Prevention Better Than Cure

Speech to the Sensible Sentencing Trust 'Advancing Victims' Rights 2008 Conference; Mercure Hotel, Wellington; Saturday April 19 2008.

Those of you who are old enough to remember the 1970s will clearly be familiar with the names Kirsa Jensen, Mona Blades and Jennifer Baird.

If you're younger, you probably won't have heard of them. They were girls who were either murdered or disappeared in suspicious circumstances. Their cases were much discussed at the time and, I understand, the Mona Blades case is still active 30 years on.

I suspect some of you will be able to tell me details of the case. For example: Mona Blades went missing on May 31 1975 while hitchhiking from Hamilton to Hastings. She got into an orange Datsun 120Y stationwagon on the Napier-Taupo road and disappeared without a trace. Her body and belongings have never been found.

Another name familiar to you will be Marie Davis, the 15-year-old girl whose body was recovered from the Waimakariri riverbed two days ago. Recovering a 15-year-old's body - I don't know how the police do their job.
But I suspect nobody will be discussing Marie in 30 years time there are now so many such cases. We all know there will be a similar case within the next six months - if not sooner - and, after a while, the public gets a little immune to it. That is a great pity - or rather a tragedy - because we should retain that sense of outrage, that sense of shock, that anyone could do such things to another human being.

But the truth is that we have become blase. The frequency and the nature of offending - especially violent offending - are getting worse, but the result is that we now forget serious cases.

I am kept grounded partly by visiting the Sensible Sentencing Trust's website. I don't know who manages it, but it is top quality. It tells me things I need to know. Because of it I know about Natasha Hayden, killed on January 10 2005 by a local criminal well known to the police because of a long criminal record including rape, assault and other violent crimes.

Two weeks later this career criminal was charged with Natasha's murder and remanded in custody with interim name suppression.

To the astonishment of Natasha's family the defendant's lawyer was successful in gaining bail for his client on July 7 2005 and the trial date set for February 20 2006.

He was returned to the local community and whilst on bail killed a two-and-a-half-year-old girl named Aaliyah on September 15 2005 - and another family had to go through all the grief and trauma of losing a daughter.
The legal system had allowed a murderer a six-month furlough and, because of the name suppression, those in the know couldn't even talk about it. Had the defendant's charges been widely known, Aaliyah's parents would have had some warning. The legal system was protecting the murderer.

So the question arises: how did we get into this situation? And how do we get out of it?

When the problem is with the law the answer lies with legislation, which bores most people to tears. If you look at the legislation that makes the news it is the likes of the micro-chipping of dogs, prostitution law reform and election finances. It is all trivia compared to murder, but people cannot get interested in the legal process.

I think it is fair to say that New Zealanders have great respect for the law, but the people who make the law - politicians - have become despised by the population. Yet it is we, the legislators, who can make a difference by getting the laws right and giving judges and the courts the ability to get the decisions right at their end too. Not only does this mean the criminals will be convicted and get the sentence they should, but that victims will feel that justice has been done and our communities will be safer places. There is much work to be done.

While ACT's Law and Order Policy is still being finalised, we have been consistent over the course of several elections. 'Zero Tolerance for Crime' was the ACT message long before everyone else joined the chorus. Putting forward ideas that resonate is something we are very proud of in ACT and in the MMP environment it is very important that good ideas are grasped by many Parties.

When discussing ACT's policies and future commitment to victims I would like to begin with a success story. Last July we had before Parliament the Criminal Justice Reform Bill. Now passed into law, this Bill sought to remove the automatic right of a victim to appear at a parole hearing and be replaced with "the victim may be invited to appear". Adding insult to injury, invited victims would then be confined to discussing "the risks to the community" posed by the criminal's release and "ways of managing the risk". I put forward six amendments to have this outrageous "invitation" provision removed and to preserve the status quo of victims being able to appear before the parole board if they choose. Amendments put forward by an opposition MP are not easy to get through - but thankfully I was successful, thanks in no small part to my former ACT colleague Stephen Franks who drafted the amendments. I should also thank Ron Mark, who supported my amendments - denying Labour the majority it needed to shut victims out of parole hearings. This was a victory on two fronts - most importantly for victims and their families, but also for MMP.

I'm hoping that before long the other things that ACT promotes will be in place and regarded as successful too. Abolishing parole is something we have long advocated because it is a failed experiment which has been used as a tool to get the prison muster down and along with it the cost of corrections facilities. Sentences should be served in full. I say parole is a failed experiment because the rate of re-offending of those on parole is unacceptably high. It has become an abused privilege.

Family Group Conferences are another tool, used for youth offenders that have no authority or power to follow through with decisions made and often make the situation for victims worse. I have seen some positive results where early offending has been successfully dealt with through Family Group Conferences. However there are many more cases where youth with long lists of criminal activities have merely been referred for conference after conference - the only real commitment made to showing up on the day and everyone powerless to ensure that plans are followed through on. Victims too get a raw deal. They are supposed to be active participants in the process. Instead they are frequently excluded because of distance from the meeting place. The rights and consideration all go to the young offender and nothing more than lip service paid to the victim. Referral to the Youth Court seems painfully slow and a much more rigorous process with milestone points for progression through the system are needed.

Rehabilitation must be part of the Justice and Security picture. As MPs we are entitled to visit any prison in the country. I can honestly say that they are truly awful places and I was always pleased to leave after visiting but there was one exception. I say was, because it is now gone - Auckland Central Remand Prison, better known as the Private Prison. It was started under a National government and given a five year contract. A memorandum of understanding was established with local iwi and Pacific Island Groups and their representatives were active participants. Classes teaching inmates to read and write were available but were a privilege that had to be earned with good behaviour. Mental illnesses were treated. Not surprisingly the recidivism rate was much lower than that from inmates in state prisons. But a change in government and a different philosophy (it's the state's job to run prisons) saw the private key locked in and the public malaise start in the only well-run outcomes-based prison this country has ever seen. ACT wants to see the law changed to allow for private prisons.

Victim compensation has been talked about for some time and most recently by the National party. ACT supports the concept of victim compensation but the devil is in the detail. For example, levying a convicted fraudster say $50 might well end up costing thousands of dollars to collect. The cost would be met by the taxpayer, with none reaching the victim. There are many possibilities that warrant thorough investigation. Here is one idea that I think could be considered: A financial value could be assigned to all sentences and a high proportion paid to the victim. At the same the Proceeds of Crime legislation needs to be strengthened to enhance asset seizure for victim reparation. This type of system already exists in the United Kingdom.

It's an old cliche but true: Prevention is better than cure. If we had effective prevention of crime the chances are that none of us would be here today or have experienced the tragedies that have cost us loved ones. Prevention is easy to say and much harder to enact but the sooner we make a proper and meaningful start the sooner we help others avoid the pain and loss I know you have all suffered. Crime most often begins in dysfunctional families, where boys have no father-figure, those subject to physical and sexual abuse - the risk factors are well known. The two big parties have already shown a reluctance to significantly change the areas of greatest contribution, Welfare and Education. ACT believes they are key to reducing crime and returning society to a high civil standard where security can be assured.