Franks Stephen: Estimates Debate —  
Franks Stephen: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7188] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 That was an interesting contribution from a member on the Government side particularly given that he was on the Justice and Electoral Committee that went through Vote Justice and presumably knew that the committee had a number of reasons for saying that it could not tell just what was happening in this vote—what the intended effect was what some of the targets were and what outcomes were planned—because the reporting was so poor. 
Let me run very quickly through the select committee report. I remind the member that we said for a start that the merger of the Ministry of Justice with the Department for Courts made it hard indeed to understand the estimates in this area. We had the evidence that Treasury believed that the proposed merger would be more likely to worsen performance given that there would be a loss of focus on matters of strategic importance in both public law and the criminal justice system and in the rather oblique language and jargon we get from bureaucracies that are anxious not to offend their political masters “the proposal may constrain the ability of an incoming chief executive to address capability and cultural issues that seem to be affecting performance in both organisations”. One really does wonder what is meant by “capability and cultural issues”. The New Zealanders who pay the many many millions of dollars that go into this department would probably ask in respect of a department of State whether capability and cultural issues might be more simply expressed as “work ethic” or is it trying to say that they are lazy stupid poorly qualified or have loopy theories that cannot be knocked out of them? Just exactly what was it that Treasury was trying to say? We can only glean what is meant from what the Minister has done and approved. 
The Secretary for Justice told us that the main cultural difference between the two organisations is that the ministry is more policy focused and that “the biggest driver behind the merger was to bring the courts closer to policy development as the division of the old department has reduced the connection between policy and operations”. I really would appreciate the Minister setting aside the time this evening to reassure us that this is not a set of code words for subordinating the courts to the executive. 
I see that one of the stated objectives of the merger is to “enable better coordination of the relationship between the Executive and Judiciary in respect of both policy and administration”. Just what exactly is it that the judiciary is to have its arm stuck up behind its back to do? Why would a merger of departments with supposedly independent politically neutral judges give us “better coordination of the relationship between the Executive and the judiciary in respect of policy and administration”? Is this a signal that we are quite right to expect Margaret Wilson’s new Court of Appeal to have a preset agenda? Is this telling us that by sticking the judges under the Ministry of Justice they will have to do what they are told? Or is this something just as sinister but more simple like bringing an indigenous law into the heart of our legal system? This may be just that the Minister expects that he will be able to get the judges to read what is in his mind when they look at something like section 86 of the Sentencing Act. That provision was stuck in at the last minute to reverse the Minister’s previous decision that there would not be a power for judges to set non-parole periods. 
 Section 86 has been repeatedly criticised by the judges. They have to find that a crime is extraordinary before they can set any sort of non-parole period. Perhaps what the Minister means here and what the select committee could not get to the bottom of is that there is an intention to put the judges more under the thumb of the politician and the executive. Certainly nothing of what we have seen in performance in the justice portfolio reassures us that that is not the intention. We have a Minister who was determined to get rid of suspended sentences despite the expressed opposition of both the judiciary and the profession and who turns to berating the judges when they implement his own law in the way that the Opposition in this Parliament told him it would be implemented. And what do we get? We seem to get a response that says: “Bring the Department for Courts under the thumb of the Secretary for Justice and the Ministry of Justice and we will get better coordination of the relationship.” whatever that may mean. 
We see in this vote that there is $1.25 million more in funding for policy advice. The policy advice might be needed to work out exactly what the Ministry of Justice is trying to do. We could not understand the statement of intent. We strongly urged—as Mr Darren Hughes ought to have known—the previous recommendations of the select committee to include quantifiable data on family group conferences that would allow national comparisons to be made. That was the recommendation not just of the Opposition but of the entire select committee. We unanimously recommended that we get something that would tell us whether family group conferences were working. Yet Mr Darren Hughes was able to stand here in this Chamber as a young Labour member get 10 minutes of the Committee’s time and tell me as an Opposition member that expressing a little bit of justified cynicism about family group conferencing was in some way a reprehensible use of the debate in this Chamber. 
Let me draw to Mr Hughes’ attention what the victims think of family group conferencing and some of the justice processes that the ministry has implemented and is supposed to supervise. What the victims think about family group conferencing was very clear in the message given by the Sensible Sentencing Trust to Parliament today. It reads: “The existing law means young offenders are not being held accountable. The politically correct family group conference is totally ineffective as a deterrent. This is confirmed by our youth reoffending rates. Youth offenders should be processed through the normal court system but with the judges having the power to hold parents and guardians jointly accountable. The courts must be able to order parents and guardians to undertake parenting courses and continued offending could see parents and guardians prosecuted.” It goes on to say that parents would need restored power to control or discipline those for whom they are responsible and that there is a need to end the living-alone benefit which allows kids to give the fingers to their parents. 
Representatives of the Sensible Sentencing Trust gave us three examples of the junior crime waves that have so upset the judges. The page they gave us at 2 o’clock today reads: “Youth laughs at frustrated judge.”; “Boy 14 charged with rape.”; “O’Brien to appeal”; “Fifteen-year-old schoolgirl found guilty of murdering Waitara truck driver Kenneth Pigott will appeal both her conviction and mandatory life sentence next Monday”. That is what the victims think of the vaunted family group conference system that the Labour member Darren Hughes took such pains to praise just now. The select committee could not form a view because it found that not enough quantifiable data was available to know whether the thing works and the system has been in effect since 1991. 
We also looked at possible future developments. National ACT and United Future—and I will be interested to see whether United Future can find it in itself to vote against this appropriation given the clear agreement it had with the Opposition—listed the matters that need addressing in relation to the Sentencing Act. Can the Minister assure us that some of that extra $1.25 million he is giving to the policy section of his ministry will go into addressing the perception that people can pay reparation to significantly reduce their sentence? That is a polite way of saying that the reparation and amends provisions have become a means for buying justice. Another matter that needs addressing is the loophole for serial non-fine payers that sees the court powerless to impose further punishment once an offender has completed a maximum of 400 hours of community work. 
I ask Mr Goff whether he has looked at the headline in today’s  
Dominion Post 
 which states:“Get out of bed and pay fines says father.” The article goes on: “An Upper Hutt man who owes $91000 in fines could have full-time work to pay back the money if he got out of bed his father says.” He owes $91000 in fines and what did he get for that? He got 400 hours community work and an order to pay back $30 a week. 
Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade agreed to.