Financial Review Debate — Ministry of Justice

Members of the Māori Party were fascinated by the five pages that formed the substance of the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Ministry of Justice. There has been a series of damning reports into the situation for Māori across the justice sector, so it was our expectation that the financial review would make at least a cursory mention in passing of these reports and the ministry’s response.

First off, there was the report of March 2009—a 60-month follow-up analysis of the reconviction patterns of released prisoners. That report highlighted that the relatively high rates of re-imprisonment for Māori and for young offenders are particularly concerning. The re-imprisonment rate over 60 months for Māori offenders, at 58 percent, is over 10 percentage points higher than for European offenders and nearly 20 percentage points higher than for Pacific Island offenders. Yet the only mention of reconviction in the report was the reference to the decision to limit parole for the worst repeat offenders.

The second report we thought would be entirely relevant for this report was the Offender Volumes Report of 2009. The data in this report is depressingly familiar: the graphs reveal as at 30 June 2009 the preponderance of Māori males in the prison population, especially in the younger age groups. As an example, approximately twice as many Māori 25-year-old males are in prison as European males of the same age. Data upon data demonstrate that Māori offender volumes have increased at given snapshot dates. A quick glance at the evidence and advice received, however, tells us that such vital information about offender volumes was somehow not considered relevant.

I turn to what we thought would have been a critical report for this ministry in terms of the emphasis on youth justice. We looked at the report presented by the Ministry of Social Development titled Effectiveness of Youth Court Supervision Orders: Measures of Re-offending. A key statement stands out in this report: “Currently in New Zealand there is no research on the effectiveness of Youth Court supervision orders in reducing the frequency and seriousness of re-offending.” There is reference in the financial review to the Youth Court and there is also reference to the involvement of the Ministry of Social Development. But this is where more questions are raised than resolved. Instead of drawing on this very significant finding, the financial review suggests that the primary focus for the Ministry of Social Development was to ensure that the policy information was accurate, “as distinct from advising on the appropriateness of expanding the jurisdiction of the Youth Court in this way.” I am sorry, but this just does not add up. The Ministry of Social Development’s own research tells us that there is no research on the effectiveness of Youth Court supervision orders, yet that information appears to have been ignored by the ministry in coming before the select committee.

Some other major findings in that research have failed to make it to the financial review. One is the fact that Māori are overrepresented in the profile of youth offenders, at 55 percent—a disproportionate figure relative to their proportion in the New Zealand population of 14 to 16-year-olds, at 22 percent. Another is the extremely high recidivism rate: four out of five of the 1,800 young people in the cohort committed at least one other offence within the follow-up period, consistent across the three supervision orders. One would have thought an 80 percent reoffending rate would be worthy of comment.

Finally, I turn to another major report undertaken in the justice sector during the period of review. I suggest every member of Parliament look at this report; its title is Identifying and Responding to Bias in the Criminal Justice System: A Review of International and New Zealand Research. What is so useful about this report is not that it finally points out the well-known fact that certain groups are disproportionately represented in adverse criminal justice outcomes at successive stages of the criminal justice system; its key value is that it reports on the factors likely to bring about success in addressing ethnic disparities. It recommends that indigenous peoples should have a central role in programme design, implementation, and governance; that there should be a holistic approach to addressing structural inequalities more broadly; and that it should be appropriately monitored.

I have bothered to go through these four different reports because it is our view that current New Zealand analysis and research on the key issues confronting the justice system should form a specific context to any financial review of the sector. These reports have told us that the current evidence depicts high and unchanging recidivism rates and continued overrepresentation of Māori at every level of the criminal justice system from apprehension through to recidivism.

Yet what do we find when we look at the 2008-09 financial review? On the first page we find a whole paragraph dedicated to the large number of departmental officials who attended the hearing, as if too many people at a hearing or meeting is one of the critical issues cutting through the sector. We fully appreciate the extra load that has landed on the Ministry of Justice in responding to not only the demands of electoral work following the general election in November 2008 but also the heavy focus on justice and law issues in the 100-day legislative programme of the new Government. But it is not as if the information is not on hand; these reports are all generated by various arms of Government: the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Social Development, and the Department of Corrections. The facts and figures are there for all to see—all except for the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee, it seems.

