Labour says the Government shouldn't be celebrating record high prisoner numbers.
Earlier this week Prime Minister Christopher Luxon declared it was a good thing the prison population was nearing 11 thousand people.
The Government is also celebrating a reduction by 38 thousand in the number of victims of violent crime since it came into power.
Labour's Duncan Webb told John MacDonald that while locking people up may provide short term relief, it doesn't last.
He says they eventually get out and will cause more harm unless they've been rehabilitated.
National’s Matt Doocey told MacDonald that he disagrees with Webb framing the situation as locking them up, but not fixing anything.
He says you can actually do both, and there is a duty to ensure there are rehabilitation programmes for incarcerated individuals.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News talks'b Morning.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
We talked about seven minutes past ten on Friday, right
through the weeked up with people as we say this,
when the politicians are going to be with us for
politics Friday, and here we are at seven minutes past
ten on Friday and politicians on the phone today are
in Wellington. Nationals Matt duc Morning, Matt Morning, John Labour's
Duncan Web Morning, Duncan.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Good to not be here.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Now what you what you're actually Maine is you're saying
it's good not to be here where I am.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Yeah. No, Look we're at Wellington. The government pushing through
all these laws and so they've kept us at work
on Friday. All right, yeah, christ you but you know
we'll live with it.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
And Matt hardworking government. Oh here we hard working government. Well,
let's just talk about talk about the government and Winston
Peters and what he said yesterday. And I tell you what,
some people have been unhappy with me, criticizing Winston for
saying that he would repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill or
he will do if he's back after next year's election.
(01:16):
Matt Doucy, as a member of the coalition government, how
do you feel about this demonstration of disunity.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
Well, that's your word, John, it's not mine. Look, I
think Winston sort of covered it off in the Hosking
interview this morning. Look, they've voted for it. It's actually
an apt national agreement in the coalition agreement. It's just
part of m MP. I think we're quite a mature
MMP government. We have the right to disagree in the
coalition agreement. I mean, Winston's made it very clear publicly
(01:49):
this morning. It's it's not a bottom line for any
coalition discussions going forward at the next election. But I
mean quite rightly, as an individual party, they're saying that
they have issues with the bill and they're allowed to.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
All right, Duncan Webb how labor would accept it and
tolerate it.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
I hate to read that Price. I mean, this is
a bill that has seen him. This is Casey Costello
was extolling the virtues of as she voted for it,
but you know last week and then this week he's
going to repeal it. It's absolutely chaotic. So he's criticizing
David Seymour saying his bill is useless. And then last
week he was telling Christopher luxem he didn't know how
(02:31):
to run the economy and it wasn't fixed and the
National Party doesn't know what they're doing. I mean, I know,
election years coming up, but he's out of a date
earlier of this.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Oh, Matt, come on, you've got we've got other things
to talk about. But you've got to have a response
to that.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Oh.
Speaker 4 (02:44):
I mean, it's probably expected for the left. They're desperate
to inject any of their views into the issues at
the moment. But you know, we're a stable government and
we're just getting on and doing what we need to do.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
We're talking about the left. How was it, Matt Doucy
that so many people, according to this EPSOS monitor survey
which came out during the week, how was it that
so many people seem to think that labor would do
much better at managing the issues than you guys? Well,
I mean, how was it? And and I'll ask Duncan too,
because I'll be honest, I find it a bit weird.
(03:16):
But you know, when you've got you've got a party
which has got solile policies out there, people think they
would do a better job than you guys, well.
Speaker 4 (03:25):
I think you're sort of answering your own question about
the validity of polls. And they come and go, and
I think there are a point in time. I think,
you know, it's the ability to reflect on performance. But
ultimately these things shift round. I mean, we're just focused
on doing our main job. You do look at them
and say, okay, you know what can we approve on.
