Mapp Wayne: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14179] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The speech just given by my colleague Judith Collins tells us why National has taken a principled approach. It is an approach that says the bill is an improvement and it will make a difference. She also pointed out that the New Zealand First representative voted for the legislation in the Justice and Electoral Committee. So New Zealand First members are just making cheap political points tonight by changing their stance on this issue. 
Perhaps the most notable interjection today was the one from Lianne Dalziel. She proudly supports the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. How could anyone stand in this Chamber and say he or she supports legislation that allows parole for the worst offenders at one-third of their sentences? An offender sentenced to 9 years can apply for parole after serving 3 years. The Government claims that that is an improvement. [ 
Interruption 
] I have to correct Mr Mark. National is utterly and completely opposed to the whole notion of applying for parole at one-third of a sentence. 
I took the Government at its word when it said it was going to abolish automatic parole at two-thirds of a sentence. Everyone in this Chamber and everyone in the entire country was shocked to find that the Government’s solution so-called was to substitute eligibility for parole at one-third of a sentence. That is not just for the non-violent offender or for the first-time offender but also for the worst offenders. 
That is one of the reasons why I have put in an amendment today. I have sat here and listened to the questions—some of the questions were asked by Mr Ron Mark—about the scandals that have occurred with home detention. These are seriously violent offenders who commit the worst and most vile crimes whilst on home detention. Surely experience should tell us that in those circumstances those people are not eligible for home detention. It might be at the back of a sentence but in practice the actions of many offenders show it is not right. So that is why I have given Government members the opportunity to vote tonight to stop home detention for violent and sexual offenders. They have the opportunity tonight to say no to that. Will they take that opportunity? Will the Minister say that in principle he and his Government oppose home detention for violent criminals and sexual offenders? He has that opportunity. It is not something unreasonable. The Minister knows full well that he would receive the thanks of New Zealanders if he voted for that amendment. He has that opportunity. 
I have listened with huge concern over many many months as members right across the parties on this side of the Chamber have raised scandalous incidents. I have listened to the answers given by the Minister of Justice. He himself knows that it is wrong. Well tonight Government members have an opportunity to fix it. If they have the real interests of law-abiding New Zealanders at heart they will vote for the amendment that will stop home detention. The Minister might well say: “But it was put in there to provide people with an opportunity.” But experience tells us that it was a mistake. Home detention should be limited only to the non-violent offender—the person who does not pose a risk. So the amendment gives a clear instruction that home detention will be banned for violent offenders. We have the opportunity to learn from experience to say that practice shows it is too big a risk to take and therefore we should vote against it.