Locke Keith: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10909] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 First I give the condolences of the Green Party to the family of the prison guard who was so tragically killed recently by a prisoner. I think that hangs over what we are debating here today. We want to reduce violence in our society and violence in our prisons. David Garrett says that the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is about reducing the number of victims. I believe he is sincere that that is the aim of the bill; I just happen to disagree that this bill will reduce the number of victims of crime including serious violent crime in our society. I think Chris Hipkins was right when he said in an earlier speech that we really should be focusing on prevention which includes rehabilitation and not on retribution. So partly here we are discussing a different philosophy of how to deal with people in prison who have committed crimes. 
There was an interesting article in  
Time 
 magazine of 10 May about Norway’s second-largest prison which opened on 8 April and has a completely different focus from our prisons as they currently are—well not completely different but it has a very strong emphasis on rehabilitation. The concept is that being in prison is itself the punishment and all the effort should be placed on rehabilitation. The prison governor said that in the Norwegian prison system there is a focus on human rights and respect. Later on the article talks about the prison guards having meals with inmates and all kinds of things that really push people on the road to rehabilitation. It gives some statistics. Twenty percent of Norway’s prisoners end up in jail again 2 years after their release. I do not have the exact New Zealand figures to hand but they are much much higher. As a result of that relatively low rate of reoffending Norway which has about the same population as New Zealand has 3300 prisoners whereas the current figure in New Zealand is I do not know 8500 to 9000—about three times as much. I think we can learn from that. To just say we should abolish parole for a certain category of prisoners—and parole is essential for prisoners’ transition from prison to society—is going in completely the opposite direction and will only raise the rate of reoffending and the rate of violent crime which this bill is intended to deal with. 
Judith Collins in her speech said that there are those who will never learn. That comment was directed at a section of the prison population. Sure some prisoners may be so distorted in their personalities etc. that they will never learn but I think the approach is not to define prisoners due to the nature of the crimes they commit as beyond rehabilitation. The potential for rehabilitation is partly an independent factor and we must try every possibility particularly for the most violent criminals to get prisoners on the right path when they leave jail. We must not just hold over their heads the “three strikes” policy or elimination of parole but have an approach that involves some empathy for the prisoners. 
One thing that worries me is that if we define a certain category of these prisoners as “evil” or “beyond rehabilitation” we are almost denying in ourselves empathy and that is a part of the criminal psyche. The criminal who commits violent robbery murder and so on is usually lacking the empathy towards the victim that would enable that crime to be prevented. We have to turn it the other way round and try to get those prisoners while they are in jail to have some social concern and to think beyond their own narrow interests.