Heather Roy's Diary
Back to the future for sentencing and parole
Labour used recess week - typically a quiet news week - to announce its revised sentencing and parole policies. I say
revised because there is nothing new, instead this is a leap back to before 2002, when Labour passed its new Sentencing
and Parole Acts.
Helen Clark's polling obviously shows that the public is fed up with high levels of crime and what is happening in our
prisons, so changes have been made. Not content to leave announcements to Corrections Minister Damien O'Connor or
Justice Minister Mark Burton, the Prime Minister herself called a press conference and made the announcement -
supposedly to show just how seriously she is taking public concern.
Helen Clark began her speech by saying that crime rates are dropping. What she didn't say is that rates of violent crime
have escalated, and although reports of less serious crime such as burglary have dropped, no one really believes this is
a true indication, or that things are getting better. Many people see little point in reporting crime to police, as they
believe it will never be followed up, let alone result in any real punishment for criminals. The only reason many bother
at all is because they want to make an insurance claim.
Several people have commented to me that Tuesday's announcement was an introduction of ACT's long-espoused "truth in
sentencing" policy. Indeed, Helen Clark has obviously been so impressed with ACT's slogan that she has taken it as her
own - something that hasn't escaped the media. The problem is her definition of "truth in sentencing". ACT always
believed it meant criminals serving their full sentence - that "life means life", and a sentence of nine months means
spending nine months behind bars. Helen Clark's "truth in sentencing" means convicted criminals will serve a minimum of
just two-thirds of their sentence. She has taken a popular phrase and twisted it to try and cover up the fact that
Judges will be expected to reduce the sentences they hand down by around 25%.
The proposed changes to parole are in fact an admission that parole is a failed experiment. We are now paying the price
of a culture that penalises the innocent and forgives the criminal, with 37% of offenders released from prison
re-offending within six months, 58% within a year, and 73% within two years. It is no surprise that Labour is backing
away from its own disastrous Sentencing and Parole Acts, but it is a disgrace that Labour's announcement also indicates
shorter sentences and more criminals remaining at large in our communities.
Also announced were changes to home detention, which will become a sentence in its own right. Rather than having to
serve at least part of their sentence behind bars, many criminals will merely be sent home with an ankle bracelet. This
new emphasis on home detention is more about excusing their failure to cut the number of serious offenders than doing
the right thing for communities. Home detention is a viable option for blue collar criminals, but the most effective
punishment for white collar crime is prison - because it is prison that these people fear most, and which serves as the
best deterrent for offending and re- offending.
Government's first duty is to keep citizens safe. When the government cedes control then the power vacuum will be filled
by thugs.
I have a Bill ready to go before Parliament that would introduce real "truth in sentencing". My Bill limits the
possibility of parole to the last 60 days, meaning that more criminals will pay the full price of their crime by serving
their full time.
The answers to New Zealand's crime wave are proper resourcing for the police and truth in sentencing - real truth in
sentencing - not Helen Clark's namby-pamby version. Parole and profit for criminals must not be an option. Phil Goff
talked about getting "tough on crime, and tough on the causes of crime" in 2002, but that promise is obviously still
some time off.
The link to Helen Clark's speech ishttp://www.beehive.govt.nz/ ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=26773
Kiwis Left Behind As Australian Army Expands
An article in The Australian newspaper this week reported that Australia may be considering increasing the size of the
Australian Army by 20%, from 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers, over the next decade. This is in stark contrast to New Zealand's
inability to play a meaningful peacekeeping role in Lebanon. An increase of 5,000 Australian soldiers represents almost
the entire full time New Zealand Army. New Zealand's regular and territorial forces are at critically low levels.
Kiwi troops are already heavily committed in East Timor and the Solomons, and while we maintain a presence there,
helping to keep the peace in other parts of the world is impossible.
Helen Clark has famously stated that we live in an incredibly benign strategic environment, but it's time she pulled her
head out of the sand and accepted - like John Howard has - that we live in an unstable region. If New Zealand is to
continue playing an active role in peacekeeping, we need the recruits and resources for deployments.
Our part-time Territorial Forces are significantly under strength. We have a Territorial Army of 1,912 (including yours
truly), a Naval Reserve of 291 and a Territorial Air Force that numbers just 25. These services need to be built up and
used as a retention pool.
While New Zealand's Army will never be as large as Australia's, we must maintain the ability to pull our weight
alongside our neighbours, in both peace and war. We need more people making the choice to serve our country - and that
means better recognition, remuneration and respect. New Zealand, like Australia, should consider more innovative
recruiting practices - including the simplification of process and incentives. We rarely give our defence forces the
credit that they deserve, although they are enormously well respected around the world.
ENDS