Worth Richard: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Worth Richard: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18357] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 This Government believes it can do no wrong. It has an innate arrogance when it talks about the financial largesse that it distributes as if that largesse were its own when the reality is that it is the money of taxpayers that the Government distributes. However I would say that the magic is but a veneer and it is a veneer that wears increasingly thin. That is why it is that without amendment we are debating in the Prime Minister’s statement the words: “That this House has no confidence in the Government led by Helen Clark who given the opportunity to outline her vision for New Zealand has failed to even identify the big challenges which lie ahead for our nation whose Government has confiscated from hard-working New Zealanders the fruits of the best international economic conditions we have enjoyed for many decades and who sees our future as the creation of an all-powerful all-knowing Government rather than the result of the Kiwi spirit of enterprise skill innovation and hard work which resides with individual New Zealanders.” 
I deplore much of the debate that we have heard because of its essential bitterness—because of the singularity that many members of this Parliament have pursued in targeting individuals rather than staying with the issues that should properly characterise debate on a Prime Minister’s statement. The comments that the Prime Minister made were far-reaching. They deserve to be given consideration and a considered response. Instead the debate has been cheapened by personal attacks and gratuitous abuse. I express the hope that in future debates it will not be seen as necessary for some members of this House to pursue that particular line. I do not think there is anything particularly smart about attacking individual members of Parliament whether they are National members Labour members or members from the minor parties. 
In the short time that remains I would like to talk about issues relating to law and order which is clearly one of the five big issues that will be addressed by the next National Government. The most basic responsibility of Government—of every Government—is to keep the public safe. Law-abiding people have the right to expect that they will be kept safe from those who prey on them on their families and on the wider community. At present the public do not and cannot have that expectation. Even in the last few weeks we have witnessed a series of events that cause a chill to run down the backs of reasonable thinking New Zealanders with regard to law and order issues. The issues may touch the murder of innocent individuals or they may touch the types of activities that we have heard discussed in the House today relating to the activist Tame Iti and the apparent freedom that he feels to be above the law and to discharge a weapon in a public place. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is my observation that there is no Minister in the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for making that observation. 
Jill Pettis 
: The member’s observation is wrong. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I didn’t recognise him as one. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I was talking about law and order issues. We all know that New Zealand has a terrible record; it is in front of us each day. The police tell us that in New Zealand every 5 weeks one woman is killed by her partner or ex-partner and that 10 children are killed every year in acts of family violence. Every day the media carries stories of horrendous crimes—of appalling family violence that results in death and disfigurement for women and children of random killings by drug-crazed criminals out on parole of muggings of young tourists visiting our country and of dangerous and often drunk drivers many with numerous previous driving convictions killing people on the roads. 
As a society we seem to have lost the confidence to defend ourselves. We seem to have lost the determination to stand up and defend our core values. As a result we have created a society where women and older New Zealanders are forced to significantly modify their behaviour because of the threat of violence. Our children are much less safe than they should be. Obviously there are many factors that contribute to that intolerable state of affairs.We have for example tolerated the growth of intergenerational welfare dependency and the educational failure that often goes with it. That has created a breeding ground of at-risk children from which the next generation of hard-core criminals is likely to be drawn. We have also disregarded the importance of families and downplayed the importance of having fathers on site as positive role models and all too many men have abandoned their responsibilities as fathers. Likewise we regard grossly fraudulent white-collar crime as of minor consequence when some crimes of that kind have a devastating impact on victims and deserve to attract harsh penalties. We have scarce police resources yet instead of focusing them on the most serious crimes we too often use them to generate revenue. I would assert that we do not even take the existing penalties seriously. The courts wiped $32 million in fines off the record books in 2003 and less than 40 percent of those sentenced do the community work that they have been ordered to do. 
We have also underfunded our police. I cannot accept with credibility the assertions of the current Minister of Police that the police are well resourced. We see that under-resourcing in so many ways. It is well illustrated by the length of time that it takes for an accused person to have the case brought against him or her resolved. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister of Police is interrupting what I am saying. I cannot catch the tenor of the comments that he is making but he cannot deny that the police are poorly resourced. Why do I say that? Well let us look for just a moment at the statistics. We have one of the lowest numbers of police per head of population—18 per 10000 of population compared with 22 per 10000 of population in New South Wales and 25 per 10000 of population in the United Kingdom. If the Minister has a serious contribution to make in this debate then surely he should make it rather than offer those petty interruptions of no substance across the Chamber. What this Minister has failed to do is to give our police the tools they need to deal with the gangs which through the control of the drug trade have amassed fortunes that make them all but impervious to traditional policing methods. 
I would also say that we have put up with a parole system that allows the seemingly erratic judgments of the Parole Board to override the judgment of those who sentence criminals to jail. It is interesting to reflect on that issue for just a moment. In the United States in the federal system there is no parole—no parole at all. At best a convicted person will get a limited amount of time off for good behaviour but that is about as far as it goes. It is against that background and in particular the referendum in 1999 that 92 percent of people voted for longer sentences. 
I would like to talk for a moment about what National will do when coming into office later this year and to summarise the commitments that we have made. The first thing is that we are going to launch an all-out assault on crime in our communities—crime of all kinds. We should be safe in our homes and on our streets. Our kids should be able to walk home safely from school and we should not feel uneasy about parking our cars on city streets in the evening. The second thing is that we are going to deal compassionately with young first offenders but we will reduce the age of criminal responsibility from 14 years to 12. We will move offenders from the children’s system to the Youth Court after two family conferences. The third thing we are going to do is to record the DNA of all convicted criminals because at just about every crime scene there will be traces of blood hair or semen. Whereas as a matter of routine we currently fingerprint all arrested persons we do not as a matter of routine take a DNA swab of all accused persons in the very simple way that is now possible with modern technology. There is no doubt about it one can look at the experience in death row in the United States to see how effective that system is in incriminating the offender and exculpating the innocent. There are other matters but time does not permit me to deal with them.