Calder Cam: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Calder Cam: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10685] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a privilege to stand and speak—somewhat huskily—on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. 
John Key’s National-led Government as we know is principled and pragmatic and it is seeking solutions to the many challenges facing our country. We in National are keeping our promises. We promised action and we are taking action on combating violent crime. We are making families safer in their homes and communities. 
This bill is part of a raft of legislation that we have brought to the House: legislation to toughen sentences and parole and bail conditions for violent offenders to crack down on gangs and on P and to support the victims of crime. We have also initiated Fresh Start programmes. Almost 3000 young offenders benefited last year from interventions to turn them away from a life of crime. 
We in National recognise that drug and alcohol addiction is the root cause of much crime and we have increased the access to drug and alcohol rehabilitation programmes. We have recognised the woeful undermanning of the police under the previous lacklustre lackadaisical unlamented Labour administration. We have already deployed over 200 more police in the Manukau-Manurewa area where I have the privilege of being based. A hundred more police will be deployed by the end of 2010 and 300 more police will be deployed nationwide by the end of next year. Along with initiatives in health social policy and education and initiatives addressing the drivers of crime those are some of the areas of the previous Government’s mesh that we will be reshaping in our effort to make our communities more secure. 
We have heard some criticism from Opposition members. But I ask how useful its policies were in reducing crime when it was last in Government. In fact some might ask whether it had any policy in this area. We may well ask. I believe that it did but how useful was that in reducing crime and making New Zealanders feel safer in their homes and on their streets? Judging by what I saw when walking the streets of Manurewa in 2008 I would say that it was not very useful. People had three locks on their doors and they had two more locks on the screen outside. Labour’s policy was not very useful. People might ask how useful it was. It was perhaps as useful as a cricketer’s box to a ballerina. It was as useful as a drink of water to a drowning man. It was as useful as a sunhat at midnight. 
The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is part of the National-led Government’s raft of measures to make our communities safer. Let us not ignore the fact that it puts the interests of victims and the wider community ahead of the interests of our worst and most serious violent offenders. This bill is aimed at the minority of offenders who even after receiving two previous warnings continue to offend in a serious and violent way. Those people have demonstrated that they will not change and for those few people there is no alternative but to prevent them from reoffending in such a way that they no longer present a danger to law-abiding men and women living in our communities. 
Not one of the 41 qualifying offences for the “three strikes” is a relatively minor offence. All offences involve serious violence or sexual offending and all have a maximum penalty of at least 7 years in prison. In defending the rights of offenders critics of “three strikes” downplay the goal of the legislation which is to protect the public from criminals who have a track record of serious offending. This bill does not focus on the poor or innocent who are unfortunately dealt with by the State; it focuses on the repeat nature of offending rather than just the offence itself. Critics of “three strikes” may also argue that offenders do not consider the consequences of their actions when they commit crime. Critics say that the offenders did not know what they were doing when they committed their crimes and that longer sentences are not an effective deterrent. 
The road to a third strike is a long one involving clear warnings delivered by a judge about the consequences of further serious offending and considerable time in prison where it is hoped that they will reflect on their actions. When making a choice of whether to commit a third serious crime offenders will have a very good idea of what is in store for them. I comment this bill to the House.