(03:46):
That's that's natural as a continuous improvement process. But the
reality is those poles and others they shift round.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Duncan you can't really claim huge victory in this one,
can you? Because you've got nothing. You've got not much
to hold up and say, this is why people think
we're brilliant.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
Don't you tell me what I could claim claim? The
look who pulled? Shift around and at the moment they're
shifting up and up and up for the Labor Party
because the national parties and know they are. There's there's
six main polls on out there and all of them
put Labor ahead. Now, if that was if there was
an outlier, you could talk about that, but they're not outliers.
What they're showing is that New Zealand doesn't believe the
(04:23):
government anymore. Two years ago they came in and said,
we're going to make you know, we're going to make
health better. We're going to make the cost of living better,
We're going to make mental health better. And they haven't.
It's all worse. Unemployments up, cost of living is up,
housing is harder to get into, it's harder to see
a doctor. And people look at that and they go, oh,
who can run the economy better? We'll clearly not crystphal
(04:45):
ups or who doesn't know, doesn't have any idea, as
Winston Peters said, and so you know, yep, it's unusual
for labor to be seen as the better man into
the economy. Really good.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
On, hold on, why is it unusual?
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Oh? Look, because the National Party brand has always been
we're good for business, we know how to run the economy.
But what has shown is even in small business they're
not doing it. The more small businesses are closing down
now than for years and years, other than their little
COVID dip. So you know, it's it's refreshing to see
(05:21):
that people understand. And we've come out with our limited
capital gains tech to fund doctors visits, and people say, oh,
that's a good idea. So perhaps the National Party will
get on board with that and we have some real
post party consensus on how to have a productive economy.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
So you're surprised as much as hold On, hold On,
hold On, Matte, but you're you're a surprised as everyone
else that people think, for example, Labor will do a
better job of running the economy. You're a surprised as us. Matt, No,
I mean, I mean Duncan, dun Duncan, Duncan, Duncan. No, No,
I'm not I'm not hold on, Matt, hold On, Duncan.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
No, I'm not surprised. But just historically, this is the
first time since I think halfway through the last Labor
government that people have seen us as better at running
the economy than the National Party, which is both good
shows that we do know not what we're doing. We
do know what we're doing, but also the people don't
(06:18):
trust the National Government.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
And that will come to you. But where's the evidence
for people to base that understanding or perception on Duncan.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
Well, Look, Barbara Edmonds has traveled the country speaking about
our economic direction, and you know that limited capital gains
tax is only one part of it. We've also pitched
a future fund for New Zealand, making sure that you know,
New Zealand assets remain owned by New Zealanders, by the
New Zealand government, and that the profits from that are
(06:56):
funneled back into New Zealand businesses. I mean, and we've
announced further support for the gaming sector, a great industry
that's going ahead and leaps and bounds hold what out there.
But also it's just the value set we bring that
we want to grow the economy for New Zealanders by
news Yalanders.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Right, Matt, I'll know you're gagging to respond.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
I'm just having a wed chuckle, John. I actually haven't
heard that turn that Dunk is using just now the
limited capital gains tax and interesting that when you've got
a flagship policy, you're already trying to minimize it in
the title. And I think people will see that for
what it is. It's just another tax grab. And it
(07:39):
looks it is difficult out there, right, and people are
frustrated at the cost of living, and that is the
difficulty that we are taming. We inherit an economy with
high inflation and we're getting to work on that. But
the reality is what these polls reflect is people out
there are doing it tough, and that's why we do
(08:00):
need to focus on the economy. So you can call
it a limited capital gains tax, but most people know
that it's just going to be another text Duncan.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
You've got to admit that the government does seem to
be winning the war on crime our election. In the
number of serious crime victims, it's all good news.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
Ah, well, that is good news. I'm always very happy
to hear that there's fewer victims of crime and that
Crime and Justice Survey is a really good tool to
measure it. It captures unreported crime as well, so you know,
I'm not going to knick on dime on that one.
