Kiwiblog

At various times in the past, the Police leadership hasn’t been all inspiring. It it important our Police our well led and effective. So great to see this article in the Herald.

The country’s top cop, Peter Marshall, was out with the rank and file on the late shift on New Year’s Eve helping staff deal with a young woman cutting her wrists with a knife at the end of Princes Wharf.

A few days later one of Marshall’s deputies, Mike Bush, and a few other senior officers went to the mortuary while Disaster Victim Identification staff were assisting with the post-mortems of the Carterton balloon tragedy victims.

Marshall says that in the past executive staff would go out “sporadically, shall we say” with the frontline officers, but now they are out there regularly.

Excellent.

This is the new top echelon of the New Zealand police, and staff all the way down the hierarchy seem to be highly impressed.

It’s unheard of, an officer told us, the Commissioner of Police going out on the beat.

“The guys really respond to that. He’s a very inspiring man.”

And not once as a PR stunt. But regularly.

The new leadership and direction seems to be paying dividends with the troops. Marshall has two deputy commissioners – Bush and Viv Rickard. Of the more than 20 police officers we spoke to around the country, from constables to superintendents, every single one was glowing about the leaders. Some said it was the best administration they had served under in 30-year careers – one even called the three the “Holy Trinity.” Another said they were “good blokes, down to earth, no bullshit, no pretensions”.

Credit should also go to Judith Collins who effectively appointed the Commissioner, and approved the Deputies. She leaves the Police in much better state than what she inherited three years ago.

They also appreciate someone defending them in the media. Several commented on how quickly and firmly Marshall had moved to rebut a critical article by former MP and police inspector Ross Meurant in North & South magazine. Marshall regularly blogs on the police website and sings the praises of the force or points out positive public trust and confidence ratings or tells anecdotes.

Openness also.

It’s not perfect. They still seem to have no idea when it comes to electoral offences. But they are making a real difference.

The Southland Times reports:

A Milton teenager with a habit of spinning his car’s wheels is believed to have made New Zealand legal history in the Balclutha District Court today.

Under legislation aimed at boy racers that came into effect two years ago Karn Clarrie Forrest will have his car crushed after notching up his third conviction in four years for causing a car to undergo sustained loss of traction.

Judge Stephen O’Driscoll said he believed the 18-year-old was the first person in New Zealand to be subject to the legislation which gives power to seize and destroy a vehicle for a third offence in a four year period.

Perfect timing – on the day Judith stands down as Police and Corrections Minister. It’s like a goodbye present

I don’t know if David Cunliffe has apologised yet for his comment on Judith Collins, but no doubt he will be forced to do so at some stage.

But is an insincere apology enough?

Take an analogy. Think if Bill English had a brain explosion and while being interviewed on radio about fiscal costings offered his opinion that if (say Annette King or Helen Clark) was the last woman on earth, the species would probably die from extinction.

It would be the lead item on TV news that night. Feminist groups up and down the country would condemn him, and Labour MPs would be battling for who could condemn him in the most strident terms.At an absolute minimum he would be censured by his party leader, if not demoted/sacked.

For this is not some anon troll on a blog saying nasty things about an MP. It’s not even a blog author. It’s the top ranked Labour MP after the Leader and Deputy.

And the comments were not in a pub to a mate. They were not even in the cut and thrust of debate in Parliament. They were offered up unsolicited on live radio.

So will Goff censure Cunliffe? Will a single female (or male) Labour MP or candidate say the comments were unacceptable? Or will they just pretend it didn’t happen, like they tried to with the Tinkerbell comments?

Whale has uploaded the audio of senior Labour MP David Cunliffe saying:

I have thought that if Judith Collins was the last woman on earth, the species would probably become extinct.

That has to be the most disgusting personal attack by an MP on another MP in recent times. There is just simply no excuse for an MP to say that on radio. He’s insulted not just Judith, but also her husband, and in fact her children. Can you imagine having to hear the man aspiring to be our Minister of Finance say that about your mother?

NZPA report:

Labour leader Phil Goff joked that the army should shoot looters stealing goods after the Christchurch earthquake in a radio interview.

On radio station BFM on February 28, Mr Goff talked about meeting a man in Linwood whose sister was killed in the quake, whose house had been badly damaged but then it was ransacked by looters.

“I saw the army out in the street and I thought court martial, firing squads you just can’t believe how low a small minority of people can get,” he told the radio station.

Right wing blogger David Farrar highlighted the comment on twitter.

