Most readers will know that I am a supporter of a strong public service to ensure that all New Zealanders get the support and services they need. But I find the story, Corrections to become monster department in this morning’s NZ Herald fundamentally depressing. Bill English says in the article
Corrections will be in two or three years the largest government department, bigger than the Ministry of Social Development or the Inland Revenue Department.”
This really is sad. As a country we are pouring in money to the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. What we should be doing is investing to stop the causes of crime. The investment that should be being made is in CYFS and MSD to support parents and families, in Education to support those identified early as struggling, in Health to make sure health problems that might effect learning or behaviour are dealt with early, in Housing to make sure everyone has a safe place to live and call their home.
The insane thing here is that Bill English seems to realise the problem, but in the article is talking about the government’s approach as if someone else is doing it.
“This shortfall could expand under more punitive justice measures, he warned. Every time you ask for harsher penalties, that shortfall gets bigger. You are part of the driver of the costs. Lock another person up that’s another $90,000 (a year) plus another $250,000 capital (spending).”
Take some responsibility Bill. This was the government that told us they were ambitious for New Zealand. What a load of spin and nonsense. This is simply a plan for giving out the easy “tough on crime” rhetoric, while doing nothing to make New Zealand safer by stopping the crime in the first place.
A bleepin’ police state
““This shortfall could expand under more punitive justice measures, he warned. Every time you ask for harsher penalties, that shortfall gets bigger. You are part of the driver of the costs. Lock another person up that’s another $90,000 (a year) plus another $250,000 capital (spending).””
This is an important message he is sending out. One I hope the media and NZers will finally grasp, namely, that the majority of people in our prisoners are not murderers and rapists and can be dealt with other ways (proven overseas) but we choose the $340k per year option. How stupid are we… ACT has driven this BS, and Simon Power, who knows SO much better, goes along, as does Judith Collins.
C’mon Bill, go one step further, slash the prison budgets and allocate the money in your next budget to those agencies effectively reducing recidivism and crime.
Tracey Labour have driven this BS for the past 9 years – they had no impact on the level of violent crime in NZ (for which the bulk of inmates are imprisoned) and increased sentences.
Sadly it is human nature to only want to see tougher sentences with no thought to actually preventing the crime in the first place.
Re “C’mon Bill, go one step further, slash the prison budgets and allocate the money in your next budget to those agencies effectively reducing recidivism and crime.”
Which government would be brave enough to go against the majority of NZ sentiment and do this?
No one wants solutions as that would involve taking personal responsibility.
Grant – great post, but re “Take some responsibility Bill.” That’s a bit rich don’t you think? It is a tad unrealistic and hypocritical for Labour to expect the Nats to correct something in 18 months that Labour struggled with for 9 years, something where Labour’s only real response was to increase sentences. Not really a silver bullet now was it?
As a member of the Labour Party I would like to see Labour make moves to end this punishment bidding war, which is callous and inhumane. And if Clayton Cosgrove, on National Radio a couple of mornings ago, is anything to go by, Labour is quite some way from doing this. Cruelty and contempt are the new PC, and anyone who speaks on punishment brackets their statement accordingly.
I think you are being unfair. labour presided over any number of programmes which worked well to address top of the cliff crime issues, including recidivism programmes.
That’s why I said Bill should go one step further, because it does take bravery. Even Simon Power suggested in 2006 that his party would be prepared to do this…now in power, they haven’t, they have pandered.
Unlike you Rebecca, I am holding National to their “change” mantra, that is, to do what Labour didnt. You seem to respond to failures by national to do anything other hot button populist measures by saying, Labour did nothing for 9 years. I thought the point of national was not to do at least what Labour did, but to bring about change.
Their law and order programme to date is not even at least what Labour did, it’s worse (in that lockin gup everyone as a solution is not a solution in my opinion), and Mr English has spelt out what it is going to cost us what he hasnt said is what he and his Govt will do to “Change” this.
I’m a look to the future kind of gal. I dont vote based on my own patch of paradise, I believe in the addage about guardians for our children and children’s children. I don’t have children as you know. My concern is for all children, and their children and so on. It’s the world I am a party to gifting them that is always in the forefront of my mind.
Our prison and crime policy is ridiculous, it is SO proven by experience to be failing, we now do even more of the same.
“Simon Power 2006
All of us here agree that rehabilitation and re-integration
are vital to the success of a harmonised society, and today I am more convinced than ever of what I said in a
speech last week: on the political spectrum much in the
way that it took a centre-right party to start the debate
about treaty issues in New Zealand, so a centre-right
party can lead the debate to solve justice issues without
fear of being labelled “soft on crime”.
