“Three Strikes” Legislation—Minister’s Meetings with Department of Corrections Staff

Was her Associate Minister of Corrections, Dr Pita Sharples, in attendance at any of those meetings; if not, why not, and if so, how many?

No, because Minister Sharples has his own meetings with the Department of Corrections. I trust the Associate Minister to have his own meetings. In addition to that, Minister Sharples and I meet either every week or every fortnight, depending on our schedules.

Why has she deliberately failed to consult with Dr Sharples as Associate Minister of Corrections or as co-leader of the Māori Party on this major policy issue, even though that is a direct breach of the confidence and supply agreement between the National Party and the Māori Party?

Garrett David Garrett Link to this

Perhaps the member did not hear my answer. Dr Sharples meets with the Department of Corrections every week, unless he changes the date, and he meets with me either every week or every fortnight, depending on our schedules.

Is the Minister aware that since last November four more people have been killed by persons who would have been in jail—and thus unable to kill—had the “three strikes” legislation been in place at the time of the victims’ deaths?

I would not be at all surprised if that were true. Unfortunately, there is a small but extremely difficult group of recidivist violent offenders who will benefit greatly from the “three strikes” law.

Considering that official advice on the amended “three strikes” legislation states that it will disproportionately affect Māori, does it concern her that her Associate Minister of Corrections, who has delegated responsibility for addressing Māori overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, responded to an Official Information Act request on 9 February 2010 by saying the following: “I can confirm that as the Associate Minister of Corrections I received no information prior to or following the announcement of the ‘three strikes’ policy by the National and ACT parties on 19 January 2010.”?

Dr Sharples has his own meetings with the Department of Corrections. I do not oversee them, because I trust him as the Associate Minister. In addition to that, I take offence at a comment that says that Māori need to be overrepresented when actually—

It’s in your own policy papers.

Katene Rahui Katene Link to this

It is not. It is not in my one; it relates to criminals. Yes, criminals will be overrepresented.

What response has she made to Treasury advice warning against net-widening, cautioning that mandatory sentencing policies tend to expand over time, and signalling uncertainty about how the “three strikes” legislation would be used?

Treasury gives a lot of very good advice. I think that is just one of the pieces of advice that the Government has taken into account. The matter is before the Law and Order Committee, and, no doubt, the committee will come back with some recommendations.

Does she consider it problematic for the Associate Minister of Corrections to be “appalled” by the policy that the Department of Corrections is the co-lead agency on, and to describe the policy as “irrational and extreme”, as he did in a media release of 20 January 2010?

Lee Melissa Lee Link to this

No, I am not at all appalled by Dr Sharples’ comments. I know that they are honestly held. However, I say to that member that the Department of Corrections is not the co-lead agency, and, as a member of the select committee dealing with the bill, he should know it. In fact, the lead agency is the New Zealand Police.

What is the Government doing to rehabilitate offenders who have been sent to prison for serious offences, as well as for those who will be sentenced under the new policy?

It will be doing quite a lot. I have visited many prisons, and I have seen for myself the rehabilitation programmes that we have in place. They include alcohol and drug treatment units, prisoner employment training covering a wide range of industries and skills, specialist rehabilitative programmes, and units targeting particular offender groups. We are doubling the amount of drug and alcohol treatment available to prisoners under the National-led Government—something the previous Labour Government could never do.

I seek leave to table an Official Information Act response from the Hon Dr Pita Sharples dated 9 February 2010, in which he confirms that he “received no information prior to or following the announcement of the ‘three strikes’ policy by the National and ACT parties …”.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I seek leave to table the CAB 100/2008/1 form for the amended “three strikes” policy Cabinet paper signed by Judith Collins, the Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections, stating that the proposal had not been discussed, nor was there any intention—

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is in respect of the answer to the primary question. I am not contesting the answer. In fact, I am very grateful to the Minister for answering it. She answered “Eight.” when I asked how many briefings she had. I am not contesting that answer. But I ask for—not today—a considered ruling by you—[ Interruption]

Points of order are heard in silence. The member Clayton Cosgrove has the floor. I am giving him the opportunity to state his point of order.

My point is that on many occasions we have asked this Minister, and other Ministers, exactly the same question in written questions—how many briefings, how many visits, how many meetings, etc.—and the answer, particularly from this Minister, has been, basically, that she will not waste her time answering the question. Yet, when the same question or similar questions are put to her in the House, where there is public scrutiny, she quite rightly and properly answers them. I ask whether you could consider in writing whether we have to waste our time asking oral questions, when there should be some consistency. A Minister should answer written questions in the same fashion as he or she answers them in the House.