Clendon David: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Third Reading 
Clendon David: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11231] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 It is a sad day because it looks as though the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill will go through the House today. In the future those who supported this bill will look back with regret. This bill is intended to make society safer. It will fail to do that. It will make our prisons more dangerous for police for guards and for inmates. It will not achieve the goal of making our streets safe and it will not make the public safer—or indeed feel safer. 
It is interesting that when the Greens have spoken to oppose this bill there has often been some amusement from some of its proponents who dismiss our objections because after all we are communists watermelons and the various other things that it amuses people to call us. I enjoy the irony of the fact that the most robust comprehensive and damning objection to this very poorly drafted and poorly conceived legislation I have heard was at a Maxim Institute event in Auckland recently. Two gentlemen Professor Warren Brookbanks and Dr Richard Ekins of the faculty of law at Auckland University who are both people of considerable experience and extraordinary mana have done a remarkable job and made a very objective assessment of this bill. I am sure that those gentlemen would have no objection to my calling them conservative in their views. That is their position. From that very objective academic and indeed informed judicial position they have come back and said that Parliament “should not enact” this bill. 
I will quote from some of the reasons they give as to why this Parliament should not enact this bill. In their paper entitled  
Criminal injustice and the proposed “three strikes” law 
 they state that the bill “departs from the central principle of just sentencing which is proportionate response to wrongdoing.” They go on to say: “The ‘three strikes’ regime … especially on strike three ignores the nature of the offences which include conduct that ranges from the relatively minor to the very serious.” They point out that “The regime ignores almost all mitigating and aggravating factors”. They say “The application of the regime … will often be unjust.” There can be no clearer and more damning language from two respected highly qualified and capable judicial commentators to say that this legislation will often be unjust in its effect. They suggest that the regime will often impose grossly disproportionate punishments on relatively minor offences. 
We are told that this bill will have some deterrent effect. In fact there will be none. We know this. Throughout the discussion from the analysis from all sorts of parties we know that the deterrent effect simply is not there. I quote again Professor Brookbanks and Dr Ekins: “The application of the regime is unlikely to defer would-be offenders in general or the offender with one or two strikes in particular.” 
At the last reading of this bill we heard much about the fact that parole is a privilege and not a right for prisoners. Indeed those two gentlemen in their analysis concede that point. They state however that “There is no need to cancel eligibility for parole to establish that parole is a privilege and not an entitlement.” We simply do not have to go there. The way this bill is structured suggests that we in this House—the majority in this House who will pass this bill—know better in every circumstance than a judge or a jury who will hear all the mitigating factors the whole story everything that is said and done about a particular case. 
In terms of the cancellation of eligibility for parole the two distinguished jurists go on to say: “Cancelling eligibility for parole for all second strike and most third strike offenders will not deter offenders but will undermine incentives for prisoners to reform or to refrain from further offending in prisons.” In other words prisoners will have nothing to lose. They will have no opportunity no possibility of parole. Therefore what weapons what tools and what mechanism will prison officers have to manage prisoners’ behaviour improve behaviour or prevent further offending? This bill will make our prisons more dangerous places. It will make the job of the police more dangerous because they will be pursing people who know they have nothing to lose. This is not good law. It is not well-thought-out. 
The executive summary of the paper by Brookbanks and Ekins goes on to state: “The regime will remove the incentive for offenders facing a strike three conviction to plead guilty (or to cooperate with the authorities) which will sharply increase trial costs and impose unnecessary trauma on victims.” In the last reading of the bill we heard that the removal of parole meant that victims would no longer need to address parole boards and relive their no doubt traumatic and unfortunate experiences. However this simply will misplace if you like or relocate the trauma they will need to go through because prisoners or rather accused who might otherwise plead guilty will have absolutely no incentive to do so and in fact will have every incentive to plead not guilty. 
The final summary point they make that I will refer to states: “The regime has a substantial fiscal cost which would be better spent on (among other things) victim support intensive policing and improving parole supervision.” It must be acknowledged that there are one or two provisions in the Budget as we heard last week that actually do improve the situation. Some useful money is being put into those things and I see the hand of the Maori Party in those wins in the Budget. However it is still a drop in the bucket. It is inadequate. It will not be sufficient to turn round enough lives. This bill will create many many more problems than it could possibly resolve. 
When there is opposition to proposed legislation as it goes through this House it is often very easy to see the self-interest of the parties that are objecting to it and that is the nature of the democratic process. When we are dealing with commerce bills sectors within the business community will come and protect their vested interest by trying to support or not support a particular provision in a piece of legislation. 
I reflect on some of the groups that are objecting very powerfully and publicly to the passing of this legislation: the Howard League with over a century of history in supporting the human rights of accused and of prisoners; Caritas the Catholic Church’s social services arm; the Rethinking Crime and Punishment group directed by Kim Workman a gentleman with experience as a police officer and as a consultant in the prison service who is now a volunteer for the trust; and Prison Fellowship New Zealand which is essentially a collection of church interests. 
I look at those groups and I struggle to see anyone who could possibly be driven by self-interest to oppose this very vicious legislation. In this instance it is clear that their concerns or objections are coming from a commitment to basic humanity to genuinely looking for ways of making our communities safer to protecting the human rights of inmates and accused and to making the workplace safer for prison guards and officers. 
There has been reference to the Californian experience. The original proponents of this bill looked at California as a glowing example of a “three strikes” regime giving positive outcomes. The regime being proposed in this bill is different but the principle is the same: mandated sentencing longer sentences tougher sentences and fewer basic human rights for prisoners. Of course the analysis was that this bill would remove or reduce human rights for prisoners. 
The Rev. Ron Givens has just been in New Zealand. He has given firsthand experience and has shown images of the direct impact of locking people away for longer; such as the fiscal cost the human cost the suffering and the danger to police and guards. These are not things we need to invent because there is evidence that the principle— 
David Garrett 
: You should go and check the claims he made. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: The images he showed us were from the corrections services’ own websites in California. They were not manufactured images. They showed inhumane conditions. They showed people who were being brutalised and were more likely to further offend. 
Last Sunday on our own televisions we saw an example of two young men. One committed suicide in prison and one looks as though he will be going to prison. The young man heading for prison has committed a very serious crime—there is no question of that—but what that young man needs is treatment. That young man going to prison would be an unjust outcome and it is that sort of injustice that this legislation will not only facilitate but positively encourage. We will continue to oppose this very poorly thought-out legislation. Kia ora.