I want to just leave you with one thought that has come
to the forefront of my mind in the six months that I’ve
been doing the law and order job for National, and that
is that I am convinced now that all Corrections policy is,
is failed social policy. ”
I dont think he need fear being labelled “soft on crime” do you?
“MPs to comment on the possibility of getting a multi-party approach to penal policy reform that would have agreement on the following eight broad principles:
1 A reliance on evidenced-based policy.
2 A concerted effort to address the causes of
crime.
3 A commitment to reducing New Zealand’s
imprisonment rate.
4 Reform of sentencing and parole policies to achieve truth in sentencing.
5 A greater reliance on effective non-custodial sentences.
6 Support for the mainstreaming of the principles and practices of victim-based restorative justice.
7 Comprehensive prison reform, including more emphasis on re-integrative programmes, work and training initiatives, health needs, faith-based units, etc.
8 Determining of police numbers not on an arbitrary basis (such as we’ll have another 500 or 1,000 or 20,000) but on an evidence-based assessment of need, taking into account costs and benefits.”
It’s time for our leaders to lead, to use their branding and pr and marketing to sell us the real answers. To get the information out to people to see there are better alternatives. Addres victims (of murder) is one thing, but it wont stop future crime. Stopping future crime, reducing it, lowers the number of victims. Simon Power indicated inhis statement about no fear of being labelled “soft on crime” that he would do what actually works. H e is presiding over the same mistakes.
I can see that the creating of a super correctins dept may play into his desire to change corrections culture, as I assume stopping smoking does… but really, he knows better, and he has gone the way of his predecessors.
WE all have to be grown up not just our leaders. WE have toe ducate ourselves and open our minds to other ways. Someone has to have the guts to tell the part of the population that believes in hard labour and capital punishment that it doesnt do what they want it to.
Hear hear Olwyn, Cosgrove is again just pandering to the populist misunderstanding. Why wont he or someone else start perpetuating something better than a myth, like, oh I dont know, the truth. I simply dont believe these MPs talking on this dont know the truth, and that makes their rhetoric even worse, in my view.
Tracey, pandering to populist misunderstandings, or responding to the public will? The day you can convince McVicar to disband and go back to farming, and the day you get the MSM to abandon the ‘too easy’ crime story – “if it bleeds, it leads” – is the day you might get some balanced public debate. Until that day, the politics of this issue is pretty clear.
jennifer what I am about to say will bring the wrath of many upon me, but I’m going to say it anyway.
Sometimes the majority dont know what is for the best. Let me qualify that. It is based on what you are saying too, that because of the misinformation (deliberate and otherwise) because of the “chicken and egg” media loop, people think that tougher punishment will reduce crime. I wonder if the Media, each time it reports on a crime, did a breakdwon of cost to society…
Like those property programmes, where they say what they budget was and what it actually cost.
So, investigation, injuries, victim support, legal case, judges salary, transport, prison facilities costing, per annum prisoner cost and so on…so we have
Story of murder o assault of rape or whatever…and right at the end, the cost to you for this one person’s crime = $1m
Now, would that make people more or les likely to want to lock more people up,?
I dont know the answer to that.
Sorry, I wanted to add, this is why I think we need political parties to put aside thier politicking on this one issue. Cross party accord, an agreement if you like all for one and one for all, to address this one area of society in a different one, educate, explain, stick to one purpose and sign an agreement for a decade. No matter who is in power this will be our legacy to the future NZers on this one issue. Coordinated, concentrated, focused.
Sigh… for a moment I heightened my expectations of the parliamentray system
Tracey I am not quite sure what you exact point is? Do you want to prevent crime or wait for it to happen & lock people up?
Crime rose under Labour despite sentences being increased. Show me where they notably prevented crime & I will change my view.
Considering the stats that have been coming out in the OECD reports right up until the recent 2009 (half Labour half National) I would say you would struggle to prove this.
While National are looking at increasing sentences (including the Animal Welfare one passed last night – yippee yaye), they have also taken other good measures such as the victim bill, gang stuff etc.
I like Bill English’s comment – he is spot on. For far too long the sentiment has been to lock people away & throw away the key, something which corrections GM Leanne Field doesn’t even agree with.
If we want real change we have to look as individuals at solutions – that is work to put a fence at the top of the cliff.
Government can only do so much. Placing an emphasis on something other than sentencing being the silver bullet is, I believe, a very good move by National.
Rebecca said:
[1] Locking people up and throwing away the key is the precise point of National’s 3 strikes and will be the precise outcome of National’s 3 strikes.
