Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10901] 
Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 3 Purpose 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 The purpose of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill according to the purpose clause is to deny parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worst murders. I think that there is a problem with that language because it includes manslaughter as well. We have created an interesting juxtaposition in this legislation. The Minister will know that there are people who are found guilty of manslaughter who could not possibly be defined as guilty of the worst murders. I will mention a case that I became familiar with when we had the debate on provocation. I would like the Committee to reflect on the fact that this purpose clause refers to— 
Paul Quinn 
: Lot of reflecting Lianne. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well I think it is worth doing. I am trying to be helpful and ensure that the Committee looks at all of these issues. A couple entered into what was a suicide pact essentially—an elderly couple both not very well. Unfortunately in this suicide pact—the whole situation was unfortunate—the husband was successful in assisting his wife to complete suicide but he was not successful in his own suicide. He was charged with murder he pleaded guilty and he was sentenced under our new law which does not require life imprisonment as a mandatory sentence. It has to be imposed unless there are good reasons not to but essentially it is no longer a mandatory sentence. One of the issues that came up in the course of that case was that the result essentially was that he was granted home detention. One could not possibly describe him as having been in this category of an offender guilty of the worst murders when he had pleaded guilty to murder on the basis of not having a trial. He was not very well himself. I think there was recognition from the Crown that it would not prosecute for the life sentence that could have been given in that particular case. If there had not been the alternative to life imprisonment for murder at the time then that judge would have found it very difficult. I personally think that the husband probably would have pleaded not guilty if there had not been the alternative to life imprisonment. 
The trouble is that the language of this says that this is what it is for but it means that it will capture a whole lot of people who are not in this category. So somebody for example who has had a “youthful” time who has gone down the wrong track and committed two very serious offences when he was quite young and who then has had a period of redemption—finding himself making up with those he has offended against and restoring himself on to a good path later in life—if he was that gentleman he would face the maximum term of imprisonment because he would be regarded as a persistent repeat offender even though he had committed only two serious offences at a time when he was young not really fully grown and not able to make the right decisions at that time in his life. 
The purpose clause is trying to encapsulate what the Government is trying to achieve but it fails to identify that there are always exceptions to these rules and I do not know whether the exceptions are actually identified within the purpose as well. As I understand the bill—and I am not as familiar with this bill as I am with others because I did not sit on the select committee—there are provisions that enable the application of parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worst murders because there is an alternative provision in there for those cases where there is an alternative if the judge determines that it would be a breach. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I am speaking to clause 3. 
Paul Quinn 
: Are you going to help her out? She needs helping. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Mr Quinn seems to have a problem with women in this House. He constantly interjects whenever a woman on this side of the House gets to her feet. He is not on the side of a rugby field so I would prefer if he was quiet when we start our speeches. I thank Mr Quinn. 
I stand to discuss the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill with regard to clause 3 “Purpose”. Clause 3(a) states the purpose is to “deny parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worst murders:” and clause 3(b) states it is to “impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent offences.” The overarching concern is that initially this bill in its entirety and this particular clause was pushed by the ACT Party and supported by National because it was deemed in their view to be some sort of deterrent to crime. From the outset I say that it is unfortunate that all of the experts who have come through have said that in no way will this bill work as a deterrent to crime. 
Our concern with the purpose outlined in this bill is in respect of some of the conditions the bill later sets out of what the different offences will be. We think that guilty pleas should be factored into sentencing and that is something we have put forward an amendment on. The amendment would allow the court to take into account a guilty plea and reduce a sentence as a result. The proposed legislation does not provide any incentive to plead guilty and officials have been warned that it will result in a decreased number of guilty pleas. We on this side of the House have that concern because fewer guilty pleas will be expensive for the State as there will be more defended hearings. Cases will be dragged out which will cause victims more pain. 
Along the way we have heard from the other side of the House that these punitive measures are supposed to bring justice to victims but I cannot see how that will happen if they are dragged through the mud in these cases. Obviously the offender will not want to have three strikes against his or her name because there will be harsher penalties at the end. Offenders are less likely to plead guilty; therefore victims will be dragged along as the case is drawn out. Later on we will see more appeals being made and that will result in victims having to relive the crime over and over again. We on this side of the House are very concerned about that. 
We are also concerned about a few other things. Accidental and negligent manslaughter should be excluded from this bill. Everyone in this House would agree that manslaughter is an extremely varied offence. It can range from vicious assaults to tragic accidents. Sentences for manslaughter are extremely diverse and can range from preventive detention at the most serious end of the scale to community service in some cases of accidental manslaughter. I think it is important to talk about some of these aspects of the bill in relation to its purpose which is to “impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent offences.” In talking about this we are discussing what that side of the House determines to be a serious offence. We on this side think we need to take into consideration the varied offence that manslaughter is—it can be accidental and it can be negligent. Some would argue that if it is an offender’s third offence he or she deserves what they get. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to address some of the issues raised by the previous speakers as to the purpose of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. Quite clearly this Government is very serious about repeat violent offenders and making sure we have penalties that fit the fact that these people have continued to commit violent offences where there are victims. Every one of the 40 offences listed is a serious violent offence. Whether of a sexual or of a non-sexual nature they are all serious. The issue of manslaughter has been raised and whether accidental or negligent manslaughter could be excluded. I say there is a degree of negligence required to establish liability for manslaughter. It is one of the differences between manslaughter and murder and it is why there is a provision in terms of the sentencing that is in the bill as presented to the Committee now to differentiate manslaughter from murder. There are also opportunities in the charging of offenders in the third stage for any third strike. The police will be referring those matters to the Crown solicitor for a review of the charging so there is not an overcharge. Where there is a true negligence situation it will make sure that those people are not overly charged and therefore given a very long sentence. 
I have heard a lot about victims. Ninety-three percent of submitters to the Law and Order Committee supported the bill and many of those people were victims and victims’ families. On the argument that has been put this afternoon that offenders will not plead guilty and will plead not guilty instead I point out that offenders already plead not guilty for a lot of serious offences. On that argument we would be forced to reduce the penalty for sexual violation from the 20 years it is now; I am not proposing that and I do not believe that anybody in this Parliament really believes that that would lead to more people admitting their guilt. 
This has a deterrent effect although it has been stated previously that the Department of Corrections was quoted as saying there was no deterrent effect. Well no the papers referred to the fact that when the Department of Corrections did its calculations on the number of extra beds it would need for prisons it had not taken into account any deterrent effect and that is because it has to work off what it knows. What we are talking about here are our worst recidivist violent offenders and an extra 50 beds in 5 years’ time or about that number. Those are the sorts of numbers we are talking about. We are not talking about the run-of-the-mill silly criminal. We are talking about very serious violent offenders who will not learn and will always create victims. That is what is important and that is what this bill is meant to address. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I have to confess that I come to this debate on the “three strikes” legislation with some reluctance. I find it very difficult to place myself in the shoes of a victim of a violent offence particularly a victim of a violent offence committed by a repeat offender. I find it very difficult because I do not necessarily know how I would react if I was in that situation. Of course I think all of the members of the Committee who speak on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill have a lot of sympathy for people who find themselves in that position. Our hearts certainly go out to them. It is understandable that they would look to the criminal justice system for an element of retribution and for punishment of those who have perpetrated those crimes. That is very understandable and I can certainly see why victims would regard that as important. 
However if I were asked to rank retribution versus prevention in order of priority I would place prevention much higher up the list. Although retribution is certainly part of our criminal justice system the prevention of crime in the first place has to be integral to what we do. One of the fundamental questions that we always need to ask about any legislation before the Committee is what it will do to prevent crime in the first place. One of the most pertinent questions in respect of this legislation is whether it will make an offender less likely to reoffend and whether it will aid prisoner rehabilitation so that offenders are less likely to reoffend when they are released from prison. A lot of evidence has been presented from overseas and from within New Zealand suggesting that that will not be the case. It suggests in fact that these initiatives will not improve the rate of rehabilitation or reduce the rate of reoffending once somebody is released from prison. That has to be fundamental to this debate: what will make our communities safer? Yes offenders are reoffending. That suggests that part of our criminal justice system—the retribution and punishment system that we have at the moment—is not working to rehabilitate prisoners and prevent reoffending. How can we improve that? I am not sure that doing more of the same making the sentences longer and holding people in prison for longer will necessarily contribute to a better outcome in that regard. 
I have spent a lot of time discussing these issues in my own electorate of Rimutaka. We have the country’s biggest prison in my electorate Rimutaka Prison and I am guided a lot by the work of Prison Fellowship New Zealand which I think does some fantastic work at Rimutaka Prison working with really difficult people. The last person to whom I spoke about this bill before coming to the Chamber was involved with the Prison Fellowship. He said to me that he had met some people in prison who he thinks are really bad people and he would hate to think of them being out there in the community but he has also met some people while working in Rimutaka Prison whom he would be proud to introduce me to. Those comments were made by somebody in the Prison Fellowship environment who was trying to rehabilitate prisoners so that the rate of reoffending was decreased and offenders were properly reintegrated into the community once they were released. I really take that on board. That person does not think this bill makes good policy because he sees a number of problems with it. For example prison discipline could well become a problem if prisoners have all hope of being released from prison removed. If they know that they are in prison for a very very long time and there is no chance of parole what will provide them with the incentive to reform to behave and to try to better themselves in prison? That is the feedback I get. 
I also have a number of prison officers in my electorate whom I interact with on a reasonably frequent basis. They do one of the toughest jobs I could possibly imagine. They deal with some of the most difficult people—actually quite awful people quite often—and a lot of the prison guards I talk to are concerned about the implications this bill will have for their ability to control the people who are in prison. I have a lot of sympathy with that view and I can understand the argument they put forward. In fact I think that what we should be doing is looking to refocus the debate in this area on to how we can stop so many people landing up in prison in the first place. All of the evidence that I have seen so far suggests that putting someone in prison probably makes them more likely to reoffend. Quite often it makes them worse criminals as they come out the other end of it because they become so disconnected from society. 
We also need to think very carefully about what prompts a lot of the offending in the first place. Many of the perpetrators of violent crime are often victims of violent crime before they are perpetrators of it and I think we need to look very carefully at that. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 It is important to remember throughout this debate that the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is unashamedly about reducing the number of victims and about public safety in general. Since the election four more people have died at the hands of persons who had this law been in place at the time they committed their crimes would have been in jail. That is not rhetoric. It is not spin. It is a simple fact. I heard someone insultingly say the other day when this subject came up in another forum that we cannot say that about the numbers we talked about in the initial phase because some of those victims might have died of diseases. As the Americans say “Puh-lease”. 
I have been involved in debates recently with a number of people on both sides of the argument—in fact Mr Lees-Galloway and I had a debate a week ago and a very civil affair it was too—but the most interesting one was probably a debate in Auckland 2 or 3 weeks ago with Professor Warren Brookbanks a respected academic at the University of Auckland and Dr Ekins who has published quite widely on this subject. Dr Brookbanks was good enough to agree several things in that debate. First he readily agreed that only in the tiny pool that is New Zealand are most academics opposed to this legislation. Professor Brookbanks acknowledged that in the United States opinion is about even on whether the “three strikes” laws in the 26 US states that have them have been effective. 
But he went further. Professor Brookbanks also agreed with me that the two phenomena I pointed out to him were in fact evidence of a deterrent effect. One of them was that of the prison population in California who are “strikers” about 60 percent are first-strikers about 30 percent are second-strikers and only about 10 percent are third-strikers. Professor Brookbanks agreed with me that that distribution indicated that although first-strikers were more numerous a much smaller number wished to go back for another go and a very much smaller number wished to go back for a third go. Secondly Professor Brookbanks agreed on the fact that prior to 1994 there was a net inflow of parolees into the state of California. That was the year of course that the “three strikes” law was enacted in California. Prior to 1994 parolees came from other states to California I presume because of the weather because it was a nice place to live and because of its lifestyle etc. Post-1994 there was a net outflow of parolees particularly among strikes offenders who got out after a second strike and quickly got across the border to Arizona or Washington state which do not have “three strikes” laws. Professor Brookbanks agreed with me that that was evidence of deterrence. 
Another thing that impresses me is my ongoing communication with a lobby group in California which I have referred to in the House before called Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes. Note that the name of the organisation has the word “Amend” not “Abolish”. I sent that organisation the original ACT version of this bill which was quite different from the version we are debating today. I have the comment on record: “David compared with what we’ve got here yours is wonderful.” I spoke to the president of Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes a week or so ago a lady called Geri Silva and told her where things were at and what was happening. She again expressed great surprise that as she put it we do not have LWOP—life without parole—even for the really bad guys. When we visited Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes 3 years ago together with Tai Hobson the widower of Mary Hobson one of William Bell’s victims Geri could not believe that as she put it “this guy”—Bell—“was on the streets with 102 previous convictions”. So it is quite instructive that a left-wing lobby group seeks only to amend the law and that it would be delighted with the legislation we will be passing. The organisation does not seek to abolish the law because it can see that it is working. 
Another thing that is interesting and that has never been canvassed in this Chamber before to my knowledge is that the Americans have a system called propositions which we would call binding referenda. In fact the original “three strikes” law came into being in California through a proposition. But in 2004 there was an attempt to weaken California’s Act to something pretty close to what we have most notably in narrowing the focus down to what the state calls “serious violent felonies”. As I have said in other speeches the undoubted injustices in California have arisen from this grey category called “technical felony” and that is what has led to the cases that are much discussed of people going to jail for life for stealing golf clubs etc. A proposition was put on the ballot in 2004 to weaken California’s very wide law down to something very similar to what we have—and it was defeated. It was defeated most heavily in poor black counties. Rich liberals from San Francisco wanted it weakened because crime does not affect them. But poor black counties in Los Angeles rejected it by a country mile. I was reminded of that fact—that poor communities are those most affected—when I visited the Mangere Maori wardens a few weeks back and I did not have to finish what I was saying about crime affecting poor people worst. They knew it. I was a bit nervous about presenting the “three strikes” argument to these people but they were right on board with it. They thought it was a great idea. 
So this bill is indeed a victim-focused bill. It will at the very least reduce the number of victims through incapacitation; it cannot do otherwise. Aside from tragedies such as what happened to the corrections officer over the weekend—one of those who do that very challenging job on behalf of the rest of us—I cannot see any good reason why the deterrent effect that Professor Brookbanks acknowledges from the data overseas would not be replicated here and we know that the adverse effects such as going to jail for stealing a pizza or stealing golf clubs simply cannot happen here. I am disappointed that some who are in opposition to this bill—I do not mean the parliamentary Opposition but those in the community—are being frankly dishonest in still saying that under the law we are going to pass people can go to jail for life for stealing a chocolate bar when they must know if they have read the bill that that is simply untrue. 