I think it's great that there's fewer of victims of crime.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
And what's your run view on the prison numbers being
at record levels. You've got to say that if you're
happy about the the victims numbers being down, you've got
to admit them. Well, maybe putting more people inside is
the answer.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
Well, no, no, you're drawing a bit of a longer
bow there.
Speaker 4 (08:54):
Now.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
One of the things we know about prison is that
the highest offenders, the most dangerous people we have, are
people who have been in prison, and one of the
reasons that crime may have gone down is that you've
got some of those offenders and you've lock them up
for a short period of time. But the question is
what's going to happen when they get out, and they
do get out, So I mean, our view is that
(09:14):
the best thing to do is to fix them up,
not lock them up now. And at the moment, if
you look at the prison numbers, and we're going to
be talking to the minister in a couple of weeks,
they're skyrocketing and there's simply not enough places in prison
to put them, and they can't get the rehabilitation programs
that they need, which is a real problem. So we
(09:35):
don't think it's a mark of success. So we shouldn't
be celebrating that we've locked up over eleven thousand people.
I think that last count because what that does is
actually create more dangerous people that have put back in
the community without the resources around them.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
A little later on, sole right, So Matt, doc, so
how were you how are you going to make sure
that these prisoners you've got in there now aren't going
to cause more problems when they get out.
Speaker 4 (10:02):
Well, that's a good important and that's where the focus
should be. I mean, I disagree Duncan with his framing
of the argument. You know, it's not locking them up,
it's fixing them up. In fact, you can actually do both.
And I must say it's great to be in Canterbury
at the moment where the news is not dominated by
ramraid after ramraid, and actually it is about consequences and
(10:22):
you break the law and if you are deemed to
be incarcerated, then you will be put inside prison. And
not only does that stop the individual committing the crime,
it actually keeps the public safe. But actually I think
there is a duty that when you are in prison
that we do ensure there is the rehabilitation programs, and
I'd only point to the reforms that Mark Mitchell and
(10:45):
Paul Goldsmith made to expand drug and alcohol and mental
health programs for ramand prisoners who under the last government
were excluded from those rehabilitation programs. So it actually shows
more prisoners are getting access to those rehabilitation programs. But
we all know you can offer a lot of programs,
but if people choose not to engage in them, or
(11:07):
not to do the hard work in them, to actually
go and change their behavior, then potentially they might recommit
a crime which puts them back into prison.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Isn't that meaning to take responsibility for that?
Speaker 2 (11:17):
It's also responsibility of corrections too, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (11:20):
Well, that's what I'm saying. We do put on programs,
and it's incumbent on any government to ensure that people
have the rehabilitation and the therapy available to them to
turn their lives around. But if prisoners choose not to
engage in those programs or come out and reoffend, that
is their choice. And if they had a threshold for incarceration,
(11:40):
well we're not going to shy away from that.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
So hold on, what does that mean? Does this keep
them inside or let them go out and see what happens.
Speaker 4 (11:48):
No? No, Obviously, if people meet the threshold where they
are to be released with them that is their court order.
We do have probation to ensure that they have the
settings around them. But the point I'm making is that
we can provide a lot of programs within prison, and
that is right. We should be looking at some of
the contribute true factors. But if people choose not to
(12:08):
engage in those programs in prison and do come out
and commit a crime and that's for the threshold of incarceration,
then quite rightly I should go back to prison. I
think that's what the public expects.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Dont Can, I know you answer this question, so I'll
ask Matt and then we'll move on to Pike Rivers specifically, Matt,
what's your response to the CTUs call or renewed call
this week for a new law of corporate manslaughter?
Speaker 3 (12:33):
Yeah, I see.
Speaker 4 (12:34):
I think it's Adrian Rufi has a member's bill in
the ballot for corporate homicide. It's not a bill that
we've considered as a caucus yet, so we don't have
a position on it. Paul Goldsmith, Justice Minister, I think
was asked around corporate homicide law and said it wasn't
(12:54):
a priority this term.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Right. Your personal view, Oh, I think it's worth looking in.