Bill English has not made the case for anything more than a retributive silver bullet approach [2]. What new community initiatives for offender rehabilitation and youth crime prevention programmes did his Budget contain again?
Reading through your prose, I get the strong feeling that a new staffer is using the post name “Rebecca”. Either that or you are not editing the talking points you are being given as carefully as you normally do.
in some US states, the only thing that is finally calling these mad policies into question is the fact that the corrections bill is on track to consume the entire state budget! Lets not wait that long here…
Rebecca, I dont understand your confusion. I had hoped anyone reading my posts would see I am not an advocate for locking up and throwing away the key, quite the opposite.
“Placing an emphasis on something other than sentencing being the silver bullet is”
Can you show me in what ways national is changing the focus from the bottom of the cliff to the top?
His comment is vacuous alongside the actions of his law and order colleagues. He’s correct at the ridiculous cost but he stops there. More nothing.
Far be it for me to join the paranoia brigade, but you do seem to be on a different tack thes epast two days, in respect to responses to my posts anyway.
Do you not see the hypocrisy of Power’s statements in 2006, the 3 strikes, the increase in sentences and the reduction of judge discretion…
Tracey & Rebecca: cross-party accords are worthy, but I think an issue like law & order is far too polarised in wider society for it. When you probe the usual suspects for a fence at the top, they go little further than bringing back the 5 C’s: the cane, conscription, compulsory prayer, curfews, and capital punishment. Hmmm, sound familiar?
I’d say it’s sypmtomatic of a US-style red & blue state divide – a front in the culture war for lack of a better term.
Loota: reminds me of the word war between Brian Edwards and Duncan Garner, where someone pretending to be Garner posted in Trollish, and the real Garner pointed out the e-mail addresses involved weren’t the same.
Rebecca, can you explain how the victim bill will reduce crime? I confess to not having read alot about it, can you let me know how many offenders are predicted to actually have, or pay the $50? How much the bureaucracy will cost to determine which victims are entitled etc?
Are you denying that Labour invested in programmes aimed at reducing recidivism?
You seem to be avoiding my original question to you, do you only hold National to do no worse than labour, and thereby release them from their campaign promise of “change”. It’s posts like your last couple that really (genuinely) make me question whether at any level you really do “want” to vote for Labour, when you look for every reason to hark to their errors and excuse national’s
Deepred, I agree that’s why we need geunine leadership which Power feigned when in opposition (cited above) and reverted to type in Power. Until WE become genuinely prepared to accept our uneducated views of this broad issue are part of the problem the problem will remain unsolved.
“Rebecca, I dont understand your confusion.” Loota answered that on another thread…
Tracey I read months ago on this blog that the chase up costs would exceed the $50 cough ups!
That’s what I suspected too Spud. I am not anti victim, but the job of government must be to support the wider public interest. No one can truly sustain an anti victim stance, but pro crime reduction is not anti victim. pro victim though is not necessarily pro cime reduction.
Agreed Tracey – where is the genuine leadership. Between this and things like Super, we need a long term, consistent and widely agreed approach. if pressure for this is not going to come for the pollies then its going to have to come from a change in grass roots understanding across the electorate.
Tracey the changes to how victims are treated is about recognition rather than preventing crime – sorry if my sentence didn’t spell that out. This is a good thing and long overdue.
My point is National don’t appear to be doing anything dramatically different in their first 18 months to what Labour did over 9 years. This is because New Zealanders are only ever interested in sticky plasters – why else does SST have so much support, including that from the surviving families of rather high profile cases.
I am also particularly baffled by this constant criticism of a government that has only been in power for 18monts – when does dramatic change ever happen that quickly? What is it you expect the Nats to do? I would argue that PB refreshing approach to welfare is a great start in terms of preventing crime.
I also find it amusing that those in the red camp expect the Nats to come up with a silver bullet in 18 months when Labour were in government for 5 YEARS before they even attempted to do ANYTHING including addressing child poverty..
Yes yes yes I know you will say WFF came to the rescue….but that was in 2004 and yet Labour was first elected in 1999 (we will skip the issue of food banks over doubling in their uptake between 1999 and 2008)….so why such high expectations for a government only 18 months in???
Well, there we have it, you are happy provided national is doing no worse than labour. I’m surprised that is the interpretation of change.
Wholesale change you say cant come about in 18 months, funny how some tings went through very quickly though…
GST rise, tax cuts, 90 day probation period, 3 strikes, Nat Standards and so on… so it seems its not the speed but the political will.