ACT supports the bill; it was our idea in the first place. We believe very firmly and honestly that it will make a major change. I close by saying that of course we need to look at the causes of crime. I will take a later call and give someone else a chance to speak. But we do need to look at drug treatment. I heard a very interesting lecture this morning by an American judge about drug courts in California and what they have done. We have to start somewhere and we are starting by making this change of direction in saying to violent offenders that if they cannot learn from being told twice by a judge and by definition serving a lengthy period of imprisonment adding first and second strikes together then they have no place in the community. ACT makes no bones about that and we are unashamed of it. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Before I call the Hon Clayton Cosgrove I just remind members that we are on clause 3 “Purpose”. I am not getting at anyone in particular but I think we have progressed slightly to quite a broad debate and I wish to not have it extend any further because there are only two paragraphs in the purpose clause. Members should just have a look at them. There will be ample opportunity as we progress through Part 1 etc. to get into the broader parameters of what this bill is about. This is just a wee heads-up. Thank you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I appreciate the advice you have given Mr Chair. I was not in the House for the first reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill but I want to make a couple of comments bearing in mind your advice regarding clause 3 the purpose clause. It says in essence the purposes of the legislation are to “deny parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worst murders” and to “impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent offences.” On the face of it and given the debate in the community that Mr Garrett has referred to it would be reasonably hard to argue against some of those sentiments until one delves into the detail of the proposals. 
I say firstly there is a problem with regard to these sorts of debates for those of us who oppose these sorts of measures. I have never been a victim—not ever. As such I have to be careful as a politician even if it is just in relation to the purpose clause about pontificating to the people who have been and are the victims of heinous crime. I acknowledge that and I also acknowledge in this debate that had my partner or my family been dealt to in the way that many in our community have been through tragic circumstances and heinous crime I suspect I would be less logical more emotional and possibly more extreme in my attitude than I am. I accept that because the closer that crime gets to one’s home the more personal the issue becomes and of course the bigger the impact that it has. 
But in this Chamber we are actually charged with trying to piece together with the best will in the world good solid legislation that has a positive effect. Let us put aside the argument that if one is not an extremist and a hard-liner one is soft on crime or that if one is interested in reform one is soft on crime—that sort of drivel which we hear often in this Chamber. If we put the political claptrap aside I would wager and take a political risk in saying that probably every member of Parliament on either side of the Chamber cares about victims and believes that the guilty should be punished but also believes that the behaviour of offenders should be changed—that they should be rewired. I would wager that we all want to pass effective legislation that actually works. 
As we look at the purpose clause the problem for the Labour Opposition is that I am sure that as we go through this debate sadly we will have the usual sort of comment made that anyone who is opposed to this legislation is a hand-wringing liberal who is soft on crime. That is probably where it will go; it has degenerated into that right through the debate on this bill. But those of us who are opposed to this purpose clause are opposed to it because we do not believe that this legislation will work. We do not believe that it will have the effect suggested by its promoters. We believe that this purpose clause along with every other clause in the bill is more about political posturing is more about bluntly tugging at the heartstrings of victims and more about raising the expectations of victims than it is about having the effect that has been suggested. In the years to come I suspect that we or maybe others will be back in this place looking at what this debate was about and what—[ 
Interruption 
] Well there we go; the utterances from that member prove my point. We will be back here to look at this legislation—either to amend it or dispose of it—because it will not have had the practical effects or provided the deterrence that its supporters and promoters say it will. 
I bow to Mr Garrett who is a lawyer. I am sure we could dredge out all sorts of statistics from all sorts of places—and that has been done by members from both sides in this debate—about whether paragraph (a) of the purpose clause regarding the denial of parole to repeat offenders will have the practical effect that the promoters want to achieve in terms of deterring crime and I presume changing people’s behaviour. It is interesting that Mr Garrett quoted an American judge. We had an American judge come to our caucus: Judge Hyman. I think he went around the country. As a judge in California he had administered the Californian version of this law. I acknowledge Mr Garrett’s point that someone will not receive a life sentence for stealing a stick of gum—I accept that. But Judge Hyman’s thesis based on his experience of administering a law where as in the purpose clause of this bill there are aspects of denying parole and imposing maximum sentences was that that did not work. We will back what works and we will oppose what does not work. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is just part of this Government’s review of law and order issues after years of supervised neglect by the late unlamented Labour administration whose languor lassitude and legislative listlessness and flaccidity mired our country in a miasma of torpor and despond. We are addressing the issues. This principled pragmatic National-led Government is listening to New Zealanders and finding solutions to their concerns. 
We have here in front of us the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. This bill has two main purposes. The first is to deny parole to repeat serious violent offenders and to offenders who are guilty of committing the worst murders. What could be arguable about that? The second purpose is to impose maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent crimes. I put it to you that that is an entirely reasonable sanction to place upon violent repeat offenders. This bill is specifically focused on those offenders who show no regard for others. They show no regard for their victims no regard for their families or their community and are repeatedly convicted for serious and violent offending. All of those offences have a maximum penalty of at least 7 years in prison. The bill ensures also that victims of repeat offenders and their families do not have to experience the additional stress of attending regular parole hearings or worry that an offender may be released on parole. 
So how will this bill work? It creates a three-stage regime that will improve public safety by imprisoning the worst repeat violent and sexual offenders for longer periods and under increasingly strict regimes if they continue to offend. At stage one offenders who are convicted of a serious violent offence will be sentenced as normal but will be warned both verbally and in writing that they are on the first rung of the regime and of what will happen if they are convicted of another serious violent offence in the future. Now critics of that have said that offenders do not consider the consequences of their actions when they commit crimes so longer sentences are not an effective deterrent. However the road to a third strike is a long one which involves clear warnings delivered by a judge about the consequences of various serious offending and considerable time in prison where it is hoped they will reflect on their actions. 
So at stage two offenders who are convicted for the second time of a serious violent offence and who have previously received a warning will be sentenced as normal but will be required to serve without parole any sentence of imprisonment imposed by the court. That is eminently reasonable. They will also be warned both verbally and in writing of the consequences of a further conviction for a serious violent offence. So in no way can those offenders be in any doubt of the consequences of their actions. 
At stage three an offender who is convicted for a third time of a serious violent offence and has previously received a final warning at stage two must receive the maximum prison sentence for that offence and serve that sentence in full without parole. However this bill recognises that in some very rare cases the circumstances of the offender and the offence will be such that a sentence served without parole would be manifestly unjust. The bill takes that into account and makes provision for the court where it is satisfied that a no-parole order would be manifestly unjust to not make such an order at stage three when imposing the maximum term for a serious violent offence. I commend this bill to the House. 
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. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I think that when we look at the purpose clause we see as my colleague Clayton Cosgrove said before that there would be quite widespread acknowledgment across the Committee that we are concerned about reoffending. We have to be concerned about reoffending in our communities. When people go and spend time in prison then leave and recommit crimes we have to ask ourselves why that is so and what we can be doing about it. It is clearly defeating the purpose of people going to prison if they are constantly reoffending when they come out and I think there is a shared concern about that across the Committee. There is a shared concern about what underlies the purpose clause there which is that the safety of the public should be paramount when it comes to how we operate within the criminal justice system. There is a shared concern about that right across New Zealand society. 
As my colleague Clayton Cosgrove also said in our jobs as MPs we all meet the victims of crime. Some of us have been the victims of various types of crime but we also meet many victims of crime and feel the pain they have had and the experiences they have to continue to go through day after day—well beyond the time the crimes were perpetrated. All of those things lie behind the concerns of everybody in this Chamber and I am sure they lie behind the purpose clause we are debating at the moment. But in the end as a Parliament our job is to pass laws that will be effective and will work and that have evidence to support them in doing that. I do not believe and Labour members do not believe that this bill will do that or that this purpose clause can be supported despite what might lie behind it as a commonly held concern. 
The problem with this bill is that it is unworkable it is also inequitable and it will not lead to just sentences in the way perhaps that the promoters would like it to. Mr Garrett said we needed to start somewhere but my problem with this bill is that this is not where we should be starting. We should be starting by working to stop people from committing crimes and by investing in the early years to ensure that people do not move into a life of crime. We need to be ensuring that we are properly supporting rehabilitation and reintegration into society and that we are not undermining the organisations that do that work or cutting the funding for the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society a 132-year-old organisation that does remarkable work on reintegration. We should actually be devoting ourselves to starting where we can have the greatest impact—that is starting by working with young people who are heading in a direction we do not want them to go down. We should be starting at an even younger stage with people who have learning difficulties who cannot stay in school and who have behavioural problems. We should be supporting parents to be able to bring up those young people. That is where we should be starting. 
But the purpose clause—and the drive behind this bill—is a poster; it is a slogan it is an emblem. It is not real change not real development; it is something the ACT Party has promoted and National has gone along with but it is not actually starting in the place where we should start. I am sorry to say that I think the purpose clause there gives false hope to people. It gives false hope that somehow this bill will solve the violent crime that is out there but there is no evidence to support that. Internationally there is no evidence to support that and nothing has been presented to us here that does that. The regulatory impact statement for this bill actually challenges time and time again the issue of whether public safety will be enhanced whether there is a deterrent effect. We cannot stand in this Chamber now and give to the victims of crimes and their families the false hope that somehow or other this legislation will wish away all of that violent crime. I believe that that is what is going on here in terms of the ACT Party and National. They are providing false hope to people. This regime is unlikely to deter would-be offenders; that is the evidence internationally. The regulatory impact statement raises that question. 
Mr Garrett talked about California. It is easy to throw around different statistics in this debate and yes there has been a drop in crime in parts of California. But that started before the “three strikes” bill. In the United States the greatest the sharpest drop in crime in the last decades has actually been in New York a state that does not have a “three strikes” law. So I ask Mr Garrett why we are not looking at that. In California the counties that aggressively enforce the “three strikes” laws did not see the greatest drop in crime. The greatest drop in crime was seen in the counties that did not enforce the law as strongly. It is easy to throw up these statistics and get them out there but that is not always the way to get the change we want. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Part 1  Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Part 1 of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill deals with the main changes to the principal legislation. It involves not only the ACT Party’s “three strikes” policy on which it went into the last election but also the National Party’s policy of no parole for the worst repeat violent offenders. It has been a pleasure working with Mr Garrett and the ACT Party on this bill. The party has been very decent to work with and I thank it for that. 
Changes have been made to this bill through the deliberations of the Law and Order Committee which has been a long process over the last year. I thank the committee chair Sandra Goudie and all the committee members for the attention they gave to the bill. 
In particular some issues have been raised about rehabilitation—that perhaps we should just have more of it. I say that we do: we are doubling the amount of rehabilitation in our prisons. By the end of next year there will be double what there was when we took over as the Government. I do not agree at all that repeat violent offenders who create victims are themselves necessarily victims. At some stage in their lives those people must take responsibility for their actions. Will someone be old enough at 30 to take responsibility or will that person be old enough at 40? 
I think many of us feel that it is very important to have a system in place in our criminal justice system where people are given warnings about what will happen. I am very pleased with the assistance that has been given by judges and the judiciary and by Mr Garrett in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 123 which we are putting forward today which is about how we can make sure that the warning system works best not only for offenders but also for victims and for the criminal justice system. 
This bill is not about locking up people for stealing a loaf of bread; it is very much focused on our worst repeat violent offenders. When we talk about what we can do for them let us talk about what we can do for victims as well. One of the things we can do is keep the very worst people locked in secure environments so that they do not create more victims. I know that it is sometimes very painful for people to have to deal with the raw emotions of victims. I know that judges often find it very difficult to deal with victim impact statements and I know that many of us who have not been the victims of horrendous violent offences find it very difficult to deal with people who are so raw in their emotions. Frankly I think we are lucky to not be in that situation. My heart goes out to those people; I know that it is uncomfortable. But do members know what? We just have to accept it. It is their emotion; it is their life or the life of their family member that has been taken apart and they deserve to be treated with dignity. This bill will give back some dignity to them and to their families. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 The Labour Party has put forward a number of amendments to Part 1 which I will briefly deal with. They relate to clause 5 which inserts a manifestly unjust provision for “three strikes” sentencing and exclude in new section 86A accidental or negligent manslaughter for reasons that I will go into later in the debate and which my colleague has referred to. We have a number of other amendments. 
I will make just a couple of points. What I think is interesting about the process around this bill as we talk about Part 1 is a comment made by the Minister in the chair the Minister of Corrections in her summation. I think she said—and I will be corrected if I misquote her—that she does not consider offenders to be victims. To some extent I agree with her on that but it is very interesting that if we accept—as for instance Mr Garrett did when he got into some difficulties in this place in his own office— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Are we talking about Part 1? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes I am talking about Part 1 if the member would listen. That member’s trouble is that she is not chairing the Law and Order Committee now; we have a decent chairman in the chair. 
When Mr Garrett got into some difficulties he said a couple of things. He said that things had happened in his life. I think he referred to an oil rig and to a culture in Samoa that he said affected his behaviour at the present time. I accept that and I do not argue with it and I do not say it to make a political point. I think Mr Garrett was actually saying that things happen in people’s lives. For instance a child who is raped at the age of 5 by his father may indeed turn out to be a sexual predator at age 25. That does not in any way excuse what that sexual predator did but logically one might say that is the alibi that Mr Garrett used for his behaviour: the environment people grow up in and the things that were done to them do not excuse their behaviour but may have some tangible or intangible intelligent connection that may have promoted their becoming the predator they are today. Maybe there is a connection. I agree with people who say that does not excuse the behaviour. But I argue that there is a connection and to use Mr Garrett’s point about starting points we should perhaps be dealing with that starting point not political pamphlets like this. So although I agree with the Minister when I say that offenders are not necessary victims because of the nature of their actions I also think if one looks at their behaviour and the environment in which they grew up and lived in one might be able to draw some tangible conclusions that might teach us ways to prevent crime from happening in the future. 
I will get back to the bill to stop the squawk-box across the aisle. She thinks she is still chairing the Law and Order Committee but she chaired that committee in such a way that she truncated and shut down any debate about the process surrounding this bill. If she thought that this bill would really work she would have encouraged debate and allowed the Ministry of Justice the actual authoritative agency that deals with this bill to make submissions on the amending clauses. The Minister of Justice has become the invisible man on this bill although in some ways I do not blame him because he does not believe in it either. 
I will deal with some of the amendments we have put forward. We are putting forward an amendment to new section 86D(2) in clause 5—and I will go slowly for Ms Goudie—by inserting after “maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for each offence” the words “unless the Court is satisfied that given the circumstances of the offence and the offender it would be manifestly unjust to make the order.” The reason for this amendment is that the legislation states that on a third strike the offender will receive the maximum penalty in prison for that offence with no parole. When people have criticised the bill for taking away judicial discretion the ACT Party has repeatedly asserted that the court has the discretion on a third qualifying offence to not impose the maximum sentence if it would be manifestly unjust. For example Mr Hide and Mr Garrett in a pamphlet on the “three strikes” policy and the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill said the following: “The judge sentencing a Strike Three offender will have no option but to sentence the offender to the ‘max’ unless it would be ‘manifestly unjust’ to do so.” This is not correct. The proposed legislation says that although the court has the discretion not to order the sentence to be served without parole if it is satisfied that it would be manifestly unjust to make the order imposing the maximum sentence on a third qualifying offence is mandatory. Simply put Labour’s amendment gives the court the discretion not to impose a maximum term of imprisonment on a third-strike offence if it is satisfied that it would be manifestly unjust to do so. That aligns the proposed legislation with at least the public assertions of the ACT Party. 
There are many examples of when it may be deemed unjust to sentence an offender to a maximum sentence for a third offence. The most obvious of course—as has been discussed in the previous debate—is manslaughter because of the huge variance in the seriousness of that offence. As the legislation is currently written an offender would receive a life sentence for manslaughter on a third offence whether the manslaughter was a vicious assault or a tragic hunting accident. In fact officials came before us and said that it could well be the case—not theoretically but in practical terms—that a person may commit a heinous first-strike offence and get a lesser sentence than a person who commits a third strike and less heinous if I can put it that way offence. I wonder what the “get tough” Minister and Mr Garrett will say to the victims of a first-strike offence when the two are compared and they see that something is wrong if we are talking about equity of victims. What emotions will run through the minds of those victims? 
