Minister hopes repeal will have some appeal

The Government’s first step in its muchvaunted justice system overhaul is the repeal of a law that will have little-to-no effect on reducing prison numbers. Justice Minister Andrew Little says he hopes to get the sign-off from Cabinet within the coming fortnight to forge ahead with a plan to get rid of the hardline three-strikes law.

Overturning the law, which affects few people and has never been fully utilised, will do little to alleviate the immense pressure on a prison system at risk of failing.

If this Government wants to make significant change in the time it has in power, it needs to have the courage to tackle the big-ticket items sooner, rather than later. But the Government seems to be aware that being labelled ‘‘soft on crime’’ is nearpolitical suicide, so is stepping lightly.

It may also be using this repeal as a test case, to see how much support it has in the House when it comes to law and order reform, and get a feel for public sentiment.

The three-strikes repeal is the first notable move in the Government’s plan to reform the justice system, and reduce the prison population by 30 per cent in 15 years.

Little says the tough line the justice system is taking on criminals is not working. This approach has also led to a significant rise in the prison population, with longer and harsher sentences imposed, and a rise in the number of remand prisoners – now about 30 per cent of the population.

Sector organisations and prison reformists support the end to what they call an ineffective and disproportionate law. Meanwhile, National is vehemently opposed.

But why would a Government intent on overhauling the justice system, and significantly reducing the prison population, prioritise a law not being used by judges, and one that only affects a small portion of high-end offenders?

The three-strikes law is aimed at having more repeat offenders serve their maximum sentence.

But only 29 people have made it to their second strike, and no-one has been sentenced on their third strike since the law came into effect in 2010. While three people have been eligible, in all cases the judge decided a sentence without the possibility of parole would be ‘‘manifestly unjust’’.

An overturn of the law could see a small portion of inmates released on parole earlier – if it is safe to do so.

Little says the law hasn’t reduced crime rates and has failed to act as an effective deterrent.

And, while a repeal fits with the coalition Government’s promise to take a different approach to criminal justice, it seems a strange priority given the magnitude of the challenge it’s facing, and a prison muster of about 10,500.

The repeal is part of what the justice minister calls a ‘‘pretty modest package’’, which he will be taking to Cabinet within the next two weeks.

The big-ticket items that have the ability to make a significant difference to the criminal justice system and the prison population – amending bail laws, sentencing laws, and parole laws – will have to wait until after a criminal justice summit in August.

The Government refuses to go ahead with wholesale criminal justice reforms before a public discussion. It seems it’s hoping to gain a public mandate.

Ahead of the election, Little and his counterparts knew what changes would make the biggest difference. But, since taking power, it seems they have become risk-averse.

Public opinion shows Kiwis are generally tough on crime – something the Opposition knows, and uses to its advantage.

In 1999, a non-binding citizen-initiated referendum asked Kiwis whether New Zealand should focus on victims’ needs and be harder on criminals – 92 per cent voted in favour, with a 75 per cent participation rate. In 2016, the Department of Justice public perception survey found almost 30 per cent of the population felt unsafe in their neighbourhood after dark.

For 30 years, governments have tried to outdo each other with their ‘‘tough on crime’’ promises, and it’s been a vote-winner.

It will be no small task to convince a significant portion of the public that this drastically different approach is the right (and safe) way forward.

But if the Government wants to change societal attitudes towards criminal justice, and reduce the prison population along the way, it needs to get cracking on the changes it knows will make a difference, and, if it’s right, the proof will be in the pudding.

An overturn of the law could see a small portion of inmates released on parole earlier.