8. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does he agree with the statement of the Prime Minister in her speech on proposed changes to the criminal justice system last week, when she said, in comparing the increased number of prison inmates to the overall reduction in reported crime, that “Something doesn’t add up.”?
Hon MARK BURTONHow does he reconcile the Prime Minister’s statement that “Something doesn’t add up.” with his own statement the same day that the impact of the Sentencing Act is “the lowest crime rate since the early 1980s.”, according to him; if he is right in stating that locking up more offenders has reduced crime, can he remind the public why he is letting them out earlier, by knocking a quarter off their sentences?
The maths is simple. As well as the lowest offending rate, of course we have a much higher clearance rate by the police and quite a number of lower-end offenders are being sent to jail, as well.
That is exactly what we did, I say to Mr Power. We are sorting it out with a raft of announcements that will make a difference, and that will give the courts a raft of alternative sentences for front-end offenders.
How can the 92 percent who voted for tougher sentences in 1999 view the Government’s announcement last week that sentences would be reduced by a quarter as anything other than a U-turn, when in 2002 the Prime Minister told the House that the sentencing and parole legislation “realistically addresses the public’s legitimate concerns about longer sentences for the most serious crime.”?
Simply, because as the member quite well knows the Law Commission advice also said that the minimum sentence served should be two-thirds, so of course the actual time served would be roughly equivalent, even if there was an average 25 percent cut. In addition, of course, nothing in what the Government announced last week would reverse the decisions made in 2002 to ensure that serious, repeat, and violent offenders are locked up for longer—as indeed they are.
Has he or the Prime Minister apologised to former Minister of Justice Phil Goff for repudiating the sentencing and parole legislation that he staked so much political capital in, when he so proudly greeted news of the rising prison population as it “confirms that the Government is delivering on its promise to take a tougher approach to crime”, or is he happy to see the next Labour leader succumb to the “trade Minister’s curse”?
Far from what the member suggests, this builds on the good work Phil Goff did as Minister of Justice. As Minister of Justice, Phil Goff was absolutely correct to ensure that serious, repeat, and violent offenders are getting longer sentences and serving longer sentences. What Phil Goff does not want, and what this Government does not want, is for first-time offenders and low-level offenders to get prison sentences when there are better alternatives that do a better job and are more effective.
Nandor TanczosDoes the Minister agree that many of the excellent proposals for reducing crime contained in this package, such as an increased focus on early intervention and crime prevention, greater access to restorative justice, a greater array of alternative sentences available for judges, and more resources for rehabilitation, alcohol and other drug treatment, mental health education, and work skills, sound suspiciously like the policies advocated by the Green Party since being elected to this Parliament; when will we see more Green Party proposals announced by the Government, such as a public prosecutor’s office?
I think it is fair to say that those members who care to look with any degree of honesty at the package announced last week will see that many of the aspirations of well-intentioned members of this House are contained in that package. I look forward to the day when all parties in this House can support positive and effective justice interventions.
Does the Minister recall the Prime Minister stating at Labour’s campaign launch in 2002 that “Judges can now impose minimum periods before parole of up to two thirds of a sentence for serious offenders.”, as in the case of a rapist who was sentenced to 17 years but was not eligible for parole until 10 years; now that he is proposing a 25 percent discount on the nominal sentence, can he confirm to the public of New Zealand that will mean that in circumstance a rapist could be out in 8½ years?
No again, because if the member were to treat the facts and present them rather than to play politics with them, he would also have reported that there is no suggestion of a blanket 25 percent tariff. There is, clearly, an indication of intent that each category of offence would be considered, and sentencing guidelines would be created by a sentencing council. That could indeed result in some sentences going up and some going down.
Can he confirm that it was the Law Commission that approached the Government with strategies for managing the rising prison population on 2 December 2005, not the other way around—which was, coincidentally, at the same time that Cabinet was told it would need to cough up even more money to cover the prisons blowout—and can he tell us who the real Minister of Justice is: himself, the Prime Minister, or Sir Geoffrey Palmer?