“Interesting that Phil Goff on radio said that army should shoot looters. Wonder how his caucus feel about his law and order policy?” he wrote.

Mr Goff said it was clear he was joking.

“I was making the point that first of all I had absolute contempt for anybody who would exploit other people’s misery at a time like this but I was making a joke … It was obviously not intended to be taken seriously by anyone other than the most dim-witted National Party blogger.”

Unusual for Phil to get personal, so it must have hit a nerve.

Of course no one thinks Phil Goff was actually advocating that new Zealand bring back the death penalty, and that we abandon trials in favour of court-martials.

What is the real issue, that NZPA avoided, was contrasting what Phil Goff said with what his own MPs have said about Judith Collins far more mild comments.

Grant Robertson blogged:

 I also truly hope Judith Collins regrets her statement made in the wake of looting incidents. She was playing to the crowd of course, and I don’t think was refering directly to Arie, but it was not the calm words of leader in our community.

Now Judith’s statement was that the action of looters was “akin to ‘people who rob the dead’” and that “”I hope they go to jail for a long time – with a cellmate.”

Now while you can certainly argue the “with a cellmate” comment was un-necessary, it pales into comparison with saying they should be shot.

Now personally I think both Judith and Phil have just reacted as human beings to particularly vile behaviour.

But when Labour MPs then start to have a go at the comments, well it is entirely appropriate to point out that Labour’s own leader has made comments far beyond what Judith did. In fact could you imagine the hysteria if it was the Police Minister instead of the Leader of the Opposition who had talked about shooting looters. I imagine Labour MPs would have rushed out a plethora of statements comdemning her.

So the question that remains for me is that Grant Robertson has said that Collins’ statements were not “the calm words of [a] leader in our community. So I can only conclude that Grant also thinks that Goff’s words were not the “calm words of a leader in our community”.

Incidentially Phil Goff went on to say (you can listen below) that the looters should be shackeled to shovels and made to do hard labour for 18 hours a day. He also says he stands by those comments. Now I’ve got no problems with that view point, and I suspect the Sensible Sentencting Trust will back Phil up 100% on his views. But I do wonder about whether his caucus and the wider Labour activists are all that supportive of his “Sheriff Joe” type dialogue.

Phil Goff wants to shoot looters by whaleoil

These posters have gone up in parts of the North Shore. How charming. One can only guess at the politics of the “people not profit collective”

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

The Herald reports:

The head of the police watchdog body is again calling for a rethink on pursuit policy after two more deaths from high-speed smashes.

Justice Lowell Goddard, QC, who chairs the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA), said threats to public safety were important enough to merit an ongoing review of pursuit policy.

Police Commissioner Howard Broad said this year that the policy needed only minor tweaking.

There have been 2057 pursuits so far this year and 18 people have died – including two in less than 24 hours at the weekend.

So 99% of those pursued are safely captured, and 1% are not. I’m very hesitant about a policy change that means those 2,000 who are pursued, now get away with their crimes.

My personal suggestion to stop dangerous pursuits, is that fleeing Police in a vehicle carry an automatic prison term. This means that there is a reduced incentive to flee – you go from the possibility of prison to the certainty of prison if you do.

Police Association president Greg O’Connor called for cars to be crushed and the maximum fine available – $10,000 – to be handed out to those who fled police.

That’s the problem – the consequences of fleeing are not serious enough.

The Herald editorial wants a change:

But unfortunately, those few instances have led to 16 deaths this year, almost three times the previous worst annual figure for police chases. This can be no random occurrence. How many fatalities will it take, including, perhaps, those of innocent bystanders, before the minister acknowledges a change of policy is required?

The fault with those deaths lies with the criminals, not the Minister.

That conclusion is supported by figures released to the Herald under the Official Information Act. They show that before last weekend’s two chase fatalities, the pursuits that led to 14 deaths this year were sparked by minor offences, not serious crimes.

What criminal acts are involved are not always known at the time. But also if people are fleeing for minor infringements, then that suggests the penalties are too low again for doing so. We need a simple clear policy – if you flee the police you will go to prison – even if just for a week.

In other instances, the reasons for pursuit was given as the manner of driving, suspected drink-driving and speed. It is reasonable to ask whether pursuits should be mounted only when more serious crimes have been committed.

I disagree. If someone pulls away from a drink driving checkpoint, then they are probably pissed as a newt and a major danger to other drivers. The Police will be damned for not pursuing him or her, if they get away and still kill someone.

We have stats on the number of police pursuits and the number of fatalities.  What I haven’t seen is any stats on what % of pursuits are already being abandoned by the Police, as the offender is driving too dangerously or quickly etc.