If we are interested in justice and in appropriate levels of justice then issues around manslaughter and its varying nature should be considered. We could have a case where a person commits aggravated robbery twice to say finance a drug habit. I am not making any excuses for that person; it is an extremely bad thing to do. It is outrageous and should be punished. But 40 years on that person may have cleaned up his or her act—I hope that we all believe in that thing called “hope” and maybe in reintegration—and after 40 years of non-offending that person may go out hunting with a mate a hunting accident occurs and somebody is killed. I am sure somebody will laugh at this but it is a real possibility. It may be remote but it is a possibility that needs to be covered off in this legislation. We have an amendment on the Table dealing with that. 
It is not about political points; there are some major holes in this legislation. I have no doubt that the bill will go through tonight. We will oppose it but members opposite have the votes and they will win. We are proposing a number of amendments because even though we oppose the bill going through we believe that there are manifest inadequacies and weaknesses within it. I would like an explanation from the Minister in the chair about my example. Let us say a person had committed aggravated robbery twice in his or her career to finance a drug habit then 40 years later commits a third-strike offence because he or she goes hunting with a mate—I am not excusing it—something occurs an accident happens and the “three strikes” policy kicks in. I argue that that is far different from the other end of the variances of manslaughter; we can probably all think of a number of examples of the vicious nature of manslaughter. 
I raise this issue with the Minister in all seriousness and she may want to take some advice on it. I think it is a pertinent issue if we are truly concerned as has been said about protecting victims and ensuring that just outcomes flow from this legislation. I do not believe that they will. As we have done in the past with other law and order bills we offer the Minister what we believe may well be a logical solution. Mr Garrett is a lawyer and I am not and I would be very interested if he could proffer an opinion on that example and on the other amendments. Even though Mr Garrett and I have our disagreements from time to time I hope that we both want to pass legislation that at least provides for just outcomes and does not perpetuate or create as an unintended consequence unjust outcomes. I assume that all members of Parliament want to do that. I argue that if the hypothetical example that I have put before the Committee was put into practice it would be an unjust outcome. If a person who has cleaned up his or her act has maybe learnt from a first and second strike—maybe—and then kills someone else in a hunting accident that person would receive a manifestly unjust outcome under this legislation in its present form. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 As a relatively new member I am not sure whether it is my place to do this but I have learnt in my time here that if one is being serious and is not making political points—which Mr Cosgrove denies he is doing—then the proper way to put forward amendments like Mr Cosgrove’s amendment is to consult with other parties well in advance so that they have the opportunity to discuss proposed amendments— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. To be helpful it may assist the member to know that there have been many many precedents in this House and in this current Parliament in fact when whole pieces of legislation have been laid on the Table and no one has seen those— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is not a point of order. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Today is caucus day for all parties. If Mr Cosgrove had called me even this morning or yesterday but more particularly last week and said that Labour members had identified the things they did not like about the bill and that could be improved and asked us how about it I say I would have taken those amendments to my caucus. We would have discussed them at some length. We would have got some information and advice. But here we are today with those amendments plonked on the Table with no notice at all so—sadly—it quite clearly is simply an attempt at point-scoring. 
I will go on to the matter of rehabilitation which was raised by members opposite. I put on record that our party regards—and in particular I regard—the desirability of rehabilitation as a no-brainer. I ask how one can possibly argue against rehabilitation on any number of grounds: compassion for both victims and the criminal; fairness; public safety; and if we want to get down to it money. Who would want to have more people in jail at 90 grand a year than we have to have in jail? It is an absolute no-brainer. The problem then becomes how we achieve that. Criminologists are a wee bit like psychologists. They inhabit different schools of thought. There is the “nothing works” school of criminology and the “things work” school of criminology but even the “things work” school acknowledges that we need to spend a ginormous amount of money to rehabilitate a relatively small number of criminals. 
Sadly one thing that both schools agree on is that rehabilitation is most effective when the person wants to be rehabilitated. Unlike Mr Cosgrove I have not been to 40 prisons or whatever he said it was in question time today but I have been to half a dozen in my time here and in every single one I have seen literacy and numeracy programmes. I have seen training. In some I have seen industries. I was particularly impressed with a drug therapy group at Arohata Woman’s Prison and I am corresponding with a couple of prisoners from that group about this very bill. So it is not true to say that there are no attempts at rehabilitation. We could do better; indeed I think that we should. 
I started to mention my experience just this morning of listening to Judge Peggy Hora. I did not ask her but I think she would classify herself as being on the liberal—with a small “l”—end of the California judiciary. She was at the forefront of the establishment of drug courts in that state which putting it very shortly and simply substitute treatment programmes for prison sentences. As she said in her lecture—it was very good; I did not notice any of the Labour members there—when she first sat on the bench she gave sentences of X and told drug offenders to go away and sin no more once they got out. Then they came back so she doubled the sentence and asked what part of “do not do it” they did not understand. Then they came back and she tripled it and she realised that it was getting nowhere. She did some research and did some study and she decided that drug treatment was the way to go. That makes plenty of sense—plenty of sense. 
But one of the problems with rehabilitation efforts in New Zealand prisons at present as Mr Cosgrove will be well aware is that there is absolutely no certainty of sentence length. Because of the Sentencing Act 2002 no sentence handed down by a New Zealand judge aside from a minimal non-parole period for murder means what it says. Someone who is sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment might be there for 1½ years for 2½ years or for 4 years. There is no certainty and for that reason a lot of prisoners are not eligible for treatment programmes. This bill in a perverse kind of way will change that. At second-strike stage the prisoner and the jail will know exactly how long the prisoner will be there and by definition it will be a fairly lengthy time. 
I have done a bit of research on what happens in Singapore. I am afraid that what I have managed to turn up is relatively scanty but I think that this is a rough description of what they do there. They have a “three strikes” type regime. As I have said before in other speeches it is not an American baseball idea; it is actually an idea that is used all over the world. The Singapore programme works like this. When the person comes in he or she is assessed fully on physical health psychological health numeracy and literacy and education levels. The authorities to the best of their ability try to fix up what is wrong with that person. They train him or her for probably not a profession but a useful trade—let us say it is as a panel beater. When the person is released there is aftercare and the person gets a job. There is follow-up in much the same way as there is in our parole system. If the person offends again he or she comes back for by definition a more lengthy sentence and for special treatment. 
That is not 25 strokes of the rotan; it is effectively the authorities having another look at that person to see what they missed last time. Let us say for example that the authorities had overlooked a psychological problem and they decided that the person would be better off as a mechanic rather than as a panel beater. They train the person for that and he or she is there for 6 7 8 or 10 years so there is plenty of time. That person gets work experience and comes out. But a person who comes back for a third time goes into a concrete cage and stays there. That is it. Society says that it has put all of these resources into such people it has trained them for not one but two useful occupations it has told them what the consequences of their continuing to act in this way will be and that is it. I would be a little surprised if many members on the other side of the Chamber would disagree with that. That is not what we have here yet but certainly speaking for myself I would be supportive of having that kind of initiative here. 
As I said there is considerable support across the Chamber for rehabilitation. It is motherhood and apple pie—not “mom and apple pie” as Mr Hipkins corrected me the other day. But the problem is to actually achieve it. That is the problem we face. Sadly we now have a generation of violent thugs who do not learn and will not learn. William Bell and Graeme Burton are not unique and we need to do something about those people. We need to try to get some consensus on how we go about stopping the next generation. It will not be easy and there is no consensus on it at the moment. We have views on how to stop it. Labour has completely different views. There is no consensus. Each side can cite experts statistics studies and individuals to support its argument but there is absolutely no consensus. While we try to work one out we need to keep the community safe from repeat violent offenders. That is what this bill is primarily about and sadly we need to think about rehabilitation second. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Firstly I take up Mr Garrett’s point about the amendments that the Labour Party has tabled here today to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. This is the Committee stage; this is where amendments are tabled. It seems as though the Labour Party cannot do any good any right in Mr Garrett’s eyes: either we are not proposing alternatives and therefore we are just politicking or we are proposing alternatives and therefore we are just politicking. I urge Mr Garrett to look at these amendments. These issues have been around throughout this debate. Probably nobody in this Chamber has been following this debate more closely than Mr Garrett. He knows what these amendments are about. He knows about the concerns about unjust sentencing. Those concerns were raised by the Ministry of Justice: they were raised by officials when commenting on the Cabinet paper. Mr Garrett knows what the concerns are about and I urge him to look at the amendments that Clayton Cosgrove has proposed and to consider whether this legislation fits with what the ACT Party has been telling people all around New Zealand about this bill. 
In respect of the “manifestly unjust” clause the ACT Party put out a pamphlet that said: “the judge sentencing a Strike Three offender will have no option but to sentence the offender to the maximum sentence. The only exception is if the judge determines it would be ‘manifestly unjust’ to do so.” That is wrong. This bill says the maximum sentence is mandatory—it has to be imposed. That is what this amendment is about. It is about making the concept of “manifestly unjust” mean something in this law. The amendment will address the point that was raised by the Ministry of Justice. So I really urge the parties opposite to look at the amendments that Labour is putting up. 
Labour opposes this bill because we do not think it will work and we think it is inequitable. We would rather be focusing on the other end of the system. But we are now in the Committee stage of the debate and we are prepared to put up amendments that will at least improve the bill and give real meaning in this case to the clause about sentences being “manifestly unjust”. 
I turn to the amendment in clause 5(1) that inserts new section 86D in the Sentencing Act to allow the court to reduce the sentence imposed by up to 25 percent in order to take into account the fact of a guilty plea. At the moment the incentive to plead guilty particularly as we get to the third-strike offence goes away. Why would somebody decide to plead guilty in that situation? We all know that if there are fewer guilty pleas it will mean not only that there will be greater costs obviously but also that victims will have to go through more trials. We are trying to amend this bill so that we can allow guilty pleas to be taken into account. We have to think about this bill in terms of how it will work not as a slogan not as a set of slogans that allow people to go forth into the electorate and like Ms Goudie say this legislation will deter repeat offending. I invite the member opposite to read the clause and the amendment. The amendment to new section 86D aims to insert a new subsection that will allow guilty pleas to be taken into account properly. 
It is very important to ensure that we make this law the best that it can possibly be. Labour believes this law is wrong. We do not support it in this Chamber but we do want to ensure that we give meaning to some of the terms that are here like the term “manifestly unjust”. We also want to make sure that we put incentives in place so that people will plead guilty so that we can reduce the number of cases where victims have to go through the horror again of what happened to them. 
We also have an amendment to new section 86C also inserted by clause 5(1) of the bill. The amendment is to insert in subsection 4(a) after “serve the sentence without parole” the words “unless the Court is satisfied that given the circumstances of the offence and the offender it would be manifestly unjust to make the order”. We are trying to cover off “manifestly unjust” as a meaningful statement in sentencing and in parole. It is vitally important as we go through this bill that we do not allow ourselves to be sucked into the belief that this set of slogans will provide the panacea to these problems. We need real proper amendments to be made to this legislation in order to give it meaning and we have not seen that at any point so far from the Government or the ACT Party. We have only seen a continuation of the clichés and the slogans rather than an attempt to see how the legislation would work. Mr Garrett has said earlier that he wants this legislation to work properly. If he wants this legislation to be meaningful he needs to adopt these amendments. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 This is an interesting debate. Judith Collins said in her initial speech on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill that criminals have to take responsibility for their crimes. I think that is quite true. When we talk about whether criminals are also victims and about problems in their past we do not mean to say that criminals should not take responsibility for their crimes. But part of the process of stopping reoffending is to make them understand and internalise the horrible thing they have done to some other person if it is a violent offence and to society. That requires a whole process of rehabilitation. That is where there is a link between people taking responsibility for their crimes and the fact that they may be in part also victims. 
Clayton Cosgrove mentioned the case of someone who might be raped at age 5 and who goes on in later life at age 25 to be a sexual predator. Alternatively it is often the case in our prisons that there is a very high rate of illiteracy; a lot of prisoners have not for one reason or another learnt to read and speak very well and tend to fall back in society to not get proper jobs and to resolve matters with their fists rather than by discussion. Rehabilitation in prison often means linking to some degree the crime that they have committed with their past. We need to get them to understand that although they might feel that somehow they have some grievance and some justification for doing what they do they do not really have that justification and we can overcome their disadvantaged background together as part of the rehabilitation programme. David Garrett mentioned some programmes in relation to drug cases that seemed very good too so I am not saying that there is a complete division in this Chamber about how to go forward. 
I think another comment he made was true: the prisoner must want to be rehabilitated. There has to be some movement. But if we implement “three strikes” we are saying to prisoners that they are the enemy we will not give them any slack we are not really trying to understand them and they have no future. If we block off paths in the way that this plays out then we will not put people on the road to recovery. 
In respect of the amendment mentioned by the previous speaker Grant Robertson criminals need an incentive to plead guilty because that process in and of itself becomes a recognition that they have taken some responsibility for their crime and can begin the programme of rehabilitation in prison. If we incentivise the other way—for them to deny their criminality and to plead not guilty when they are clearly guilty—all we are doing is keeping them in prison for ever virtually at a huge cost to society and to everyone to the extent that when they do get out of prison they are more likely to reoffend and create other victims because they are anti-society and not rehabilitated. That is not a good solution. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I want to know why National is so keen to shut down debate on this bill before it has even got under way. Less than half an hour into the debate on this bill with not one single National member having taken a call on it National members have been trying to shut it down. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Excuse me. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Not one single National member other than the Minister in the chair the Minister of Corrections has taken a call on it. They have tried to shut it down. That is outrageous. Why is National so afraid of debating this bill? It could be that the reality does not live up to the rhetoric that they have been putting forward. In fact it is very easy for National members to screech as they are doing on the other side of the Chamber at the moment that Labour members are soft on crime because we do not support the bill. We do not support the bill because it will not work. We will support measures that work. It is wrong to suggest that we are soft on crime. The track record of the last few years would suggest otherwise. 
Some of the rhetoric that has been put forward to justify this bill does not stand up to scrutiny. To claim for example that the previous Labour Government did not do anything to keep the worst violent offenders in prison for longer is simply not true. For example the new sentencing and parole laws that came into force in July 2004 increased the minimum non-parole period for the worst murderers from 10 to 17 years; the time that the worst offenders have to wait between applications for parole has increased to up to 3 years instead of their having the ability to apply automatically every year; automatic release at two-thirds of the sentence for serious violent offenders has been abolished; and preventive detention is now available to keep the worst sexual and violent offenders in prison for longer. So it is simply wrong to say that we have not done anything to keep those offenders in prison for longer and make the public safer. 
The point Labour members are making on this bill is that “three strikes” will not work. It will not work and there are already other things available that could deal with many of the concerns that have been raised. National knows that and that could well be why it is not willing to debate this bill and why it is more interested in closing down debate. 
