By Maggie Tait
Justice Minister Simon Power "dodged" handling the three strikes law because it was controversial and he probably didn't agree with it, Labour's David Parker told him today.
Mr Power and Mr Parker went head to head during today's justice and electoral select committee meeting.
Papers released under the Official Information Act to NZPA previously showed justice officials were concerned the policy risked breaching New Zealand's Bill of Rights and international obligations, went against the Government's own policy on the drivers of crime, and impacted on judicial powers.
It also said some juries might not convict criminals, concerned by the unfair consequences if they did, and that the group worst affected would be Maori.
The Government announced in January it was amending its own three strikes policy after negotiations with ACT. The amended policy was included in the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and responsibility for it shifted from Mr Power to Police Minister Judith Collins.
At the time Mr Power told NZPA he was "relaxed" about the law and he felt there enough checks to ensure justice.
Mr Parker wanted to know why justice got nearly $28m in funding to provide advice when the ministry was not involved in helping with such a controversial piece of law about sentencing.
The ministry had been involved in other sentencing laws and Mr Power was the minister in charge.
"I am very confused as to why there was no advice provided by the ministry of justice in relation to the three strikes legislation, given that it's probably been the most controversial piece of criminal justice legislation that your government has advanced."
Mr Power said it was simply because the policy kicked on depending on what charges police laid, rather than at judges' discretion, so they were the right people to offer advice and Police Minister Judith Collins the appropriate minister to lead it.
That wasn't unusual, he said, saying Youth Affairs Minister Paula Bennett looked after a youth justice package.
Mr Parker did not accept that.
"You say nothing unusual -- the most controversial piece of legislation relating to sentencing and effectively you have dodged it because it was controversial, and probably didn't agree with it personally, and let it be dealt with through corrections and police, I am surprised by that given you have a $28m budget for policy advice."
Mr Power said he didn't dodge issues because they were controversial.
"You've dodged this one minister," Mr Parker retorted.
Mr Power said Mrs Collins had done a great job handling the legislation.
"I am confident the legislation is going to do what it was intended to do."
Mr Power said the ministry produced an enormous amount of work and gave good value for money.
Asked if the ministry gave advice on all the other sentencing related bills during the year Mr Power said yes, as far as he was aware.
"Why the inconsistency?" Mr Parker asked.
"I think I've explained that, actually."
"Well, I don't think you have."
"Well, it's your call."
Under the amended policy repeat violent offenders face maximum jail terms with no parole for a third conviction for one of 40 specified offences.
Under the graduating scale of sanctions within the law, murderers must be jailed for life with no parole if the murder conviction is for a second or subsequent "strike" offence, unless the judge rules a non-parole sentence would be manifestly unjust.
The law will see offenders who commit one of the 40 crimes sentenced as normal, with the usual parole eligibility, for a first strike.
A second strike will bring a sentence under normal criteria, but the jail term must be served with no parole unless doing so would be manifestly unjust.
A third strike will bring a maximum sentence for that crime, with no parole.
The 40 crimes in the schedule include murder, manslaughter, rape and other sexual offending and serious violence.
NZPA