You seem happy to hold National to a “no worse than Labour” standard. I have set my standards and those of future generations of NZers a tad higher.
SST is well courted by the media and vie versa, they have achieved that well. It is not the same as saying most NZers agree with them.
“My point is National don’t appear to be doing anything dramatically different in their first 18 months to what Labour did over 9 years. This is because New Zealanders are only ever interested in sticky plasters –”
You are also a sticking plaster girl if you are honest, based on your statement that as long as National is “no worse” than, or not “dramatically different” from labour you are a happy camper, gladly willing to give them your vote. All power to your right to do so. I just dont agree with the rationale.
NO Tracey you are way off base, not sure how else to spell it out to you?
NO government can make people do what they refuse to do – New Zealanders are not interested in addressing the causes of crime. That is the crux of the problem
Because of this, no government will ever be brave enough to change the focus in terms of how best to tackle it.
I miss (the real) Becks
“NO government can make people do what they refuse to do” actually Governments legislate to make people do all kinds of things they dont want to do.
Of course NZers are interesting in addressing the causes of crime, and the reduction f it, they are sadly miseducated on it. How many people voted for ACT, yet we have the 3 strikes legislation. There is an example of a Government making people do something they didnt ask for.
Me too Spud, I dont know who this person posting with me is.
Spooky. And not in a good Twilight kind of way…
Rebecca is usually prepared to engage with me, for us to each answer the others questions/propositions but today she seems obfuscate and circular strategy.
Mind you, I am not 100% today myself, so maybe she is unwell too, I hate to find myself genuinely considering a different person has signed off as Rebecca today.
Sorry but I am being me – perhaps a grumpier version as I have just finished all my bookwork & finalised the end of year taxes…also find you guys aren’t being as receptive to me either?
Yes of course the government can make people do what they don’t want to do – why is it you always seem determined to get any point other than the one I am trying to make?
Crime comes from people making bad choices – to stop it people need to make good choices. To do that they need support & a new way of thinking.
The government can set up programs & what not but it can’t change people’s environments therefore, the only way anything will ever work is if individuals, their families & their communities make a conscious decision to do things differently. This is what it takes. Only then would I be pushing for the government to throw everything it has to support them, but until they are ready, there is no point.
Prevention of crime starts with the prevention of child abuse, neglect & maltreatment – succeed in winning this battle and we would almost have a crime-free country.
Paula Bennett is the only Minister of Social Development that has actually expressed recognition of this point and is making (albeit tiny) steps to address it – 18 months in there is little she can do, but give her another term and I think we will see real change for the first time ever.
I also believe in amalgamating resources – why is it no is prepared to expand MSD’s family & community services so that they can become the umbrella group for all NGO’s working with at-risk kids & their families? How come everyone keeps setting up programs & reinventing the wheel?
why is it corrections only spends 1% of their budget on rehabilitation? How come no one has addressed this?
These things aren’t about supporting left or right, they are about recognising that our country is very very sick to its core and that how we treat our children is at the heart of it.
If Labour can show me that they can knock child abuse on the head I would vote for them in a heartbeat – regardless of their other policies. But they did nothing in 9 years – yes NOTHING so I won’t be holding my breath.
There, is that better? Do you get my point now? This is the stuff that drives me. Question is, what drives any of you?
Interesting post Rebecca, because frankly, it makes, in my opinion, all the points I have been making.
one of my original posts however was a quote from Simon Power, what do you make of that?
I loved that quote – it was spot on.
Sadly believing & doing are very different things in politics especially given that once in power you don’t want to lose it, so it is always up to the communities if they want to see real change.
rebecca do you believe in systemic damage to children?
“As a country we are pouring in money to the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. What we should be doing is investing to stop the causes of crime.”
Absolutely, BUT, what would be different if Labour came back in? As a society we are far too knee-jerk and punitive about crime and criminals, without looking at causation – Labour was just as guilty of this in their last three terms.
We need more principle, and certainly more investment in those ‘worst off’ in society to make a difference.
Certainly the principles behind WFF and ECE (off the top of my head) recognised this, but this only went so far (and the flaws have been too much of a distraction).
Rebecca come back Hooooooooowwwwwwllll!
Sorry folks, only just got back to this now after a day out and about.
@Rebecca. I think from a number of posts I have done on things like Three Strikes Bill, cutting of funding to PARS etc you will know that I feel very strongly that all parties, including Labour, need to do better when it comes to criminal justice policy, and to move beyond a punitive approach to something that works on the causes of crime and takes rehabilitation and reintegration seriously. My call on Bill English is that in the article he sounds like a political commentator talking about the policy, rather than the Minister of Finance responsible for it. The words he said are undoubtedly true, but he now has the responsibility to deal with it, and he is simply talking about more money for Corrections. Not good enough.