I turn to the regulatory impact statement on the bill because I think it raises a number of legitimate concerns. This is the Government’s own regulatory impact statement and it found for example in public safety that “it is not possible to conclude with any certainty to what extent any of the options will improve public safety” and “there is a possibility that removing the worst repeat violent offenders from the community for longer periods of time will result in less serious violent offending”. However offenders who commit serious violent offences do not necessarily have previous sentences for serious violent offences. So surely that is where the debate should be at. It should be about how we make the community safer how we crack down on serious violent offending before it takes place. What are the key causes of serious violent offending and how can we address those? We are not hearing anything from the Government about what it is doing on that. 
Public confidence in the criminal justice system could be undermined by this legislation. The regulatory impact statement argues this; it states that public confidence could be undermined if the policy on worst repeat offenders raises the potential for disproportionate outcomes which may negatively affect public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is really important the public have confidence that the criminal justice system is netting out a punishment that is fair and proportionate. If it is not then the public confidence in the system will be eroded and that has to be to the detriment of everybody. 
Most research has found—this is again from the regulatory impact statement—that “imprisonment has little if any specific deterrent effect.” There is a great deal of evidence indicating that offending rates decrease only marginally as a result of penalties being increased. The regulatory impact statement states that. That is not my claim. Here we have the Government putting forward the idea that we will deter repeat offending I suggest that if offenders are already on their second strike the knowledge that they will go away to prison for a lot longer will not necessarily act as a deterrent. One would think that the sentences that were available on the first and second strike would have acted as a deterrent. There are obviously other factors at play here that we need to deal with; this bill does nothing to address those. 
Looking at the financial cost we see that both the life without parole and the worst repeat violent offender policies represent a small but gradually increasing transfer of cost within the funding available to the justice sector from the detention and prevention of offending to the detention of offenders who may particularly once they are elderly pose no risk to the public. Surely we should be focusing the resources on the detention and prevention of offending as much as we are— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Boring! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I say to Sandra Goudie that I would much rather prevent the crime in the first place and prevent the creation of victims in the first place than have an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff to deal with criminal offenders once they have already committed their crimes. I would rather have fewer victims in the first place and Sandra Goudie seems to think that that is boring. I think that is an absolute disgrace and highlights National’s position. It is not interested in preventing crime in the first place. It is more interested in punishment and retribution after the fact which does nothing to make the community safer. Sandra Goudie thinks prevention is boring. I think that is absolutely disgraceful. It says it all about National’s approach. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Although this is a robust debate this continual screaming across the Chamber is unacceptable. I ask members to tone it down. Interjections should be rare and reasonable. I am happy with those but yelling across the Chamber is unacceptable. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I remind members that I am actually drawing from the regulatory impact statement on the Government’s own bill. This regulatory impact statement I think in this particular case has been prepared by the police. These are the concerns they are highlighting about the bill. I think many of them are very valid concerns they have been raising. 
Other concerns that have been raised about the bill are around the increased powers that it gives to the police as opposed to the judiciary. It places a lot more discretion with the police regarding prosecutorial decisions—who gets prosecuted and for what crimes—rather than leaving the discretion with the judiciary so that could potentially create some perverse outcomes. It could result in bargaining between police and the offender to lower the seriousness of the crime that is being prosecuted and I think that that would be wrong. That could lead to a worse outcome for the victims and a less safe community and that is something that should be taken into account. Again from the police’s regulatory impact statement regarding homicide this is a point put forward from the analysis of a number of leading studies of “three strikes” laws in the USA: there is evidence that these laws may have resulted in an increased rate of homicide. 
David Garrett 
: Rubbish! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I am not making that claim. That claim is in the regulatory impact statement to the Government’s bill so that is a Government department or a Government agency putting forward that argument not me. It argues that studies from the USA have concluded that the “three strikes” policy could have actually increased the rate of homicide. This bill could lead to unintended consequences. 
Both options are likely to result in fewer guilty pleas and that is something I am very concerned about; particularly at stage three or where life imprisonment without parole is to be imposed more appeals against individuals’ convictions and sentences can also be expected. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There is a convention in the Chamber that if members are going to interject they do not walk up and down the Chamber. They do not move around—they interject from their seat. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for that. The member is correct. When one is walking around within the Chamber one cannot speak at all and certainly cannot interject and make comments. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: The Attorney-General has raised concerns about the consistency of this current bill with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I will not go into those but will make a few concluding comments with regards to the position of victims. Of course I sympathise with the victims. Of course my heart goes out to them. Of course I would like to see a greater focus on the rights of victims. Of course I believe that there are some people who should be locked up and kept locked away for a very long time. I am interested in what we can do to reform the criminal justice system so that we have fewer people entering the prison system in the first place and to reduce the rate of violent offending in the first place rather than having the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. If any members have a constructive suggestion about how that could happen I am willing to engage in that debate wholeheartedly. I would much rather focus the emphasis of debate on how we prevent offending and on how we reduce the number of victims created in the first place rather than on how we punish the offenders after the fact. It would be much better. Victims deserve better than a punitive debate following becoming victims—I think they deserve better than that. They deserve for this Parliament to put all of its energy and all of its effort into preventing them from becoming victims in the first place. If we can prevent criminal offending we should do so. Unfortunately there is a real absence of any policies or any ideas coming forward about how we can do that. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 This will be a very brief call on Part 1 of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill which I suspect I will have to recommence after the dinner break. I will answer a couple of charges raised by Mr Garrett about the amendments that the Labour Party has put up. Mr Garrett alleged that somehow we were not expressing goodwill. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Before the dinner break I was speaking about the amendments that Labour had put forward mainly to clause 5. I was referring to some comments that Mr Garrett had made where basically in colloquial language he accused the Labour Party of not playing fair because we had not dropped down on bended knee crawled over to him and his ilk and provided him at an early stage with the amendments we were going to put forward. In mitigation for that accusation I will make a couple of points. One is that this Parliament over the last 18 months has been littered with whole pieces of legislation—some under the name of the Minister of Justice; one or two I think under the name of the Minister in the chair Ms Collins—that have been dropped on this Parliament with no notice. They were never seen by anybody in Parliament apart from the Minister in charge and Cabinet. 
The second point I make is that Mr Garrett is a lawyer and I am not yet I managed to work out some changes that I think need to be made. Mr Garrett sat on the Law and Order Committee; so did I and I and my colleagues worked out some changes that had to be made. Mr Garrett heard the submitters submit on these issues—they were learned people—and so did the folks on my side of the table and we managed to work it out. Part of the role of an Opposition apart from opposing where it feels it is appropriate is to propose solutions ideas and amendments. I am sure Mr Chair could quote me the Standing Orders that would provide a framework for Mr Garrett to tell him that this is called the Committee stage and this is where political parties and members of Parliament put forward amendments. I am sure that Mr Hide being a learned member of this Chamber would agree that it is not a requirement that people submit themselves on bended knee to the opposing party and present all the ideas. 
Mr Garrett is a member of the legal profession. He heard the same people that I did who had problems in respect of the manifestly unjust provisions on the third strike in clause 5 in respect of the suggestions about the exclusions of accidental or negligent manslaughter and issues about allowing guilty pleas to be a factor in sentencing as per our proposals for clause 5. Either he did not understand them and dismissed them or if as he claimed tonight before the dinner break he had had notice of them he would have somehow shown goodwill—and I will take him at his word—and he would have offered to look at them to see whether they should be incorporated in the legislation. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: It is just being petty if they’re— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No I disagree with my colleague. My colleague said that it is being petty; I understand why she would say that. But I say that if Mr Garrett is true to his own word he has an opportunity now to stand up to walk over to the Minister and to have a word in her ear and ask why they do not taihoa on this piece of legislation for a couple of days or maybe until next week so that he can look at the Opposition’s amendments. He will do that if he is true to the goodwill gesture that he proffered out of one side of his mouth before the dinner break. But I will take a bet with any member of Parliament—I will put $100 on it—that Mr Garrett will not do that because Mr Garrett wants to get the legislative notch on his belt. He is desperate to raise the flag on this one because this is a cause célèbre. 
If he is not prepared to go over to the Government and tell it to hang on as he said he would look at these ideas and consider what is appropriate and common-sense then that tells us that Mr Garrett wants this bill to go through in any form come hell or high water. Even if he sees some unjust problems with it and some solutions that we have provided he is not interested in them. That means that the last series of accusations from him—about us not coming over cap in hand giving him the amendments and bowing down before him as the “O Great One” the man who allegedly stands so much on the side of victims when no one else in this Chamber apparently does—are just words. He has an opportunity. He could stand up in this place tonight or his leader could—his leader is the senior man on deck tonight—and say that they will look at these amendments. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to reply to some of the statements made in this debate. First I think I will refer just to a matter that the member Chris Hipkins raised in relation to a regulatory impact statement that he said the police had made. I tell him that no it was the Ministry of Justice. It related to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill as first introduced to the House. In addition to that this bill has been significantly changed since it was first introduced. It is a far more reasonable and fair bill. It is much more tightly worded. 
There have been some personal attacks on members in this Chamber and I will not bother to deal with those. However I will talk about rehabilitation. I think there have been some comments made about how we should be doing more rehabilitation. That is exactly right. It is why we are doubling the amount of rehabilitation available in our prisons. For any members of the House who would like to come and see some of the rehabilitation being done for prisoners I am very happy to be able to help facilitate that through my office with the Department of Corrections because the Department of Corrections would love to be able to show off the rehabilitation that it does. Mr Garrett has certainly taken up that offer. Some other members have— 
Chris Hipkins 
: I visit them all the time. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Hipkins tells me that he visits all the time. I ask him whether he has seen some of the rehabilitation work—there is some excellent work being done. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It started years ago. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Of course Mrs Chadwick says that it started years ago. Yes it did and it continues. That is why we are doubling rehabilitation I say to Mrs Chadwick. We are happy to say that— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Good but it started— 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am glad she is saying that she is happy. Mr Cosgrove has dealt with some issues that he has put on a typescript amendment paper. I have had a look at those amendments but no we will not be supporting them for very good reason. It is nothing to do with him not coming cap in hand because frankly we would rather that he did not come cap in hand. We are very happy to have him come and talk to us but not cap in hand because the sight would be too bad and I do not think my stomach would be able to cope with it. 
The proposed amendment to clause 5 to amend new subsection 86D(2) would actually reduce the certainty of the penalty. That moves away from the fact that a stage three sentence is meant to be a very serious penalty in all cases because the offender is continuing to commit very serious offences that victimise people. It would reduce any deterrent force of the bill. If it is going to deter people from this sort of offending it needs to be very certain. 
The proposed amendment to clause 5 to amend new section 86A says that we should exclude accidental or negligent manslaughters. Well actually there is a degree of negligence required to establish liability for manslaughter as it is now. Mr Cosgrove has pointed out that he is not a lawyer and this is one of the issues that somebody could mistake. So I am sure he has just made a mistake there. 
The amendment to clause 5 amends new section 86D by introducing a discount of 25 percent for a guilty plea at stage three. Well this would reduce a 20-year sentence for sexual violation to one of 15 years. We are talking about a third-striker on an extremely serious offence. Despite everything that the Opposition has talked about tonight these people generally commit hundreds of crimes along the way to get to that and have had loads and loads of opportunities to reform. Mr Cosgrove would rather they got off lightly on their third offence if they want a 25 percent plea discount. 
Another of his amendments to clause 5 seeks to insert the words “resulting in a custodial sentence” after the words “(a) is a serious violent offence” to amend the definitions of “stage-1 offence” “stage-2 offence” and “stage-3 offence” in new section 86A instead of just a conviction. That goes back towards the bill as introduced. To change the conviction threshold was necessary otherwise we would probably never have anybody locked up under this from the third strike and Mr Cosgrove knows that. We are not prepared to buy into that. 
Then we have his amendment to clause 5 to amend new subsection 86C(4)(a) to authorise judges not to order a prison sentence at stage two to be served without eligibility for parole. I think that is basically the status quo now. We have campaigned very firmly on being able to remove parole for the worst repeat violent offenders. Parole is not a right it is a privilege. It is about time that people recognise that. Clearly the Opposition does not. It is very important to understand that when someone is on parole he or she has to be looked after by the Department of Corrections. The Department of Corrections will be the ones who have to try to look after parolees. For some of the violent recidivist offenders frankly it is just too unsafe for the community. I am not prepared to be the Minister who goes out and says that I cared more about trying to look after the prisoner than I cared about the victim. That is not the sort of Minister I am prepared to be. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I have not spoken on this part at all so I am looking forward to several calls and to contributing to this debate in a constructive way. 
I went and listened to two presentations given by two different people who have recently come from California to New Zealand. One was the judge from the court that has to administer the “three strikes” law and the other was Rev. Ron Givens. One thing that I thought was quite fascinating was the definition of the legislation as it is defined as “three strikes”. It was a point that I had not heard before. Of course that expression comes from America’s favourite game but it does not mean what it means when one is playing baseball. When playing baseball “three strikes” means that someone is out but can come back in the next round and that person could hit the home run that wins the game. But that is not what this bill is all about. It is not about people redeeming and rehabilitating themselves and contributing to society in a meaningful way. My real fundamental problem with this legislation is that it is a one-size-fits-all approach that uses populist slogans that do not mean anything. 
I have heard people talk about the experience in California in respect of the crime rate. In fact there are many other justifications for changes in crime rates. It was already going down before the “three strikes” law came into effect. One of the points they made was that the increase in violence against prison guards was exponential. When people do not have any chance of ever seeing the light of day again it becomes a more dangerous occupation. The other one which I had not thought of was violence to police if someone is sitting on two strikes with that third strike pending and he or she is about to be arrested. One example we were given was of an individual who was facing the third strike. In California the “three strikes” system is even more repressive than this particular regime because it applies to offences that are not that serious and it applies forever. If someone had a bad youth and went off the rails then later on in life committed that third strike he or she could face consequences that are way beyond what anyone else would face for that particular offence in any other set of circumstances. 
The other thing that I thought was fascinating and I have not been able to track this down yet but I will definitely have it available for my third reading contribution to this debate is that apparently a chief executive officer of one of the private prisons was quoted in  
Business Week 
 as saying that mandated sentencing—because that is what “three strikes” is; it takes away discretion from judges and tells judges that they can only do things a certain way—provided exciting growth opportunities in the private prison industry. I thought that was fascinating because National introduced the private prison industry to New Zealand. When we add the two together we start to see that this makes sense from a profit-making provision. It plays on people’s fears of being victimised. 
One of the examples given to us was of a 16-year-old who had stolen two cheques from his mother by forging her name which is cheque fraud. He had stolen two cheques so that is two counts and he was convicted on the two counts which were both felonies. Last year when he was 20 years old he went into a convenience store and stole a candy bar. He turned to the shop owner— 
David Garrett 
: What was his name? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Every time I get up to speak I am constantly asked to give names. I do not know the name of this person; it is an example of a case that was given to us in a presentation. The individual involved made a suggestion that that member contact him because he would love to have the debate directly with that member. 
David Garrett 
: I offered to debate him while he was here. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I do not think we are talking about the same person. Last year when he was 20 years old he went into a convenience store and stole a candy bar. He turned to the shop owner and said: “I’m going to kill you if you tell anyone I did this.” Of course he was arrested. His sentence was 25 years to life. He had stolen those two cheques from his mother then he stole a candy bar. 
He also made this point which I thought was very fascinating in light of the issues we deal with with constituents who have lost money in major scams and major white-collar crime. What is missing from the list of crimes? Bribery fraud pandering—all of the white-collar crimes are left out of this. This will fill our jails with young Maori men. That is the bottom line. 
