Sepuloni Carmel: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Third Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11240] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I will refer to David Garrett’s speech. I point out that he is a staunch advocate for this Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and that he has pushed very strongly for it from the start. While he was speaking I was thinking about why I feel so concerned about what he had to say. The reason is that we hear over and over again from the ACT Party and from National that this “three strikes” bill is about the victims but unfortunately when I listen I hear that it is more about hatred for the offender than about compassion for the victim. When that is the driver for legislation I think that members in this House need to be concerned. 
A few weeks ago we had a judge from California here in New Zealand. His name is Judge Eugene Hyman. That judge spoke to us about his concerns with regard to this bill. We asked him questions about rehabilitation in California and he made it very clear that the money in California with regard to the corrections system was overwhelmingly invested in incarceration rather than in the rehabilitation of prisoners. I think most New Zealanders would look to the US and think that they would not see that country as being the model that New Zealand should to aspire to. I think most New Zealanders would think and say that our current system is much better as it stands and the last thing that we would want our legislation to do is reflect the legislation in place over there. 
We also had Rev. Ron Givens here recently about 2 weeks ago. Rev. Givens is the executive director of prison chaplains in California. He has first-hand experience of what happens when a “three strikes” bill is reactionary and Draconian—like this bill—and he spoke of the consequences of California’s “three strikes” legislation upon which this bill is based. He talked about skyrocketing rates of incarceration unjust sentences and unmanageable costs. 
David Garrett 
: Rev. Givens was always busy when I wanted to debate him. He had prior engagements on every evening. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: I find it quite disconcerting that I took the time to listen to Mr Garrett even though I disagreed fundamentally with everything he said and he cannot sit there quietly while I am giving a speech that reflects my opinion and views on this bill. Rev. Givens knows exactly what will happen if this bill is passed which is why he came to New Zealand to warn us against it. National should have been listening but instead it was already tied into a deal that it had made with the ACT Party right at the beginning of its term as Government despite the fact that fundamentally it disagreed with this measure. That is why the Minister of Justice has washed his hands of the bill. Still National members know that it is bad legislation but they are supporting it because the deal gave them the power in the House. We look at those members and we think that that is incredibly sad and it is quite bad for New Zealand actually. The chair of the Law and Order Committee Sandra Goudie sits there laughing because she finds it impossible to take anything seriously. 
The Maori Party brought up an interesting point about the amount of money that goes into the corrections system and the amount of money that will have to go into the incarceration of prisoners. Quite frankly most New Zealanders would agree that that is not where they want their money to be spent yet we see that under this National Government more money is being invested into the corrections system. On the other hand we see that less money is being invested into things that New Zealanders agree are important—things like early childhood education. We have more money spent on incarceration and less money spent on education. I think most New Zealanders would agree that that is a blight on the Government with regard to its decision making and with regard to what it sees as being priorities for this country. 
A number of concerns arose as this legislation was going through the select committee process. I will talk to some of those. On 19 January 2010 the National Government and ACT announced that a revised “three strikes” policy would be incorporated into the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. The Law and Order Committee met to consider the revised bill for the first time on 10 February. Despite the significance of the changes made to this bill and the high level of public interest the National and ACT members of the committee used the weight of their majority on the committee to ram through the following resolutions. 
The first one was to “prevent the Ministry of Justice the implementing authority for the bill to have any role as advisors to the committee”. It is one thing that the Ministry of Justice was not the lead agency with regard to this legislation but it is another thing when the chair and all of the members from the National and ACT side voted to block any role that the Ministry of Justice might have played with regard to advising on this legislation. The other thing that National and ACT members did was to “hold no further oral submissions on this bill even though the substance of it has changed since submissions were last invited”. There is a recurring theme with regard to that matter. The recurring theme is National’s ongoing mission to block democracy and that is what it has been doing since it became the Government. 
Another thing National and ACT members on the select committee did was to “allow only written submissions on the revised bill from those who have previously submitted on the specific clauses that have been amended”. It makes one wonder what National and ACT members were concerned about. Obviously they understood that overwhelmingly anyone who made a submission on this legislation would have submitted evidence that went against what National and ACT were trying to do—that is it would have supported our side and what we were saying which is that this bill would not be effective for what National and ACT were trying to achieve. The other thing it did was to “give those submitters two weeks or less notice to make further submissions”. It was a very small time frame. The process right from the start was flawed and Labour members are concerned about that.  
The Labour members of the committee voted against each of those resolutions. We believe that this is an unnecessarily rushed process and that to close submissions to all but those who have already submitted on specific clauses affected by the National-Act “three strikes” announcement is to deny the public its right to submit on the revised bill. The select committee process is one of the most important parts of our democracy as it provides an opportunity for the voting public to have their say. That opportunity was denied by National and Act with regard to this legislation. 
One of the themes of New Zealand today is the shift from all decisions being made on behalf of citizens in a representative democratic style to a participative democracy in which institutions and processes are open to public submission. The denial of public access to submissions is a step backwards to a “We know best we are in charge and we make the decision.” attitude. That is unfortunate but it is happening. 
The original Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill was in the name of the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power and the Ministry of Justice was the lead advising agency. That made sense because the bill aims to change sentencing laws which are clearly under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice through the courts. Without explanation the revised bill was transferred into the name of the Hon Judith Collins who is the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections. The New Zealand Police were made lead advisers with the Department of Corrections as the assisting advisers. 
We realise that there are serious constitutional issues with this legislation. There has always been a deliberate separation between the justice agencies such as the Ministry of Justice the courts the police and the Department of Corrections. That is because it is considered constitutionally inappropriate for the same agency to undertake the roles of arresting offenders trying and sentencing them and imprisoning them. 
We are concerned about a number of things with regard to the process. We are also concerned about the substance of the bill. We have said over and over again and so has the Minister of Justice that this bill will go no way to acting as a deterrent to crime. Although we have heard from members on that side of the House time and time again that this legislation brings about justice for victims we have also seen with regard to the evidence that we will instead see victims dragged through the mud even more so as people are more likely to appeal their cases and less likely to plead guilty because there is more at stake. We disagree with this bill. I say that as the chairperson of the Law and Order Committee continues to laugh and mouth funny things to me from the other side of the House. She cannot take this bill seriously but we do. Thank you.