Acting Attorney-General Judith Collins announced:

Acting Attorney-General Judith Collins announced that Justice Wilson today resigned as a judge of the Supreme Court.

This is a good outcome. Personally I’m slightly disappointed that I won’t get to observe and report on a judicial conduct panel, as what is effectively an impeachment trial of a supreme court justice would be a once in a lifetime event.

But the judiciary is spared the spectacle of what would have been a very messy public (effectively) trial, and a very costly one.

The terms on which the Judge has resigned are:

• His existing entitlements, which include untaken sabbatical leave and retiring leave. The exact amount has not yet been calculated.

• One year’s salary, of $410,000, which will be taxable.

• The Crown will pay Justice Wilson’s solicitor-client costs which to date have been calculated at $475,000.

The costs of Justice Wilson must be paid by the Government, by statute – s27(1) of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 states:

The Judge’s reasonable costs of representation in respect of the inquiry must be met by the office of the Commissioner.

So that is the law as passed by the last Labour Government.

The one year’s salary will grate with a few people, but the reality is that it saves the taxpayer a lot of money. You see if Justice Wilson did not resign, he would remain getting his salary on full pay – plus all his further legal expenses would also be a debt to the taxpayer. The real loser in this deal is probably Colin Carruthers QC, who has ably represented Justice Wilson!

The High Court said that the JCC had to reconsider whether to recommend a JCP for Justice Wilson. Then after that the Government would have to appoint one all over again. Then there would be scheduling of it, and preliminary arguments, and then effectively the trial itself. Plus the possibility Justice Wilson may seek more judicial reviews.

And finally the JCP would have to come to a decision make a recommendation to Parliament, and Parliament decide whether to remove him.

I think it is impossible that this could occur within six months. It could indeed stretch out to a year.

So during those 6 – 12 months Justice Wilson would be receiving his full salary anyway.

On top of that we would be paying for his legal costs. If he has spent $475,000 so far – before it even gets to trial, I would be surprised if his costs would not come to at least that much again.

Also add on that the JCC was assisted by a former Australian Chief Justice – his costs would be considerable.

The Counsel assisting the JCP was to be a former Australian state solicitor-general – his costs would be in the hundreds of thousands.

And then add on the costs of Crown Law and the Ministry of Justice.

This is a ballpark guestimate, but I would say that if no deal was done to have Justice Wilson resign, then he would have still ended up with close to a year’s salary and the legal costs to the taxpayer would be quite easily a further million dollars or more on top of that.

So I have no problems at all with the agreement negotiated.

And while my sympathy for Justice Wilson is limited as he largely has his own intransigence to blame, it is worth noting he is barred for life from ever appearing in court again as a lawyer. He was formerly a top civil litigator, so his ability to earn money in future is seriously diminished.

It is a sad end to what was a highly regarded career as a lawyer and potentially as a Judge. His lack of full disclosure as a Court of Appeal Judge was IMO not a hanging offence. But his grudging co-operation with his own colleagues on the Supreme Court was what did him in. He embarrassed them, and he he substituted his own opinion as to what he thinks they need to know, for letting them decide that for themselves.

I thought that Justice Wilson would resign rather than go through the indignity of what is effectively a public impeachment trial via a judicial conduct panel, but he has chosen not to do so, hence Judith Collins has announced the composition of the panel.

I hasten to add that Justice Wilson obviously strongly believes he has not done anything wrong, or any errors in conduct made by him are relatively minor and do not undermine his ability to continue on the Supreme Court. He has every right to stand by his beliefs, and to have these tested through the process. And if the panel does not recommend his dismissal, he should be able to move on and continue on the Supreme Court.

I should praise the last Labour Government for passing the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. Before that act was passed, the Attorney-General could follow pretty much any process they wanted to determine whether to recommend dismissal. This is a fair and transparent process.

The panel appointed by Judith Collins is:

• Justice Tony Randerson, previously the Chief High Court Judge and now a Judge of the Court of Appeal
• Justice Helen Winkelmann, the Chief High Court Judge
• Beverley Wakem, the Chief Ombudsman

No one can dispute the suitability of this panel. A former and current chief of the High Court, plus the country’s chief ombudsman as the lay member. They are the two most senior judges who have not been direct judicial colleagues.

Justice Randerson will be the chair of the panel, as he is the senior judge.

From a public point of view, it will be a fascinating process to witness what will effectively be a public impeachment trial of a Judge of our highest court. This is a once in a life time experience.

