Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Focus on Healing

Entry 989, on 2009-04-15 at 20:45:23 (Rating 3, Politics)

I saw a news article today which I predict will elicit a strong response from my right-wing friends within a day or two. In fact, if it had come from a Labour lead government I think I would have heard from them already. They are probably trying to deal with the confusion of a "loony left" policy being considered by their beloved right-wing government. I can only imagine how confusing it must be to their tiny minds!

So what is this news? Its the idea of running a separate prison for Maoris where "the inmates go flatting and the focus is on healing." Does this sound like a policy likely to have come from the same government as the one proposing "three strikes and you're out?" The idea comes from Pita Sharples but the National Party is open to the concept and the corrections minister, Judith Collins, is very keen on the idea if it can be shown to reduce the Maori crime rate.

Of course National is in coalition with two incompatible partners: Act and the Maori party. I don't envy them the task of making that sort of arrangement work. Its particularly funny that, before the election, they were warning us about the possibility of a similar coalition centered on Labour if they had won!

But all that aside, is this a good idea? Well I think its a much better one than the "three strikes" nonsense being pushed by Act. We already have good reason to think that won't work but creating a positive environment which encourages rehabilitation just might.

Its unfortunate that this is limited to Maori and linked to learning to speak Maori. I don't agree with either of those limitations because if a particular approach to rehabilitation is worth trying is it not worth trying on anyone whatever racial background they are from, and what does learning a language really have to do with it?

So I think the critics who point out these issues have a point but that doesn't mean the idea isn't worth trying in principle, but I suspect that's the approach the political right will take because they would never let their hard-line attitudes to crime be compromised by accepting an alternative based on rehabilitation.

Comment 1 (1957) by OJB on 2009-04-18 at 17:53:05:

I was slightly off in my prediction because it was actually 3 days before a more politically conservative friend/family mentioned the subject. The strange thing was this person said he thought the idea was worth trying but he was still against it for some poorly defined reason. I guess it was related to the two points I made above so he does have a point. Its easy to concentrate on the negatives though. I think its worth trying for a while because current crime prevention isn't very effective.

Comment 2 (1958) by SBFL on 2009-04-19 at 09:23:20:

"Of course National is in coalition with two incompatible partners: Act and the Maori party." - please, please explain why these two parties are incompatible? During the pre-election debates I recall Rodney on several occasions agreeing with Turiana. And I see no evidence of this incompatibly in the 5 months they have been in government together.

"Its particularly funny that, before the election, they were warning us about the possibility of a similar coalition centered on Labour if they had won!" - no I don't recall National warning the public of ACT and Maori Party together with Labour in government. Please provide evidence. I do recall the mention of the 5-headed monster (Labour-Greens-NZFirst-Maori-Progressives) but this is not similar by any means. If you think it is similar, then please state who must be the incompatible partner.

Regarding the confusion for your right-wing friends with tiny minds, (you say this yet maintain you should not be labelled "left" - unbelievable!), well maybe it is you who are confused. You state "Its the idea of running a separate prison for Maoris where "the inmates go flatting and the focus is on healing." As I understand the matter supported by Collins is not so much a separate Maori prison but a specialist rehabilitation for those Maori nearing the end of their sentence. It seems you have fallen into the same trap as Clayton Cosgrove. Here I quote David Farrar in his article at NBR:

Labour are playing a risky game with Maori issues. This week Clayton Cosgrove sounding like Don Brash on NZPA:

Labour law and order spokesperson Clayton Cosgrove accused Dr Sharples of promoting a separate Maori prison system and said victims needed to know perpetrators would be punished according to their crimes, not their race.

"A separate prison system may create second class victims. Is it the case that if you are attacked by a Pakeha the offender goes to prison, but if you are attacked by a Maori, your offender could end up flatting with their mates? How is that fair for victims?"

Dr Sharples responded that Cosgrove was being “stupid” and that what he was promoting was a small 60 bed unit that would be for inmates towards the end of their sentence to help their rehabilitation.Nothing to do with Maori offenders getting off lightly.

