved for example—there has to be a clear right to withdraw consent. Of course a withdrawal might result in a change of sentence nevertheless there must be a right to have that. It is important that those kinds of conditions can be applied. 
The other thing I will touch on briefly—because my time is now limited—is the Sentencing Council. The Green Party supports the introduction of a Sentencing Council. We are aware of some of the reservations of the National Party and we approached the matter with some caution. But we think there are real issues particularly around consistency of sentencing. This is true at the low end of sentencing in particular because at the high end there is good guidance from the higher courts. Cases go to appeal and good guidance comes through but at the lower end sentencing is wildly inconsistent. In fact the select committee heard from judges who said that in practice some judges have already effectively established a sort of guideline for themselves in their own courts or among a few judges and this bill makes this consistent nationwide. That allows for greater transparency around the process and I think that that is welcome. Of course we must learn from the UK experience—in particular to do this in context. It should not be done piecemeal; we should do the bulk of it in one go so that there is some context and coherence to the whole schema. 
The other thing is that judges must also have the ability to depart from those guidelines. Section 21A inserted by clause 40 provides for that and states: “a court must impose a sentence that is consistent with any sentencing guidelines … unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.” We know that according to judges anything they say is in the interests of justice. Therefore if they think that offenders should be sentenced to something else they will consider it in the interests of justice to do that. So the legislation does leave quite a lot of scope still for flexibility. Nevertheless the move towards coherency is useful. 
Finally I absolutely condemn the secrecy hearing provisions in terms of parole. It is unacceptable that people applying for parole or their counsel cannot hear charges made against them. That is absolutely unacceptable. It is modelled on Draconian inappropriate anti-terrorism legislation and it is a fundamental assault on the principles of natural justice. 
As well I am very pleased to see the extension of the sunset clause on prisoners’ victims’ rights removed. The amendment to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act is swept out of this bill with the excellent support of the National Party and I thank my colleagues on the committee particularly Chris Finlayson and Simon Power for that.