In one case, even when the facts are explicit, the review manages to slide past them in a way that downplays the reality. The youth justice sector of the report describes a question from the select committee as to whether the youth justice system continues to aim to take a diversionary approach to young offenders. The Ministry of Justice confirmed that this is still the intention, yet the statistics tell us that prosecutions of youth offenders have increased while there has been an associated decrease in the numbers of alternative actions available. Indeed, the report into child and youth offending describes youth prosecutions as trending upwards, with the proportion of apprehensions resolved in this way increasing from 13.2 percent in 1995 to 28.1 percent in 2007.

I have no pleasure at all in bringing to the Committee this up-to-date information about the performance of the justice sector. I do so reluctantly, with two clear aims. The first is to enable a far more solid context in which to understand performance issues than is provided in the financial review, and the second is to ensure that we have all information on hand in order that we do what is needed to create the solutions we so urgently desire.

I believe the section on drivers of crime offers the one glimmer of hope we need in order to move forward. The financial review reports that the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Minister of Justice co-hosted a ministerial meeting on the drivers of crime in April 2009. That meeting was distinctive in its ambit as it sought to address the underlying causes of crime rather than just the criminal justice sector’s response to it. These causal factors included early childhood trauma, disconnection from society, and deterioration of family, community, and cultural support structures. So it is heartening to read in the report that addressing the drivers of crime would be established as a whole-of-Government priority. We certainly feel confident that, with the work that Dr Sharples is leading in the drivers of crime policy and the work that Tariana Turia is leading in Whānau Ora, we are embarking on pathways that can help to address these disproportionate and persistent statistics by drawing on the strength of whānau as our greatest resource. Thank you.

I seek leave to lodge with the Committee a copy of my letter to the Minister of Justice dated 14 December 2009, requesting that Strategic Finance be put into statutory management.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I seek leave to lodge with the Committee a copy of the Minister of Justice’s reply to my letter, dated 21 January 2010.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

It is good to be able to take the opportunity to review the year in this financial review of the Ministry of Justice, and to review the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee and the officials from the justice ministry who have appeared before the committee. The previous speaker commented on the work of the committee and on the proportion of justice legislation that formed part of the Government’s 100-day plan and has been transacted through the select committee and the House over the past 12 months. I take this opportunity to thank those justice officials who have worked with the select committee, and to thank the members of the committee, who have worked very collegially over the last 12 months to transact that legislation. Although there have been some significant points of difference, largely there has been a great deal of consensus within the committee, which is the way that things should be with regard to legislation that we would like to think was relatively apolitical and was certainly needed.

I take issue with a number of comments made by the previous speaker as to the work of the select committee and those things that appear to have slid past the committee. It seems a little difficult for a member of a party that is not represented on the committee to be able to make those sorts of comments, not having been within the room. The point is that the issues raised in terms of youth offending are covered across a number of committees. They have been traversed within the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Social Services Committee, and it is important to point out a couple of points. One point is in respect of the number of prosecutions of youth appearing before the Youth Court. Actually, the proportion of youth who appear before the Youth Court, as a proportion of all youth who come to the attention of the police, is staying about the same as it was previously. About 20 percent of those who come to the notice of the police are dealt with by way of a family group conference along the Youth Court track, and only about 20 percent of that group actually appear before the Youth Court. The reason that more young people have been appearing before the Youth Court is due to the scale and severity of the crimes they have committed, particularly crimes against the person. The ability to deal with those crimes through ways other than prosecution is very, very limited.

