10. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does she agree with the former Minister of Police the Hon George Hawkins that the recent violence in his electorate is the worst in 25 years; if not, why not?
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) Link to this
The Minister has every sympathy for the views of the member the Hon George Hawkins. She is concerned about any community facing an outbreak of violent crime. Violent crime in New Zealand and internationally has been increasing over the past 25 years. However, homicides in New Zealand have fluctuated over the past decade: in 1997 there were 151, and in 2006 there were 98.
How can the Minister of Justice claim that the recent spate of murders is the product of the sun and the moon, when at the same point in the year there had been five murders in 2006 and 11 in 2007, but there have been 14 so far this year, and that means that, even when population increases are taken into account, violent offences have increased by 22 percent since Labour took office?
The Minister of Justice, Annette King, made the comments that the member refers to in answer to a questioner whom she believed was seeking the views of others. The comments do not represent the Minister’s views; they represent the views of others trying to seek a rational understanding of, or a sensible cause for, the recent events in South Auckland. The Minister of Police knows full well that the motivation for individual crimes varies according to the circumstances, and she would certainly not seek to trivialise the seriousness of such issues.
Martin GallagherOnly today the New Zealand Herald reported that non-governmental organisations were advising that the Government’s attitude and behaviour change campaign around family violence is having an effect, and that agencies are seeing quite significant self-referral numbers coming through. This increase in reportage is very good for victims. It is not good for the crime statistics, because they will show an increase, but it is good for society, because the perpetrators of these violent crimes will be called to account.
How will the public view the Minister’s statement yesterday that “… 2008 will be the year in which victims’ rights are properly addressed.” as anything other than an admission that victims’ rights have not been properly addressed for the previous 8 years of this Labour-led Government; and why should they think anything has changed, when yesterday the Prime Minister proposed a victims’ charter and compensation scheme—something she first proposed in 1994, 14 years ago?
The situation for victims has changed markedly. This Government introduced a new package of rights for victims, including the right to be heard at a trial. Under National, prisoners were automatically entitled to parole after serving two-thirds of their term; today they are not entitled to parole until they can prove they are not a threat to society, and many are held for their full term. Under National, people in prison for murder were entitled to parole after serving 10 years; under Labour, the courts can set minimum periods, and people have to do 14, 20, or 33 years before they can apply for parole. Under National, people had to have done two serious crimes before they were eligible for a sentence of preventative detention; under Labour, the first crime can make a person eligible for that. We have been much tougher on crime.
Hon Phil GoffCan the Minister confirm that two pieces of victims’ legislation have been passed in recent New Zealand history—the 1987 Victims of Offences Act, and the 2002 Victims’ Rights Act—that both were passed under Labour Governments, and that National has never passed legislation protecting or promoting victims’ rights?
Why should appointing a group of “highly qualified and eminent people” to meet regularly with justice sector Ministers make them any more responsive to public concerns about crime, when the youth offending Ministers group did not meet for 3 years, and the crime reduction Ministers group has not met for 5 years—and is Sir Geoffrey Palmer not busy enough?
This Government has done a great deal for crime prevention. For example, let us contrast it with the National Government. Under National, police staff were being cut in favour of a computer; under Labour, more police are on the beat. Let us have a look at South Auckland. In 2006-07, there were 49 more sworn staff and 30 extra non-sworn staff. In 2007-08, there were 28 extra sworn staff and 11 extra non-sworn staff. In addition to that, $10 million has been allocated to improve outcomes for young people in South Auckland. We are putting money into this issue, and we are going to do our best to fix it.
Madam SPEAKERWhat does the Minister of Justice say to voters who believed Labour’s pledge card promise in 1999 to “Crack down on … youth crime.”, when much of the random violence over the summer has involved youth offenders, and when violent crime by youth offenders has increased by 47 percent since her Government took office?
This Government has put more police on the beat; it has not cut their numbers as National did. It has poured more money into preventing youth crime and youth offending. We have legislation to strengthen our resources to deal with youth crime. This Government has a programme and we are doing our best to make sure it happens. I say that the opposite is true for National—it has no answers whatsoever.
What does the Minister of Justice say to voters who believed Labour’s pledge card promise in 2002 to provide “More support for proven programmes to cut youth offending.”, when, after 3 years, the $12 million reducing youth offending programme failed to reduce reoffending, and when the youth offending teams have been found to show “a lack of shared understanding” about their purpose and “a lack of clarity about how aims should be achieved.”?
Youth offending teams were set up in the early 2000s in an effort to draw together local people with local ideas to deal with youth offending. In some areas they have worked really well. In other areas they have not worked quite so well. It is a very good initiative—
A member says “Hamilton”; Hamilton’s has worked very well. This Government has poured more money into the police, and we are cracking down on crime, and we are not going to shirk our responsibilities for it, either.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
What sort of message is sent to victims in this country when a political leader is happily hongi-ing with someone who is a beneficiary of the Bail Act in that he is out on bail although he faces very serious charges?
I am not sure the Minister actually has any responsibility for that particular action. [ Interruption] I am sorry, no.
I seek to leave to table a page from the Manukau Courier that states: “Last weekend’s violence is the worst Manurewa has seen in 25 years, its MP”—George Hawkins—“says.”
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is very rare that I ever question your ruling, but in this case the Minister is answering on behalf of the Minister of Justice, who I think is responsible for the Bail Act.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Madam Speaker, you ruled out the previous question. My colleague Rick Barker is answering this question, but, of course, he is answering on behalf of the Minister of Justice. The question referred to the Bail Act, and my understanding is that the Minister of Justice is responsible for the Bail Act.
Well, in that respect, yes, there is ministerial responsibility, but there is not the actual act of doing it. Would the Minister, then, please respond to the Rt Hon Winston Peters in so far as the question related to the Bail Act.
Hon Trevor MallardThe Rt Hon Winston Peters pointed out very clearly the contradiction of someone saying that he was going to be tough on crime, then being very familiar—hongi-ing—with someone who was out on bail. I think the public will make their own decisions about that. I just advise the member of what my grandmother said: “Show me who your friends are, and I’ll show you who you are.”
Hon Tariana Turia Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to ask the House whether people who are innocent until they have appeared before the court and been found guilty should be impugned in this House.
I seek the leave of the House to put the same leave that I put previously, which was to table this page from the Manukau Courier, which states: “Last weekend’s violence is the worst Manurewa has seen in 25 years, its MP says.” That MP is George Hawkins.