Speaker 3 (13:01):
To it.
Speaker 4 (13:02):
I don't have enough detail to understand the issues here.
I presume that there was some and that's why potentially,
and Duncan might know, the last government didn't bring it
in itself when it was in government. But I think
it's worth looking at and that's what we'll do with
the member's bill. But ultimately it's about prioritizing of the
(13:22):
legislative agenda, and the Minister said that it wouldn't be
a priority this term.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
All right, let's wrap up with Pike River. Duncan Web,
what's your reaction to reports that the police apparently have
enough evidence to lay manslaughter charges over Pike River.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
Yeah, well, you know, Piper has been a long legacy
of missteps in the way it's been approached and investigated.
It's been a long time and of course it was
the last government that we back into the mind to
get that evidence. So I'm with Nigel Hampton on this,
get on with it. You know, if there is criminal
(13:58):
responsibility or there's a strongly affable case for it, let's
find out because that was a huge tragedy and the
families do deserve justice here.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
Yeah. But when you've got Nigel Hampton on the radio
this morning saying he's going public with this information which
was provided to him I gather from the police, is
going public with it to put pressure on the Crown
Law Office. I mean you've got to be concerned about that,
don't you.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Oh look, Nigel was a fantastic advocate, but that's what
he is. And the clown law office is a pretty
good organization. They'll make a decision based on the evidence
that's presented to them, not because Nigel Hampton, much as
we love him, is jumping up and down. So you know,
got Nigel for highlighting this. But there's huge wrongs that
(14:47):
went on there and we know that, and we know
that Peter Whistle essentially brought his way out of a
prosecution early on, and that's deeply problematic. No wonder people
still want to see justice done.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Now do you see how dangerous is it or how
risky is it that any decision will be based on
political pressure or political interest and public interest as much
as anything else.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
Well, I mean it is an active police investigation, so
I'm not really going to comment.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
But just come on, come on, you can You've got
Nigel Hampton.
Speaker 4 (15:21):
Now you've asked me for my answer and I was
giving it to you, but you'd cut me off halfway through. So,
like I say, it is a police operation, but you know,
you've got to feel for the families and we do
want the investigation to happen at pace, but equally it
(15:43):
can't be just about the speed. You know, obviously things
do need to be stepped through as well, but coming
back to that point, it is an active police investigation.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
All right, Duncan, I think you're willing to say a
little bit more, how and also with your legal legal
had on how concerning is it that these charges might
be laid fifteen years down the track.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
You know, there's no steps of limitation on murder and
in fact most crimes, And if, for whatever reason it
takes fifteen years to get the case together and find
the relevant evidence, then you know that is what it is.
You know we've got it still, it's still you know,
it might be fifteen years, but it was like yesterday, right,
(16:27):
the tragedy of that and you know, we expect people
to go to work, be safe, get home and that
didn't happen that day.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
And so you have no qualms at all about political
public pressure influencing crown law.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
I am familiar enough with crown law to know how
it operates and it doesn't bend to political pressure when
it makes prosecutorial decisions. There's the prosecution guidelines that they'll
look at, and the length of time that's elapsed and
the reliability of the evidence will go into it. But no,
you're Hampton beating a drum won't be part of the analysis, right.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Hey, thanks both of your time. Thanks Duncan, thank you, Thanks.
Speaker 4 (17:09):
Matt, Thanks John. Hey, if I could just take a
quick second. It's actually the first time I've spoken to
Duncan since he announced his retirement, and I just want
to acknowledge Duncan.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
I've got to know him.
Speaker 4 (17:23):
Over the course of the last few years. I think
he's a good guy. I've got to lead his partner
as well, and just think him for his representation of Canterbury.
I think it's been well served through Duncan and wish
him all the best for his next life stage and
all the best.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Thanks retirement. For a funny word, I'm not going away, Okay.
