Collins Judith: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10229] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 It would be remiss of me not to say following that member’s speech that it will be wonderful for the people of Papakura and Manukau to hear from the Government that apparently crime has gone down. Well I say sorry to Ms Pillay but it has not gone down in our patch. It is not down in South Auckland—not violent crime. It has gone up by about 18 percent last year. That is what is happening. 
When I first came to Parliament a mere 5 years ago we did not even know there was this drug called P. We did not know about methamphetamine. Now under this Government almost every day there is a story in the newspaper about some celebrity sports star or somebody else who is addicted to this dreadful drug. That is why this Criminal Justice Reform Bill is so important. 
It is important because it deals with parole. We have said that we will support the rule that prisoners must serve two-thirds of their sentences before they come out on parole. One of the things that Mr Power mentioned earlier was the fact that it was Phil Goff who came down to the House and announced those great big new sentencing guidelines and huge sentences that would happen. But the little kick was that he said of prisoners: “By the way they can come out after one-third of their sentence.” 
Chester Borrows 
: Where is he tonight? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: We have not heard from Mr Goff tonight I say to Mr Borrows. I do not know why he is so quiet but we have had to fix that. It has taken all these years to fix it. 
I commend to the Committee a Supplementary Order Paper put forward by my colleague Chris Finlayson. I would like the Committee to consider the very serious point he has put in front of us which is in relation to his new section 21A proposed to be inserted by clause 40: “Court must have regard to sentencing guidelines”. The Government stated in its new section 21A that the “Court must adhere to sentencing guidelines”. In other words this is another little kick to judges— 
Nathan Guy 
: It hurts. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: —where it hurts—to tell them they are not allowed to make some decisions. 
I have heard some discussion tonight about how dreadful it would be if judges were to give different decisions to different people. I have heard about regional differences and apparently this is a terribly bad thing. Well I hate to tell some of those members who do not seem to realise it that criminals commit crimes and that every single crime is different. Every single crime is different. A murder is not just a murder because of the victims involved and because of the circumstances in each case. Unfortunately we have only one penalty for murder so I would say that perhaps burglary is a better example. Somebody might come into a house burgle the house and destroy the house—break everything ruin all the photographs and just vandalise the place. That will clearly be more serious for the victims than a situation where someone comes in burgles and takes the TV. Clearly there will be different ramifications but on the face of it it is a burglary. 
I think it is very important that we retain for judges the power to use their brains. They all have brains and they are all highly intelligent people. They are all people of absolute integrity or else they would not have been appointed and they are all people who are absolutely dedicated to doing the job. Judges give up a lot when they become judges. We know as MPs that we are recognised in the street that people want to give us their advice that they want us to do all sorts of things and that they want our support. Judges have all of that yet they have no anonymity at all. They are bagged all the time either in Parliament or in the newspapers and elsewhere. They are bagged by people who should know better and they lose out a lot. Their children lose out because who would want to go home and tell dad or mum the judge what has been going on at the school party? The fact is that judges are always in a difficult position. 
If a Cabinet Minister is caught drunk driving he or she will just lose his or her warrant for a little period of time and then that Minister is back in. But if that happens to a judge then he or she misses out altogether or is pushed sideways into some other role that everyone knows is actually a demotion and eventually that judge goes away. That is what happens. Judges have to meet higher standards of behaviour and accountability than we as members of Parliament have to meet. No matter what we do if we turn up in 3 years’ time and are re-elected it is all on again and we are in there again. But judges have to stand by the rules they have to enforce. 
Judges are people whom we should take very seriously. So when judges are told by this Government that they must adhere to sentencing guidelines unless they are satisfied—