@Tracey/Pete. There are a number of us working on getting better policy and better information to the public on these issues. In fact just last week with Jacinda Ardern we met with local community law centres to discuss exactly that topic. I hope something concrete will come from that shortly.
Grant – well said. I agree. It is great to see that you as a member of the Labour party are so truly passionate about this issue, that you believe in prevention & rehabilitation rather than mere imprisonment.
My question is given that Labour did not do much to focus on prevention in their last tenure, what is it you would do if you are re-elected?
If Labour promises to end child abuse in this country & throw every resource possible towards attacking what is essentially a deep-rooted problem in NZ, and has strong measures to back this promise up, you can guarantee you will have my vote again.
The last paragraph of the Herald’s article makes for particularly depressing reading
“Meanwhile the Vote Corrections report from the law and order select committee revealed that department chief executive Barry Matthews wanted to expand drug and alcohol treatment in prisons, but did not have the resources.”
There was a documentary on TV One a couple of months ago about the criminal justice system. I liked Finland’s model for corrections policy, it took the focus away from the bloodthirsty “lock up the dirty scum and throw away the key” mentality pushed by the likes of the truly awful Garth McVicar. They’ve even managed to get relative consensus amongst the major parties, and the media seem to be on board too as they don’t have such an obsession for crime stories. It seems to be working for the most part too. It’s a shame more of our politicians, regardless of which party, don’t have the same courage as Grant to push for a more intelligent criminal justice system, but rather follow the populist tough on crime mantra. Makes me proud to have him as my MP though.
jks how do they possibly not have the resources? Isn’t it about allocation? Corrections only spend 1% of their budget on rehabilitation (which I am assuming includes drug & alcohol abuse) so surely it is just a case of increasing this?
What are the spending it on? Containers? Central heating? It’s certainly not pay for the staff – who btw, work 7 days in a row, getting 2 off, only get paid for the 40 hours per week (as the pay-week doesn’t match the shift week) and if they happen to apply for leave, they are often made to work more days in a row before/after they go on leave – e.g. not uncommon to work 10 days so as to avoid missing a day.
@Grant
Good to hear. I’m really hoping for a fundamental shift from the hang-’em-high rhetoric. I’ll be hanging out for policy/info. Cheers
I do know that in California – the 3-strikes state – its borderline bankruptcy has forced the Governator to rethink its corrections budget.
Again, law & order populism has a very strong undercurrent of culture warfare, and it’s a whole lot bigger than party politics. In fact, too big for comfort. To take just one example, in Europe it has considerable overlap with Gypsy-bashing.
Rebecca, where are the resources being allocated? My guess (as a person with little knowledge of corrections funding allocation practices) would be on the general day to day costs of housing ever more prisoners for ever longer sentences being dished out so as to be “tough on crime”. As for the unfair working conditions for corrections staff, that’s another area that ought to be better funded, I doubt there are many that envy the positions of corrections staff, yet it is a vital role. I wonder how much further working conditions would deteriorate under private management.
Deleted. Rebecca, this comment contains unsubstantiated allegations and personal slurs. In addition they are about matters completely unrelated to the original post. That is tantamount to trolling. Please re-consider the way you are participating on this blog, or otherwise we will be forced to take further action, Grant.
I believe they’ll do a great job!
And they softened the recession for us, thank you Cullen! 
Yep definitely a Labour party member – you are expert at skirting around the real issues
Deleted, Sorry Loota but as we have now deleted Rebecca’s comment, it is best if we remove your response as well, Grant
Deleted, Rebecca please desist from this, it is not relevant to the post, nor is it fair. Please email me directly if you want to raise these matters further, Grant,
Does this mean Labour will undo the punitive changes it made to sentencing, parole, and bail that contributed so much the out of control growth in the prison population when it was in power?
I won’t hold my breath. As I’ve said before Labour may talk the talk but when it comes to action, as witnessed by their nine years in power, they’re little different from National.
What of Clayton Cosgrove proclaiming he doesn’t care about prisoners?
Quoth, hopefully you and others are giving Labour a strong message that the talk has to be walked.
Part of the solution has got to be demonstrating to communities that longer and harder sentencing is not always the only nor the best way.
Maybe like the health system, the need for a severe recalibration is going to become obvious because of money. There simply will not be enough money to sustain ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approaches, let alone the societal costs on the way there.
G.R. – no probs with the deletion, thanks for the note.