Sentencing and Parole Bill
18/02/09 13:29 Filed in: Speeches
Jim Anderton’s Speech to Parliament on the Sentencing and Parole Bill.
I have always believed that one of the most important things we can do in this House is to bear witness to the truth - to stand up and tell the truth about what we know to be true, despite the consequences.
What I know about this Bill, is that it is bound to play well as a popular measure, but that it is a fraud.
It will not deliver on the promises that have been made for it.
I believe the ministers responsible for this Bill know it will not deliver the results they have promised.
I believe they are pushing it through knowing it will not end violent crime, as they promised; knowing it will not make a significant difference as they promised.
The government has promised this Bill will ensure "there will be no more Williams Bells.”
That was the statement Rodney Hide made in his press release. Here is word for word what he said: “Under this Bill there will be no more William Bells.”
That statement is fraudulent. There will be more violent men who kill after this Bill has been passed. There will be lots more.
The promise the minister made in his press release will come back to haunt him and he will regret it.
The evidence this Bill won’t work is spelt out in the Explanatory Note to the Bill.
The Bill says any impact on prison numbers from this Bill “will not be felt for at least 10 years.” I didn’t read that in the Ministers’ press release. I didn’t read in the minister’s statement that ten years after this Bill is passed, not one single extra person will be locked up.
I read that they were going to “get tough” with violent criminals. That’s what John Key promised.
He didn’t say that getting tough meant waiting ten years before one single person was locked up.
I did read John Key saying “New Zealanders are sick of waiting for promises on law and order to be delivered."
Well they’ll be waiting a long time for this one to be delivered.
I read John Key saying the last government took nine years to deliver - so he’s going one better and waiting ten!
After 20 years, the Bill says, an extra 70 prison beds will be needed.
So let’s add that up - the government says this Bill will end violent crime.
And it says it will end violent crime by locking up a total of seventy people between ten and twenty years from now. That’s about seven people a year.
That’s what National thinks is the extent of the violent crime problem in this country - seven violent crimes a year. It’s a nonsense.
This government has vastly oversold its ability to make a difference.
I remember in 1990 National got elected by saying it was going to end violent crime back then, too.
I remember John Banks saying he was going to get tough and put an end to murder and violence and pillage.
And one month later this country witnessed the tragedy of Aramoana. That was the worst mass killing in our history.
It turned out then that violent crime is a lot more complex than the cheap headlines National wants to get.
It will turn out the same this time. I know that. National knows that.
This country has a serious problem with violent crime.
I saw research this week that showed only 43% of New Zealanders feel completely satisfied about their own security and safety in their own home.
And therefore we owe it to New Zealanders to do something real about about violence.
But this Bill does nothing to reduce violence.
You don’t get locked up until the violent crime has already been committed.
This government is soft on crime because it won’t do anything to stop the crimes being committed in the first place.
The members opposite say they will reduce crime by locking up the most serious violent offenders.
But you don’t lock them up until they have already committed a serious violent offence.
It doesn’t lock them up before they commit it.
So what this Bill is really about is not reducing crime at all. It is about revenge. It is about denouncing criminals.
Now I actually agree there is a place for denuncuation in criminal sentencing.That’s why when my colleague Matt Robson was corrections minister he started building more prisons than any corrections minister in history.
So I support putting violent offenders away and my party helped to put the prisons in place to do it.
But you ought to be frank about what you are doing.
If the object of a Bill is to denounce crime, then say that - don’t come in here pretending that the Bill is going to reduce violent crime. This Bill isn’t, you know it isn’t, and that makes the very basis of this Bill a fraud, and it insults this House.
It insults the intelligence of members.
The object of this Bill is to pretend the government is getting tough.
If I’m generous I would say the object of this Bill might be to punish offenders more.
But I do not believe the object of this Bill is to reduce offending.
I actually put out a widely ignored and very detailed plan for reducing crime before the last election.
We went through every measure that expert research and expert policy shows makes a long term difference over time.
It starts with reducing at risk behaviour, it continues to getting tough with young hoons on their way to a life of crime. And it includes addressing the major risk factors in prisons, like alcohol and illiteracy.
Because when over 90 per cent of criminals have an alcohol or drug problem, then you aren’t going to rehabilitate them and turn them away from a life of crime unless you fix those.
And for all of those proven and efficient policies, the best estimate of the difference it would make was this - in the long run, it would reduce crime by about 17 per cent. That is about the most you can promise.
It is a long way short of what the government has promised for this Bill. They promised an end to violent crime - and now they are accountable.
We have heard a lot of songs about accountability from the government.
Now they are accountable for their promise to make a significant reduction in violent crime.
They are accountable for their promise their will be no more William Bells. God help them if there is one more after this.
So if it won’t make much difference to crime, what difference will this Bill make?
We happen to know the answer, because other countries have tried the three strikes and you are out approach.
It always results in huge anomalies. It always results in greater injustices. When you take away sentencing discretion, you get bad sentencing.
Let me give you one example: Imagine a woman who living with a violent thug with a record, and getting the bash.
What are the chances that she will now be even less likely to leave? What are the chances she will be much less likely to report a man when she knows it would mean that he would be locked up for life.
Those are decisions victims make all the time - and the truth is this Bill will ensure some women in exactly that position suffer grievously because of the horrifying dilemmas it will create. What is compassionate about that?
We owe it to New Zealanders to get tough on crime. This bill does not.
This Bill pretends to get tough.
This Bill will lead to perverse results.