The next step is for Judith Collins to appoint a special counsel to present the case against Justice Wilson. He can also appoint a lawyer (or represent himself), and other people can apply to be represented also. I suspect Mr Galbraith will avail himself of that right.

The Ministry of Justice will announce in due course the date of the hearing, and the venue.

UPDATE: This is incredible. Justice Wilson is seeking a judicial review of the findings of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, and a possible injunction against the Judicial Conduct Panel.

This is a high risk strategy by Justice Wilson. His fellow Judges will be squirming with discomfort I suspect.

National and the Greens have an MOU where they co-operate in a few areas. Well I’ve found another area where they can work together.

ABC reports:

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is implementing a new inmate program at Tent City Jail called “Pedal Vision.”

The program uses inmate-powered cycles to generate electricity for televisions.

Reports say Arpaio’s recent visit to Tent City inspired the idea, when he saw that many of the inmates were overweight.

The stationary bikes are customized so that as an inmate pedals, a connected television is powered once the cycle generates 12 volts of electricity.

One hour of pedaling equals one hour of television viewing for the inmates, according to Arpaio.

Arpaio said the inmates will only be able to watch television in the television room if they choose to pedal.

I’m surprised Judith Collins hasn’t already got Corrections Department onto this. The Greens should love this for two reasons – it creates renewable energy and it is also an anti-obesity measure.

John Key, Rodney Hide and Judith Collins have just announced an agreement to implement a version of ACT’s three strikes policy.

They key difference is that the third strike is not life without parole (unless the strike is for a homicide), but for the maximum sentence (without parole) for that offence. So if the third strike is an indecent assault, they get seven years (the maximum), not life.

This compromise is very sensible, and in fact near identical to what I proposed back in March 2009. Great minds think alike

The three strikes regime will only apply to serious offences, which generally are violent or sexual offences carrying a maximum sentence of at least seven years. The three strikes will be:

1. Judge decides term of imprisonment, and Parole Board can let out early on parole (near automatic at two thirds of a sentence)
2. Judge decides term of imprisonment, but no eligibility for parole
3. Judge has to sentence for maximum term for that offence, with no parole, unless doing so would be manifestly unjust

This will not affect a huge number of criminals, but it will mean the repeat serious violent and sexual offenders will not get released so quickly.

Also the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (currently before the Law & Order Select Committee) allows a Judge (regardless of which strike) to impose a sentence of life without parole on the worst killers – so a Clayton Weatherston (for example) would never be eligible for parole until he was old and infirm. This won’t apply to all murderers – just the very worst ones – the Bells, the Burtons, the Weatherstons.

On a process matter, I’m pleased to see the Government is recommending to the Select Committee that they reopen submissions to allow submitters who previously submitted, to submit on these proposed additions to the Bill. All too often the Government introduces major changes after select committee hearings, and then the public have a limited opportunity to have their say.

As I said, I’m very pleased with the agreement. It is a good win for ACT, and a good policy for the Government. Apart from the fact it will be very popular with the public, it is also the right thing to do – repeat serious offenders should be locked away for longer.

Patrick Gower is doing a series of reports on the performance of key Ministers. He starts today with Judith Collins, whom he gives an 8/10.

Frontline police feel Ms Collins is on their side. On a macro-level, they have watched her preside over National coming good on its promise to put more police on the streets of South Auckland. She has also taken their fears about organised crime seriously, as seen in last week’s joint announcement with Commissioner Howard Broad about seizing the proceeds of crime.

On a micro-level, she is a proud Police Minister. Her empathy with police life was noted when Senior Constable Len Snee was murdered in the Napier siege, and she recalled her own time as a “police wife” when husband David Wong Tung was in the police and she wondered whether he would come home from work or not.

I didn’t realise until that siege, that Judith had been a “Police wife”.

Corrections is rated more difficult:

The Corrections portfolio has been a graveyard for many a minister, and at some point Ms Collins will have to start taking responsibility for its problems if she cannot solve them.

The Dom Post reports:

In a crackdown on organised crime, Mr Broad and Police Minister Judith Collins announced a new police squad dedicated to confiscating millions of dollars of assets owned by crime bosses. …

The 22-man Assets Recovery Unit will be made up of veteran police investigators and forensic specialists while making use of accountants and legal experts. …

Ms Collins said gangs had changed since the 1970s, becoming sophisticated criminal businesses. Gang bosses owned farms, houses, cars, boats and motorcycles. Some of the seized proceeds would be used to fund methamphetamine rehabilitation and youth aid programmes, and some of it would go back into law enforcement.

