Hudson BrettSOCIAL SECURITY (STOPPING BENEFIT PAYMENTS FOR OFFENDERS WHO REPEATEDLY FAIL TO COMPLY WITH COMMUNITY SENTENCES) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingBRETT HUDSON (National): I move That the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.It's quite amazing the debate we've heard over the five months or so of this new Government—a lot of talk about reducing the prison population. They're actually wanting to clean criminals out and that's fine. They're saying they want a target of 30 percent reduction of imprisoned offenders which is also remarkable because about 75 percent are violent criminals. So if they meet their number they're going to have to release some violent criminals into New Zealand society but that's a matter for another day.As it relates to this bill it's actually quite interesting because if they claim that they want to reduce the prison population this bill is a measure that helps to do just that. It does that because it offers an alternative to that harsher sentence for offenders serving a community sentence who fail to comply with the terms of their sentence. And yet all the rhetoric we heard from them on the select committee and the report indicate quite strongly that they will not be supporting this bill in its second reading. That's an absolute shame because it actually shows that while they claim to have this goal of reducing reoffending they'll always let their ideology get in the way of what could otherwise be seen as something of a laudable goal.The reality for these sentences these community sentences if we consider why they exist is that in some instances it's because of lower level offending. But in many others it's as an alternative to more onerous fines that offenders might find and struggle to deal with—or indeed as an alternative to some level of incarceration. In so doing in providing these sentences offenders are actually given an opportunity to atone for whatever their crime may have been in a manner and in a form that has less stigma attached to it and indeed actually permits them to have some more of their family life and contact which they would lose out on if they were instead in prison. But with that comes obligations.The public expect as does the Government and our corrections department that people who are sentenced to such sentences—community service—will turn up and will complete their duties. So if people are not going to comply with those sentences the public have an expectation that they be treated accordingly. This bill instead of a regime which has been shown to be more likely to see offenders who repeatedly fail to turn up to their community service more likely now to see them heading towards jail would have offered and would still offer if people would vote for it a short sharp correction that gives a strong incentive for that person to re-comply with their sentence with their service. It was a simple matter of If you fail to comply several times you'll get a warning. You'll get a benefit docked if you happen to be a receiver of a main benefit." And that gives you some incentive to re-comply with your sentence.Now as the bill was initially introduced it was a blunt yet effective instrument. It allowed for three warnings and if you'd failed to comply after three warnings bang your benefit could be cut. But it didn't allow for instance for the right of appeal on the basis of process or of fact. So I would like to acknowledge and commend the officials in the select committee process who looked at it and felt that it had some issues of manageability workability and potentially some issues in their consideration of elements of natural justice. The officials said and recommended as the bill has been returned or should have been returned on that basis that what they could do instead is to allow an appeal right on process. So if the process was not followed properly the offender could appeal and have potentially their benefit cut forestalled or removed. But it also allowed in a balanced sense for the offender not to have to fail to comply so many times before the department could look to issue that warning and invoke that cut to the benefit payment. So the bill in the work that they did would have come back to this House in a better shape.That actually is the job of select committees and when select committees do it well the Parliament then gets to consider in the second reading a bill that is in better shape. It would have been a bill to see back here and hopefully to have seen pass through its stages—although it's pretty clear that that members opposite are not going to support it. Yet that flies in the face of the substance of the data that was presented by submitters—not necessarily their views because submitters were fundamentally mostly opposed but the data in it was really quite interesting. You see the reality is that over the years more and more people who fail to comply with their community services are ending up in jail. Is that really what we want? Is that really what we want? Does it help to reduce our prison population? It certainly doesn't. Is it better for that offender if they're then in an environment which not only provides greater stigma for them but actually helps them in their schooling in the art of criminal offending or so we're told? It isn't a good outcome.In 2004 774 persons were imprisoned for offences against justice which includes non-compliance for community services. In 2014 that number had grown to 1307—that's a 68 percent increase. Now we don't have the numbers for exactly how many of those were failing to comply with community service but the submitter was very clear that the numbers had increased.Darroch Ball: I've got them—I've got them.BRETT HUDSON: And look I'll take Kim Workman's expertise in this area over Mr Ball's any day of the week. In fact by November 2015 Mr Workman submitted in support of his evidence that only 36 percent of offenders nationally were turning up to comply with their community service sentences. So the problem has been growing the lack of compliance has been growing and more and more often those who do not comply are heading towards and into jail.Mr Workman did also make a point that as the growth has been there in failing to comply failing to turn up to these community service responsibilities he felt that the Department of Corrections wasn't doing enough to manage people's attendance. That's a reasonable point for a person to hold but I'd reinforce this point particularly for the people of New Zealand and indeed those people who have been sentenced: the obligation to turn up for community service is the obligation on the offender. If they do not turn up repeatedly it's not the fault of the Department of Corrections; it's their fault for not complying with the sentence which was initially handed down in lieu of either a harsh fine or a bit of jail time. They have an obligation. They should be discharging it. They don't need the Department of Corrections to mother them or to parent them into fulfilling their obligations in the sentence for the crime that they've committed.I'll tell you what happens then. What happens as Mr Workman pointed out is that because the offenders of their own cognisance fail to turn up repeatedly when they get in front of a court for their failure to comply his view is that the judge is left with little alternative but to lock them up. This bill would have given an alternative and could still if members opposite would see sense. It could give an alternative to help provide an incentive for offenders to comply with that sentence—a sentence that is better for them and better for the community than jail time. If only they would indeed do so and if the members would support it they might actually go a small way—a small but significant way—to meeting their supposed goal of reducing the prison population. So really it will be over to them. If they truly believe in that goal here's an opportunity to take a small measurable but significant step in helping to achieve that goal. If they don't vote for it they're voting for more people on community service today to be in jail tomorrow and that should be on their consciences. I commend this bill to the House."