Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:9983] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Criminal Justice Reform Bill be now read a second time 
. First let me extend my thanks to the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee for their work on this bill. I say sincerely that the bill as reported back incorporates I believe a number of changes in response to submissions considered by the committee that have enhanced the quality of this important legislation. The bill will give effect to the legislative components of the Effective Interventions initiatives of the criminal justice system which aim to reduce criminal offending increase certainty around penalties given to those who break the law and help stem the growth of New Zealand’s prison population. The work consists of three broad themes: tilting the balance earlier to prevent crime using alternatives to prison where this is appropriate and adopting smarter use of prison resources where this is necessary. 
This new legislation will help to improve consistency and transparency in sentencing. Importantly it will also provide a greater range of non-custodial sentences and sentencing options and will thereby help reduce the number of offenders who would otherwise be imprisoned. However I take this opportunity to assure the House that those who commit serious offences such as repeat violent offenders will continue to go to prison and for long terms. The safety of the community must be and is always this Government’s first priority. The planned changes will give judges more options when sentencing offenders at the lower levels of offending. Sentences can be used that genuinely fit the specific circumstances of the offence and the offender and that therefore better serve the interests of the wider community including importantly victims of crime. 
Part 1 provides for the establishment of a Sentencing Council which will be responsible for producing sentencing and parole guidelines. The council will address the considerable inconsistency in sentencing particularly for less serious offending that has been identified in research carried out by the Law Commission. In consideration of judicial submission the bill now provides for the chairperson of the council to be a member of the judiciary appointed by the Chief Justice with the deputy chair to be one of the non-judicial members. This was very much part of engagement by the judiciary both directly with the executive and through the select committee process and as I mentioned earlier it is I think indicative of the sort of positive change that can come through discussion and consideration of a proposal. Non-judicial members of the council will be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House of Representatives. The appointment criteria have been streamlined to give this House greater freedom in selecting non-judicial members. 
The appointment process has also been changed to ensure that it does not place unnecessary constraints on the ability of the House to regulate its own procedures. Similar changes have been made to the provisions concerning parliamentary scrutiny of guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council. The Government accepts the select committee’s view that the bill should not set out the procedure whereby the House may disapply a group of guidelines and that this is a matter for the House itself to determine. 
Part 2 includes a number of important amendments to the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act and changes to the Bail Act and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act. The changes to the Sentencing Act will increase the range of non-custodial sentences available to the courts. There are three new sentences: home detention community detention and intensive supervision. 
Home detention will be established as a sentence in its own right rather than as a way of serving a sentence of imprisonment as is the case presently. While no sentence is without its challenges the effectiveness of home detention I think is well established. It has low reconviction and reimprisonment rates when compared with prison sentences and it has high compliance rates. Home detention also helps with rehabilitation by allowing offenders to maintain their responsibilities to their families and to the wider community. I am confident that the courts will see home detention as a useful alternative to a short sentence of imprisonment in appropriate cases. I emphasise: in appropriate cases. 
The two new community-based sentences—community detention and intensive supervision—will provide a higher level of restriction and supervision of offenders than existing sentences. The reported-back bill provides that community detention which involves an electronically monitored curfew can be used not only to reduce the likelihood of reoffending but also as a punitive sentence. This will be especially appropriate for cases such as default on fines or non-compliance with lesser sentences. 
The bill also includes measures to improve the effectiveness of community work sentences; for example probation officers will be given the power to refuse to treat up to 10 percent of the total hours of a sentence as hours completed in cases where the offender fails to work satisfactorily. I think that is an important addition to the current arsenal of resources. 
Home detention and community detention are both reliant on electronic monitoring. The bill includes important amendments to facilitate the smooth operation of the system. It will be an offence to refuse entry to a person authorised by the probation officer to service or inspect the monitoring equipment. There are also new provisions to protect against attempts to tamper with the monitoring equipment. 
A Supplementary Order Paper included a number of important changes to the Parole Act which have now been incorporated into this bill. Many of these changes will address issues that were raised by the Graeme Burton case. The Parole Act will be amended to state explicitly that consideration for release on parole carries no entitlement to release. This provision will make it clear that release on parole is a privilege and not a right. The Parole Board will also be empowered to make confidentiality orders in respect of information that cannot be disclosed to an offender because of the threat to someone’s personal safety or prejudice to the maintenance of the law. I want to be clear that I expect such orders to be made very rarely but I say to members that it is vital that there are measures to ensure the Parole Board is in possession of all the relevant information when it is considering a case. A third important change is to give the Commissioner of Police the right to apply for the recall of a parolee to prison in limited circumstances. This power I also expect to be used infrequently but it is important that in certain circumstances the police can apply directly to the Parole Board for an offender’s recall. It is of course then for the Parole Board’s consideration and determination. The last important change incorporated from the Supplementary Order Paper will give the Parole Board the power to summon witnesses. This is another measure that is intended to ensure that the board is in possession of all the essential information when it is making a decision and I think that again is one of the important lessons that recent experience has taught us. 
In addition to the Parole Board changes contained in the Supplementary Order Paper the original bill included a significant change to parole eligibility that will take effect when the sentencing guidelines come into force. Offenders serving determinate sentences will be eligible to apply for parole after serving two-thirds of their sentences rather than one-third as it is at present. This certainty in sentencing will mean that all those involved in the case—the victims the police and of course the offender—know from the outset that the offender will be serving the lion’s share of the sentence. 
The last matter I will canvass is the amendments to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 which the select committee struck out. The Government believes that it is essential that the sunset clauses covered by the amendments be extended. If this is not done from 1 July 2007 prisoners will once again become eligible for compensation in accordance with common law. This will mean that victims will need to undergo a more onerous process by way of a civil action to get a share of any compensation payments made to prisoners in pursuit of restitution or reparation. 
Simon Power 
: Just change the law. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member is well aware of our international legal obligations. I am sure that this cannot be viewed as a desirable outcome by any member of this House particularly those who in the past have asserted their support for the rights of victims. While provisions to enhance the rights of victims and to ensure independent oversight of prisoners’ rights are being advanced—and they are; one through the select committee and the other through Government policy—the interim extension of this provision for victims of crime is I believe something that members have an obligation to support. 
Taken as a whole the measures contained in the bill will I submit improve the operation of the criminal justice system in many ways. The measures will help to build safer communities for New Zealanders and help stem the growth of New Zealand prison populations. I therefore commend this bill to the House.