Paul Goldsmith
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says he expects the judiciary to respond to his “clear signal” on tougher sentencing, which reflects concerns within the broader community about a breakdown of law and order.
And, in a wide-ranging interview with LawNews, Goldsmith rejected claims that the government has an anti-Māori agenda, saying he does not support a referendum on the ACT Party’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill, preferring to steadily work through the issues.
He lists a more efficient, affordable justice system as another priority, while signalling that the tight fiscal climate means legal aid can expect additional funding only if savings are made elsewhere in the sector.
Goldsmith (53) – who has a background as a historian, biographer and political adviser – says he did not feel intimidated as a non-lawyer when asked to take over the justice portfolio late last year.
“My view is that it’s a good thing from time to time to have an outsider looking at the system,” he says.
“I look at it very much from the perspective of customers, who want access to justice in a timely fashion at an affordable rate and want to ensure that there’s good law and order.”
Goldsmith says the public consistently raised concerns about public safety and law-and-order issues during last year’s election campaign, providing real-world confirmation of statistics showing that violent crime is on the rise
“There’s no doubt there’s been a significant increase over the past few years and we need to have a firmer response,” he says.
“It seems there’s a sense of a breakdown in law and order. I wouldn’t want to overstate it, other than to say it’s something we can’t let get worse and worse.”
Tougher sentencing, ‘real consequences’
Since being sworn in last November, Goldsmith has vigorously pursued a tough-on-crime agenda.
His stated aim is to reduce the number of victims of violent offences by 20,000 by 2029 and curb serious youth crime by 15% over the same period.
Legislation has either been introduced or is pending to give police extra powers for dealing with gangs, reduce sentencing discounts, reintroduce “three-strikes” rules for repeat offenders and place serious youth offenders in military-style boot camps (currently being trialled in Palmerston North).
There are also plans to recognise stalking as a specific criminal offence and Goldsmith has established an advisory group to consider whether shopkeepers and security guards should have greater powers of detention.
The sentencing reforms will cap the discounts judges can apply to sentences at 40% and prevent them giving recidivist offenders repeated discounts for youth and remorse.
Goldsmith says he recognises the independence of the judiciary and understands it’s not appropriate for ministers to comment on particular cases or sentencing outcomes.
But he says Parliament is responsible for writing the Sentencing Act and is entitled to set out its expectations about how discounts should be applied.
“They’ll be well signalled in legislation and we think they’re quite reasonable,” he says.
“Obviously there are other options: you could have mandatory sentences, you could have minimum sentences, a number of things.
“But that’s not what we’re proposing. We’re retaining a wide range of judicial discretion because we think that’s appropriate.
“What we don’t think is appropriate are 60% or 70% discounts, which is what we’ve seen in some cases.
“We’re going to send a clear signal about the totality of the discounts, so as to restore real consequences for crime.”
Asked if he expects push-back from the legal profession, Goldsmith points out that the previous government received a prompt response when it took power in 2017 and set a target of reducing the prison population by 30%.
“They didn’t pass any legislation. It was really just a goal… but when you look at the graphs, the impact was dramatic in terms of imprisonment rates.
“So signals do filter through, irrespective of public opinion I suppose.
“My hope and expectation is that this clear signal sent through legislation will be heard and responded to.”
Treaty ‘tension’
Critics says many of the justice sector reforms, such as youth bootcamps and anti-gang legislation, disproportionately impact Māori.
When combined with actions in other areas – including abolishing the Māori Health Authority, reducing the use of te reo in official correspondence and legislation allowing Māori local government wards to be scrapped – it has led to accusations that the government is running an anti-Māori agenda.
“Each week they find new ways to keep Māori down… Māori are ‘othered’ by this government – not welcomed, not given a sense of belonging,” Labour leader Chris Hipkins said in a speech last month.
Goldsmith says the allegation is wide-of-the-mark and reforms like the anti-gang legislation are likely to result in fewer Māori becoming victims of crime.
“We certainly reject that outright,” he says. “Māori are more likely to be engaged in the justice system, that’s a long-standing challenge for our country.
“But we also recognise that Māori are more likely to be victims of crime.
“There’s a wide variety of views in every community about what’s the appropriate response.
“There’s been a 50% increase in gang membership over the past six years, there’s been a big influx from Australia with the 501s (deportees), there’s been an increased gang presence and intimidation.
“The simple point of that legislation is to give the police some extra tools to fight back.”
Goldsmith is also Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, which he says stirs strong emotions in New Zealanders.
“What we’re trying to achieve as a government, as a country, is recognising and honouring the treaty, particularly treaty settlements that have been passed and commitments that have been made.
“At the same time, we’re also very conscious of the natural expectations of people living in a modern democratic society around equal voting rights, equality before the law, universal human rights and, broadly speaking, an equal say in matters affecting their lives.
“There’s a bit of tension between the two things. We shouldn’t be surprised about that and that there are strongly-held feelings and a diversity of views.”
Referendum rejected
While the ACT Party’s Treaty Principles Bill and its call for a referendum have dominated headlines, Goldsmith says his preferred approach is to adopt fellow coalition partner NZ First’s proposal to tighten up clauses in existing legislation referring to the treaty.
He says National agreed to support ACT’s bill as far as a select committee but provided no further guarantees.
“The National Party has committed to support it through its first reading and to a select committee. That’s as far as we’ve confirmed it will go,” he said.
“Ultimately, we are not supportive of a referendum on the topic, fundamentally because we think it’s a sensitive issue that doesn’t lend itself to a simple referendum.”
Goldsmith says dozens of existing pieces of legislation contain references to the treaty, which under the coalition agreement with NZ First will be reviewed and clarified to make them more consistent.
“There’s been quite a long-standing concern that there’s not much consistency and these statements can be interpreted very broadly by the courts and administrative agencies,” he says.
“The desire is to have a program to bring some consistency and be much clearer about what specifically we mean by reference to the treaty in a particular piece of legislation. What it means and what it doesn’t mean.
“It’s a process that will take quite a bit of time but we think it’s important.”
Nuts and bolts
Goldsmith says another long-term project is improving the efficiency of the justice system.
“There’s been an increase in time taken to get cases through in all areas, civil, criminal, Family Court, Coroner’s Court, everywhere.”
“Of course,” he adds, “it’s one of those areas where everybody blames everybody else across the justice system, whether police, or corrections or the judges so it requires consistent effort across the whole sector.”
Goldsmith says a work program has been developed to address areas such as technological innovation and the rules of the court, which he hopes will yield improvements “relatively soon”.
“There’s a massive challenge there,” he said. “I’m hoping we’ll have a series of bills that continually work on a whole host of small things that collectively will make an improvement.
“If I were to be critical of the previous regime, there wasn’t enough focus on the nuts-and-bolts issues of getting timely and affordable justice.”
A solution the government won’t be adopting towards problems in the justice system is throwing money at them in the hope they’ll disappear, judging by Goldsmith’s comments on legal aid funding.
“We can expect that for the next couple of years budgets will be very tight, given the size of the fiscal repair work we need to do. Notwithstanding all the saving found in this budget, we’re still facing a significant deficit,” he says.
Goldsmith has left open the option of reallocating resources from elsewhere in the sector to legal aid.
“Given the very significant funds we currently expend in the justice sector more broadly, have we got the money in the right place? Is there an internal redistribution that could be made?
“That’s something we’ll be working through as we prepare for the next budget.”
0 Comments