It was the first example we have seen of Labour trying to portray the National-led Government as “soft on Maori”. I suspect Cosgrove’s attack will have attracted disquiet within Labour – they still hold two of the Maori seats, and would like to win some of the others back.

Labour doesn’t know what to do about Maori issues. Does it portray the Maori Party as having sold Maori out to National or National having sold out to Maori radicals? It can’t do both, even though it is trying to. One example of its indecision, is that no one in Labour will give a clear answer as to whether or not they support the Royal Commission’s proposed three Maori seats on the Auckland Council.

Clayton Cosgrove gets a D for his blatant misrepresentation of an initiative to reduce Maori reoffending."

The criminal rehabilitation unit sounds better than building another prison and probably cheaper. As Dr Sharples has said, at $80,000 a year to accommodate someone in prison it would be cheaper to put them in a hotel. The unit will sound too much like a motel for many. But it would be run by a Maori committee involving local iwi or hapu. It is the sort of initiative that can enhance the autonomy and mana of many besides the inmates concerned.

Comment 3 (1960) by OJB on 2009-04-19 at 09:40:42:

Regarding the Maori party and Act. Have a look at the crime policies I mentioned above for a start. Act wants a hard line "three strikes and you're out" but Maori wants a "soft on Maori" approach. These seem almost opposites.

I said they warned us of a similar coalition (one with incompatible members). Clearly no one expected Labour to team up with Act. I don't see teaming up with Act and Maori being worse than with Green and NZ First, for example.

I didn't mean to imply the new prison would be any more than a rehabilitation facility. Some people are worried it might lead to a completely separate prison system but that's another issue really. The criticisms of the system still apply however.

Yes Labour are currently at a real low point, and that is because of their own political mismanagement and arrogance when they were in power. I think it will take a while for them to rebuild. I'm not a Labour Party supporter, by the way.

You seem to think I bundle anyone who supports National into a category of being "right wing conservatives". The people I am talking about here are a bit to the right of John Key, who I think is so far doing a fairly food job.

Comment 4 (1961) by OJB on 2009-04-19 at 09:43:21:

Thanks for the note regarding the bug in the preview. I'll have a look in the next day or two. I have removed your bug report from this discussion to avoid confusion.

Comment 5 (1962) by SBFL on 2009-04-19 at 10:01:06:

No two parties have exactly the same policies, so obviously there will be difference of opinion. This doesn't necessarily make them incompatible though does it, you need to build a stronger case than this.

I know what you said, and my reply is consistent with that, yet you failed to initially state the "similar coalition" or even clarify it. To the uninformed reader it almost reads as though you mean Act-Maori-Labour though I figured you might mean something else since noone had ever mentioned this combination ever! Now at least I get out of you that Labour-Greens-NZF is as bad a combination as National-Maori-ACT. At least with the latter we'll find out how they do, so far so good.

But it is just a rehabilitation centre, so what did you mean? Yes, a completely different prison system is a different issue. Your criticisms of the system may well still apply, but that is not what was being reported, as you made clear in your second paragraph of the original post. You distinctly referred to the rehabilitation system as "a separate prison for Maoris." Now of you want to make a criticism of a different issue - such as separate prison systems - then please do us the courtesy of making this distinction in your post. Otherwise I will go so far as to say the text can be misleading.

I acknowledge/agree with your final two paragrahs of the comment 3 above.

Comment 6 (1963) by OJB on 2009-04-19 at 10:15:11:

The same argument regarding compatibility could apply to the coalition which might have existed headed by Labour. Where the point is that makes them "incompatible" is hard to define. Reading the original entry I can see how you might have thought I meant Act-Labour-Maori but hopefully most people would realise that would never happen and interpret the comment accordingly!

The center is a separate prison because its a place where people will serve out part of their sentence. Its really just an extension of the existing centers already operating inside conventional prisons. The criticism that Maori will get to spend some of their sentence in a more pleasant environment stands.

Comment 7 (1965) by SBFL on 2009-04-19 at 10:28:39:

If it hard to define and you won't define it then don't label two parties as incompatible with practically nothing to back it up, let alone some form of definition. Re similar coalition: No I didn't read it that way (as I clearly stated above) but the uninformed reader might.

