Dalziel Lianne: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10675] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 In the 16 December 2009 Cabinet paper from the Minister of Police who is also the Minister of Corrections which is entitled  
Changes to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill 
 the Ministry of Justice noted: “… 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 crimes improving social outcomes or reducing reoffending and victimisation.” The Department of Corrections also said in its report to the Law and Order Committee: “Further information requested by the Law and Order Committee regarding prison bed forecasts”—which was received on 5 March 2010—indicates “… there is an implicit assumption that the Bill will have no deterrent impact.” 
I think that those reports from the two departments that are now advising on this matter are of significance for the quality of the debate that we now have to have. Obviously the Government challenges the Opposition on the basis of saying that this measure proves that the Government is tougher on crime than Labour is. I say to this House that it is not a competition. I am deeply concerned about a Government that proceeds with a measure such as this when the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Maori Affairs are attempting to engage with the broader community which has an interest in these matters. Those Ministers are trying to find some way of addressing the underlying drivers of crime in an environment where we actually can have a debate about the things that will make a difference in the long term without having to be challenged on something that we know is not an effective deterrent and that the Government knows is not an effective deterrent. 
The other problem I have with debating this measure before we have had a response from the Government on the ministerial meeting on the Drivers of Crime which the Government held just over a year ago last month is that we still have not seen the fruit of the work that people put into that meeting nor the subsequent work that has been done ever since. I know that one of the areas of work is on reoffending because our reoffending rates are pretty pretty appalling. I think one of the reasons our reoffending rates are so appalling is that there is a lack of work being done on rehabilitating and directing people away from the prison system at a very early stage. There are people ending up in our prison system too early and without the level of intervention that one would expect. 
So let us go through the circumstances of one gentleman who ended up in the category that was defined by Minister Collins. He was brought up here in New Zealand and although I am not sure of his age now we are going back into the 1950s. His stepfather saw fit to tie him to the dog kennel in the backyard as a punishment for his constant bad behaviour inside the house. He thought that tying him to the dog kennel would be a good way to get him to behave well when he was inside the house. This young boy this child ended up with an entirely— 
David Garrett 
: What’s his name? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I accept the fact that that member is the driver behind this bill but— 
David Garrett 
: Let’s hear the name of this person. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not going to name an individual in this House. I will just have to ignore the barrage of interjections from somebody who does not want to hear the example that I want to use. 
I wanted to say that when people have been brought up in an environment where they do not learn empathy or any of the behaviours that we would take to be normal and where they do not have the capacity to form close relationships because they have not bonded with a significant adult at any stage since they were born then we as a society are responsible for growing monsters not for growing healthy young men with healthy attitudes and the capacity to form loving relationships. When a male child has only ever seen his father beat his mother to a pulp it is really hard to think about how he is going to have a good relationship with a woman in the future. We have an intergenerational problem in this country. We do not fix that just by saying: “Here is the mess the disaster that has been created in the lives of some people. Let’s just lock them up for what they’ve done. Let’s not try to see whether there is some degree of humanity left within these individuals or some potential for redemption and rehabilitation.” I think what is missing from this debate completely is that there are people who have the capacity to change. 
All I am saying is that removing the discretion that sits with the judiciary and allowing the judicial system simply to impose a sentence because certain previous offences have occurred will not do anything to reduce the drivers of crime. It will not improve social outcomes it will not reduce reoffending and it will not reduce re-victimisation. That was identified in the departmental report to the Minister of Police the Minister of Corrections and the select committee. 
As we know this bill was subject to a report from the Attorney-General because it is questionable in terms of our obligations under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The reason that was the case was that it was found to provide for disproportionately severe punishment. Of course there are different messages that can be taken from the legislation. It really will depend on the order in which certain offences are committed in order to get a disproportionate impact. 
The regulatory impact statement that accompanied the original bill stated that the bill would be disproportionate expensive and impact most severely on Maori. I know that the Maori Party has a very strong view on this matter. It is very well accepted that a Maori is much more likely to be stopped by police. A Maori is much more likely to be arrested if stopped. A Maori is much more likely to be charged if arrested. He or she is much more likely to be charged with a more significant offence if he or she is charged. He or she is much more likely to be convicted if he or she is charged and he or she is much more likely to get a longer sentence than an equivalent individual who is not Maori if he or she is found guilty of that offence. The evidence is out there for everyone to see. This bill will make that situation worse. This bill is about putting more Maori in prisons when we really ought to be addressing why we have so many of them there now. Maori are disproportionately represented in our statistics as we all know. 
The trouble is that this is one of those bills that is designed to send a message about what the Government is doing. Unfortunately the message it sends is not backed up by any evidence anywhere in the world. It is not an effective way of addressing the issues the Government says it is trying to address. I think that is unfair not only on this House and the people of New Zealand but also on those who have been working very hard to try to address those underlying drivers of crime. That is where we know we can make the most substantial difference over the long term. Short-term quick fixes never work. This approach has never worked in any jurisdiction internationally. All of the evidence that has been put up in relation to the “three strikes” policies in the American jurisdictions does not stack up when it is actually investigated. Unfortunately this bill is predicated on a flawed foundation and I do not believe that it should proceed any further.