6. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does she stand by the statements of the Prime Minister when launching the Effective Interventions package in 2006 that it was designed to “address the fast growing rate of imprisonment New Zealand has been experiencing” and to “make our communities safer”?
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) Link to this
Yes; although if the member had quoted the Prime Minister in full, he would have seen that she actually addressed the issue of how some offenders are sentenced and how some serve their sentences. One way of ensuring that our communities are safer is to have the most serious criminals in prison for longer. For example, the non-parole period for aggravated murder now starts at 17 years rather than 10 years as it was under a National Government.
Can the Minister confirm that one of the initiatives to save prison beds was the use of electronic bail for those accused who had been denied ordinary bail, and that it was expected to be granted to upwards of 1,000 defendants per annum in order to save 120 prison beds a year; and can she confirm that after the first year only 99 applications have been granted, saving just 26 beds?
I cannot confirm the precise details, but I can confirm that what the member says in general is true—that people are using electronic bail. But that is a judicial decision made in the light of the circumstances by those who are best placed to make those decisions.
Can the Minister confirm the contents of a briefing paper for justice sector chief executives, which states that initial estimates for saving 120 beds by the use of electronic bail were “optimistic” because over two-thirds of those remanded are lower-level offenders who do not spend long enough in custody for them to realistically apply for e-bail, meaning that “most defendants placed on EM-bail thus far have been facing lengthy remands on often serious charges”?
How can electronic bail “make our communities safer”, when officials concede that it is primarily being used to release those accused of serious charges back into the community; and does not that explain why one in five have breached electronic bail, such as the accused paedophile who, while on e-bail, allegedly held birthday parties and sleepovers for preschool children, and why over one in 10 have simply run away?
I make the point to the member that defendants are innocent until proven guilty, and that defendants being assessed for bail have to be assessed as to whether they are a real and significant risk. Those decisions are made by the judiciary.
Can the Minister confirm that the electronic bail scheme cost $5 million to set up and costs $3.2 million a year to run, all to save 26 prison beds, yet keeping those offenders in prison would have cost $2.4 million a year, would have avoided putting public safety at risk, and also would have saved the taxpayer nearly $1 million?
I can explain to the member that putting people in prison, even for a short term, means there is a much higher risk of those people committing offences when they come out. People who serve a community-based sentence or who are kept out of prison are at a much lower risk of committing further offences. What does the member want—people put in prison for a long period of time, and, therefore, a higher risk of their committing offences when they come out?
Ron MarkWhy should the country be at all concerned about the fast-growing rate of imprisonment that New Zealand is experiencing; why should we care; why should we not just lock more people up?
Because, in terms of non-custodial sentences, it is quite clear from the Department of Corrections’ figures that approximately 32 percent of those serving community-based sentences reoffend within 12 months, compared with 44 percent of those who serve short-term prison sentences. The whole point of this scheme is that by keeping people out of jail for short periods of time we run a much lower risk that they will reoffend. Less reoffending means fewer victims of crime. What does the member want—more people in prison, more reoffending, more victims?
Does the Minister agree that Ministry of Justice officials were right when they warned that targeting electronic bail at those already refused bail “conflicts with the fact that such defendants are more likely to have characteristics or criminal histories that would make them unsuitable for release on bail with electronic monitoring”; if so, why was Phil Goff rolled when he recommended to Cabinet in March 2005 that “I do not propose electronic monitoring as a condition of bail be reconsidered at this time.”?
Coming back to the bail point, I re-emphasise for the member that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that, in assessing risk, one has to be sure that a person is not a real and significant risk. In the recent decision on bail, one of the judges said there was a “need for a proper inference to be drawn from proved facts, as opposed to the Court engaging in speculation or guesswork …”. Electronic bail has worked very well.
In view of the answer to my previous supplementary question, has the Minister seen reports that show that 85 percent of all inmates paroled are back inside within 5 years, that the cost of violence currently stands at $3.14 billion—and that excludes the personal cost to the victims affected—and that the cost of crime in general on our streets is now $10.33 billion, although the cost of maintaining prisons is only $1.05 billion; if she has seen those reports, why has she not come to the same conclusion as New Zealand First that it is far safer and far more cost-effective to lock them up?
I think we are hearing a new policy from New Zealand First, which is that the moment someone is convicted that person is locked up, and he or she will never get bail, will never be released, and will spend his or her whole life in prison. That, of course, means that that person will not have any chance to reoffend. At those rates, the prison numbers would swell dramatically. Let us face it: people commit crimes, they are sentenced, and they go to jail. What we have found is that for people serving short-term sentences the risk of reoffending is much higher than for people serving community-based sentences. What this Government has done for serious offenders is to provide for longer prison sentences, and we see people being sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment before they can apply for bail. We have got tough on those tougher crimes.