Alexander Marc: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Alexander Marc: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14162] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of simple observations. When I look at my Supplementary Order Paper 226 and at clause 4 and compare it with Stephen Frank’s Supplementary Order Paper amendment to clause 4 they have the same intent and feeling. They couldalmost have been written by the same person. The concerns that are echoed— 
Stephen Franks 
: And 92 percent of New Zealanders say it too. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Yes 92 percent of them. Those amendments go to the heart of the problem—that is we have a problem with our sentencing laws and we have a problem with our parole laws. These amendments are trying to do the same thing but we are coming at it from slightly different angles. We are trying to respect the rights of victims in terms of what the bill is trying to address. We are trying to ensure that the interests of victims and in a de facto sort of way the interests of the law-abiding citizens of this country are being heard and dealt with in a fair and reasonable manner. It seems to me that when we value the interests and rights of people in this country at some point we have to make the decision that the rights and interests oflaw-abiding citizens supersede those of offenders. If we have to balance the scales of justice then they must nudge in favour of victims and the law abiding against the interests of offenders. Because they do not always go together. They often contradict each other. In terms of sentencing and in terms of this bill this is such a case. 
One of the things I would like to see done in clause 4 is to put forward the rights of victims to give them a sense of satisfaction that justice is being done to the offender in terms of denunciation of the crime and there is precious little here of that happening. Time and time again when we are looking at sentences and looking at parole the overriding consideration seems to be whether the offender if let out will pose a risk. That is a concern and it is part and parcel of what parole provisions should be if we are to have a parole system but it should not ever be at the expense of the sentence. Because the sentence is the time at which we give satisfaction to the victim. It is society’s way of saying to the victim: “We have measured the offence against you; this is the legitimate punishment that we impose.” Why suddenly do offenders get a break? Why do they get a discount at some later point? It is as if to say to the victim: “We erred on the side of the offender. We erred on the side of the offender in making the legitimate decision to say what the sentence was at the time of sentencing and we are now going to retract the impact that the crime had on you.” That approach cannot be justified. 
We know that 92 percent of the population argued against that approach. This Government has not listened. If the Government wants to impose the failed experiment of parole the failed experiment of sentencing on the law-abiding citizens of this country then it is on its head; it is on its conscience. The responsibility for future victims of crimes committed by offenders let out far too early will rest upon this Government. 
My Supplementary Order Paper amends clause 10 by substituting new subsection (b) of section 107A—“(b) provides that an extended supervision order may last for as long as the offender is capable of committing further offences with no time limitations;”. My rationale for doing that is simply that it should have been addressed with the sentencing. These individuals should never be allowed out of incarceration again. But they will be. The least we can do is then to go back and impose a supervision regime to ensure the greatest chance that they will not commit an offence again. I look forward to support for that amendment from other parties in the House. 
I turn to Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks. The amendments essentially want the same changes as mine and who would disagree? An amendment to clause 4 “Interpretation” inserts a new definition “rights of victims”. The definition includes—satisfaction that the sentence actually served will show denunciation; reassurance that justice has been done; reassurance that the sentence actually serviced will deter the offender. These are all things we cannot possibly disagree with. The intent is that the judgment falls in favour of the victim and against the offender. The offender had his or her chance. The offender made a conscious decision to cause an offence against an innocent law-abiding citizen. It is now in the interests of justice to place the interests of the innocent the victim ahead of those of the offender. 
I note Stephen Franks’ amendment to insert new clause 8A to direct that home detention will not negate or undermine the purposes of the sentence for the offender. Again how could one disagree? The point is obvious. This is a matter of saying that the sentence is supposed to deal with society’s punishment of the offender. Over and above that home detention and other such provisions—supervision and so on—are about maintaining the ability to ensure that the public is not disadvantaged or put at risk. They are two separate things and one should not be at the expense of the other. 
In Stephen Franks’ explanatory note of his Supplementary Order Paper he states that the purpose of these amendments is to empower and direct the Parole Board to take account of the judge’s reason for sentencing. In a nutshell he says it and who could disagree? The judge is in the best possible position to be able to determine the impact of the crime on the victim and to determine the sentence. Why is it that a third of the way into a sentence the Parole Board in its great wisdom can turn round and decide to let the offender out of prison? The board does not have the judge’s wisdom; it was not there at the time of the sentencing but it can decide to reduce a sentence by up to two-thirds. 
The Hon Tony Ryall made a very good point. The offenders who are coming up who will come under this supervision regime and about whom we are trying to push this bill through have the possibility of serving an extra third of their sentence because they come under the previous sentencing provisions. Why on earth are we not enacting that proposal? Why is it that the full measure of the sentence has not been visited upon the offender? If we are so eager to turn back the clock and use a bit of retrospectivity then why not simply just extend the sentence? Because United Future would back it I am sure National would back it I know ACT would back it and 92 percent of the population in the 1999 referendum showed they would back it.