Barnett Tim: Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Barnett Tim: Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19283] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 This evening we are debating the Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill which is sponsored by ACT’s Muriel Newman. I am chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee and one of our early tasks after I became chair in 1999 was to consider the legislation leading to the Sentencing and Parole Bill and then to consider that legislation itself. Eventually that bill split to become the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. I guess one of the themes around that as both Marc Alexander and the Minister mentioned was the 1999 referendum. 
I think that Labour has delivered on the key elements of that referendum. One of the extraordinary elements of this Government is that we have succeeded both in terms of what one could see as the community-focus parts of the Withers referendum—particularly around building the rights of victims—and also in terms of increasing the sentencing for the worst offenders. I was fascinated when in conversation with Garth McVicar from the Sensible Sentencing Trust only a couple of weeks ago to hear him say that in his view this Government has done a massive amount in the last 5 years to implement the principles of that referendum. 
Given that I turn now to look at what the Sentencing Act was all about. A couple of things come to mind. The first was more certainty in sentencing. Before the Sentencing Act went through I can well remember people right across Parliament being very critical of judges being inconsistent. Yet this bill restores more responsibility to judges and as the notes about the bill say “reinstates court control over punishment.” So I am not sure that that is the direction we want to go in at all. 
The second thing that the Sentencing Act does is widen the range of coherent and structured options for courts to be able to use. Within that range supervision is one option. Supervision is designed to minimise reoffending while promoting rehabilitation and reintegration. Supervision is on the sentencing menu: it is flexible; it is relatively unrestrictive; and it is often imposed side by side with other more restrictive sanctions such as community work to address the rehabilitative needs of the offender. From a principled point of view I would say that if an offence warranted a highly restrictive response then supervision would not be appropriate. Reparation fines community work or imprisonment are always available. So in my mind supervision is one of the key elements of that range and I think it should be approached and amended only after great discussion. 
The intention of that sentencing legislation was clearly to give the most serious offenders and also habitual reoffenders longer sentences as well as to introduce those more imaginative options. If we look at the facts we see that there has been an astonishing success story since the Sentencing Act went through. We do by the way have the lowest crime rate in 20 years and I think these debates should take place in that context. 
Stephen Franks 
: Rubbish! 
TIM BARNETT 
: I prefer to look at the official figures rather than to listen to Mr Franks in that respect. We have the lowest crime rate for 20 years yet in 2003 which is the last year for which we have figures more offenders were imprisoned than in any year in the 1990s. The average length of a sentence was 16 months—up from 12.9 months under National in 1994. The average non-parole period imposed for life sentences in 2003 was 13½ years—3 years longer than it was when National was in power. For the first time on record over half of life sentences had a longer non-parole period than the standard minimum of 10 years. Under the Sentencing Act 23 percent of convicted violent offenders were sent to jail last year to serve an average sentence of 29.7 months—the highest figures on record. To me that is a sign that the legislation is delivering what it was intended to deliver. 
However a wise Parliament obviously looks from time to time at legislation so I came to Muriel Newman’s bill with an open mind—as I always do. But when I read in the notes to that bill that it reinstates court control over punishment and when I read the comment that the Sentencing Act turns the sentencing focus into a charade I knew this was nonsensical legislation. Labour opposes it.