Estimates Debate — Vote Justice

Our justice sector is in crisis. When the Justice and Electoral Committee found that out during our review of the estimates, a number of the members were, like me, shocked to find that this crisis had been hidden by both the National and the Labour Governments over a period of some 15 years.

When we did the financial review, which we commenced at the end of last year, we interviewed the Ministry of Justice. Its officials advised us that they had a plan for a baseline review of the justice sector, and that they had established a team to undertake a comprehensive review of the ministry’s capability, and to examine whether baseline funding was adequate for the delivery of services. As we reported in our published report, at that time they told us that the main reasons for that review were the need to meet new expectations following the merger of the Department for Courts with the Ministry of Justice, and the fact that the baseline funding of the Department for Courts had not been reviewed since its inception in 1995.

We bought that line because we were aware that the merger had occurred recently, and we felt it was reasonable to give the Ministry of Justice a bit of time for this situation to settle down. It now transpires that there were, in fact, a lot of more serious issues going on, and it was not until that review was published and we looked into the estimates that we discovered just how serious the situation was.

Although we interviewed Ministry of Justice officials on 10 November 2004 and the baseline review was completed on 17 December 2004—a mere 1 month later—it is interesting that a copy was not provided to the Justice and Electoral Committee until we undertook this review, and little was said publicly. It was something that the Government kept very much under wraps because of its contents. The Audit Office was quick in its report to us on the estimates to point out the serious nature of some of the comments made in the baseline review that revealed the crisis situation we are in.

Ministry officials then told us that, effectively, the reasons for the baseline review were growing delays in case disposal, increased concerns from the judiciary about the level of judicial support, concerns about the information technology infrastructure of Vote Courts, visible deterioration in many court buildings, and broader problems in providing certainty to Ministers about workloads and associated costs. It was a very different story from the one we had been given when we looked at the financial review.

These are some of the comments that came out of the financial review. “Workload demand is unrealistically high for the current level of resourcing in the policy areas of the Ministry.” We were told that the policy area was under a lot of stress. The review continued: “All work remains at a reactive level and medium-term thinking and policy development has been sacrificed to the time pressures of immediate requirements.” I would point out the language that is used. Normally, in a review, we see fairly read-between-the-lines types of statements that are more passive; the use of terms like “sacrifice” shows just how serious the situation is. The review stated: “The quality of policy work is reflected in the increasing nature of demand, but has suffered in some areas from the ongoing time pressures and the need to constantly juggle resources. The functions of the policy group are broad, and encompass some operational functions as well as policy work. This means essentially that a low resource base is spread across a wide front, creating a thinness in almost all areas.” It stated: “There are unmet requirements for work in two areas—to complete the general policy work programme, and medium term strategic policy development.” It also stated: “Currently, the Ministry does not have the capability or capacity to enable it to lead sector strategy, planning, monitoring and reporting. Current resourcing is one FTE, which has resulted in progress being intermittent, based on scant analysis, and very limited in terms of sector collaboration.”

We on the Justice and Electoral Committee had been told that the Ministry of Justice had accepted a leadership role in terms of the sector, and that it would lead sector strategy planning, monitoring, and reporting. We then found that there was one full-time equivalent doing it, and that its ability to do it was severely compromised.

I conclude by saying that these issues are particularly serious, and it is time we looked seriously at this whole area of the justice ministry.

I have to say that I think that that was an unnecessarily gloomy presentation by Murray Smith of the situation of the Ministry of Justice. It did occur to me as I was listening to him that he represents a party that I understand is supporting tax cuts, yet it seemed from what he was saying that he was very clearly supporting further spending on what some people would quite unfairly label “pen-pushers”.

It seems to me that there is a very successful story to tell both in terms of law and order and in terms of justice. In the last 6 years we have seen New Zealand’s crime rate go to the lowest level for 23 years. Labour in Government has responded to the outcome of the referendum in 1999 by implementing a series of tougher laws. That means that the more serious offenders spend longer in prison, having been sentenced for longer periods; also, there is a higher barrier prior to their getting released. The Parole Board is looking at issues of community safety rather than at previous criteria. Four new prisons have been opened in that period, and New Zealand now has, internationally, a very high imprisonment rate. At the same time we have invested in more police staff and in more resources, so for the first time this year the police budget went over $1 billion. Many of us will see the challenges now as being in improving rehabilitation. Therefore, the new investment in the Budget this year was also looking at how to turn round the lives of people who end up in prison.

Side by side with that law and order policy we have a number of notable successes in justice, and Murray Smith spoke a bit about the situation in justice. I think the ministry has been very successful in what it has done to improve the human rights and civil liberties of New Zealanders. I shall give just a few examples. We expanded the human rights legislation so that individual New Zealanders can challenge Government for breaches by Government and in law about human rights principles. We passed the care of children legislation that came in just 3 weeks ago—a major rewrite of our guardianship and parenting law. We removed New Zealand’s link with the Privy Council and established our own domestic Supreme Court—a highly significant decision. We passed legislation to give rights to people in same-sex relationships and civil union. We have passed legislation to improve the ability of individual New Zealanders to complain about judges. We now have a proper judicial complaints system. We have built up powerful victims’ rights legislation, and the Justice and Electoral Committee that Murray Smith and I are on now wants to embark on a further stage of strengthening victims’ rights. We passed clean-slate legislation, which affects about one-third of a million New Zealanders. It enables them to hide minor past convictions to get on with their lives.

I think that represents a very powerful story in law and order and in justice, and I am very proud to present that record to the Committee.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Pacific Island Affairs agreed to.

Vote Food Safety agreed to.

Vote Health