I’d be tempted to stick the team on commission – they get 10% of everything they can get off the gangs

No I am not serious, but it is good to see a dedicated focus in this area.

The Press reports:

The decision was surprising given that Attorney-General Chris Finlayson and Police Minister Judith Collins had signed a 2003 petition calling for a commission of inquiry, he said.

As did many professors of law.

Rich said the decision was “sadly predictable”.

“It’s interesting we’re spending millions on a Supreme Court building but still directing people to the Privy Council, which I doubt Peter Ellis will be able to access because of the expense,” she said.

Ouch.

“In the court of public opinion, Peter Ellis has already been pardoned.”

On most controversial cases, there are different views on guilt vs innocence. The Ellis case is remarkable in the huge number of people who view his convictions as unsafe. I don’t think I know anyone at all who thinks the convictions should stand.

The case was a fundamental demonstration of the justice system failing to correct itself, she said. “Every country has found a way to deal with those injustices.”

And this is where I think the Minister made the wrong decision.  Of course the officials were always going to have dozens of reasons to say don’t upset the status quo. But the reason we have a Minister in charge, not officials, is for the ability to look at the wider picture.

Brash said he was surprised at the decision because the request was presented with such strong arguments and the 2003 petition had been signed by major figures.

“The New Zealand justice system has let Peter Ellis down and it should have been New Zealand that sorted it out.”

Had he won the 2005 general election, a commission of inquiry would have been ordered, he said.

I really recommend people interested in this case read the Lynley Hood book. If you do you will, like Don Brash, be convinced that the current convictions are very unsafe.

The Dom Post reported:

Police Commissioner Howard Broad has a chauffeur as the force slashes its vehicle fleet and considers selling stations and houses to cut costs.

Police are defending the driving position, despite claims that some community constables have lost their cars to help shave $21 million off the police budget. Police are selling up to 340 vehicles and are considering selling stations or housing to help make budget savings.

Police National Headquarters said a “logistics and project officer”, who is a sergeant, acted as a driver for Mr Broad, but said he also had other duties. These included organising security and providing support to Mr Broad while he was on the road.

I think the story is a bit of a beat-up, but often people will use it to score points. But look at this. First the Minister:

Police Minister Judith Collins backed the role. “He has got to be available to take urgent phone calls of a critical nature at a moment’s notice.”

Then the union:

Police Association president Greg O’Connor said he believed the driving job was “an absolutely essential role”. He agreed that some officers would question it continuing while cars were being cut from the fleet, but said it was a completely separate issue because Mr Broad would have a car regardless.

And then the Opposition:

Labour law and order spokesman Clayton Cosgrove said the role was justified. “[The commissioner] is on deck 24 hours, seven days a week and he is running a department of in excess of 10,000 people.”

Well done Clayton Cosgrove. Being in opposition doesn’t mean having to criticise everything.

I saw these in Hawaii and tried to persuade the local authorities they should send them to Judith Collins to become the new Auckland Prison.

The Dom Post reports:

Corrections Minister Judith Collins is tipped to announce today a rollout of shipping container cells to cope with a burgeoning prison population.

Corrections has been trialling four prototype cells at Rimutaka Prison and Mrs Collins has made it clear that she sees shipping containers as a low-cost solution to the prison muster crisis.

The containers cost $63,000 to convert, a fraction of the $643,000 cost per bed at the newly built Springhill Prison in Meremere, south of Auckland. Corrections say the containers can be built quickly, potentially using prison labour.

Well they certainly look secure to me. Maybe they can let prisoners choose their preferred colour.

I think stacking them vertically is worth considering also. Takes up less land, and probably much harder to escape from if you are 10 feet up. Especially if they greased the lower levels.

Judith Collins continues to show very good instincts as a Minister. The Herald reported:

Police Minister Judith Collins says she will change the law if police and court staff fail to find a way of routinely making public lists of convicted drink-drivers.

The bureaucrats get so detail obsesses sometimes, they forget the big picture. They were basically saying a conviction is a personal private matter and should not be publicised unless a reporter actually happened to be in court during the hearing.

That was and is an outrageous view. Criminal convictions are not private matters. They are by their very nature public, unless a name is suppressed.

I actually think all convictions should be publicly available through a searchable database.

Her comments come after police yesterday rescinded a decision to stop releasing lists of convicted drink-drivers to media. The about-face came after Ms Collins met senior police staff on Monday and requested they re-examine the decision.

Requested. Ha. I bet you that is a polite word for it.