All the story there Joel.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
New Zealand first of Dump Stuart Nash and they're taking
Duncan web and I won't ask you, and I won't
ask you for any definitions Duncan, because that might ruin
things for We have a good time, have a good weekend.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
For more from Canterbury Mornings with John McDonald. Listen live
to News Tour to Be Christchurch from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News talks'b Morning.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
We talked about seven minutes past ten on Friday, right
through the weeked up with people as we say this,
when the politicians are going to be with us for
politics Friday, and here we are at seven minutes past
ten on Friday and politicians on the phone today are
in Wellington. Nationals Matt duc Morning, Matt Morning, John Labour's
Duncan Web Morning, Duncan.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Good to not be here.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Now what you what you're actually Maine is you're saying
it's good not to be here where I am.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Yeah. No, Look we're at Wellington. The government pushing through
all these laws and so they've kept us at work
on Friday. All right, yeah, christ you but you know
we'll live with it.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
And Matt hardworking government. Oh here we hard working government. Well,
let's just talk about talk about the government and Winston
Peters and what he said yesterday. And I tell you what,
some people have been unhappy with me, criticizing Winston for
saying that he would repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill or
he will do if he's back after next year's election.
(01:16):
Matt Doucy, as a member of the coalition government, how
do you feel about this demonstration of disunity.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
Well, that's your word, John, it's not mine. Look, I
think Winston sort of covered it off in the Hosking
interview this morning. Look, they've voted for it. It's actually
an apt national agreement in the coalition agreement. It's just
part of m MP. I think we're quite a mature
MMP government. We have the right to disagree in the
coalition agreement. I mean, Winston's made it very clear publicly
(01:49):
this morning. It's it's not a bottom line for any
coalition discussions going forward at the next election. But I
mean quite rightly, as an individual party, they're saying that
they have issues with the bill and they're allowed to.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
All right, Duncan Webb how labor would accept it and
tolerate it.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
I hate to read that Price. I mean, this is
a bill that has seen him. This is Casey Costello
was extolling the virtues of as she voted for it,
but you know last week and then this week he's
going to repeal it. It's absolutely chaotic. So he's criticizing
David Seymour saying his bill is useless. And then last
week he was telling Christopher luxem he didn't know how
(02:31):
to run the economy and it wasn't fixed and the
National Party doesn't know what they're doing. I mean, I know,
election years coming up, but he's out of a date
earlier of this.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Oh, Matt, come on, you've got we've got other things
to talk about. But you've got to have a response
to that.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Oh.
Speaker 4 (02:44):
I mean, it's probably expected for the left. They're desperate
to inject any of their views into the issues at
the moment. But you know, we're a stable government and
we're just getting on and doing what we need to do.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
We're talking about the left. How was it, Matt Doucy
that so many people, according to this EPSOS monitor survey
which came out during the week, how was it that
so many people seem to think that labor would do
much better at managing the issues than you guys? Well,
I mean, how was it? And and I'll ask Duncan too,
because I'll be honest, I find it a bit weird.
(03:16):
But you know, when you've got you've got a party
which has got solile policies out there, people think they
would do a better job than you guys, well.
Speaker 4 (03:25):
I think you're sort of answering your own question about
the validity of polls. And they come and go, and
I think there are a point in time. I think,
you know, it's the ability to reflect on performance. But
ultimately these things shift round. I mean, we're just focused
on doing our main job. You do look at them
and say, okay, you know what can we approve on.
(03:46):
That's that's natural as a continuous improvement process. But the
reality is those poles and others they shift round.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Duncan you can't really claim huge victory in this one,
can you? Because you've got nothing. You've got not much
to hold up and say, this is why people think
we're brilliant.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
Don't you tell me what I could claim claim? The
look who pulled? Shift around and at the moment they're
shifting up and up and up for the Labor Party
because the national parties and know they are. There's there's
six main polls on out there and all of them
put Labor ahead. Now, if that was if there was
an outlier, you could talk about that, but they're not outliers.
