Anderton Jim: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
Anderton Jim: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1425] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I have always believed that in Parliament one of the most important things we can do is to bear witness to the truth—to stand up and tell what we know to be true despite the consequences. What I know about the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is that it is bound to play well as a popular measure but it is a fraud; it will not deliver on the promises the Government has made about it. I believe that the Ministers responsible for the bill know that it will not deliver the results they have promised. I believe that they are cynically pushing it through anyway for popular appeal; I accept its popular appeal—superficially. They are pushing it through knowing that it will not end violent crime as they have promised and knowing that it will not make a significant difference as they have promised. 
The Government has promised some extraordinary results: “there will be no more William Bells …”. That was the statement Rodney Hide made in his press release. Word for word he said: “Under this bill there will be no more William Bells …”. That statement is fraudulent; a lot more violent men will kill after this bill has been passed—there will be lots more. The promise the Minister made in his press release will come back to haunt him and he will regret it. 
The evidence that this bill will not work is spelt out in the explanatory note of the bill. The explanatory note states that any impact on prison numbers from this bill “will not be felt for at least 10 years”. I did not read that in the corrections Minister’s press release. I did not read that in Rodney Hide’s press release. The Minister’s statement did not say that 10 years after this bill was passed not one single extra person would be locked up. What will the potential William Bells do for the next 10 years? There will not be any more William Bells according to Rodney Hide. 
I read that we will get tough with violent criminals; that is what John Key promised. He did not say that getting tough meant waiting 10 years before one single person was locked up. I read of John Key saying that “New Zealanders are sick of waiting for promises on law and order to be delivered.” Well they will wait a long time for this promise to be delivered. I read that John Key said that the last Government took 9 years to deliver—it seems that he is going one better and is waiting 10 years to deliver. 
The explanatory note says that after 20 years an extra 70 prison beds will be needed—70. Let us add it up. The Government says that this bill will end violent crime by locking up a total of 70 people between 10 and 20 years from now—that is about seven people a year. National—joined of course by ACT—thinks that the extent of the violent crime problem in this country is seven violent crimes a year. That is nonsense; this Government has vastly oversold its ability to make a difference. 
I remember that National got elected in 1990 by saying that it would end violent crime—National said that in that year as well as this year. John Banks who was Minister of Police said that on his watch he would put an end to murder violence and pillage. One month after his appointment as Minister of Police the tragedy of Aramoana occurred—13 people were murdered in the worst mass killing in New Zealand’s history. After that we never heard much more from John Banks about ending violence on his watch. That is what happens to these silly promises. It turned out that violent crime was a lot more complex than the cheap headlines the Government then—and the Government and ACT now—make. It will turn out the same this time. I know that and I think that National in its heart of hearts is sensible and knows that too. 
This country has a serious problem with violent crime; there is no argument about that. I saw research this week that showed that 43 percent of New Zealanders feel completely unsatisfied about their security and safety in their own homes. Therefore we owe it to New Zealanders to do something real about violence. But in spite of the promises made this bill does nothing to reduce violence. People are not locked up until violent crimes have already been committed and that does not stop crime. We deal with it after the fact. This Government is soft on crime. It will not do anything to stop crimes being committed in the first place; it will do that after the event. The members opposite say they will reduce crime by locking up the most serious violent offenders but offenders are not locked up until they have already committed a violent offence—in fact three violent offences. 
This bill does not lock offenders up before they commit an offence so it is not really about reducing crime at all. It is about revenge and denouncing criminals. There is a market for denouncing criminals and I am not one who praises criminals or says that people who are outraged by criminal events are not right to be outraged. But agreeing that there is a place for denunciation in criminal sentencing is one thing; promising New Zealanders that this bill will end violent crime is completely another. That is why when my colleague Matt Robson was corrections Minister he started building more prisons than any corrections Minister in history. We had to pay for them. I am waiting for National to find out where they are going to put all these new prisons. Ninety-three percent of New Zealanders voted for more prisons but when it comes to putting a prison next to them nobody remembers that they voted for them. The next time we have a referendum like that we should take the names addresses and phone numbers of the voters who agree to have a prison next to them when they vote for them. 
I support putting violent offenders away; my party helped build prisons to do that. But we ought to be frank about what we are doing. If the object of this bill is to denounce crime then Government members should say so. They should not come into this House pretending that a bill like this will reduce violent crime because it will not. The bill will not do that and the Government members must know that. They cannot be silly enough to think otherwise. Pretending that it will reduce violent crime makes the very basis of this bill a fraud and it insults this House. It insults the intelligence of members to say that it will end violent crime. The object of this bill is to pretend that the Government will do that when in fact it will not. 
If I were generous I would say that the object of the bill might be to punish offenders more—that is a fair objective. But I do not believe that the object of the bill is to reduce offending. I put out during the last election campaign a widely ignored and very detailed plan for reducing crime. It was not as spectacular as ending all crime with a bill that has a “three strikes and you’re out” policy because I knew that that would not work. We went through every measure that expert research and expert policy show makes a long-term difference over time. It starts with reducing at-risk behaviour it continues with getting tough with young hoons and their life of crime and it includes addressing the major risk factors in prisons like alcohol and illiteracy. When over 90 percent of criminals have an alcohol or drug problem we cannot rehabilitate them and turn them away from a life of crime unless those problems and addictions are fixed. If there is a fair wind and a good day on which to implement all those details and prudent and efficient policies in the long run the best estimate is that crime would be reduced by about 17 percent—not that we will end all violent crime by passing this bill. 
The bill is a long way short of what the Government promised. It promised an end to violent crime and now it will be accountable for that promise. We will hold it to its promises. We have heard a lot of songs from this Government about accountability and now it is accountable for its promise to make a significant reduction in violent crime. The clock is ticking. It is accountable for its promise that “there will be no more William Bells …”. Members should watch this space—God help the Government if there is one more William Bell after this bill is passed. 
If the bill will not make much difference to crime what difference does the bill make? We know the answer. Other countries have tried the “three strikes and you’re out” approach and it always results in huge anomalies and greater injustices. When sentencing discretion is taken away there is bad sentencing. What are the chances that a woman living with and getting bashed up by a violent thug with a criminal record will be even less likely to leave after this bill is passed than at present? It is likely that there will be less chance of her reporting the behaviour of such a man if she knows that he will be locked up for life. Victims make these decisions all the time and the truth is that this bill will ensure that some women in exactly the position I have described will suffer grievously because of the horrifying dilemmas that this bill creates. I ask members what is compassionate about that.