Police spokesman Jon Neilson said the issue of “ownership of information” was at the heart of the review.

As it stood at the moment, police laid charges with the court, but their involvement effectively ended with prosecution. The information belonged to the court, he said.

No convictions are not private property of the court. They are public information.

From Hansard yesterday:

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will the Minister give the House a further assurance that she will not be releasing private information held on Department of Corrections databases about these prison officers—or any other staff who choose to exercise their democratic rights and oppose her Government’s policies—in an attempt to intimidate them in the same way that her ministerial colleague Paula Bennett did in respect of two solo parents?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not think that question even deserves the dignity of an answer. It is so bad. Quite clearly I do not have access to such information; I do not want access to such information. Frankly, if I wanted to intimidate someone, they would know it.

Heh indeed they would. I understand there was a huge amount of laughter from all sides for that rejoinder.

The Press reports:

Tough new laws allowing boy racers’ cars to be seized and even crushed for “cruising” city streets are likely to be in force by the end of the year.

Police Minister Judith Collins warned that “every new offence (for street racing) will bring them closer to the crusher”.

Judith got her law!

Yesterday, police welcomed the Government’s move to target illegal street racing, saying two bills introduced to Parliament yesterday would make a “significant difference”.

Under the proposals, authorities will have more power to seize and, as a last resort, crush the cars of boy racers on their third street-racing offence within four years.

Doubt it will result in many cars being crushed but it may have a deterrent value – especially after a second offence.

About 100 crashes a year are attributed to illegal street racing, and the Government says the activity is responsible for an average 10 deaths per year.

Another 46 people are seriously injured by street racing, with a further 125 minor injuries. The social cost of the crashes is estimated at $30 million a year.

That is more than a minor nuisance.

Lyndon Hood at Scoop has a very funny piece of Judith Collins as The Hulk. Extracts:

Collins ANGRY!

Collins hear car! It loud car!

Collins see boy in car!

Car shiny?

Car shiny!

Him BOY RACER!

Collins fine racer? No! Him not pay fine already!

Collins impound car? No!!

Collins Crush car! Collins CRUSH!

Why Collins impound when Collins can POUND?

Collins Smash! Collins Destroy! COLLINS CRUSH!! Rargh!!

Heh.

This is getting to be a habit. Two days in a row, and all four major dailies again have editorials on much the same subject.

This time we will start in the South with the ODT:

There was some evidence taxpayers had been saved money by private enterprise: one study showed the cost of keeping an inmate in a high security prison run by the Corrections Department at the time was $72,000 per year; the cost in a minimum security prison was $54,000, and the cost in the privately-run remand prison $43,000 a year.

The Treasury also told the Labour government that the Corrections Department was unlikely to run the remand prison for a cheaper price. Nevertheless, it was taken over by the department. At the time, the co-leader of the Maori Party, Tariana Turia, commented the prison had operated “extremely well” under private management.

Today, we have record prison inmate numbers, about half of whom claim to be Maori, and an exceptionally high recidivism rate. The state system is clearly far from properly addressing their rehabilitation. It is this failure that needs to be the focus of the Government’s attention, rather than whether private enterprise can do a better (read cheaper) job.

The ODT is wrong to interpret better as meaning cheaper only. The private managed prison has lower levels of drug abuse and violence – both major factors into recidivism I would say.

Yet, what do we find in the most recent review of the department, by commissioner Ian Rennie: the Labour government failed to provide anywhere near enough funding to pay for required extra parole officers; it refused to pay for the much-needed 10 additional psychologists; it refused the department’s request for more funding to meet just “satisfactory” standards of service.

I think the ODT overlooks the Auditor-General saying very very clearly that any lack of resource can not explain the massive breaches of their own procedures and policies, that resulted in incraesed risk to the public.

Next The Press:

The minister had no doubt expected that this latest report would lead to the sacking of Corrections’ chief executive, Barry Matthews, by Rennie, who is technically his employer. Matthews had refused to resign.

But to Collins’ chagrin, the report said that sacking Matthews could not be justified. Rennie acknowledged that non-compliance with parole management procedures was too high, but said there had been recent improvements.

His report also pointed to the increased workload of the department and said that requests from Matthews for more staff had been rejected by the previous government.

This finding might create the suspicion that the head of the public service bent over backwards to clear the chief executive, and Collins is certainly correct to say that most New Zealanders do not have confidence in the department or Matthews. But, realistically, Collins had no real choice but to grit her teeth, accept the findings of a report which she had ordered, and promise to put more resources into Matthews’ department.