It is important, though, to point to the work that the committee and the justice ministry have done over the last 12 months in respect of the legislation that has come before the House. They have worked on legislation that has clamped down on criminal gangs and their ability to work within the P trade. They have been tackling the problems of violent youth crime, which is what we were talking about a moment ago. Not long after the National Government came in after the 2008 election, one of the first pieces of legislation it introduced strengthened the bail laws in order to make it harder for violent criminals to get bail, rescinding a move by the previous Government. Then the National Government removed the right of the worst repeat violent offenders to be released on parole. We introduced legislation to enable the police to take DNA from all people who are arrested for an offence punishable by imprisonment, and that is probably the single piece of legislation with the ability to protect more people than any other single piece of legislation that this House is likely to look at enacting. We need to bear in mind that securing a DNA profile from somebody who is arrested for a relatively minor offence is likely to prevent an increase in the number of victims, because identifying such offenders means that if they ever escalate their offending they can be identified. That is especially so in respect of crimes against the person where bodily secretions or hair is left at the scene of a crime. Those offenders will be able to be identified and will not be able to go on to commit the level of offending that has been seen as abhorrent in our community.

The justice ministry gave advice on the setting up of the victims’ compensation scheme. That scheme involved the introduction of a $50 offender levy for any person who is convicted of an offence before the court. That money is put into a victims’ fund to assist in the education of victims as to their rights and the resources available to them to be able to attend, for instance, parole hearings, or to obtain childcare while they are giving evidence in court. It will enable them to attend trials involving family members or trials at which they are to give evidence. The Legal Services Agency helps victims of crime and the families of victims of crime to attend parole hearings and coronial inquests at no expense, but we had had instances in respect of that that we needed to address. We were pleased to receive support across the House in respect of that measure. Thank you.

The financial review of the Ministry of Justice proceeded without great moment this year. That, really, has been the measure of the Justice and Electoral Committee throughout this year: it has been an uncontentious committee. There have not been a lot of headlines about it and—as the chairman, Chester Borrows, has said—members have, on the whole, worked collegially and cooperatively. I think that probably has something to do with the fact that we are seeing a Government that is implementing its election promises in the areas of law and order and justice. Alongside our pledges to make a difference in the economy, those were the single biggest things upon which the National Party and John Key were elected.

The review process has been good and uncontentious. Together with the Law and Order Committee, this select committee has put through a large volume of legislation. My recollection, off the top of my head, is that it has considered about 11 substantial bills in the last year. That is not to say that it has been some sort of supermarket conveyor belt, just pushing bills through. In fact—as, again, Chester Borrows has said—a lot of thought has been put in by the committee. There has been a huge amount of deliberation and, of course, a large amount of work by the Ministry of Justice officials, who have done an excellent job, particularly—as, I think, Rahui Katene said—in that 100-day period at the start of this Parliament. They had a huge amount to do and did it with aplomb.

I do not want to go through all the legislation that has had impact in this area, but I want to single out one bill. My view as a former criminal lawyer is that this bill, along with one that was before the Law and Order Committee—the legislation on the proceeds of crime—will have the single most important impact and a large effect for the good of victims, ultimately creating less victims in our society. The bill I am talking about is one that Chester Borrows talked about: the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Act 2009.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Fewer.

What did I say? Was it bad English?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: You said “less”; it should have been “fewer”.

Thank you. Less victims—

💬 Hon Members: Fewer.

Fewer victims—that is a product of the school I went to. Chris Carter was my English teacher. That may have had something to do with it; I do not know.

The legislation will create fewer victims—let us get that right—in a couple of ways. Firstly, more criminals will be convicted because there will be more DNA on that database. Also important is the fact that if we take, for example, the David Dougherty case, which I think everybody will remember—I think a DNA trace on his underpants saw him vindicated and cleared of a rape, despite having been in prison for some time—we will see that not only are the guilty convicted but also the innocent are acquitted, and, as in his case, the innocent going free after spending some time wrongfully behind bars. I think this is powerful legislation that will make a large difference, along with the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, which has already seen, in only a 2-month period, many millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains taken from criminals—actually, from just a small number of wealthy thugs.

The Ministry of Justice officials are doing a great job for the Justice and Electoral Committee and for justice. If there is a golden thread that runs through everything we and the Law and Order Committee have done, it is about victims. It is about getting a better deal for victims so that they see justice in the process, but also so that there are ultimately less victims of crime.

Report noted.

Ministry of Health