Mark Ron: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — First Reading 
Mark Ron: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6882] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to the Criminal Justice Reform Bill on behalf of New Zealand First I want to say that this bill is a bit of a mixed bag for us in New Zealand First—something of a pot-pourri. I say that because there are aspects of this bill on which we have been involved in extensive discussions with the Government and which we see as being a definite improvement on the justice system as it currently is. I have to say that this bill is a final admission that the reforms passed by this House in 2002 under the Sentencing Act which were championed by Phil Goff as being the answer to the problems in law and order and the justice system that have beset our nation were wrong or that those reforms overlooked some of the criticisms that were levelled at the Government at the time they were passed. In fact the Government chose on occasion to demean and belittle commentary made by Opposition MPs at that time. This bill is final proof that some of those changes in the Sentencing Act were ill-advised. 
I have to say that it has been quite interesting talking to some of the people who have been involved in the discussions behind the scenes. One of the questions I did ask in those discussions was: “So who advised the Government of these changes in the first instance and are they still working for the department?” because quite frankly changes and reforms that actually reduced the amount of time that an inmate or a person convicted of an offence and given a jail sentence would serve—changes that saw jail sentences reduced by two-thirds—were clearly wrong. We know it was clearly wrong because this bill seeks to change that. 
Unlike Nandor Tanczos who says that he does not believe in truth in sentencing New Zealand First says that although we initially opposed some of the thoughts on the concept of truth in sentencing we have come to the point of view that it is the most honest means of delivering justice. For too long citizens of this country have stared open-mouthed and gaped with absolute incredulity at the notion that a person sentenced to 3 years’ jail would be out on the street in a year or less than a year. We applaud the fact that home detention is about to see its closing days in the form under which it has been operating. We applaud the fact that back-end home detention will go. We applaud the fact that the nonsense known as deferred sentencing will go. 
We accept—and still reserve the right to pass judgment again once we have seen the system operating—that home detention has a place. It is good to see that home detention will become a sentence in its own right. We see that as smart. The concept that the person or body of people who makes the decision as to whether a convict should be given home detention some months after that person had been sentenced should not include the sentencing or presiding judge was a nonsense from day one and it remains a nonsense today. That proposal I think was introduced by a National Government although National does not want to seem to accept or stand up and recognise the errors of its ways. The sooner this bill can put paid to that nonsensical situation the better for all concerned. We are comfortable and happy that under this proposal the presiding judge who hears the case who sees the evidence who hears the witnesses and determines the sentence shall be the person who will decide whether at that point a person is deserving of home detention how long that will be and what conditions will be imposed upon that person. Far better that it be that judge than a body of people in a different venue with different authorities different powers and no understanding really other than what those people read on a piece of paper about the case and the impact that it had on the victims. 
There is much debate about short sentences and about how ineffective they are. Well New Zealand First does not disagree with that but we would propose something different. We say to the House that rather than doing away with short sentences maybe in the select committee stage we should be talking about minimum sentences of 1 year. We proffer that thought because one of the greatest reasons we can see as to why short sentences are not working is that within that short undefined unknown period of time it is impossible—and I say it again it is impossible—to put that inmate on a structured treatment programme with any certainty. If one has a person who is in jail because of an alcohol-induced crime of violence and one wants to truly address his or her past recidivism and criminogenic needs—the fancy psychobabble term they use these days—one needs a specified period of time over which one can complete conduct and carry out a specified training course or package of training courses or treatment courses to deal with those. It is hopeless for the Department of Corrections to be expected to put together a rehabilitation plan for an inmate who has been given a 12-month sentence only to find out that the person is actually going to be released at the 6-month mark. It is absolutely impossible. Therein fundamentally lies the reason that many of the issues that beset a particular inmate are never addressed—and then we wonder why the inmate is back again. 
I have to say something about the explanatory note of this bill before I run out of time. We do not agree with the introduction. We do not agree with the background notes to this bill. Fundamentally we do not agree because the approach in this bill has been wrong from day one. The explanatory note states: “The purpose of the Bill is to introduce a range of measures to arrest the sharp increase in the prison population in recent years. This increase is no longer sustainable neither financially nor socially.” What drivel. That is a politically correct approach to a problem that this Government finds embarrassing. Let me make it clear. New Zealand First does not have a problem with the large number of people in jail. What we have a problem with is the absolute ineffectiveness of the rehabilitation programmes and plans which results in people going back to jail. We put on the record here and now that the discussion should not have been about effective intervention. That is a recipe for a disaster for a start. We will be back here debating whether the effective interventions were effective 1 or 2 years from now when we note again that violent crime is still on the increase. 
What all this should have been about was effective rehabilitation. I will say that again. The focus should not have been on effective interventions. I am astounded that the Greens bought into this as well and I actually have a sneaking suspicion that they do not. We should have been focusing on effective rehabilitation. Effective interventions is not about passing laws to stop more people being put in jail. Effective rehabilitation and thereby intervention is about putting in place programmes—alcohol addiction programmes drug addiction programmes—designed to counter those issues that are effective in rehabilitating the inmate. The fact is that 85 percent of the people who are released from jail are back in jail in 5 years. A knee-jerk reaction that we are embarrassed that we are sitting at the wrong end of the OECD levels with the number of New Zealanders incarcerated should not be the driving motive for this legislation. It is wrong silly and fundamentally flawed and is doomed actually to failure. 
But there are things in this bill that we support. As I have a minute remaining I have a brief word to say on the Sentencing Council. How ironic that the National Party should stand against what the Government is proposing here! The Sentencing Council is to be made up of a panel of five judges—former lawyers the very people whom Chris Finlayson objects to being interdicted in the justice process. The big issue that has to be dealt with from one end of this country to the other when it comes to sentencing is consistency and—I am sorry—public acceptance of the sentences. There have been too many cases in this country where the public has been angered and upset by what they see as inappropriate and inconsistent sentences. New Zealand First does not have a problem with the Sentencing Council but we will take this to the select committee and we hope that it will be debated there. We hope to see whether the evidence is there to support it but at this stage I am comfortable with the notion that five esteemed judges should sit on that council. We support the bill going to the select committee and we will deal with the rest from there.