Young Jonathan: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Young Jonathan: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10689] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 Let us get it right: there is a punitive element to prison. It is punishment as well as a covering of many other bases. Let us get it right that the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is talking about the protection of citizens in our society. It is addressing not only the issue of wanting to reduce crime but also the issue of wanting to make our society safer on the outside for our citizens. 
It is easy to rail against the Government because of recent increases in crime statistics but we know and members opposite understand that this issue is endemic that the problem is often generational and that turning the tide takes more than 18 months. But we are putting in policies and processes that will do exactly that. Labour says that the Sentencing and Parole Acts of 2002 achieved the same purpose as the “three strikes” legislation but we say that those Acts did not go nearly far enough in protecting the community from the worst repeat violent offenders. 
As a background I tell members that under the Parole Act 2002 offenders sentenced to prison for 2 years or less are automatically released after serving half their sentences and those with sentences longer than 2 years are eligible for parole after serving only one-third of their sentences. The public has been concerned about the number of serious offences committed by people who have been released on parole and concerned that sentences of home detention have been given to violent criminals. Home detention was designed as an option for non-violent offenders. Under the previous Government it was given to too many violent sex and drug offenders who posed a serious threat to the community. The figures are these: in 2006 and 2007 more that 50 percent of offenders on home detention had convictions for violent sexual and drug offences compared with 39 percent in 2001 and 2002. That is an unacceptable relaxation of attitude but it also speaks of the increase in crime through that decade. 
Our Minister of Corrections the Hon Judith Collins recently said: “In the 18 months that I have been police minister I have been shocked at the level of violent and anti-social behaviour in our society. There is a section of our community that has no respect for other people and no respect for the law. We are seeing it in the frequent attacks on police and innocent members of the public.” I take that on board and I have listened to the comments regarding the wider issues. As a Government we are committed to long-term comprehensive measures by dealing with the drivers of crime. They are just as important as responding to the aftermath of crime. The Hon Simon Power has said: “As you will be aware most of the government’s agenda for law and order since the last election has been dominated by measures to improve the immediate safety of the public.” and so it should be but we also need to get serious about how we stop crime from happening in the first place. So we are approaching this issue from both directions—that of the drivers of crime and that of the protection of society today. 
These are some of the questions that our political leaders are confronted with and that we are confronted with as a Parliament. We want lasting solutions but today we are forced to draw a firmer line. It is a line meaning that should people continually choose not to be law-abiding members of our society but to be persistent repeat offenders of violent crime then the constraint of the law which seeks to bring freedom and protection for its citizens will deny freedom to those who abscond from that responsibility. The law causes constraints to curtail their behaviour in order to ensure that the rights of others are protected so that they can live in freedom. When people refuse to live under such reasonable constraints of law the law constrains them until those persistent repeat offenders come to the ultimate constraint where for the sake of the freedom of others their freedom must be denied. 
This bill is about freedom. It is about who deserves freedom most. The Prime Minister has said: “Where there is a balancing of rights to be done between criminals and victims … I will take a side. And that side will be the side of the victim.” However there is a discretionary measure in this bill. It recognises that in some very rare cases the circumstances of the offender and the offence will be such that a sentence served without parole would be manifestly unjust. The bill takes this into account and it makes provisions for the court where the court is satisfied that a no-parole order would be manifestly unjust at stage three when imposing the maximum term for a serious violent offence. Thank you.