Okay now you are just drawing a long bow. And before you said a separate prison was a different issue (comment #3) yet now you say it's the same issue (comment #6). Talk about inconsistent! Actually targeted rehabilitation centres are not new, I think they have them for sex offenders for instance.

Of course, bear in mind that I am not necessarily disagreeing with your criticisms (paragraph 5 of the original post), just that it is not right to confuse the issue of a separate prison system for Maori with that which Pita Sharples is proposing. Like I said, you must make the distinction, especially after branding your political opponents as having tiny minds!

Comment 8 (1967) by OJB on 2009-04-19 at 10:41:35:

OK, we will just have to wait and see how Act and Maori get on in future. At this early stage I would not expect there to be too many problems. That might not always be the case. I think we will find that incompatibility does exist but it just hasn't become obvious yet.

That's not what I was trying to say at all. I personally think a rehabilitation center is a good idea but some more conservative people see it as being a soft alternative to prison and I can see that opinion also has some merit.

Comment 9 (1969) by SBFL on 2009-04-19 at 10:57:52:

A-ha! So the comment on incompatibility was purely based on your perception, your pigeon-holing, your stereotyping... I see now.

Again, I refer back to my comments on the misleading grouping of "running a separate prison" with rehabilitation centre. If you think your conservative peers see the rehabilitation centre as being soft then don't refer it as "running a separate prison for Maoris". And then once that has been achieved, it would really help if you could provide some examples of these confused right-wingers with tiny minds.

Comment 10 (1970) by OJB on 2009-04-19 at 11:29:12:

Since no one can really predict how parties will act out of political expediency when in a coalition there will always be an element of speculation there. Do you deny that many people would choose those two parties as having very different priorities?

It is effectively a separate prison, if only for part of the person's sentence. I don't want to use any names but I discussed this with some politically conservative people yesterday and they saw it as either being or eventually leading to a separate system. The "tiny minds" thing was inappropriate in that case but I just wanted to express the thought that many politically conservative people refuse to support ideas outside the conventional norm.

Comment 11 (1972) by Jim on 2009-04-19 at 12:06:07:

I just noticed this debate and this "tiny minded" conservative actually agrees with OJB (never thought I would say that) that limiting a political action to one race isn't fair and is really racist. What I ask in these situations is... would it work in reverse? If anyone created a facility for whites only would that be OK? We all know how much of a stir there would be if that happened so if pro-white policies are racist why aren't pro-Maori policies racist too?

Comment 12 (1973) by OJB on 2009-04-19 at 18:09:38:

Yes this is an old argument and I totally accept your point. There are many policies which favour "minority" groups (indigenous people, women, etc) which would never be allowed in reverse. These do worry me. I can see why the policies exist but really they are racist - but in a good cause (in most cases). So I sort of agree with Jim here (never thought I would say that :)

Comment 13 (1974) by SBFL on 2009-04-20 at 03:57:38:

As long as you are admitting it's speculation, I'm happy to leave it at that.

Well I quoted Pita Sharples earlier on what he called the last person who referred to it as a separate prison. Enough said.

Comment 14 (1982) by OJB on 2009-04-20 at 19:35:58:

OK, it seems to depend on how you define a prison. I still say that the proposal is for a place people are held in while serving a sentence - sounds like a prison to me. OK, so its only for the last part of the sentence for rehab purposes, but let's just leave it because I don't think that's important anyway.

Comment 15 (1990) by SBFL on 2009-04-21 at 07:05:02:

Fair enough. Interesting to hear what Laila Harre had to say of Clayton Cosgrove

Comment 16 (1997) by OJB on 2009-04-21 at 11:47:46: OK, what's your point?

Comment 17 (2003) by OJB on 2009-04-26 at 13:57:34:

In the latest interview with Pita Sharples I heard he said that this rehabilitation period would occur after the jail term was complete and that speaking Maori would not be a prerequisite although that's the language that would be spoken in the unit (why?). If that is true then my major objections are removed. But if someone proposes a rehab center for white offenders only which concentrates on western culture I would expect the Maori party should support it.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.