In America when an analysis was done it was discovered that 36 percent of those in prison had an underlying mental illness—36 percent. That did not include those who had drug and alcohol issues that required treatment. When we think about what that might mean we start to think about the warehousing in our criminal justice system of prisoners with mental illness who require treatment instead of a more caring and understanding society. 
Every time we have this debate we are accused of being either soft or hard on crime. I do not think that that is the debate we should have. There are some people who are so dangerous they should be locked up for ever. I have no problems with that and I do not think anyone has any problems with that. All of the speakers who have come to this country to tell us not to go down this track have said that as well. There are some people who are criminal evil and unable to be rehabilitated. There is no hope for them. They should be catered for in a humane way and they should never be allowed to rejoin society. We all accept that but this says that on three separate occasions at any time in one’s life no matter the circumstances this is how the law will be applied in one’s case. It does not matter that a judge might have some discretion that would normally apply. We will take the judge’s discretion away and we will mandate a sentence regardless of the circumstances. That is the fundamental problem with this particular legislation. It does not deal with the real problem. 
The real problem can be dealt with by addressing those who commit serious crimes who cannot be rehabilitated. The effort has to go in at the front end as well so that we can do the early intervention work to make the difference. We on this side of the House have offered to work collaboratively with the Government on early intervention policy and we have not had a positive response. I would have thought that any Government would want to work with an Opposition in order to achieve those things to make the difference in the long term. We do not have to worry about beating on the law and order drum if we are serious about doing something that will make a difference in the long term. Unless we are prepared to look at early intervention early childhood education Child Youth and Family and all of those different areas— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: ACC sexual abuse counselling. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: We need to look at all of those things and at what some of those underlying causes are. This does not excuse the behaviour but if we do not understand what drives the behaviour how on earth will we do anything as a Parliament to stand up to the things that will make a difference in terms of reducing the numbers of victims of crimes? I think that would be preferable. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 86A in provision (19) in the definition of  
serious violent offence 
 “excluding accidental or negligent manslaughters” after “(manslaughter)”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 86A in the definitions of  
stage-1 offence 
  
stage-2 offence 
 and  
stage-3 offence 
 “resulting in a custodial sentence” after “(a) is a serious violent offence”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 86C(4)(a) “unless the Court is satisfied that given the circumstances of the offence and the offender it would be manifestly unjust to make the order” after “serve the sentence without parole”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 86D(2) “unless the Court is satisfied that given the circumstances of the offence and the offender it would be manifestly unjust to make the order”. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to add to section 86D the following new subsection: 
“(2A)Despite subsection (2) this section allows the court to reduce the sentence imposed by up to 25 percent to take into account the fact of a guilty plea.”  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 123 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Parole Act 2002 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I am very glad to see that Grant Robertson is with us. I thought there were a couple of good contributions from the other side of the Chamber: one was from Mr Robertson and one was from Mr Hipkins. Mr Hipkins made a fairly passionate contribution saying several times that the bill would not work. But Mr Robertson was honest enough to admit that crime has in fact dropped dramatically in California since 1994. He also observed quite correctly that the greatest decline in the US has been in New York. He also observed correctly that New York is not just— 
Chris Hipkins 
: It doesn’t have “three strikes”. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: The member should stifle himself for a second. Mr Robertson also observed that New York is not a “three strikes” state but what he did not say—and perhaps he does not know; I will assume that may be the case—is that New York has adopted what is known as zero-tolerance policing also known as Broken Windows and it has also taken a twofold approach: what is called the front end zero-tolerance policing and sentence enhancement. “Three strikes” is an example of a sentence-enhancing Act. New York state also has sentence enhancement but it is different from “three strikes”. [ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Robertson to do the research and he will find that that is correct. It is a fairly complicated system but in simple terms the first time—[ 
Interruption 
] I am sure Mr Robertson can do it. The first time the person is given a sentence. The second time if I have it correct the tariff as it is called in the trade is doubled. The third time it is tripled. I am pretty sure that is how it works roughly. It is no surprise really that New York has seen the greatest drop in crime across the US because it attacked the problem from both ends. What that has resulted in is New York City turning in 15 years from one of the most dangerous cities in the US as measured by homicides and attacks to one of the safest. 
It is also no coincidence that of the three states in the United States that have had the greatest reductions in crime New York is the top one closely followed by California closely followed by Georgia. Georgia and California are the two of the 26 US states that have “three strikes” laws that use them the most. I will try to put this case to Mr Hipkins and I hope he will give it a fair hearing. 
I am not afraid to say that I do not know for sure that this bill will have the dramatic effect that I believe the legislation has had in California because I am not God and I do not have a crystal ball. But let us look at it like this. Mr Robertson has been gracious enough to admit that there has in fact been a massive drop in crime in that state. That is interesting because the Rev. Givens—Ms Dalziel was trying to recall his name—is on record as saying: “We have seen no reduction in any category of crime whatsoever.” If the Rev. Givens was correctly quoted on TV3 I am sorry but there is only one conclusion and that is that he is lying. As Mr Robertson says it is a simple fact that the reduction has occurred. So how has this occurred? Why has there been this great reduction if it is not— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I refer you to a ruling that the Speaker made this afternoon in respect of a Minister who made a similar accusation but in less colourful language against an individual when he used the words I think “manufacturing” something. The Speaker ruled that out of order and I think it took two occasions to get the Minister to reword his reply. You have before you now an accusation against an individual outside this place who is accused of lying. I invite you to consider the Speaker’s ruling because he ruled this afternoon. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: My understanding would be—and the member raises an interesting point—that what is permissible in a question that a Minister has to answer or respond to is entirely different from what can occur in debate. That would be my interpretation. The member is correct in that the Speaker did say that today but this would not be the first time certainly in the Committee of the whole House that the kind of accusation that has just been levelled has been made. I am trying to recall any time in the past that a member has been pulled up in that context. It is a debating point and it is a rather robust one. The member ought to be quite conscious of what he is saying and he will be held to account for it outside this Chamber. That is the rule around that issue. Thank you— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have finished that point of order. Does the member have another one? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Yes I do. I would argue—and we will move on I am sure—that if you reflect on what Speaker Smith said this afternoon he was not confining his ruling to question time; he was making a more general ruling about a member of Parliament who makes an accusation. The one this afternoon was relatively mild compared with what we have heard just now. He was very clear that he felt that was grossly unparliamentary and he required the member to readjust his tone in what he was saying. I could be corrected but I do not recall the Speaker’s remarks being confined to a Minister in question time. I do not think he even alluded to that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will finish it with this point: the Speaker at the time was referring to questions and to supplementary questions that were being asked. This is a debating chamber and members who speak in here can be held to account by the media and the public for what they actually say. There is a difference in the state of the arena for what is occurring now compared with question time. The member ought to be conscious of his responsibility. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Mr Robertson has rightly acknowledged that the reduction has occurred so why did that happen? There has been a variety of explanations for the precipitate drop in crime. One of the most common of course is unemployment. Before I move off the point Ms Dalziel I think it was said that crime was already dropping prior to 1994. That is not correct and again it is simply a matter of fact that if one looks at the statistics in California one sees that violent crime peaked in 1993. That fact will become relevant in a second. The most common explanation for the drop is unemployment and economic conditions. That is clearly not so and I will say why. Obviously there have been fluctuations in California’s economy since 1994 as there have been all over the world. But the track has been consistently down all the time since 1994. The most recent data on unemployment in that state for the last quarter of 2009 shows that unemployment was 16 percent which is more than twice as high as it has ever reached in New Zealand. Violent crime is still tracking down. So much for that argument! 
One of the more colourful arguments has been the free availability of abortions after 1973. When one thinks about it at first it has some kind of logic. The logic is something like this: the poor people who are more likely to be criminal and produce criminals could after 1973 have abortions. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That was written in one book; it was just a suggestion. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: No it is argued a lot by the left. When one first hears it one thinks that it makes some kind of weird sense. But then it has a major hole in it. As any member opposite with any knowledge of criminology would be aware the prime crime-committing years are late teens to late 20s. So if that theory were correct we should have seen a massive plummet in crime about 20 years after 1973. Instead as I have said crime peaked in the state of California in 1993. So not only was there no decline; the exact opposite of what that theory predicts happened. 
We will switch away from law because it is unfair to Mr Cosgrove who does not have a law degree and we will talk the language of psychology. What psychologists say is that one changes something in an experiment—they call that the independent variable—and then the thing one measures is the dependent variable. In that way one finds out whether the independent variable whether it be electric shocks or rewards of food changes behaviour. The only independent variable that I am aware of— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will give a further call to Mr Garrett but I remind him that we are on Part 2 and he should focus on that. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I have almost finished Mr Chair. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: We are very happy for this. We want it on the record. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: That is fine. The only independent variable that I am aware of that altered not just in California but right across the US in the early 1990s was a U-turn and a focus on zero-tolerance policing and/or sentence enhancement. So until someone comes up with a better theory than unemployment or ready availability of abortions—or perhaps the phases of the sun—or suggests something better then logic suggests to me that this is probably the cause. I stand proved to be wrong. No one really knows and will not know for 6 to 10 years. As Mr Cosgrove said I have been rather surprised to hear predictions that the first third-striker will be up in 5 to 7 years. So it will take at least that long for us to know. But logic tells me that in the absence of a better explanation the change of direction in California and other states is the reason. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I have a couple of points before I go on to Part 2 of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. I too have read the theory about abortion that comes from a book called  
Freakonomics 
. That shows where the ACT Party gets the basis of its policy and its ideas does it not? I think the name of the book is very apt when it comes to that party. 
The second point I make is there is enough evidence round the world to show that crime goes down as unemployment decreases. I will tell members why. 
David Garrett 
: Didn’t go down here. We had full employment in 2006. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Garrett should take his own advice and pull his head in. He was good enough to tell one of my colleagues to do that. He should breathe through his nose as a member once said. 
A contributing factor to crime decreasing is employment. I think that might be logical. If a person has a job and earns money he or she is less likely to jump through somebody’s window and steal a stereo or mug somebody for money or to get food or do another crime. There might be a sort of tangible logic to that. I did not read that in  
Freakonomics 
. 
I will tell members what is logical—and I refer to Part 2 because I would hate to transgress your authority Mr Chairperson. If we look at this bill we see that the most damning indictment on it comes from the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections the Hon Judith Collins who sits in the chair. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: It’s a bill. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes the member is right it is a bill; I thank Mr Finlayson. On 16 December 2009 in a Cabinet paper from the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections entitled  
Changes to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill 
 the Ministry of Justice noted the following: “… the deterrence effect of the three stage regime is uncertain. The proposals will add substantial direct costs to the justice system without creating any significantly improved outcomes in terms of reducing the drivers of crime improving social outcomes or”—if you do not care about any of that—“reducing reoffending and victimisation.” That is what it says. That quote comes directly from a Cabinet paper via the Minister of Police and of Corrections. 
The Ministry of Justice was not allowed to participate in the amended bill. While Mr Garrett quoted  
Freakonomics 
 and other mystical naysayers around the place for his logic I quoted the Minister’s own Cabinet paper. It is the most damning indictment on the bill itself because they are her officials it is her Cabinet paper and she took this bill over from the Ministry of Justice and the Minister of Justice. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: He wouldn’t touch it with a bargepole. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well he may not have touched it with a bargepole; that says more about him. The Ministry of Justice has been prevented from participating in the amended bill but let us be clear that this is a justice bill. I asked senior police officers in the Law and Order Committee what would happen if we did a review of this bill in some years’ time because presumably they the police as lead advisers on the bill would be the people to do it. They said no they were not equipped to do that. They said the Ministry of Justice were the ones who would have to do it. That is what they said. 
We can bandy statistics around any way we like. We can quote from that book and other psychedelic texts or we can quote from the Cabinet paper that was submitted under the Minister’s name. I will read it again for the record: “… the deterrence effect of the three stage regime is uncertain. The proposals will add substantial direct costs to the justice system without creating any significantly improved outcomes in terms of reducing the drivers of crime improving social outcomes or reducing reoffending and victimisation.” I would have thought that reducing reoffending and victimisation is what we are about here—that is what I would have thought. If the Minister’s own corrections department says that it is doubtful and it has assumed that this legislation does not have a deterrent value at all then I say we have a problem here. 
The arguments that were put forward by this side in respect of Part 1 of the bill are the same in respect of Part 2. We do not believe it will deter crime. We do not believe that this bill will work. The Minister in her own flippant way did not give an analysis of the amendments in Part 1. She said National members were not supporting our amendments because they did not want the Opposition coming to them with any ideas. Mr Garrett said he wanted an advance copy to read in between chapters of  
Freakonomics 
 and the Minister said they did not want the Opposition to come with any amendments or any ideas at all. They are not prepared to listen. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Some statements made by the member resuming his seat Clayton Cosgrove are frankly less than correct. He referred to a Cabinet paper submitted in my name as Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections and he referred to the consultation process for this bill and the amendments. Of course what he was commenting on were not comments from my department as he referred to it but from the Ministry of Justice. Of course in the commentary we have comment on the consultation with Te Puni Kokiri—he could have quoted that—as well as the Ministry of Justice’s comment Treasury’s comment and finance notifications. 
Unfortunately Mr Cosgrove has been yet again caught out being not quite correct in what he says. The last time I looked the Hon Simon Power was the Minister of Justice not me. I am the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections. I am sorry to have to say that Mr Cosgrove needs to reread the paper. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The justice ministry the key agency doesn’t agree with it. What would they know? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The other point he talked about was the deterrence factor in relation to the Department of Corrections. Mr Cosgrove does not like to hear it and he likes to shout out and bellow but I think he should just listen. He talked about how an effect of no deterrence was assumed in the work by the Department of Corrections on this legislation. Actually the department assumed no deterrence only in relation to its calculations on the numbers of bunks or beds that would be needed for prisons. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That’s spin. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Cosgrove does not like the truth and he likes to call it spin but no it is correct. Mr Cosgrove should know better because he used to be a Cabinet Minister. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: No! 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It was not that long ago that he had Cabinet papers. Mr Hide says “No!” but I say yes he was. I remember that he was in fact a Cabinet Minister. 
It is very hard for him. He has obviously forgotten the whole process around Cabinet papers. He has quite clearly forgotten the fact that when it says “consultation” that means under this Government that we actually consult. Not only do we consult but we actually put down the details of the consultation. Even when I do not agree with some of the comments made by some other ministries I am still happy to have those comments—even though I do not agree with them—in the paper. That is what a robust Cabinet Minister does. Obviously when that member was a Cabinet Minister he did not want to have any consultation that did not agree with what he wanted. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: He just did what Helen said. He was Helen’s boyfriend. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: He was very close to Miss Clark as Mr Hide states—very close. 
If Mr Cosgrove really wants to debate those issues he has had a lot of time in the select committee to do so. This bill has spent a year in the select committee. Mrs Goudie has given it a very good process there. In fact the only person I hear complaining about Mrs Goudie’s chairing of the committee is Mr Cosgrove. Mr Cosgrove clearly missed most of the committee meetings; otherwise he might have known that the New Zealand Police is not the Ministry of Justice. They are different under this Government. One is the Police and one is the Ministry of Justice. 
Even though we did not accept everything the Ministry of Justice stated we still put its comments in because that is what one does in Cabinet. I know that Mr Cosgrove’s memory is not too good but really perhaps he could just stick to the facts and stop trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes in this Chamber—or perhaps he just has a bad memory. 
