Tired response to a good idea

Peter Gluckman gets its. So does Bill English. Even Scott Guthrie. All are very different men, but each has concluded that the prison system is under pressure, has failed to reduce reoffending, and that a greater focus on rehabilitation rather than recrimination might be the better way to go.

Guthrie was a late convert, having earlier advocated more punitive action as part of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. That he would appear to have made such a change in thinking is perhaps symbolic of a general shift by the wider public, an at least grudging acceptance that locking up more and more people has made less of an impact on the crime rate than its bottom line.

Which is why it is disappointing that what might be regarded as reasonable, moderate policy from this Government has been so hastily dismissed by the Opposition. With little offered in its place.

Justice Minister Andrew Little wants to reinstate voting rights for prisoners who are serving a sentence of three years or less. That would partly reverse a 2010 law change by National, which the Supreme Court ruled to be a breach of the Bill of Rights Act. The Waitangi Tribunal also registered its disapproval over National’s 2010 stance.

Current party leader Simon Bridges could have opted to breathe through his nose and test the public’s mood on Little’s announcement, but instead he immediately promised to reintroduce a blanket ban on prisoners’ enfranchisement as soon as National was in power.

It is one thing to offer a clear point of difference and a contest of ideas; it is quite another to demonstrate a lack of the latter and lean instead on tribal ideology and seemingly cynical political expediency.

A report released last year by Gluckman, the former chief science adviser to the prime minister, advocated for sensible, evidence-based policy work to reform the justice system and reduce reoffending. He decried the ‘‘policy responses . . . in binary terms: tough or soft on crime’’. ‘‘This simplistic duality has long had political resonance, but its impact on our prison system is a major concern.’’

It is likely he would see the sense of the Government’s plans to reinstate voting for some as part of a wider, multi-faceted project to cut the prison population, reform the justice system and keep people out of prison for longer.

These are reasonable, compassionate approaches to some vexing issues. They are in line with plenty of research around the world, and the considered actions of other jurisdictions.

Bridges’ response, however, paints the issue in purely ‘‘binary terms’’, as a ‘‘simplistic duality’’. His is a jingoistic instinct searching for a soundbite. It’s the same tired, punitive thinking that puts forward the idea of fines for parents of school dropouts, without properly considering the consequences or underlying factors.

It’s politically tainted thinking that misses the mark in an increasingly progressive society that is learning to think about more nuanced solutions to complex issues. And needs its leaders to help with that greater understanding.

Bridges’ response ... is a jingoistic instinct searching for a soundbite. It’s the same tired, punitive thinking that puts forward the idea of fines for parents of school dropouts ...