What they're showing is that New Zealand doesn't believe the
(04:23):
government anymore. Two years ago they came in and said,
we're going to make you know, we're going to make
health better. We're going to make the cost of living better,
We're going to make mental health better. And they haven't.
It's all worse. Unemployments up, cost of living is up,
housing is harder to get into, it's harder to see
a doctor. And people look at that and they go, oh,
who can run the economy better? We'll clearly not crystphal
(04:45):
ups or who doesn't know, doesn't have any idea, as
Winston Peters said, and so you know, yep, it's unusual
for labor to be seen as the better man into
the economy. Really good.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
On, hold on, why is it unusual?
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Oh? Look, because the National Party brand has always been
we're good for business, we know how to run the economy.
But what has shown is even in small business they're
not doing it. The more small businesses are closing down
now than for years and years, other than their little
COVID dip. So you know, it's it's refreshing to see
(05:21):
that people understand. And we've come out with our limited
capital gains tech to fund doctors visits, and people say, oh,
that's a good idea. So perhaps the National Party will
get on board with that and we have some real
post party consensus on how to have a productive economy.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
So you're surprised as much as hold On, hold On,
hold On, Matte, but you're you're a surprised as everyone
else that people think, for example, Labor will do a
better job of running the economy. You're a surprised as us. Matt, No,
I mean, I mean Duncan, dun Duncan, Duncan, Duncan. No, No,
I'm not I'm not hold on, Matt, hold On, Duncan.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
No, I'm not surprised. But just historically, this is the
first time since I think halfway through the last Labor
government that people have seen us as better at running
the economy than the National Party, which is both good
shows that we do know not what we're doing. We
do know what we're doing, but also the people don't
(06:18):
trust the National Government.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
And that will come to you. But where's the evidence
for people to base that understanding or perception on Duncan.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
Well, Look, Barbara Edmonds has traveled the country speaking about
our economic direction, and you know that limited capital gains
tax is only one part of it. We've also pitched
a future fund for New Zealand, making sure that you know,
New Zealand assets remain owned by New Zealanders, by the
New Zealand government, and that the profits from that are
(06:56):
funneled back into New Zealand businesses. I mean, and we've
announced further support for the gaming sector, a great industry
that's going ahead and leaps and bounds hold what out there.
But also it's just the value set we bring that
we want to grow the economy for New Zealanders by
news Yalanders.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Right, Matt, I'll know you're gagging to respond.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
I'm just having a wed chuckle, John. I actually haven't
heard that turn that Dunk is using just now the
limited capital gains tax and interesting that when you've got
a flagship policy, you're already trying to minimize it in
the title. And I think people will see that for
what it is. It's just another tax grab. And it
(07:39):
looks it is difficult out there, right, and people are
frustrated at the cost of living, and that is the
difficulty that we are taming. We inherit an economy with
high inflation and we're getting to work on that. But
the reality is what these polls reflect is people out
there are doing it tough, and that's why we do
(08:00):
need to focus on the economy. So you can call
it a limited capital gains tax, but most people know
that it's just going to be another text Duncan.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
You've got to admit that the government does seem to
be winning the war on crime our election. In the
number of serious crime victims, it's all good news.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
Ah, well, that is good news. I'm always very happy
to hear that there's fewer victims of crime and that
Crime and Justice Survey is a really good tool to
measure it. It captures unreported crime as well, so you know,
I'm not going to knick on dime on that one.
I think it's great that there's fewer of victims of crime.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
And what's your run view on the prison numbers being
at record levels. You've got to say that if you're
happy about the the victims numbers being down, you've got
to admit them. Well, maybe putting more people inside is
the answer.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
Well, no, no, you're drawing a bit of a longer
bow there.
