GUEST BLOG: Jackie Foster – SJA POLITICAL POLICY OPINION

As a lobby group trying to make change for the better and in line with the work we are focusing on in the community, I have decided to dissect, for want of a better word, all political party’s justice and policing polices.

Every other day we see David Seymour campaigning on law and order, buying votes with money that this country doesn’t have, so I have decided to start with the Act party. 

Gang Control Orders: ACT will introduce a new policy of Gang Control Orders to crack down on gang members and minimise the risk posed to the public. A policy that simply is words buying votes. The gang issue has been a political football for years and look where we are today. Legislative changes won’t make difference and that was proved with the gang laws brought into legislation in 1996 which simply failed, also let’s not forget in 1972 when Norman Kirk promised to take the bikes off the bikies, but what did he do when he was elected? Absolutely nothing. I was hoping that we as a voting public might get a little bit smarter to this, but we buy it every time because it sounds nice and easy.

Tax law apply to everyone, even gang members: ACT will use Inland Revenue’s powers to investigate gang members’ income and tax paid. Again, a policy of words. IRD has powers to investigate now and simply these people operate above the law. If Act think that Mr Asia used his everyday bank account to run his drug/money laundering business, they need to go back to school.  

Youth infringement notices: ACT will introduce an infringement notice offence for shoplifting, resulting in instant, practical punishments such as fines and community service to ensure the shoplifter takes responsibility for their offending. This policy screams of ignorance. Who is going to pay the fines when they are dished out in their thousands? Currently the debt level owed to the government for fines is in the hundreds of millions. Why? Because the offenders have no money to pay and if they do it will be set at five dollars per week. 

Ankle bracelets for serious youth offenders: ACT will introduce ankle bracelets for serious youth offenders. A policy that will give the Police or Oranga Tamariki eyes on these young offenders but does not address the root cause of this offending. An expensive policy that will cost the taxpayer with no return on the investment. 

Review the sentencing for electronic monitoring: ACT will review the use of electronic monitoring sentencing for violent offenders and abolish the prison population reduction target. Finally, the sun comes out with logical policy, but the solution is not easy. The level of offending that an ankle bracelet is allowed for needs to be considered yes but these offenders need monitoring on a regular basis and also support for them in the community. Currently there is a huge lack of professionals, psychologists, psychiatrists to assess these people’s rehabilitation needs, so as I have said words are easy, but this policy will need some serious work and investment to be a success. 

Ensure victims of crime receive their reparations: ACT will reform the reparations system so that the Crown faces the burden of risk of slow reparation payments or non-payments, rather than the victims of crime. Victim reparation is available now but as I have said most offenders have no money or assets. Act have said they will turn the burden of victim reparation on to the taxpayer, remember people the crown is the taxpayer. This will cost hundreds of millions on a yearly basis, and I will even say open up the door to false allegations for the sake of reparation. This is why countries like America have public insurance policies, so the burden doesn’t fall on the taxpayer.

Three Strikes: Three Strikes was an ACT idea introduced in 2010 to send a signal to violent offenders that New Zealanders won’t tolerate repeated violent and sexual offending. Currently a judge has the power to imprison a person to the full term of imprisonment that that offence carries. EG, Murder is mandatorily a sentence of life imprisonment but generally we see a minimum non parole period of 17-20 years before the offender can apply for parole, but the offender is still on parole for life under the watchful eye of probation. A good policy but one our judges never wanted to use because it was manifestly unjust. I will be interested to see how they intend to make the judiciary implement it. We suggest you all do more research on this policy.   

Three Strikes for Burglary

ACT will also introduce a separate Three Strikes regime for burglary offences. Criminals who commit three burglary offences would face a minimum three-year prison sentence with no parole. Here we go again, little thought put into this policy. I have said before, how can we expect corrections to stop this kind of offending when they do not have the tools to do so. A recidivist offender needs help, and being punitive is not the solution. Agree offenders need to pay a price to society, but this policy is simply like a revolving door at the hotel, in one door out the other, ambulance at the bottom of the cliff material. 

Minimum literacy standards for parole

ACT will require individuals to complete skills or rehabilitation programmes prior to being considered for parole. Just when the sun was starting to come out, the clouds start rolling in. I agree that education while in prison is a good thing and should be mandatory, but I am sorry when an offender has completed their sentence we can’t say “have you passed school certificate”. Again, the main issue here is the lack of available qualified people to implement this policy. There aren’t enough teachers in our education system without trying to find more for the corrections system. Let’s think about rehabilitating these offenders based on the crime they commit first and when we are successfully  doing that then consider the qualification of a person. I’m not saying literacy isn’t important because it is but in this situation it is secondary. 

Politics out of Policing: ACT will ensure there are always enough Police on the beat instead of recruitment being a political football. ACT are the face of political footballing. Great policy having more police, but this policy reeks of recruitment being made easier, dangerous with a capital D. Quality of applicants needs to be paramount always. 

So, people on a rating scale of 1-10 I’ll happily give ACT a 4 based on the lack of thought put into these policy’s  especially given the cost associated with these vote buying policies that most will probably never come to fruition, given the MMP political system we currently have. 

 

Jackie Foster, CEO, Social Justice Aotearoa