Part 2 deals with parole. Frankly parole is a privilege not a right and it is about time recidivist violent offenders understood that. When recidivist violent offenders who will not be rehabilitated are out on parole unfortunately the public is more at risk not because of the good work of the Department of Corrections but because of those offenders and their choices. I know that Labour members do not like talking about victims or to victims because they pull on their emotional strings but it is about time they got in touch with the real people in this country as they like to think that they already are. 
I commend this part to the Committee. I think it is very realistic. It puts very simply what needs to happen with some of the changes in parole. I understand that some people who have spent a lifetime defending the rights of criminals may find it unpalatable but quite frankly it is about time someone cared for victims. I congratulate the ACT Party on bringing this bill to the House. I think it is a fantastic bill and I am very proud to be the Minister in charge of it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I am astounded by that contribution for two reasons. The first is that the Minister perhaps cannot read. This bill is actually in her name but in relation to the report from the select committee she said that I had not quoted the Ministry of Justice. Well I will quote the minority report: “the Ministry of Justice has noted:”. That is in the report in the bill and the quotation is in the name of the Ministry of Justice. So the Minister is ignoring the ministry she barred from the select committee process the ministry whose core functionality is to administer this legislation—because the bill is not a corrections bill nor a police bill; it is a justice bill. 
We have noted in the minority report that the key Crown agency—and this is why the Minister of Justice did not want a bar of the bill—has stated that the bill will not work. It is not the business of the police or of the Department of Corrections; the justice ministry is the key Crown agency that has to administer justice bills. I will even give the Minister the page with the quotation. It is page 14 in the commentary and she will see that the quotation is attributed to the Ministry of Justice. 
So why is she standing up but not giving us a contribution of substance or going through the analysis? She has not even bothered to go through the analysis in this Committee stage on Part 2 yet she has got up and lambasted me and she has tried to twist words to say that I quoted her the police or the Department of Corrections. No no I quoted from the Cabinet paper that went through her and was signed off and is now quoted as being from the Ministry of Justice in the commentary on the bill. 
The ministry may not be her ministry but this is her bill and she is responsible for it. But the key agency has not been allowed to participate in it. I would like the Minister to tell me what key agency when changes were made at the eleventh hour to this bill was not allowed—in fact was specifically barred—from appearing at the select committee. Members of the select committee asked for Ministry of Justice staff to appear as advisers even just to sit in the room and maybe contribute to the last stage of the bill. But oh no they were completely blocked under instruction. There are other bills some of which I cannot talk about where that has occurred as well. I cannot talk about them yet. 
But why would anyone bar the key administrative agency—the police will not administer this legislation and corrections will not administer it; it will be administered by the Ministry of Justice—from submitting and from advising members without fear or favour? Well the answer is on page 14 of this bar 2 bill. The Ministry of Justice was not wanted. I understand Simon Power’s dilemma. He wanted to back out of this and he did not want his own ministry being put up and having to tell the truth—to say that it would not have a bar of this bill and that it would not work. I repeat the words that are quoted from the ministry which state that the bill will have a nominal effect in “reducing reoffending or victimisation.” 
The Minister got up and did what I predicted earlier today. Instead of having a logical debate—no no—she said that members on this side of the Chamber defend criminals. I say to her that she is a lawyer; I am not. If we say we are opposed to this legislation because it has no logic and because it will not work the best that the Minister can do is throw around an insult that says if Labour members are opposed to this bill it means that we always defend criminals. I had a text from somebody tonight that made the same accusation—an ill-informed accusation. 
I will show enough goodwill as I did this afternoon to say that I expect there is not one person in this Chamber in any part of the Committee who would defend criminal activity. I expect that every member in this Chamber of whatever political colour would stand beside victims. We may disagree on how to help them and we may disagree on how we deal with prisoners but I expect that everybody even Mr Garrett would say that everybody in this Committee stands on the side of victims. 
So the sort of smirky Shirley Temple - type smarmy insult that is thrown around by that Minister which says that if we are against something and if we have an argument of substance because we believe that the bill will not work then somehow we are defending criminals is the best this Minister can do. She has not even got up and gone through the part clause by clause. At least Simon Power or Chris Finlayson would do that. Chris Finlayson has come to the Chamber with regard to other Ministers’ bills to patch them up and has had the decency to go through them give us the analysis and his arguments and acknowledge points but not this Minister. The best she can do is to get up— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: I did too. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —thanks mate—and say that the Labour Party defends criminals or the Green Party defends criminals. Well if it has come down to that—and we always thought it would—I think that in a few years we will look back in  
Hansard 
 and some people in this Chamber will be ashamed of the comments they made in this debate. 
This is the Minister of course who never comments on anything when it goes wrong but is always happy to comment with her departments when things go right. It is always an “operational matter” when it goes wrong. She would not comment to the media on vehicle crime tonight—the resolution rates being so low—because it was an operational matter. She will not comment on other matters of critical substance but if things go OK oh yes then Judith Collins is front and centre in taking the credit. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 That was an amazing contribution from Clayton Cosgrove the member who has just resumed his seat. He quoted as his authority for his rather ridiculous statements page 14 of the bill. I have to say that page 14 is written by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove; it is his own statement in his minority report for the bill. He says that that is the authority for his ridiculous statements which I have just proven quite wrong. There is a thing known by some sort of phrase but we will not use it because it is probably unparliamentary. But to quote oneself as an authority for a statement— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There is a very clear ruling about misrepresentations. The quote from the bill is not from me; it is from a Cabinet paper contained within a minority report. Those are not my words; they are quoted from a Cabinet paper. That member is misrepresenting the position and she knows it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure that that is a point of order. The Minister will continue. The member still has further calls where he can rebut; this is a debate. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I think it is very important that when one is quoting a Cabinet paper to quote it in context and state exactly what it is. When one says that there is a Ministry of Justice statement that is fine; there is a Ministry of Justice statement. But the member should not come to the Chamber and say therefore that it is my department saying it. It is not; it is the Ministry of Justice. He should be absolutely straightforward with the Committee and not get down to that sort of nonsense. [ 
Interruption 
] Those members opposite obviously do not like to hear that because they are bellowing away. 
Another thing the member dealt with was an issue of—[ 
Interruption 
] No he did not want to talk about parole. He was saying that no Labour members were not soft on crime which is good to hear because they have just had 9 years to prove it but we have not noticed that much of a drop in crime after 9 years of Labour Government. I did notice though that they left us with not enough prison cells for prisoners. They knew what the forecast was but they did not bother to house the extra prisoners. Labour members did not put the extra funding into parole so that parole provisions could be dealt with properly. Instead they left the Department of Corrections in an utter mess mostly around their lack of funding. One of the first things we had to do— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thought the Minister was responding to Part 2 of the bill before the Committee rather than to the previous 9 years. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That’s fair enough. You made the ruling actually Mr Assistant Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I did. The Minister is not the first person to transgress that tonight but she may be transgressing it a little more broadly than some other people have. I think it is a timely reminder. I was actually just starting to look up the bill to see what Part 2 said. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Part 2 is all about parole so I think that it is very important to talk about the fact that we need to have proper resourcing for parole because otherwise as under the previous Minister Phil Goff all sorts of people are stuck on parole and into community service but without the resourcing. If someone does that unfortunately we will have more problems with parole. But I am very confident that the parole provisions in this bill are sensible. They are very clear and it is very important to understand that when we are dealing with violent recidivist offenders they need to know that there are boundaries and that parole is not a right under this administration; it is a privilege. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Parole has always been a privilege and it has a very important function: it enables the reintegration into society of those who are to be reintegrated in a supervised and managed way. There are always pressures and I thought it would be worthwhile quoting the pressures there are in the Californian system as that seems to be what we are modelling our new laws on. 
In California 70 percent of people released on parole will return within 3 years to the prison system and 90 percent of those will have breached their parole even if the breach was technical and that breach will take them back to prison. It has nothing to do with whether the particular breach would have attracted a prison sentence; it concerns just a breach of parole. An example that has been given is of somebody who was told not to drink while on parole. An officer turned up at home to find the person drinking so that person went back to prison. Drinking was not an offence in any other respect but not to drink was a condition of the parole. 
In California there is one parole officer for every 1000 people on parole. And that is the system we want to emulate! In California the Department of Finance spends 17.4 percent of its budget on corrections and rehabilitation. Do members know what the education budget is? It is 0.8 percent. I do not know why we think this is just such an amazing idea. I think we have to listen to what we are being told about how it will work in practice. 
The one issue that nobody has responded to yet is how we have chosen this particular range of offences. I am really really happy that Mr Madoff was sentenced to 150 years’— 
Grant Robertson 
: Bernie! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —that Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years’ imprisonment. His crime was motivated by greed. It was deliberate. He did not get drunk and accidentally remove a whole lot of money out of people’s back pockets. How does the fact that he did not do it with a gun a knife or the threat of physical injury mean that he is better than somebody who was addicted to drugs or somebody who ended up in a situation where he acted on the spur of the moment and did not think things through? A lot of the crimes we are talking about in the violence space are not premeditated. Often they are crimes that occur because of the circumstances in which people find themselves. Bernie Madoff did not find himself in a situation where he could rip millions and millions of dollars off innocent friends—they are no longer his friends—but the reality is that we say that his crimes are different from those described in this bill. 
Let us look at the range of crimes. What about sexual harassment? We know about sexual harassment. It is incredibly damaging particularly for young vulnerable women who meet older men who are in a position of power. For example someone may come to Parliament as a student as part of a student group and they may be told by their tutor not to complain about the MP who sexually harassed them because if they do the group will end up in a situation where the visits to Wellington will have to be cancelled and that is not wanted. So the student should just “suck it up” and put it to one side and the group will try to avoid that particular MP. Would Mr Garrett like me to name him? 
The point I make is that we are being selective about the range of offences. We have to think very very seriously about white-collar crime in the context of where deterrence works. I do not know why members of the Government do not get this point. If we want to operate a system that deters serious crime then we should put the deterrent where it will work. We should put it where people are very clear about the choice they are making in terms of the crime they are committing and its relationship to the risk of getting caught and the consequences of getting caught should they be convicted of the offence. That is what white-collar crime is all about. If we really wanted to do something about deterrence we would have an appropriate range of offences and mechanisms for enforcing deterrence activities in place. 
I will pick up on the point that was made about the quote from the report back of the Law and Order Committee. I am quoting from the minority report but the specific quote that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove referred to was an extract from the Cabinet paper so there is no issue in respect of what the Minister said in her most recent contribution. When the Department of Corrections was reporting on prison bed forecasts it said: “… there is an implicit assumption that the Bill will have no deterrent impact.” 
If the Minister’s own department thinks that there is an “implicit assumption” I cannot understand why the Minister would argue that her own department is not taking that particular point of view. Is the Minister denying that it was a genuine quote? Well perhaps we could have the entire quote because I cannot see anything other than the very clear statement that there is an implicit assumption that the bill will have no deterrent impact. I guess that relates to the fact that it is not budgeting for an increase in bed numbers and I assume the Minister will address that issue when she next addresses the Committee. 
The other thing I want to come back to is this whole question of the discretion that sits with the judges. In this particular case because it is the provision that deals with parole it is the question of the ability of the Parole Board to look at individual cases. Of course the discretion is taken away from judges. 
What I have not heard the Minister respond to and I think these are probably the two most serious issues—and they were raised by Rev. Ron Givens when he was here—is the danger to prison officers and the danger to police officers. It is clear that the fact that more people are desperate to escape the third-strike conviction has resulted in more police officers being killed. It has. The Minister can shake her head but perhaps she would like to respond to that issue because it is shown in the evidence that has been given to us. 
The other issue is the question of prison officers. If somebody is never going to get out of prison what on earth does that do to their mental well-being? The point made to us was that a significant percentage of people already have mental illness when they go into prison but for those who know there is no hope no ability for redemption and no capacity to rejoin the community no matter what changes they make to their lives what on earth is the incentive to sit down and address those underlying issues? It seems to me that that is something the Minister has not taken into account and it is putting more and more corrections officers at risk which is a tragedy that we could avoid. It is the same with police officers. In every single jurisdiction where legislation like this has been introduced people are desperately trying to avoid being arrested for that third strike. 
We also have the situation where people are essentially ground down into a state of mental illness that prevents them from participating in anything within the prison context. Essentially they become even more violent and create a greater risk for those who are supposedly looking after people in a humane containment environment within our prison system. I think that is probably the most serious matter that the Minister has not addressed at all in any part of the debate. The risks are serious they ought to be taken seriously by her and she ought to respond to those issues as they have been raised. 
I think that the issues concerning the general sentencing capacity are politicising justice by taking discretion away from the judges. It is politicising a system of parole that is about reintegration. How are people supposed to be reintegrated if parole is removed from the second-strike situation as we have had described in relation to the bill? I would really like the Minister to respond to those issues. They are serious and a lot of people are asking questions about them. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 This is a very important debate and the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is a very serious bill about parole. Some of the points that the Opposition raised I can agree with; we have a problem in New Zealand and we need to think about the causes of crime and the sorts of lives that young people are leading that destine them to a tragic life of crime. We will not deal with that problem by just ever-tougher sentencing. I think we all acknowledge that. But I think members also acknowledge that when people do commit a violent crime they need to be punished for that crime. Again I think there is agreement across the House about that. 
We also know that there has been ongoing and grave concern among the public—and it is easy to understand why—about some very nasty criminals who commit a heinous crime against people are released commit another heinous crime against a totally innocent person are put away come out then commit another heinous crime. The victims and their families are asking why those people keep being let loose on law-abiding New Zealanders. On this side of the House—in the ACT Party and the National Party—we actually agree with them and we say: “Quite.” 
We also want to send a message to criminal offenders that repeat criminal offending will not be tolerated. That is the whole point of warning first offenders that they are on their first strike. Telling them that they are on their first strike sends a powerful message because what are they going to do? They will go away to serve their time they will be eligible for parole and they will be thinking about it. Are they going to come out commit a crime again and get a second strike? Well if they are vaguely rational I do not think they will want a second strike because when they get a second strike there will be no parole. And if they get a second strike they are in danger of getting a third strike. Members should understand that this is not about the young guy who absentmindedly steals a candy bar; this is about people who commit violent crimes against other people. And it is not the first time; it is the second time and the third time. 
What this side of the House is saying is let us send a message. Offenders will be told that they are on their first strike and they will be given a warning. Does it not make sense that young people then will think not to offend again because the punishment will escalate? There are sad people— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You believe this? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Well Lianne Dalziel does not believe this but I can understand that because I have got to know Lianne Dalziel and her attitude to justice. And while I admire her attitude to justice in many respects I have to say that Lianne Dalziel is out to lunch—that is all I can say. Listening to her contribution shocked me. I wonder where she has been living to understand the criminal— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Christchurch! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Christchurch! The second thing is that if people commit a second offence they will get a second strike and no parole because as the Minister of Corrections pointed out parole is not a right. It is not a right. People who commit a third offence should be locked up and should be put away because they are a menace to society. Lianne Dalziel knows that some of the people who are locked up now are not going to come out and we seem to be coping. 
