Hipkins Chris: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10942] 
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.