8. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Had he read the Chief Justice’s speech “Blameless Babes” in its entirety when he stated to TVNZ news on Thursday, 16 July “… the Government of New Zealand is elected to make policy—that’s what elections are for; judges are appointed and their job is to apply the law”?
Hon SIMON POWERHon Lianne Dalziel Link to this
Does the Minister agree that addressing the drivers of crime is a long-term strategy requiring community education, and requires political parties and the media to collaborate with each other to achieve that end, as they have done in Finland; if so, why did he respond to the single issue that undermines the Chief Justice’s call for community education and informed debate?
The member will know that I take the drivers of crime extremely seriously. I am not sure that the Finnish model is necessarily the most appropriate in New Zealand’s context, but we are continuing to look at the issue. I say that those issues of policy are matters for the Government.
Hon Lianne Dalziel Link to this
Is the Minister aware that reoffending rates are higher for those sentenced to imprisonment than those sentenced to community-based sanctions, and that longer prison sentences increase the rate of reoffending; if so, how will this information be allowed to inform public debate on effective interventions if the Chief Justice is silenced by him?
In response to the second part of the member’s question, I think my comments were probably not as strong those of the previous Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who told the judiciary to “stick to the bench”, because if they chose to go to the political arena, they would get a political response. With regard to the first part of the question, relating to the make-up of the prison population and the way those sentencing structures work, I acknowledge that there are some divided views on the prison population and its make-up. For example, in 2004 Phil Goff publicly celebrated the increased prison muster as an indication he was tough on crime, yet 2 years later Damien O’Connor told Parliament that almost 30 percent of inmates in jail were no risk to society.
Hon Lianne Dalziel Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked “Is the Minister aware that reoffending rates are higher for those sentenced to imprisonment than those sentenced to community-based sanctions”. He did not answer the question.
Mr SPEAKERI listened to the member’s question very carefully, and the Minister needed to answer only one part. He answered the second part of the question very clearly. I was concerned that he went on a bit long in his subsequent comments.
Chester BorrowsDoes the Minister stand by his statement that “… the Government of New Zealand is elected to make policy—that’s what elections are for;”, and does he agree that policy issues that arise in the justice portfolio often require timely responses?
Yes. For example, I have seen a series of reports that show the Law Commission first recommended the repeal of the partial defence of provocation in 2001. The matter went to Cabinet in 2003. The Labour Government asked the Law Commission to look at it again. When the commission produced its most recent report, in September 2007, I am advised the Government of the day did not respond at all, and did not even produce a Cabinet paper, as required by the Cabinet rules. In contrast, I have announced today that I am seeking Cabinet support to remove the partial defence of provocation from the statute book.
David GarrettDoes it concern the Minister that the judge in charge of all our judges thinks “Penal policy is largely irrelevant to reduction of crime”, as the Chief Justice said in her recent speech; if not, why not?
I was concerned, and made a careful statement about my concerns about the way those opinions were expressed. There is an appropriate context for judges to express their views to members of the executive, and I have to say that, by and large, most heads of bench do that.
Hon Lianne Dalziel Link to this
Is the Minister aware that the Law Commission report on the defence of provocation contained a number of options to deal with the situation once the defence had been removed from the law, and that they entailed consideration of diminished responsibility, degrees of murder, and also the question of sentencing guidelines—which was, in fact, the option chosen by the previous Labour Government with its proposed Sentencing Council, and which the National Government has decided not to proceed with—and in light of that, why on earth did the Government refuse to allow my member’s bill to be introduced?
Firstly, in answer to the second part, that member’s Government had 9 years to deal with this issue. Secondly, this Government, as the member will be aware, is considering a range of reforms in the criminal justice area, which is part of a comprehensive package. It is the Government’s view that those matters should be dealt with in a packaged form.
How can the people of New Zealand have any confidence in a Chief Justice who thinks that “Penal policy is largely irrelevant to reduction of crime” and therefore must logically conclude that it does not matter that William Bell, a person with 102 convictions, including for armed robbery, was out of jail on parole and was therefore able to kill three people at the—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There has been a recent Privileges Committee report on this matter, and my understanding is that the way you were going to rule is that matters regarding confidence in the judiciary were to be brought up in a very specific way and not casually like this.
Charles ChauvelThere is another objection to the supplementary question, and that is that it offends against Standing Order 113, in that it was an offensive reference to a member of the judiciary.
I am not sure whether it was an offensive reference but it was sailing very close to the wind. The Hon Trevor Mallard’s point is correct. I was not going to pull the member up, because I believed that the Minister would probably be very careful in answering it, but the point the Hon Trevor Mallard has raised is one that is absolutely correct, as was the point raised by Charles Chauvel. Members need to be very careful about the separation between Parliament and the judiciary. I will allow the Minister to answer but he knows how careful he needs to be in this area.
Hon Lianne Dalziel Link to this
I seek leave to table the 2009 annual Shirley Smith Address, “Blameless Babes”, and commend it to the House to be read.