Alexander Marc: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Alexander Marc: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13793] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 A little earlier in the debate members saw Dail Jones’ Mr Tough Guy impression and to be perfectly honest it was not very convincing at all. From his little seat over there on the Opposition benches Dail Jones squealed that we should have double the number of police. But on what basis does he want the number to be doubled? I would like to find the rationale by which the New Zealand First members are advancing that policy but this is exactly what that party does. Before it decides anything it sticks its finger outside to see which way the wind blows. If the New Zealand First members are not sure about that they go to Winston Peters. They wake him up after a night spent in Courtenay Place to decide what their policy should be based on what they think the public may like. So their policy is not exactly well-thought-out or thought through but that is exactly what one finds with New Zealand First. That party is called New Zealand First for a very good reason: because its members want to put themselves first. That is part of their culture—tough guy Dail Jones wants to double the police force. Well that is brilliant—absolutely brilliant! Why not triple or quadruple the number? What rationale could one possibly have for doubling the police force? 
United Future would like to see an increase in numbers in the police force too but we have something to base that on. As a rough estimate we would like to see 1700 more police to give us some kind of parity with a process that has actually worked well in New York: the broken windows policy. On a per capita basis that would mean we would like to see roughly 1700 extra police officers on the front line to give us the same kind of police presence that the very successful New York process has. At least our ideas have been well-thought-through and given a bit of rationale unlike New Zealand First’s strategy of just grabbing anything that floats and hoping like hell that the public buys it. Well the public is not quite as gullible as that. 
Looking at the Budget and at some of the broad-ranging things that it delivers or attempts to deliver I see $1.5 million is directed towards Victim Support groups. Those groups deserve some extra money but $1.5 million is not very much. Let us look at the rest of the spending. There is something like $7 billion in surplus but from the spare change the Government is giving $1.5 million to look after victims. I tell members that victims do need some of that money—and in fact need more than $1.5 million. But this Government has not done very much on law and order. It has not responded to the 1999 referendum from Norm Withers where 92 percent of the population wanted tougher meaningful sentencing that denounced crime. What have we had? We have had 4 or 5 years of absolute pap. The Government has tightened up on a few things here and there but that is no more than putting bandages on the  
Titanic 
 and the Government is not doing the job it is supposed to do. 
Let us look at the bail and parole provisions. With increasing regularity we open up the newspaper and read yet again of another offender committing crimes while on bail or on parole. How can there be any sense of meaningful sentencing while there are 35000 cases still outstanding that have not gone to court yet? Some of those offenders may never get to court because the system is so crippled and paralysed. We have inherited a criminal justice system from the year dot that does not have the ability to cope effectively with the huge rise of crime. It has been taken totally and utterly unaware by that and all that we are doing now is talking about where the deckchairs should go. That is not good enough. We have to take the criminal justice system rip it apart and make it address what it should be about which is the interests of the public and of victims but we are not doing very much in that sphere. There is an 86 percent rate of recidivism within 5 years and for sex offenders the recidivism rate is about 70 percent over a 22-year period. It is pathetic! We are still tweaking around at the margins. We are not doing nearly enough and are not nearly effectively enough. 
We do need to beef up the police force but it also needs to be given the tools to do the job more effectively. What about for example having a research facility within the police so that they do not have to rely on foreign consultants to make them decide what they should do? What happens in Sweden or Helsinki does not necessarily reflect what we should be doing here. The police need their own research team to assess the rate of crime and the police’s capability to address those issues. We need that. We also need the police to be armed with encrypted radio systems so that when they get a call to go to a burglary the bad guys have not left the scene beforehand because they have better equipment. That is exactly what is happening right now. Why are there two-man squad cars when there could be three-man squad cars which would be far more effective? Having spent a great deal of time in the back of a squad car when I spent nights running around Christchurch to see exactly what the police get up to I found that half their time is spent off the road on processing activities. They could have another person inthe car and get that car back out on the street much quicker than they do. The police need to work faster harder and smarter and that is a resourcing issue. But this Government does not seem to care about the public interest or about victims because it is not doing as much as it could be doing. 
One of the things we are looking at is four new prisons coming online. Well I tell members right now that if we did have a meaningful justice system those four prisons would be filled up in no time and they still would not do the job adequately. We would probably need more prisons in the intervening period. We should not go down the track of trying to rehabilitate those people who are beyond rehabilitation but rather we need to spend money on and put resources into early initiatives and early interventions in those families who are most at risk. We know who they are; it is not rocket science. But that is what will make the difference. It may mean in the intervening period that there are more people in prisons but in 15 years if we go for a policy of greater intervention with those families deemed to be most at risk we will be able to close prisons. That is the kind of thinking we need to see a Government lead on. But we will not see much of that from this Government because there are no votes to be gained from this issue at the next election. This Government does not want to look 15 or 10 years down the track. So the victims that emerge between now and then will be on the backs of this Government because it is not addressing the core issuesby dealing with offenders before they become offenders and targeting families deemed to be most at risk with early intervention. The Government is not spending nearly enough on that and it could do a hell of a lot more. Everything else is just lip service. 
The whole thing is not helped by the wider issues the Budget has delivered. There are families earning up to $60000-odd a year who are now becoming welfare beneficiaries—absolutely brilliant! Who thought that one up? Who late at night drinking their Chardonnay and talking socialism amongst their little mates thought that one up—that families on $60000 a year should suddenly become welfare beneficiaries? I tell you this: there is a reaction against that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must not bring the Speaker into the debate. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I apologise for that. There is a reaction against that. I have plenty of emails and letters that show people are not willing to sacrifice the wealth they create only to have to go cap in hand to the Government which has stolen and ripped off that money from them and ask for their own money back. That is what that kind of socialism does. The Government talks about people being greedy. Well I will tell members who is greedy. It is the Government that is greedy—greedy for the wealth earned by the people of New Zealand and greedy for the votes of New Zealanders. The simple fact is that the people who create wealth have a right to that wealth. It is made from their blood and their sweat and this Government turns around and takes it off them. Why should they have to pay for the socialist ideologies perpetrated by this Government— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: What! What about the kids? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: —and by that member who is mouthing off ? She has probably never had employees in her life or run a business or anything of that sort. It is utterly ridiculous that the Government expects the people who create the wealth of this country to pay for the Government’s idealism and socialism. That is simply not fair. The issue is about the Labour Government extending its orbit through the means of material property and wealth and through socially engineered policies such as legalising prostitution and civil unions. 
There is an awful lot to undo in the future. A lot of damage will have to be undone in the future that will be bequeathed by the Labour Government. The problem is that middle New Zealand does need help but it does not need the welfare mechanism through which that help is to be delivered. Middle New Zealand does need help because wages in this country are pathetically low. But the Government’s mechanism of delivering that help is to get people to stand in line cap in hand and beg to be given their own money back. Socialism is a failed policy everywhere else in the world. Germany has finally realised the dubious nature of its socialism and is now reeling it back. Germany is giving taxation cuts. It understands that socialism does not work.