Robertson Grant: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Third Reading 
Robertson Grant: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11228] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of Labour to oppose this bill as we have done throughout this process. I put on the record of the House that Labour is deeply concerned about increasing crime rates we are especially concerned about reoffending rates and we care deeply for victims of crime no matter where that crime takes place in New Zealand. And those are some of the reasons why we oppose this bill because quite simply this bill does not address the causes of those crimes it does not seek properly to address the reoffending and it certainly does not reach out to victims. In fact it could be argued that in many ways it will put victims under more stress—and I will return to that shortly. 
We oppose this bill because it gives false hope to victims and their families and it is unworkable unjust and inequitable. If we continue to park ambulances at the bottom of the cliff of crime we will not address the causes of crime and we will not reduce crime and its impact on society. I will return to these specific matters shortly but I raise now several process concerns that Labour has about this bill. 
The major one is the role—or the lack of the role—of the Ministry of Justice throughout the process of this bill. It is important to know that the Ministry of Justice was prevented from having a role as adviser to the Law and Order Committee by National members of that select committee. That raises an extremely serious issue for Parliament around where Parliament gets its advice from—not where the executive gets its advice from but where Parliament gets its advice from. In our system very important distinctions are made between the operational arms such as the police and the Ministry of Justice which is the policy arm. That has been blurred by this Government and it has prevented parliamentarians from being able to seek the advice they need to make decisions in this House. I believe that that represents a significant and a serious let-down by this Government. 
But perhaps we can see why the Government did not want this Parliament to have the Ministry of Justice advising the select committee. I will quote from the Ministry of Justice paper on this bill: “The proposals will add substantial direct costs to the justice system without creating any significant improved outcomes in terms of reducing the drivers of crimes improving social outcomes or reducing reoffending and victimisation.” Those are the words of the Ministry of Justice. Those are the words of the Government’s chief advisers on justice issues and this Government has chosen to ignore that advice and—what is more—chosen to prevent a parliamentary select committee from having those people as their advisers on this issue. That is a disgrace it is a mark against the chair of that Law and Order Committee and it is a mark against the whole Government for preventing those parliamentarians from getting that advice. 
I also note that the select committee did not hold oral submissions on the bill after as the Minister herself has just acknowledged to us it was substantially amended. No oral submissions were held on that; written submissions were required with 2 weeks’ notice to submitters. That is unacceptable for what we all recognise as an extremely serious change in our system. This whole process has been rushed through by this Government for political imperatives rather than to trying to find the best possible law that can help protect New Zealanders and keep our communities safe. 
Before I leave the whole question of process let me say that the fact that the responsibility for this bill transferred from Simon Power as Minister of Justice to Judith Collins as the Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections speaks volumes for this bill. Some light was made of this in the Committee stage—that Mr Power was being rolled by Mrs Collins and having this bill which he loves taken off him. Well I want to get serious in this third reading. I suspect that Simon Power is somebody who understands that this bill is unjust unworkable and simply should not be going through our Parliament today and it has gone to Mrs Collins to put it through leading the charge on behalf of the ACT Party. I think that as the Minister of Justice and the Ministry of Justice do not seem to want to be part of this bill surely that must raise questions for this Government and for the country as to whether the bill should be passed. 
I now want to move to some of the substance of the bill. The issues raised in the Committee stage in particular were about whether this bill can achieve the things we want it to achieve and one of those things is deterrence. We all agree that we want people to be deterred from committing crimes but no evidence was presented to us that this bill will do that. In fact it was quite the contrary. The international evidence presented was that deterrence will not be improved by this bill. Greg Newbold and other experts said that this is simply not an effective way to improve deterrence of crime. We were offered no proof in that regard. 
The Minister has already talked about the definition of “manifestly unjust”. There was an opportunity in the Committee stage for the Minister to take up the point that the regulatory impact statement says that this creates a disproportionate system and that the Attorney-General in his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act submission said that it was disproportionate and severe but the Minister made no attempt to do that. It is easier for the proponents of this bill to obfuscate and say that the “manifestly unjust” provision is in there. The bar is set so high that there is no doubt that there will be disproportionate outcomes from this bill. 
Another area is the whole question of judicial discretion. It is very important to note that even the Police Association came out against that aspect of the bill. Even the Police Association felt that it would shift away from judges having discretion and move it into the hands of the police. We know that is the case. The only point in this process where the judicial system will continue to have discretion is at so-called “strike one”. After that it shifts to the police. 
Let us hear what the Police Association has to say: “Judicial discretion provides a ‘safety valve’ for the myriad of possible circumstances surrounding any given case and is preferable to mandatory sentencing”. So the officers themselves say they would like to see judicial discretion retained; but no the Government did not want to listen to that. There will be less transparency in the system as a result of moving away from judicial discretion to a system where the police play a much greater role. Our police are a great force and I do not like the idea that they can be accused of corruption but this puts them into that frame unwillingly because the Police Association itself has said that it does not want that. 
The other thing that a number of experts have raised is the fact that there will be fewer guilty pleas as a result of this legislation. Fewer guilty pleas mean greater costs on the system and more stress for victims. It will put victims in court when they need not be there. There is no doubt that people facing the consequences of this scheme will think twice about whether they want to plead guilty and as a result there will be greater costs and more stress to victims. 
One of the things that have been raised time and time again in this debate is the importance of community safety. During the Committee stage we attempted to get some measure of agreement that we all want our communities to be safer but the problem with this bill is that it will not necessarily bring that about. The New Zealand Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society said in its submission that it does not support this bill because it will not achieve a safer New Zealand. John Pratt a criminologist from Victoria University said that the realities of the “three strikes” bill are that it is more likely than a preventive detention sentence to endanger community safety. 
So on substance this bill fails. But where it really fails New Zealand is in principle. We all want there to be less crime but to get less crime we need some real leadership from this Government. This is the easy bit because this is a populist bill. The hard work is about making sure that people do not end up in prison in the first place that we address the causes of crime we intervene early we help with parenting we reduce poverty and then when and if people do commit crimes we support reintegration and rehabilitation. That requires leadership and this bill does not deliver leadership. We need to solve the problems of crime at the beginning not at the end. We should not be parking the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff; we should be trying to endeavour to build the fences and create the environment at the top of the cliff that will prevent crime. This bill gives false hope and it should not be passing through this House today.