It seems fitting that two bills related to crime and high risk offenders passed their third and final reading in Parliament this week.
After all, much of the media focus in the past several days has been on a Member of Parliament who, having warned about growing lawlessness, was caught by their own history coming to light.
The two bills have been finalised in the midst of a busy legislative agenda, however in neither instance was the government able to escape the epithet of ”being soft on crime” shouted from the opposition benches. That accusation is, after all, traditional – even when the Opposition is voting in favour of the legislation.
Labour MP Kiri Allan during the General Debate Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
Strike down
The Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill throws out a 2017 law from the previous National-led Government which meant that someone convicted of a third violent, sex or drug offence automatically received the maximum available sentence without parole.
Speaking during the third reading debate, Justice Minister Kiri Allan explained that the application of that law has led to “some extremely concerning sentencing outcomes”.
“Since its introduction, the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court have all ruled that sentences imposed under the three-strikes regime have contravened the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act,” she pointed out.
“When we consider the distorting effect on sentence outcomes, it is clear that we would need to see strong evidence of the effectiveness of this law to justify its continued existence. However, there is little evidence that the three-strikes law has worked as intended: to deter or prevent any kind of serious crime.
“It's extremely important to note that this repeal does not mean serious and repeat offenders will not be held to account. B – All of the same measures that are required by the three-strikes regime will still be available to judges once the repeal takes effect.”
Strongly opposed to the Bill, the ACT Party’s Nicole McKee said the three strikes system had done its bit to keep the worst offenders locked up, adding that violent crime was out of control. But she said the new legislation gave the worst offenders ‘an early Christmas present’.
“Three strikes is not about locking up those petty criminals; it's about locking up those that commit one of the 40 named qualifying serious violent offences, the worst of the worst criminals committing the most heinous crimes,” she said.
“The time for making excuses is up. New Zealand has had enough of being victims of violent recidivist offenders and having a Government that not only makes excuses for them but lines the pockets of gangs while they're doing it. The reality is that this law has not seen enough time to see its full potential.”
Nicole McKee in Parliament. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
“People have to serve the entire prison sentence on a second strike, and there are 640 of them who will be doing this when the legislation got under way back in November last year. Now, we have 24 third-strikers—21 when we started—that average 74 serious violent convictions each. Again, these are not the petty criminals; these are the worst of the worst.”
The Green MP Elizabeth Kerekere spoke on behalf of her colleague Golriz Ghahraman in support of repealing the Three Strikes law, saying the 2017 law was focussed on punishment and made for an inadequate justice process
“Because three strikes is rigid and fixed, it has removed that discretion for all the people involved in this process—that's from the probation officers, the mental health advisers, cultural advisers, and all manner of people who contribute to this, to the defence and prosecution lawyers, and then, of course, to the judges themselves.
“It ignores the circumstances of the offence, the circumstance of the offender, the victim's views, the purpose of sentencing that goes into trying to keep the community safe, and what accountability or deterrence might look like in a given case. It ignores what rehabilitation and successful reintegration of that person safely back into the community might look like.”
Yet, the Greens were disappointed, as were many submitters, that under the Bill anyone who received a harsher sentence because of this law will not be eligible for early release, resentencing, or any compensation.
“We believe that people who have been made subject to a third strike should have their sentence reconsidered by a judge. Unfortunately, the Supplementary Order Paper on this in Golriz Ghahraman's name was not ruled [within the] scope of the bill,” Kerekere said.
National MP Mark Mitchell in the House Photo: © VNP / Phil Smith
Shoot out
The other crime bill passed this week is the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill, which empowers courts to prohibit high-risk offenders from having or even being in the vicinity of firearms.
Unlike the Three Strikes Repeal Bill, the National Party supported this one, but reluctantly, as they had unsuccessfully campaigned to get police powers for warrantless searches included. The Government voted down a proposed amendment from National’s police spokesperson Mark Mitchell on those powers.
“They need to have a warrantless search power—you need to have an extended search power,” he said, claiming the legislation merely retained the status quo.
“There are no new search powers. The police have already got search powers under the Search and Surveillance Act—they've already got section 18. They could use that before this bill came into the House. There's nothing new in this bill. There's actually nothing new in this bill other than the fact that the judge now can issue a firearms prohibition order to an offender—that's it.
“How this is going to be effective? How are the actual front-line police officers going to use this new piece of legislation to be effective, to clamp down on the gangs, and to keep the public safe? I think it's going to be an abject failure.”
Ginny Andersen Photo: ©VNP / Phil Smith
But as Labour’s Ginny Anderson pointed out, while in power the previous National-led Government produced no substantive legislation on this issue.
“The very reason for that was the issue that has just been raised by the member who resumed his seat, Mark Mitchell, and that issue is on search powers that the previous National Government was torn right down the middle on—on whether to breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and have, like New South Wales does, warrantless, causeless searches or to do what this Government has done and to utilise the existing provisions within section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act to enable firearm prohibition orders to operate in New Zealand.”
Having two pieces of legislation related to violent crime moving through the House on the same day resonated with recent opposition talking points in the age of ram raids.
National’s Paul Goldsmith described the close passage of the two bills as “a little bit odd”.
“In this bill (the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill) they're creating an extra tool in order to deal with an issue of gun crime and violence in our community, at the same time as they're reducing sentences for our worst repeat offenders, Goldsmith said.
“So that, I suppose, sums up the mixed messages that we've been receiving from the Government on justice matters and law and order matters for the 4½ years that it's been in power. Are we tough on crime or are we soft on crime? And many people have concluded that this Government is indeed soft on crime.”
Both bills are now a mere formality away from being signed into law.
The National Party's finance spokesperson Paul Goldsmith Photo: VNP / Daniela Maoate-Cox
