Opening address to Institute of Policy Studies Criminal Justice Forum

Victoria University Faculty of Law, Government Buildings, Wellington

Thank you for the opportunity to open this forum on addressing the underlying causes of offending.

I’d like to acknowledge the presence of:

• Justice Lowell Goddard and other members of the judiciary.


• Children's Commissioner, Dr. Cindy Kiro.


• Rev. Dr. Hone Kaa.


• Chief Ombudsman Beverley Wakem.


• Families Commisioner Dr. Jan Pryor.

This is my first formal speech as Minister of Justice.

It has taken a bit longer to come about than I would have liked, but you’ll understand that I’ve had a few things on my plate.

It has reminded me of something JFK once said a few months after his inauguration:

“When we got into office, the thing that surprised me the most was that things were just as bad as we’d been saying they were”.

Today is significant, because it marks the 100th day in office since the Government was sworn in.

In Opposition, National set an ambitious programme for the first 100 days.

Nearly one-third of these policies were in the Justice portfolio, and all required legislation to be introduced.

I’m pleased to say that we’ve achieved those goals.

Those policies have largely focused on improving the response to crime, including:

• Giving police the power to issue on-the-spot protection orders to help protect victims of domestic violence.

• Directing the courts to take specific account of the fact that the victim is a child when sentencing.

• Tightening up on bail for borderline cases.

• Limiting parole for serious repeat violent offenders and the worst murderers.

• Increasing penalties for participation in organised crime, and making it easier for police to intercept gang communications.

• Expanding the use of DNA collection from suspects and matching against samples from unsolved crimes.

• Requiring offenders to pay into a fund to help victims with costs that are not available through other means.

• And bolstering the Youth Court with a range of new interventions and sentences.

I look forward to the debate on these policies as they make their way through select committee, and I encourage you all to participate in this process.

But I am unapologetic about the fact that the priority of the new Government has been the immediate safety of the public.

The message we have got from the public was that they felt that the rights of offenders had been put before those of their victims, and their potential victims.

And that message was reinforced when we saw legislation that was designed to redress that imbalance languishing on the order paper before the election.

However, tomorrow is Day 101.

And I want to add another dimension to the debate from how we respond to crime, to how we stop it from happening in the first place.

The previous government tried to do this as part of its drive to reduce prison numbers.

But that goal was too short-sighted.

Its focus was on the consequences of crime for the government – rather than on the people it served.

Promoting non-custodial alternatives on the basis of prisoner numbers, and all the costs it brings, sent the message this was more important that the safety of the public.

Previously, when crime prevention initiatives were discussed it was in the context of how they could reduce the number of prisoners.

The problem to be addressed is not the “outputs” of crime, but crime itself.

Crime prevention is all about public safety

For too long, the debate has been fixated on how we deal with offenders after the fact.

Perhaps it’s because the solutions are quantifiable, involving either more or less punishment.

It’s much harder to count the number of crimes we may have prevented.

Yet having less crime is actually the outcome we can all agree on – because it means fewer victims.

Recently, I launched the New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey 2009, which gathers information on people's experience of crime and their views on public safety.

The finding that struck me most from the previous survey was the extent to which the impact of crime is unevenly spread.

The people most likely to fall prey to crime tend to be those who are already the worse-off members of our society.

They are also more likely to become repeat victims.

In 2005, some 60% of New Zealanders reported no victimisations – but 6% reported five or more.

This small minority actually experiences half of all offences.

If we tolerate crime at its current levels, then we are tolerating continuing inequality in our country.

So, I welcome the focus of this forum, which, as I understand it, will allow academics and practitioners to share their research findings on the causes of crime.

It is very timely, as today I am announcing that I will host a meeting in Parliament in April, which will address the same topic, the drivers of crime, but with a different purpose.

I would like to reach out to a wider range of individuals and groups across the sector to build consensus around the need to address the drivers of crime.

Compared to the ongoing debate about what to do with the offenders afterwards, I believe it is something we can all come together on.

That also means coming to some agreement on what are the most influential drivers of crime that the Government should target.

Your work will inform that process.

Without wanting to prejudge the outcome of that process, I have already signalled a couple of priority areas for work.

One is alcohol.

The Government has reinstated the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill introduced last year

Among other things, this bill gives communities a greater say over when, where, and how liquor can be sold.

I hope to pass this bill through its first reading to enable select committee hearings to commence in the not-too-distant future.

I have also asked the Law Commission to speed up its in-depth review of the law concerning the sale and supply of liquor in New Zealand.

They are now planning to produce a public discussion paper by the end of July that will outline the nature of the problem and pose key questions for public debate.

A final report, after receiving feedback, is due by the end of June 2010, and, depending on the outcome, a bill could be introduced by the end of 2010. 

Another priority area is the over-representation of Maori in crime statistics, as both offenders and victims.

Anything we can do to reduce Maori offending will have a positive impact on the overall crime rates.

I have already asked officials to start work on this, and I am also involving Minister Sharples in this specific issue, as well as the broader programme to address the causes of crime.

However, I would not want to limit the broader conversation about the drivers of crime to these two examples.

I’m also of the view that just as important as the type of issues that we address, is the way in which we debate them.

One of the inhibitors to an informed debate is the fragmentation of data from the criminal justice system.

There are a number of different agencies that collect information, all of them at different stages in the criminal justice process.

Much of this material, apart from the biannual reporting of offence statistics, is not widely known to the public.

Reporting of crime in the media also tends to focus on specific incidents, without necessarily referring to the overall trends or patterns.

This inconsistency of information makes it difficult for the public to see the bigger picture, regardless of whether it's good news or bad news.

If we are going to start a genuine conversation about crime and what drives it, then it strikes me that we all have to be speaking the same language.

I have asked officials to start work on making the current range of data available in one place, as an authoritative resource for researchers, journalists, and the public.

Over time, I would like to see this expanded to incorporate much richer information, including the costs of crime, and the cost of various responses to it, as well as monitoring the criminal life cycles of offenders as they pass through the system.

This is all part of the goal to build a greater understanding of crime and its causes, so we can all move together towards the solutions.

In the past, government responses to crime have also tended to be fragmented – ad hoc strategies and taskforces to address specific problems.

As far as I am aware, no government has gone back to start from the basic drivers of all crime.

I do not underestimate how complex and difficult a job this will be.

Nor how long it might take before it gets results.

This Government does not claim to have all the answers, and I am open to engagement and debate.

With this in mind, I look forward to reviewing the outcomes of your forum, and seeing how the evidence and experience you collectively bring can be used to help reduce crime, and ultimately, reduce the number of victims.

Thank you.

I have pleasure in declaring this valuable forum open.