The No. 1 responsibility of Parliament and of any Government is to keep the people safe and that is why this side of the House is supporting this legislation. I am sorry that someone of the stature of Lianne Dalziel has come to this House to oppose this bill and has quoted spurious arguments from California and odd statements about “implicit assumptions”. What does an implicit assumption prove? It simply proves that it is an implicit assumption. It is nothing to do with the facts and nothing to do with logic. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I wanted to take this call soon after the Minister of Corrections resumed her seat because Rodney Hide talked at the beginning of his speech about the things that have been shared in this Committee and I had talked about that in an earlier contribution in this debate. We all share the horrendous stories of victims of crime and many of us have worked with victims. Even in my short time as an MP I have done that. We also share concerns about reoffending. I can share that with Rodney Hide. 
But then I heard the Minister stand up and criticise members on this side of the Chamber as being people who had spent a lifetime defending criminals. It is very difficult to have respect for the Minister and for this legislation when she puts out statements like that. Mr Hide did not do that at the beginning of his statement and I give him credit for that. He talked about what was shared across this Chamber. But the Minister’s comment was disgraceful. She should be ashamed to sit there and make that kind of comment. 
Her smug performance this evening does nothing for the victims of crime. Her performance and the performance of the National Government this evening have done nothing to reassure New Zealanders that this bill is about public safety and not political slogans. We have heard nothing of substance from National members. I give credit to Mr Garrett in this debate. He has provided substantive contributions on why he believes in this bill. We have not heard that from the National members. 
I believe that part of the reason is that National members do not support this bill. I know that members of the National Government do not support this bill. Many of them do not support it because they know that the advice from people like the officials from the Ministry of Justice who are the main policy advisers on these matters goes against this bill. Ms Collins got up earlier and attempted to try to obfuscate about that and to say that the advice was not from the Department of Corrections or from the police. 
The comments that were read out in this Chamber were from the Government’s chief advisers on justice issues and they stated that the proposed policy changes were unlikely to be consistent with the Government’s publicly announced policy in relation to the drivers of crime. The Ministry of Justice view was: “… the deterrence effect of the three stage regime is uncertain. The proposals will add … costs … without creating any significantly improved outcomes in terms of reducing the drivers of crimes improving social outcomes or reducing reoffending and victimisation.” In other words the Ministry of Justice was saying that the bill will not work. 
In Part 2 we are looking at the parole aspects of the legislation. We have heard from the Minister a number of times that parole is not a right; it is a privilege. That is what the Parole Act states today. Nothing is changing. That is what the Parole Act states today. 
The Minister has made comments about where Labour was on this matter. Labour Governments toughened parole rules. The Minister does not want to acknowledge that because it suits her political sloganeering to say that we were not tough on parole but we were. Parole is not a right; it is a privilege. That does not change. If we want to improve the way that parole operates let us strengthen the Parole Board and let us look at the mandate of the Parole Board. These changes are not about suddenly changing parole from being a privilege to being a right. That is pure and simple spin. 
My main concern about parole and the taking away of parole is about the safety of our prison officers safety in prisons and the safety of our police. Without the hope of parole we risk further attacks on prison officers and on police. I have spoken to a number of people who have visited people in prisons. I have spent time visiting people in prisons as well. There is one thing that prisoners need in order to be able to behave well and that is hope. They have to have some hope. Prisoners have very little else. If they do not have hope their behaviour will deteriorate and we will see more attacks in our prisons. 
If we are really serious about this issue we need to look at the drivers of crime. We need to make sure that people are not getting into this position. Instead of that what we have seen from this Government is simple sloganeering and cheap shots from the Minister tonight rather than—[ 
Interruption 
] They were cheap shots I say to the Minister. I ask whether it is not a cheap shot to say that Labour members have spent a lifetime defending criminals. That is what the Minister said. That is a cheap shot. We deserve better in this Chamber. The laws that are coming forward as sloganeering— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Labour’s soft on crime. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Labour has a proud record of addressing the causes of crime and of strengthening laws on crime I say to Mrs Goudie but this bill is about simple sloganeering. It will not work. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I have a few things to say to Grant Robertson who has just resumed his seat. It is a long way from central Wellington to the streets of South Auckland. I am sorry for that member that he lives in a world where he does not understand that the people who suffer most from violent crime are the poorest members of this country. They are the people who do not get a choice about where they live. 
The member can stand there and say that this legislation is just about electioneering and campaigning but no it is not actually. It is about the day-to-day life of people like Rita Croskery people who have to go in year after year to the Parole Board to try to stop people like the killers of her son from getting out of jail free. That is what parole means for a lot of the victims of crime. That is what it means. 
When Mr Robertson says that someone who has committed a serious violent offence should get parole because they need something to live for well I say that the member should go and say that to Mrs Croskery. Go and tell that to the victims of crime I say to Mr Robertson. They need something to live for too. 
One of the things that Labour has said is that if a prisoner is paroled he or she will not commit a crime. Well that is not true at all. In fact we see a lot of people who misuse parole in order to get what they want which may be more violent crime against innocent people. 
Grant Robertson 
: So is the Minister going to abolish parole entirely? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Robertson wants us to abolish parole entirely. I will not do that. I do not think that is right. Besides the Minister of Justice would be in charge of that. We will not do that. 
Grant Robertson 
: I thought it didn’t work. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: For some people I say to Mr Robertson parole does not work; for a lot of people it does. That is the point of this bill. It is not about people who steal a muesli bar a chocolate bar or a loaf of bread; this bill is about people who kill who maim who shoot people and who rape people—why should they get three chances to destroy someone’s life? It is simply not good enough I say to Mr Robertson. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I will start this contribution by acknowledging Mr Cosgrove who said earlier that he believes that no one in this Chamber would not be on the side of victims. I put on the record that I believe that. I do not believe that Mr Robertson or Mr Hipkins or Mr Cosgrove for that matter are unsympathetic to victims. So that is the spirit in which I am standing and I thank Mr Robertson for his gracious acknowledgment of the sincerity of my belief that lies behind the bill. 
I will talk briefly about deterrence which with the greatest respect I do not think the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Collins explained as well as she might have. Members on the other side of the Chamber have used the statements in the commentary that state that no deterrence has been calculated or predicted. I am sure members on the other side of the Chamber know—perhaps Mr Robertson does not know because he did not sit on the Law and Order Committee—that the predictions of bed numbers arose when the Department of Corrections put through a computer model of offender statistics for the last 30 years. 
In that model the department inserted the “three strikes” legislation as it is now. It ran the hundreds of thousands of offender statistics through the model as if there had been a “three strikes” bill then extrapolated that forward assuming that those statistics would continue for the next 50 years. That is where those bed numbers come from: 140 over 10 years 288 over 20 years and 725 over 50 years. I will not make any points in this contribution about distortion of numbers because that is not what I stood to say. 
The fact that no deterrent is assumed is because we simply cannot do so. What would be the point in putting into the model an assumed deterrent effect of 10 percent 20 percent or 30 percent? It would simply be a guess and it would be dishonest. It would be absolutely utterly dishonest. That really would be spin. The only thing we can do which is what we have done is to look at statistics from 30 years ago run them through the model with “three strikes” legislation and see what numbers are spat out. 
But I want to talk about parole which is what this part is about. There has been lots of talk about parole and the point made by members on the other side of the Chamber has been made well. The Sentencing Act does indeed make it clear in one subsection at least that parole is a privilege and not a right. I remind the Committee that two of the most heinous crimes in this country were committed by parolees. I refer to William Bell and Graeme Burton. I think it is worth reminding the Committee of the circumstances that occurred with both of them. 
William Bell had 102 previous convictions. He was paroled for badly beating a service station attendant. The service station attendant went and hid in the toilet. He had given Bell the money but because Bell is a psychopath he wanted to see blood. The guy barricaded himself in the toilet. Bell busted in the door and beat the you know what out of him severely injuring him. That was the crime for which William Bell was paroled in 2001. 
When he showed up at the probation service office in Mangere he was assigned to an inexperienced young female probation officer. He walked into the office. She handed over to him his special conditions. He laughed rolled the conditions into a ball threw them at her head and left. Within months he had killed three people at the Mount Wellington - Panmure Returned Services Association and damn near killed a fourth. He had no intention of letting Susan Couch survive. She is maimed beyond belief. I will not discuss her medical condition in the Chamber but I know about it. Bell walked in there undisguised. He had been working there for 3 months so everyone knew him. The only reason someone goes undisguised to a place where they have been working and will be identified is if they do not plan to leave anyone alive. So William Bell is one parolee. 
Graeme Burton is also a psychopath. In Wellington in 1992 he walked into a nightclub and decided to attack some poor inoffensive chap—a fairly slight guy I believe. Burton did not like the look of him or had been given the wrong kind of look and stabbed him with such violence that the knife came out his back. Burton being a huge man lifted the guy off the ground. That was Burton’s crime and he went to jail for it. 
What Burton did was even more sinister than Bell: he got hold effectively of the answer book. He had had interviews with psychologists. He is an intelligent man. I have met him—through a steel grill. He got hold of the answer book so that he could fake empathy. He knew what to say when he was asked how he felt about a picture about a certain situation or about his emotions. He knew what to say and he fooled the Parole Board. He got out and killed Karl Kuchenbecker and damn near killed two other people as well. So there are two failures of parole. 
We make no bones about the fact that the “three strikes” system has steps. I remind the Committee again: step one implements no change from what is already in place. Someone convicted of aggravated robbery the day after this bill is passed will be treated no differently from today except that they will get a formal warning on their file. They will be eligible for parole under the Sentencing Act 2002. It is fair to say that they probably will not get it first time but they will get out under parole and they certainly will not serve their full sentence. 
At step two there is no parole. We make no bones about that. It is a jump from the first step to the second step. We take away that privilege. Members on the other side of the Chamber have agreed that parole is a privilege. That privilege is removed at the second step. 
People have said that it is a disproportionate sentence and they are right. It is deliberate. That is the point they miss. It is deliberately disproportionate because it is the second time. If people offend again they get the maximum and that is disproportionate. A third-time offender committing aggravated robbery gets a certain sentence. A second-time offender committing aggravated robbery gets another sentence. A first-time offender committing aggravated robbery gets another sentence. It is deliberate. That is the point. It is disproportionate because offenders keep on offending do not learn and do not change their ways. As Mr Hide has said eventually at that point they have to be locked up to protect society. 
But it is not forever. The 25-year-to-life sentence that we unashamedly promoted has gone and instead we have the maximum sentence prescribed by Parliament in 1961 when it passed the Crimes Act 1961 and set the penalties. It was a bit simpler in those days. Parliament did not have a whole pile of Acts. It is all in the Crimes Act. Parliament said the maximum penalty for aggravated robbery should be 14 years. I challenge Mr Hipkins to find someone who has received anything like a 14 year sentence in the past 20 years. He will look in vain. The Crimes Act says that the penalty for rape is 20 years. I challenge members to find a rapist who has received anything like a 20 year sentence in the last 20 years. Members will look in vain. 
So this is an unashamedly disproportionate form of sanction. At the first step an offender receives one sentence; the next step is much worse; and the third step is much worse than that. That is the point. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I have listened quite carefully to the debate—and in particular to the support for this bill tonight—as I have in earlier debates and have endeavoured to understand why anyone could think that this bill is a good idea and will achieve its stated purpose to make our communities and our people safer. I see nothing in this bill. It is completely contrary to any evidence anywhere in the world to suggest that a regime like that proposed in this bill will make our people—our communities and our public—safer. 
We have heard a lot about statistics and numbers particularly from Mr Garrett earlier. It seems that he is making the classic mistake in interpreting research of confusing correlation with causation. The fact that two things happen at more or less the same time does not suggest that one is causing the other. 
David Garrett 
: No I said I’m not sure because I’m not a socialist and I’m not God; I’m not sure. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: Dear me! I do wish that Mr Garrett would find a new insult because that one is getting positively boring. We have heard a great deal about numbers and clearly from that side of the Chamber there is a preference for arguments that can be reduced to a cost-benefit analysis. Those members give us numbers and statistics putting aside for a minute that social values are very much more difficult to establish than dollar values. 
Even in terms of dollars we can look at the Californian example which is so oft quoted. Again I had the pleasure of hearing the Rev. Givens when he spoke in Wellington a week or so ago and he quoted some really interesting numbers. He referred to the Californian prisons as the most expensive rest homes in the world. They have very old prisoners prisoners well into their fifties and older. The average cost of keeping a prisoner in Californian jails is if I remember correctly a little in excess of $35000. California is now discovering that keeping prisoners into their fifties and beyond is costing the state on average closer to $140000. No social benefit is gained from doing that in relation to those extraordinarily prolonged sentences for people who have admittedly committed serious crimes or in some cases not particularly serious crimes. Those prisoners are imposing an incredible cost on their communities on that Government and on that state. 
We have already seen in recent times that this Government has passed legislation to allow private prisons to allow the use of court cells on the understanding that apparently we are obliged to do that. We have seen double bunking in jails and the making of containers into cells because we cannot cram any more people into our jails yet we are imposing this extra cost on ourselves by putting provisions in this bill. The denial of parole will put people away for longer periods with no social benefit but with significant social cost. 
I think the most insidious thing about this bill is that it is saying that we in this Chamber tonight—the majority who might seek to pass this bill—know better than judges what sentence they ought to pass in future for crimes not yet committed and whether parole should be allowed and if so at what point. The notion of mandated sentencing essentially means that we do not trust the judges who are appointed to our courts. It suggests that we can make better decisions about the sentences and the parole conditions given for individual cases on a very one-size-fits-all generic basis. That is not only wrong; it is lazy. It is unethical it is immoral and it ought not to be done here. 
I think that one of the most powerful impacts of the Rev. Givens’ presentation which some of us took the time to see was not only in the numbers and the words—we had heard those we had read those—but also in some of the images he showed. The direct outcomes of a regime like that is to put more people in jail for longer in what are already overcrowded prisons. He showed images of hundreds of men inhabiting what was once a gymnasium with bunks stacked three high and with scarcely enough room in the aisles to walk through. I saw those images and immediately wondered how they were smuggled out of prison because surely that could not have been allowed. In fact those images were put out by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and show a best-case scenario. Those were the best images the department could muster from that appallingly inhumane regime which it is now proposed that we should impose on ourselves and on our prisons. 
There is no deterrent effect from longer sentences; we know that. Research internationally tells us that. The deterrent is the likelihood of being caught. We should put more money into policing and into preventing crime because there it will do some good. Longer sentences are not a deterrent; we know that. We know that is as true in New Zealand as it is in California. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I want to say at the very beginning of my contribution that I was absolutely shocked and appalled to hear the Minister of Corrections Judith Collins rise in this Chamber and suggest that the only violent criminals were in South Auckland and that somebody who lived in central Wellington Christchurch or somewhere else— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. If the member is going to make silly statements like that he should at least quote me correctly. I live in South Auckland. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I ask the members to sit down. These are debating points. It is a robust debate. I ask the member to continue and I will ask the Minister to refrain from those comments. They are debating points; that was not a point of order. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I am not surprised the Minister is embarrassed by the comments that she made. It was a comment about South Auckland that Melissa Lee would have been proud of. Perhaps the Government should just build another motorway so that all the criminals can drive past South Auckland. It was an absolutely disgraceful indictment on the Government. It was a further disgraceful indictment on this Government that Judith Collins—the Minister of Corrections in fact—said that anybody who opposes the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is condoning the actions of violent criminals. I was offended by that comment. 