Speaker 4 (08:54):
Now.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
One of the things we know about prison is that
the highest offenders, the most dangerous people we have, are
people who have been in prison, and one of the
reasons that crime may have gone down is that you've
got some of those offenders and you've lock them up
for a short period of time. But the question is
what's going to happen when they get out, and they
do get out, So I mean, our view is that
(09:14):
the best thing to do is to fix them up,
not lock them up now. And at the moment, if
you look at the prison numbers, and we're going to
be talking to the minister in a couple of weeks,
they're skyrocketing and there's simply not enough places in prison
to put them, and they can't get the rehabilitation programs
that they need, which is a real problem. So we
(09:35):
don't think it's a mark of success. So we shouldn't
be celebrating that we've locked up over eleven thousand people.
I think that last count because what that does is
actually create more dangerous people that have put back in
the community without the resources around them.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
A little later on, sole right, So Matt, doc, so
how were you how are you going to make sure
that these prisoners you've got in there now aren't going
to cause more problems when they get out.
Speaker 4 (10:02):
Well, that's a good important and that's where the focus
should be. I mean, I disagree Duncan with his framing
of the argument. You know, it's not locking them up,
it's fixing them up. In fact, you can actually do both.
And I must say it's great to be in Canterbury
at the moment where the news is not dominated by
ramraid after ramraid, and actually it is about consequences and
(10:22):
you break the law and if you are deemed to
be incarcerated, then you will be put inside prison. And
not only does that stop the individual committing the crime,
it actually keeps the public safe. But actually I think
there is a duty that when you are in prison
that we do ensure there is the rehabilitation programs, and
I'd only point to the reforms that Mark Mitchell and
(10:45):
Paul Goldsmith made to expand drug and alcohol and mental
health programs for ramand prisoners who under the last government
were excluded from those rehabilitation programs. So it actually shows
more prisoners are getting access to those rehabilitation programs. But
we all know you can offer a lot of programs,
but if people choose not to engage in them, or
(11:07):
not to do the hard work in them, to actually
go and change their behavior, then potentially they might recommit
a crime which puts them back into prison.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Isn't that meaning to take responsibility for that?
Speaker 2 (11:17):
It's also responsibility of corrections too, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (11:20):
Well, that's what I'm saying. We do put on programs,
and it's incumbent on any government to ensure that people
have the rehabilitation and the therapy available to them to
turn their lives around. But if prisoners choose not to
engage in those programs or come out and reoffend, that
is their choice. And if they had a threshold for incarceration,
(11:40):
well we're not going to shy away from that.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
So hold on, what does that mean? Does this keep
them inside or let them go out and see what happens.
Speaker 4 (11:48):
No? No, Obviously, if people meet the threshold where they
are to be released with them that is their court order.
We do have probation to ensure that they have the
settings around them. But the point I'm making is that
we can provide a lot of programs within prison, and
that is right. We should be looking at some of
the contribute true factors. But if people choose not to
(12:08):
engage in those programs in prison and do come out
and commit a crime and that's for the threshold of incarceration,
then quite rightly I should go back to prison. I
think that's what the public expects.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Dont Can, I know you answer this question, so I'll
ask Matt and then we'll move on to Pike Rivers specifically, Matt,
what's your response to the CTUs call or renewed call
this week for a new law of corporate manslaughter?
Speaker 3 (12:33):
Yeah, I see.
Speaker 4 (12:34):
I think it's Adrian Rufi has a member's bill in
the ballot for corporate homicide. It's not a bill that
we've considered as a caucus yet, so we don't have
a position on it. Paul Goldsmith, Justice Minister, I think
was asked around corporate homicide law and said it wasn't
(12:54):
a priority this term.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Right. Your personal view, Oh, I think it's worth looking in.
Speaker 3 (13:01):
To it.
Speaker 4 (13:02):
I don't have enough detail to understand the issues here.