This Bill will not deliver National’s promise to significantly reduce crime.
And I cannot support its vile cynicism.
I have always believed that one of the most important things we can do in this House is to bear witness to the truth - to stand up and tell the truth about what we know to be true, despite the consequences.
What I know about this Bill, is that it is bound to play well as a popular measure, but that it is a fraud.
It will not deliver on the promises that have been made for it.
I believe the ministers responsible for this Bill know it will not deliver the results they have promised.
I believe they are pushing it through knowing it will not end violent crime, as they promised; knowing it will not make a significant difference as they promised.
The government has promised this Bill will ensure "there will be no more Williams Bells.”
That was the statement Rodney Hide made in his press release. Here is word for word what he said: “Under this Bill there will be no more William Bells.”
That statement is fraudulent. There will be more violent men who kill after this Bill has been passed. There will be lots more.
The promise the minister made in his press release will come back to haunt him and he will regret it.
The evidence this Bill won’t work is spelt out in the Explanatory Note to the Bill.
The Bill says any impact on prison numbers from this Bill “will not be felt for at least 10 years.” I didn’t read that in the Ministers’ press release. I didn’t read in the minister’s statement that ten years after this Bill is passed, not one single extra person will be locked up.
I read that they were going to “get tough” with violent criminals. That’s what John Key promised.
He didn’t say that getting tough meant waiting ten years before one single person was locked up.
I did read John Key saying “New Zealanders are sick of waiting for promises on law and order to be delivered."
Well they’ll be waiting a long time for this one to be delivered.
I read John Key saying the last government took nine years to deliver - so he’s going one better and waiting ten!
After 20 years, the Bill says, an extra 70 prison beds will be needed.
So let’s add that up - the government says this Bill will end violent crime.
And it says it will end violent crime by locking up a total of seventy people between ten and twenty years from now. That’s about seven people a year.
That’s what National thinks is the extent of the violent crime problem in this country - seven violent crimes a year. It’s a nonsense.
This government has vastly oversold its ability to make a difference.
I remember in 1990 National got elected by saying it was going to end violent crime back then, too.
I remember John Banks saying he was going to get tough and put an end to murder and violence and pillage.
And one month later this country witnessed the tragedy of Aramoana. That was the worst mass killing in our history.
It turned out then that violent crime is a lot more complex than the cheap headlines National wants to get.
It will turn out the same this time. I know that. National knows that.
This country has a serious problem with violent crime.
I saw research this week that showed only 43% of New Zealanders feel completely satisfied about their own security and safety in their own home.
And therefore we owe it to New Zealanders to do something real about about violence.
But this Bill does nothing to reduce violence.
You don’t get locked up until the violent crime has already been committed.
This government is soft on crime because it won’t do anything to stop the crimes being committed in the first place.
The members opposite say they will reduce crime by locking up the most serious violent offenders.
But you don’t lock them up until they have already committed a serious violent offence.
It doesn’t lock them up before they commit it.
So what this Bill is really about is not reducing crime at all. It is about revenge. It is about denouncing criminals.
Now I actually agree there is a place for denuncuation in criminal sentencing.That’s why when my colleague Matt Robson was corrections minister he started building more prisons than any corrections minister in history.
So I support putting violent offenders away and my party helped to put the prisons in place to do it.
But you ought to be frank about what you are doing.
If the object of a Bill is to denounce crime, then say that - don’t come in here pretending that the Bill is going to reduce violent crime. This Bill isn’t, you know it isn’t, and that makes the very basis of this Bill a fraud, and it insults this House.
It insults the intelligence of members.
The object of this Bill is to pretend the government is getting tough.
If I’m generous I would say the object of this Bill might be to punish offenders more.
But I do not believe the object of this Bill is to reduce offending.
I actually put out a widely ignored and very detailed plan for reducing crime before the last election.
We went through every measure that expert research and expert policy shows makes a long term difference over time.
It starts with reducing at risk behaviour, it continues to getting tough with young hoons on their way to a life of crime. And it includes addressing the major risk factors in prisons, like alcohol and illiteracy.
Because when over 90 per cent of criminals have an alcohol or drug problem, then you aren’t going to rehabilitate them and turn them away from a life of crime unless you fix those.
And for all of those proven and efficient policies, the best estimate of the difference it would make was this - in the long run, it would reduce crime by about 17 per cent. That is about the most you can promise.
It is a long way short of what the government has promised for this Bill. They promised an end to violent crime - and now they are accountable.
We have heard a lot of songs about accountability from the government.
Now they are accountable for their promise to make a significant reduction in violent crime.
They are accountable for their promise their will be no more William Bells. God help them if there is one more after this.
So if it won’t make much difference to crime, what difference will this Bill make?
We happen to know the answer, because other countries have tried the three strikes and you are out approach.
It always results in huge anomalies. It always results in greater injustices. When you take away sentencing discretion, you get bad sentencing.
Let me give you one example: Imagine a woman who living with a violent thug with a record, and getting the bash.
What are the chances that she will now be even less likely to leave? What are the chances she will be much less likely to report a man when she knows it would mean that he would be locked up for life.
Those are decisions victims make all the time - and the truth is this Bill will ensure some women in exactly that position suffer grievously because of the horrifying dilemmas it will create. What is compassionate about that?
We owe it to New Zealanders to get tough on crime. This bill does not.
This Bill pretends to get tough.
This Bill will lead to perverse results.
This Bill will not deliver National’s promise to significantly reduce crime.
And I cannot support its vile cynicism.