I am opposed to this bill but I think the actions of violent criminals are abhorrent. I would like to thank David Garrett for at least having the decency to acknowledge that people who oppose this bill are not condoning the actions of violent criminals and do take the victims into consideration. I find it offensive that the Minister would not do the same. David Garrett had the decency to at least acknowledge that much even though we may not agree on this particular bill. 
Miss Collins’ own Police Association the people whom she works with argued against the removal of parole. The Police Association in its submission on this bill argued against it and talked about judicial discretion providing a safety valve for the myriad of possible circumstances surrounding any given case and argued that it is preferable to mandatory sentencing. So the Police Association argued that there is a very real cost to removing all hope of early release such that inmates often become very difficult to manage in the prison system. 
It would be appalling for the Minister of Police or the Minister of Corrections whichever Government that Minister comes from to have to come into this House as the Minister of Corrections did this afternoon to offer condolences to the family of a prison officer or a police officer who has been very tragically killed because of this bill. Evidence presented from overseas suggests that is more likely under this bill. For the Minister to say that by putting up these arguments and by opposing this bill somehow we condone the actions of violent criminals and violent offenders is simply offensive; it is appalling. 
I will talk about some of the other concerns that were raised in the very valid submissions put forward during the Law and Order Committee process. I did not have the opportunity to sit on the select committee but I had the opportunity to read through some of those submissions. The Dunedin Community Law Centre pointed out very well I think that the Parole Board now declines 72 percent of parole applications and that is a significant increase from 52 percent which was the rate before the last legislation came into effect. I think it is really important that we consider the 2004 legislation because things have changed. When David Garrett talks about what has happened in the last 20 years well there has been a significant change in the last 5 years that we have not yet seen the full effect of. 
I think we need to consider the changes made in 2004 and the impact they are having on the parole that is granted and on the sentences that are imposed in the first place including the amount of mandatory non-parole imposed. Between 1997 and 2006 the average non-parole period imposed for life sentences increased by more than 25 percent. I think that is really important and was a point raised by the Dunedin Community Law Centre. It also argued that women would be less likely to report violent crime in particular violent crime involving their partner if they knew that their partner former partner father of their children or other relative could be locked up for life. We have to consider the implications this law would have on the reporting of crime in the first place and the willingness of victims to come forward and to make statements to provide evidence that can be used in prosecutions. 
A retired District Court judge William John Mitchell argued that ruling out parole even after genuine efforts towards reform reduces the incentive to make such efforts. Surely we should be looking at how we can create more incentives for prisoners to genuinely reform themselves. We have evidence here presented by a judge that this bill will not do that. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 123 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to clause 13 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill will apparently be called the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2008. That is what the title clause of the bill says. But that title implies that there has been a reform that something positive and good has happened to sentencing and parole. I think a better title for this bill would be the “Removal of Discretion that Resides with Our Judges and with the Parole Board in Favour of Those who Want to Sloganeer Their Way into a Particular Position with the Public Bill”. 
This bill is based on a fiction. It is based on a lie. It does not represent any truth in sentencing or in parole. It does not act as a deterrent. It does not make our communities safer. I say to every single person in this House who has stood up and has said that they are on the side on the victims of crime that we on this side of the House would like to see fewer victims of crime. We would like to put our energy and our effort into removing some of those drivers of crime which I know that some elements of the Government are interested in addressing. We started off down that pathway and I am glad that some members of the Government are willing to pick it up and run with it. 
Maybe that explains why this Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is in the name of the Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections instead of being in the name of the Minister of Justice which is where this bill rightly resides. The Ministry of Justice develops policy for Governments based on the policy decisions that they make. It translates the policy ideas into legislation. 
This bill started off life I think as the orphan child of one David Garrett as a member’s bill. I ask whether I am right about that. It was picked up by the Government as a Government measure as part of the arrangement that National has with the ACT Party. I think that that is a shame. We are hearing all of the language that is associated with the “three strikes” law in the United States of America when we know that the “three strikes” law in America has not made those states any safer than any of the other states of America. In fact we know that the two groups of people who are less safe when this kind of law is passed are prison officers and police officers. They are much more at risk when there is nothing left to lose and that is exactly what we will be saying to those who will remain in prison for the rest of their lives. The numbers will increase over time and those individuals will be putting at risk police officers and prison officers. 
The title clause states “Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2008” but it is not sentencing and parole reform; it is removing discretion. It is mandatory sentences. This legislation should be called the “Mandatory Sentences Law Reform and No Parole in Particular Cases Bill”. People should think very seriously about the impact that this legislation will have on those two groups—the prison officers and the police officers. When one has nothing left to lose then the person who is standing in the way of one confronting that reality will be very much at risk. There have been many examples in the United States of police officers who have been shot going to arrest somebody for what would be a third strike. 
The other thing is the nature of the charges that will be brought against the individuals. This is another name we could give this bill: “How to Lock Up More of Our Maori Population Bill”. That name for the bill would have more truth in titling than anything that we have had before us today. We know that Maori are much more likely to be stopped in the street. We know that Maori are much more likely to be arrested if stopped. We know that Maori are much more likely to be charged if arrested. We know that Maori are much more likely to be charged with more serious offences if they are charged. They are much more likely to be convicted if they face a court hearing. They are much more likely to go to jail if they are Maori. That to me is an indictment on our entire system and this bill will add to it. 
Anyone who has had a misspent youth facing a charge will know that they are not all in the category that has been described to us. Of course we have very strong feelings about murder rape sexual violation and those things but there are other charges as well that are not as serious. They cover a magnitude—a full range of offenders are covered under the same charges. 
David Garrett 
: What is a minor one? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not saying that any of them are minor; I am just saying that there are circumstances where somebody gets a conviction for manslaughter because he was involved in a suicide pact with his wife. In that particular case the man pleaded guilty to and was convicted of murder. He had entered into a suicide pact with his wife. She was successful in completing her suicide with his assistance but he was not successful in killing himself. He was resuscitated and charged with murder. He pleaded guilty and got home detention. Under this legislation if he had also had a misspent youth he would have been locked up for the rest of his natural life. 
All I am saying is that there is no capacity in this legislation for any sense of forgiveness. There is no chance of redemption or for anybody to turn their lives round. How many senior gang members do people in this Chamber know who are now respected members of the community? We know that former gang members came to the ministerial Drivers of Crime meeting because they are now giving back to their communities. This bill says that they should never have been allowed out of jail and that they should have— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I just remind the member that we are on clauses 1 and 2. It would pay to mention the title and commencement. You have mentioned them a couple of times but I would like you to come back to the title and commencement clauses 1 and 2. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The title of this bill is misleading. It talks about reform. What I have just described to this Committee is not reform but a huge backwards step. It says that nobody can change. It is unfortunate that this Committee is debating something that is called the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill when it should be called the “Misrepresentation of Three Strikes (a Failed Policy in the United States) Bill”. It should be called the “Let’s Make Our Communities Less Safe Bill”. It is about locking up more Maori and about making sure we give no chance to anyone to redeem themselves no matter what crime they have committed. Some of those people now contribute to our society in an extremely positive way. 
I would rather be debating something that was genuinely about reforming sentencing and parole so that we could have a safer society and so that those who were capable of redemption were able to redeem themselves and front up to the victims of their crimes. We keep forgetting that this is supposedly about the victims of crime but how is this bill looking at the victims of crime when they are not even mentioned in the title of the bill? 
Unfortunately a lot of offenders leave prison saying that they have paid their debt to society. What about their debt to the victims of their crimes? What about their debt to their victims’ families and to the community which has been upset by the crime that was committed in its midst? I think that if this bill was genuinely about sentencing and parole reform as the title clause describes it would be doing something quite different from what is presented here. This is about “three strikes” about emulating the United States and about not caring whether we end up spending 20 times the amount on our corrections system than we spend on our education system. If we go down the track the United States has that is exactly the direction we will be going in. I think it is a tragedy that we are debating something called the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill when there is nothing reforming about it at all. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Referring to the title and the commencement of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill one could argue that given the debate and the points that have been made tonight this bill would be better called the “Sentencing and Parole (Hoax on Victims) Bill”. 
I read an article that Deborah Coddington wrote. Deborah Coddington is a former member as we know of the ACT Party. She may have been a founding member—I do not know. But she made an interesting point. She said that even 
this bill was not an ACT Party bill; it was not a bill of the original— 
Chris Hipkins 
: The original liberals. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —Mr Hipkins is right those are the words she used—liberal ACT Party before Rodney Hide got his claws into it. The comments she made were interesting. She talked about the liberal reforms that the ACT Party was built on not only in this area but in other areas of policy. 
This bill could be described as a hoax on victims because it does two things: it tugs at the heartstrings of victims and it raises victims’ expectations substantially. I would wager that this bill when passed will for a time be eminently popular because “three strikes” is a great slogan and everyone can remember it. It will be popular for a time. Victims will have a high expectation of what it can deliver for them. And that is fair enough. I do not blame victims or members of our community who sadly may be future victims or members of our community who truly believe that this bill will be the answer to all the ills in our criminal justice system. The bill will be popular and I know what will be said about it at the next election because given that we will not see the ultimate effects of it for 5 to 7 years it will be very difficult to argue one way or the other on the election stump as to its merits or lack of them. That is part of a hoax that the ACT Party and National have put in place; it is a nice little strategic political triangulation. It is a bit like the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill which comes into force in July of next year not too many months before I suspect the next general election. The only time we will be able to really scrutinise and see the practical effects of this bill will be well after the next election cycle. That I would argue is very very deliberate. 
This bill will be a notch on the belt for Mr Garrett—a legislative notch on the belt. And Mr Hide will be able to tick the box for the Sensible Sentencing Trust and say that ACT has done the deal and delivered. The deal with the Sensible Sentencing Trust has been clinched. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: We’re keeping our promise. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He says that yes the deal has been clinched. We all know what the deal was too. But the time will come when members of Parliament have to revisit this legislation. And the crime figures will continue to go up. It is interesting that under the Minister of Police Judith Collins we have I think the worst murder rate for 20 years 
.  
But that was all going to be absolved; everything was going to change when National got into power. 
There will be people listening tonight who will disagree vehemently with me and with the Labour Party position. They will say we are wrong and some will even say we are soft because we oppose the bill. I do not have any angst against those folks out there at all because they have a genuine belief that this legislation will deliver for them. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: They’ve been conned. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes they have. 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You brought to the attention of the Hon Lianne Dalziel the matter of relevancy. I have let this speech go on for some time now without bringing the speaker to order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I hear what the member said. I mentioned to Mr Cosgrove’s colleague earlier that we are on clauses 1 and 2 the title and the commencement. The member has a minute to go and I would like to hear the title and the commencement mentioned in the remaining minute. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You might recall that I mentioned my suggested amendment to the title in the first sentence I made. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is not a point of order. I am inviting the member to continue. He has the call. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I intend to continue and I will repeat for your edification because maybe the sound system is not working— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is a challenge to my ruling. I have ruled and I am inviting the member to continue. We do not need any further discussion on it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I repeat the first sentence I made in my speech which was that an appropriate title for this bill would be the “Sentencing and Parole (Hoax on Victims) Bill”. That is what I said in my first sentence of my speech. 
Chris Tremain 
: Don’t be a smart-arse—the way you spoke to the Chair. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We do not need to get into this sort of nonsense. I am inviting the member to continue. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. In the spirit of the hour I ask the member to continue. We are talking about clauses 1 and 2. I hear what the member said. Please continue. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will not respond to the member opposite. He may choose to use unparliamentary language but I will not. As I have said— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Get on with it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh we will get on to it I say to the member. We will be back debating this legislation in some years whether or not that member is in the House and we will revisit the  
Hansard 
 of that member who I do not think has made a contribution in the whole debate. I invite him to get up and make a contribution. I think he has a legal background. He may be able to make a substantial contribution on the bill rather than standing over there and doing an imitation of the member who is based in an electorate near Trevor Mallard’s—what is his name? 
Chris Hipkins 
: Paul Quinn. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Lotu-Iiga is doing an imitation of Paul Quinn squawking from the sidelines. This is very very important legislation. Whether or not we disagree with it it is substantial and it will have a huge impact—Labour would argue a negative impact. I say to that member that if he would like to make a contribution he should get on his feet and make one because we would enjoy listening to it. But I do not think that will happen as he sips his glass of water. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: You don’t want to talk about the bill. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will talk about the bill all right. There is a very very high expectation of this legislation among victims. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s the problem. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is the problem yes because those victims expect this bill to deliver for them. They expect that it will have a deterrent effect. They expect that as they have been told criminals before they commit a crime will think: “Hang on I am on a first strike or a second strike.” or “I have been warned by the judge.” and they will walk out of the house without doing what they had gone there to do whether that be murder rape or any heinous crime. I do not have faith in the criminal element to make those sorts of mental calculations as they are about to commit a crime. They will not stop and think about what the judge warned them would happen if they committed this kind of crime again. 
I think there are dangers for victims. It may well be the case that the ultimate tactic of the criminal element is not to maim but to kill because if they kill there will be one fewer witness who can testify against them. There are dangers as my colleague Lianne Dalziel has said for our police force and for our corrections officers. If an offender would be incarcerated for the rest of his days he has nothing to lose. Look at Graeme Burton—as I speak to the title of the bill—and at the activities that he has engaged in because he is not getting out of prison any time soon. He will not be getting out at all. I suspect that he has determined that given that anything goes. The human carnage that he has left and the threat that he poses to prison officers and to others who come into contact with him are an awful prospect going forward. He should never be allowed out. But his case shows what can happen. 
A more appropriate name for the bill is the “Sentencing and Parole (Hoax on Victims) Bill”. I repeat that the Law and Order Committee was told by officials that it is eminently possible—we asked them repeatedly—that a person who commits a first-strike offence a grievous offence may get a shorter sentence than a third-striker who commits a less grievous offence. We asked the officials that specific question—whether that was possible under this legislation. We have professional officials and they answered that yes it was possible. 
I am glad to see that the Minister of Justice is in the Chamber. I am sure that after his long absence from the fight his absence from the debate—I do not mean physical of course; I mean his verbal absence—his absence from the process Simon Power being the reformer that he says he is will want to take a call in support of his Minister of Police who wrenched this bill from his grasp. He tried to hang on to the bill for so long. The Cabinet paper was pot-riveted to his part of the Cabinet desk; he had held on to it for so long that he was superglued to it. He did not want to get away from it. He wanted to take it through all stages but he was rolled by the Minister of Police who said that no she would do it. I suspect that that is the alibi anyway. I say to the Minister of Justice given that he is here that it will be his agency the core Crown agency that deals with justice bills that has to administer this legislation. He might like to take a call and tell us why his Ministry of Justice was barred from the second part of the process as the amendments were put through the select committee. He might want to tell us why his Ministry of Justice continues to be gagged on a number of pieces of legislation and processes here. He might want to tell us that given that the Police told us that it will not be the key agency that deals with the bill and neither is the Department of Corrections. 
Amy Adams 
: What has this got to do with the title? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The bill is in respect of the title a hoax on victims. It could also be called “The Bill I Wanted to Put Through as Justice Minister but I Was Rolled by the Police Minister Bill”. It could also be called the “Ton of Guts Bill”. A ton of guts was shown by various Ministers in fronting this legislation like the “Great Reformer” the Minister of Justice. He said that he would get tough and sort it out. He showed a ton of guts in fronting up to this bill: there he was all through the debate silent. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to.  
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 123 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill without amendment and the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill with amendment. 
Report adopted.