I presume that there was some and that's why potentially,
and Duncan might know, the last government didn't bring it
in itself when it was in government. But I think
it's worth looking at and that's what we'll do with
the member's bill. But ultimately it's about prioritizing of the
(13:22):
legislative agenda, and the Minister said that it wouldn't be
a priority this term.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
All right, let's wrap up with Pike River. Duncan Web,
what's your reaction to reports that the police apparently have
enough evidence to lay manslaughter charges over Pike River.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
Yeah, well, you know, Piper has been a long legacy
of missteps in the way it's been approached and investigated.
It's been a long time and of course it was
the last government that we back into the mind to
get that evidence. So I'm with Nigel Hampton on this,
get on with it. You know, if there is criminal
(13:58):
responsibility or there's a strongly affable case for it, let's
find out because that was a huge tragedy and the
families do deserve justice here.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
Yeah. But when you've got Nigel Hampton on the radio
this morning saying he's going public with this information which
was provided to him I gather from the police, is
going public with it to put pressure on the Crown
Law Office. I mean you've got to be concerned about that,
don't you.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Oh look, Nigel was a fantastic advocate, but that's what
he is. And the clown law office is a pretty
good organization. They'll make a decision based on the evidence
that's presented to them, not because Nigel Hampton, much as
we love him, is jumping up and down. So you know,
got Nigel for highlighting this. But there's huge wrongs that
(14:47):
went on there and we know that, and we know
that Peter Whistle essentially brought his way out of a
prosecution early on, and that's deeply problematic. No wonder people
still want to see justice done.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Now do you see how dangerous is it or how
risky is it that any decision will be based on
political pressure or political interest and public interest as much
as anything else.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
Well, I mean it is an active police investigation, so
I'm not really going to comment.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
But just come on, come on, you can You've got
Nigel Hampton.
Speaker 4 (15:21):
Now you've asked me for my answer and I was
giving it to you, but you'd cut me off halfway through. So,
like I say, it is a police operation, but you know,
you've got to feel for the families and we do
want the investigation to happen at pace, but equally it
(15:43):
can't be just about the speed. You know, obviously things
do need to be stepped through as well, but coming
back to that point, it is an active police investigation.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
All right, Duncan, I think you're willing to say a
little bit more, how and also with your legal legal
had on how concerning is it that these charges might
be laid fifteen years down the track.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
You know, there's no steps of limitation on murder and
in fact most crimes, And if, for whatever reason it
takes fifteen years to get the case together and find
the relevant evidence, then you know that is what it is.
You know we've got it still, it's still you know,
it might be fifteen years, but it was like yesterday, right,
(16:27):
the tragedy of that and you know, we expect people
to go to work, be safe, get home and that
didn't happen that day.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
And so you have no qualms at all about political
public pressure influencing crown law.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
I am familiar enough with crown law to know how
it operates and it doesn't bend to political pressure when
it makes prosecutorial decisions. There's the prosecution guidelines that they'll
look at, and the length of time that's elapsed and
the reliability of the evidence will go into it. But no,
you're Hampton beating a drum won't be part of the analysis, right.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Hey, thanks both of your time. Thanks Duncan, thank you, Thanks.
Speaker 4 (17:09):
Matt, Thanks John. Hey, if I could just take a
quick second. It's actually the first time I've spoken to
Duncan since he announced his retirement, and I just want
to acknowledge Duncan.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
I've got to know him.
Speaker 4 (17:23):
Over the course of the last few years. I think
he's a good guy. I've got to lead his partner
as well, and just think him for his representation of Canterbury.
I think it's been well served through Duncan and wish
him all the best for his next life stage and
all the best.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Thanks retirement. For a funny word, I'm not going away, Okay.
All the story there Joel.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
New Zealand first of Dump Stuart Nash and they're taking
Duncan web and I won't ask you, and I won't
ask you for any definitions Duncan, because that might ruin
things for We have a good time, have a good weekend.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
For more from Canterbury Mornings with John McDonald. Listen live
to News Tour to Be Christchurch from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.