The alternative would be for her to tell Rennie that she could not possibly work with her chief executive, which would virtually force the commissioner to replace him. Yet after being cleared by the latest report, Matthews would almost certainly have sought a substantial payout, especially as he had two years of his $375,000 a year contract to run. That would have been politically unacceptable.

Yep. In one sense Barry Matthews has been put onto probation rather than given a recall!

The Dom Post:

Strip away the verbiage and State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie’s report on Corrections Department accountability can be read two ways.

Either it is an elaborate exercise in buck-passing chief executive Barry Matthews cannot be held accountable for his department’s failings because the last government woefully under-resourced it or it is a charter for mediocrity: departments should not be expected to follow their own procedures.

To be fair to the last Government, I understand funding for Corrections has been:

99/00: $427m
08/09: $965m

Departments always say they want more money. Corrections has had its budget double and they still couldn’t follow their own procedures in the *majority* of their own cases.

Protecting the public is the department’s No1 priority. The Burton case should have have served as a wake-up call to all within Corrections. Mr Matthews has devoted extra attention to high-risk parolees since the Burton case, but it is surprising that he appeared to be unaware of the extent of his department’s failings till the auditor-general conducted his review.

It is almost as surprising that Mr Rennie does not consider that a sackable offence. The department’s failure to follow its own rules put public safety at risk.

In standing by his beleaguered chief executive, Mr Rennie has made himself accountable for the department’s performance. If the department continues to fall short of public expectations, he will find that an uncomfortable position.

That is very true.

And finally the Herald:

The Corrections Minister’s instructions to the State Services Commissioner, Iain Rennie, were quite explicit. He was to “establish who is accountable for serious failings identified by the Auditor-General’s report into the management of offenders on parole”. By any yardstick, Mr Rennie has failed miserably. He has found no one accountable in terms worthy of justifying dismissal. That includes the chief executive of the Corrections Department, Barry Matthews, and the parole head, Katrina Casey. And there is not a murmur about who else, among the problem-plagued department’s staff, should be held accountable for these “serious failings”. The Government’s quest for public-sector accountability seems to have passed Mr Rennie by.

To be fair to Mr Rennie, he is hamstrung with our employment laws that basically do not allow you to sack people just because they have failed at their job.

His report is the more abject in that he confirms the department has been failing to make the grade. Corrections’ internal standard is 85 per cent compliance with its own parole management procedures. Last December, it managed 80 per cent. Further, Mr Rennie judged that the department could have moved earlier last year to manage the potential risk to public safety caused by far more offenders being placed on community-based sentences.

But he excuses these grave shortcomings by pointing to improvements in performance. Compliance with parole management procedures had dipped as low as 60 per cent in November, 2007, he notes. What he does not mention is that this was almost three years after Mr Matthews took the Corrections reins. It was also about the time community-based sentences came into force, a move that necessitated the training of new probation officers. This innovation may, as Mr Rennie suggests, be a mitigating factor. But it is not an excuse. It should not distract from the long-term problems under Mr Matthews’ watch.

As I said previously, the improvements in performance had better continue.

The Herald reports:

The father of Karl Kuchenbecker says Corrections Minister Judith Collins is “all bark and no bite”, after she failed to remove Barry Matthews.

Paul Kuchenbecker said Mr Matthews now appeared to be “untouchable” as the department’s chief executive, despite presiding over a string of failures such as parolee Graeme Burton being left free to murder his son.

To be fair to Matthews, the story notes:

Mr Rennie noted that Mr Matthews had failed last year to get the Government to fund 61 extra staff to monitor parole.

Ms Collins said she had asked for extra funding in this year’s Budget and the Government would be responsible when considering it.

So maybe the former Minister has some responsibility? But having said that, the Auditor-General made it clear that the failings can not be attributed to lack of resource alone.

John Armstrong also comments:

The “crusher” crushed? Well, for the time being at least.

But don’t expect Judith Collins to take defeat sitting down. Though the Corrections Minister may have been comprehensively wiped in her battle to have her department’s chief executive Barry Matthews removed from his position, he would be fooling himself if he thinks he has won the war. …

She said later that she had told him exactly what she was telling the media. If so, she would have served notice on him that he would not have her confidence until he had rebuilt public confidence in the department. She would have dropped a strong hint that requires a clean-out in the department’s senior management which has been seen as an obstacle to the “culture change” she is seeking in the way the department operates.

