8. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
to the Minister of Corrections
Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement with regard to the rising prison population that “The criminal justice system cannot go on as it is”; if so, why?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) Link to this
Yes; over the last 8 years New Zealand’s prison population has increased by about 71 percent, which is an enormous increase. That figure reflects tough laws against criminals. It reflects the biggest-ever increase in policing numbers in New Zealand—things that never happened under the member’s National Government. The system has responded to that increase by creating an additional 2,345 beds. That comes at a cost of about a billion dollars and around $200 million in annual operating costs. The Prime Minister is quite right in saying that imprisonment cannot be the sole solution to making the community safer. Labour has always said that cracking down on crime has to be accompanied by addressing the causes of crime, and the Prime Minister’s announcement at the time—of effective interventions—is designed to do just that and has been successful.
Does he share the view of his Cabinet colleague Shane Jones, who was reported in the Northland Age as saying that he wanted the Government to wage war on gangs but “did not except to receive much support from his party for a more direct approach” and was “afraid that just effective measures were not likely to please some of his colleagues.”?
Every member of our caucus is committed to voting for the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, which is currently before Parliament. That will take the toughest-ever action in reversing the onus of proof against gangs and effectively confiscating their assets. That speaks for itself.
Lynne PillayThe impact would be huge in both respects. As it is, with the continuing rise in prison numbers and the need for modernisation, the country will have to spend some hundreds of millions of dollars on prisons. If we were to abolish parole, I am informed by the Department of Corrections that that would require an additional 2,200 beds, capital spending of more than $1.3 billion, and ongoing costs of around $233 million a year. So when the National Party implies it would abolish parole but never quite commits itself, it needs to explain whether it will pay for that by abolishing tax cuts; by borrowing money, which it has promised to do; or by cutting spending on health and education. The truth is that National is making a promise in that regard that it intends to dishonour.
Does he agree with his colleague Russell Fairbrother who said, when speaking on behalf of a group calling itself The Really Sensible Sentencing Trust, that common thieves, taggers, and disqualified drivers do not deserve to be locked up and instead should be “supported in the community with taxpayer funds.”; and can we expect to see that rolled out as Labour Party policy during election time?
The member is well aware of the tougher measures against tagging that have been passed by this House and launched by the Prime Minister. But I do not think that even the rednecks in the National Party are advocating that we should be locking up 14-year-olds in prison for tagging.
In what ways has the Government moved to toughen laws against serious offenders, as the Minister suggested in his answer?
There is a whole series of measures. The Bail Act in 2000, for example, reversed the onus of proof so that recidivist offenders had to prove to the court why they should be bailed, rather than the police having to prove to the court why they should not. The Sentencing Act increased from 10 to 17 years the minimum period of time before parole faced by an aggravated murderer. It also resulted in the time actually spent in prison by convicted sexual violators going up by 40 percent, and in people convicted of serious assault spending 70 percent of their sentence in jail not 50 percent. Finally, before I exhaust your patience, Madam Speaker, the Parole Act requires the paramount consideration to be the safety of the community, which is why the Parole Board is now declining 72 percent of applications, not the 50 percent it used to under a National Government.
Does he agree with the following statement: “We have candidates saying that we have to lock them up for longer, and that we have to have more police to lock them up, then saying the prison numbers are going up too much. We can’t have it both ways.”, and does not what he said on 2 June 1994 describe Labour’s own confusion on law and order policy?
There is absolutely no confusion in Labour’s policy. We are not slippery like the National Party. It is quite clear, as I said earlier, that this Government has taken a tougher position on law and order issues. That is why the prison—
Members can laugh, but that is why the prison population has gone up by 71 percent. It is equally clear that this Government is committed to addressing the causes of crime, which is what Effective Interventions is doing very effectively right now—it is both aiming at reducing offending and is successfully reducing reoffending.
Can he confirm that when he was asked to report to Cabinet in March 2005 on credible options for reducing the prison population, he rejected the use of electronic bail, rejected the expansion of home detention, and rejected sentencing guidelines and lowering maximum sentences; and can he also confirm that all of these have since been introduced after he was moved on as Minister of Justice?
The member needs to do his homework a little better than that, quite frankly. Electronic monitoring of bail has changed, and it has changed because we now have the technological equipment to do that effectively. What I find strange about the member is that one day he stood up in this House and said that there were only 26 on it and it was far too few, and when he found out that he was wrong and it was four times that much, he said that there were far too many on it and it was dangerous.