She is not the first minister to demand that. Labour’s Damien O’Connor pleaded with Matthews to do it. Unlike O’Connor, Collins is not going to allow herself to become a victim of the department’s failings.

As I said yesterday, the improvements need to continue. If so, that is a win-win. If not, then I see more interventions by the State Services Commissioner.

Also worth highlighting a comment by former State Services Minister Trevor Mallard on this blog:

My advice on colleagues was always to say :- “Matters of confidence in Chief Executives is a matter for the State Service Commissioner.” And nothing else. It didn’t always feel great especially when I thought a CE was being unfairly criticised but is really the only approach if one wants to maintain the integrity of the appointment system.

Reasonable advice, but does it apply when you think the criticism is fair, and you don’t have confidence?

The Auditor General’s report into how the Corrections Department manages parole is a shocker:

My staff looked at how the Department managed offenders released on parole. We chose 100 offender case files in the four areas we visited to assess whether probation officers and other staff were managing offenders in keeping with the Department’s requirements. We deliberately included 52 offenders considered to pose a high risk to the public.

In most of those 100 case files, the Department had not followed one or more of its own sentence management requirements. Five of the requirements that my staff checked are the most important, in my view, for keeping the public safe, and one or more of these five requirements had not been followed in most of the 100 cases. There were several cases, some of which I have included in my report, where the Department had not completed important sentence management requirements at each stage of an offender’s parole, and we concluded that the Department was not managing these cases adequately.

They are damning words, coming from the Auditor-General. Equally damning was the response of Minister Judith Collins:

Corrections Minister Judith Collins today asked the State Services Commissioner to establish who is accountable for serious failings identified by the Auditor-General’s report into the management of offenders on parole. …

“I have today asked the State Services Commissioner to work with Corrections Chief Executive Barry Matthews to establish who is accountable for the deficiencies identified in the report and what should be done to restore public confidence.”

Ms Collins has asked the Commissioner to report back within 10 working days.

This is about as subtle as John Cleese. I mean you do not need to run a competition to guess who the State Services Commissioner will find is responsible for management failings in the Department. This must qualify as the most unsubtle ever request to SSC to remove a CEO. But not wihout considerable merit – the OAG report is damning, and the mistakes in this area do and have cost lives.

The Herald reports that Corrections CEO faces the axe:

Barry Matthews’ future as head of Corrections is in serious question, after his Minister Judith Collins pointedly refused to express confidence in him yesterday. …

Ms Collins would say only: “I have confidence Mr Matthews understands exactly just how seriously I am viewing this issue.”

Again, you don’t exactly need a PhD in Politics to read between the lines here.

John Armstrong comments:

Wielding a calculated, but ruthless combination of raw power and tactical guile, Corrections Minister Judith “Crusher” Collins has torn up the public service rulebook and effectively engineered the sacking of her departmental chief executive.

Technically, she cannot fire Barry Matthews, the long-suffering head of the problem-plagued Corrections Department. But “technically” is not a word in this Collins’ dictionary.

Indeed.

But regardless of this, Matthews’ resignation letter should have been on the desk of State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie yesterday, so damning was the Auditor-General’s report on Corrections’ management of its parole responsibilities. …

The report shows the department failing to follow its own procedures in monitoring potentially dangerous prisoners on parole – procedures tightened after the murder of Lower Hutt father-of-two Karl Kuchenbecker by Graeme Burton in January 2007.

This is the scary thing. The audit was done after the Burton fiasco, and was meant to measure the new improved processes in place.

Audrey Young blogs on National’s women making a mark. She even gives them names that they could use in the WWE:

• Crusher Collins
• Tolley the Terminator
• Bruiser Bennett

Audrey talks about Judith:

Police Minister Judith Collins has been dubbed Crusher Collins since she touched a popular nerve with her desire to crush the cars of the criminal boy racers and make them watch.

You can tell she relishes even uttering the words.

She will also have wide support for her aim as Corrections Minister to spend a lot less on building prisons, perhaps prefabricated buildings on existing sites.

Huge support I would say.

But Collins has also showed she is not one-dimensional. She did the right thing in visiting early the grieving family of Halatau Naitoko who was accidently slain by a police bullet and publicly showed the sort of sensitivity the situation demanded of her.

But not a caricature.

The Herald reports:

Police Minister Judith Collins is seriously considering crushing boy-racers’ cars – and inviting the drivers to watch as it is done.

Hell don’t just have he drivers watch – the local neighbours would probably happily pay $10 each to also watch!

More seriously, the boy racer attack on a Christchurch police officer has sparked a mood that the time is right for tough action.