By Chris Trotter*
There are rule for radicalism. Or, at least, there are rules for the presentation of radical ideas intended to become a part of our daily lives. The most important of these rules requires radical ideas to be explained and justified. Failure to make clear why radical solutions should be embraced and implemented will only ensure their rejection by a decisive majority of the population. Radical ideas and policies are only ever adopted when that same majority has been convinced that a refusal to adopt them will only make matters worse.
It is difficult to imagine a more radical idea than the abolition of prisons. And yet, along with a proposal to establish a Māori Education Authority, the abolition of the New Zealand prison system is one of the key recommendations of the iwi-based group charged by the Labour Government with responding to the controversial He Puapua Report on the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Asked by Q+A’s Jack Tame whether they supported the call for prisons to be abolished, the co-leaders of Te Pāti Māori, Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, both replied “absolutely”. The question now, having signalled their support for this radical policy, is whether Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer are prepared to explain and justify it to the voters of New Zealand.
On the answer to that last question will turn the broader electorate’s view of Te Pāti Māori. With the last three public opinion polls indicating that the party may well end up holding the balance of power after the 2023 general election, its ability to spell out clearly what it expects to receive in return for its support on confidence-and-supply motions – and why – has become a matter of acute political interest.
A serious response will likely generate increased support from angry and alienated tangata whenua – quite possibly at Labour’s expense. But a flippant, “we’re more radical than you are” response risks cementing in the voter’s mind an image of Te Pāti Māori as a collection of vainglorious political flakes, who should be kept as far away from power as possible.
Te Pāti Māori’s public support for the abolition of prisons cannot now avoid becoming part of the right-wing parties’ argument for giving the potential “Red-Green-Brown” coalition the widest of berths. With so many of National’s and Act’s supporters alarmed at what they see as a sharp rise in violent crime – due largely to the growth of gangs – the very notion that a party in Parliament is willing to countenance radical reforms that would see the Māori perpetrators of serious crimes escape incarceration, leaves the Right with no option but to go on the offensive against the entire He Puapua prescription.
This, in turn, will inspire all manner of fears and doubts within the ranks of Labour and the Greens. While neither party will be anxious to alienate Te Pāti Māori, the so-called “Centre-Left” will, nevertheless, be extremely loathe to endorse a policy as radical as the abolition of prisons. For most Labour and Green candidates the whole concept will appear so outlandish as to be dismissed out-of-hand as “nuts”. For Te Pāti Māori, however, such a reaction would only confirm the “colonialist” mindset of their putative partners. The formation of a stable coalition would thus become even more problematic.
All of which makes it clear why it is never enough to simply announce one’s support for a radical policy. Indeed, what the above considerations reveal is the huge potential within such radical protestations for an electorally fatal backlash.
That is not to say that radicalism should be avoided at all costs. As Simon Bridges told Parliament only last week in his valedictory address, there is little point in seeking a political career if the only forces driving you are focus groups and opinion polls. Members of Parliament should come to Wellington on the wings of ambition – not the plodding feet of caution. What the above considerations should reinforce, however, is the crucial importance of the rule about explaining and justifying radical change.
The template for successful radical reform is there for all to see in the unceasing explanations and justifications for the radical economic changes proposed by the “Free Marketeers” of the 1970s and 80s. When these latter “policy aggressors” first emerged on the scene, they had to endure hearing their ideas dismissed as “extreme” and/or “nuts”.
Were they discouraged? Not a bit! As the 70s wore on, and the economic situation deteriorated across the Western World, “Free Market” explanations acquired an ever-expanding audience, and its justifications for a fundamental rearrangement of the way modern industrial economies were run began to sound increasingly reasonable.
The way forward for Te Pāti Māori is clear. It has to demonstrate that the regime of crime and punishment that has grown up in New Zealand over the past 180 years is no longer fit for purpose. The recidivism rate, alone, offers proof that the experience of incarceration is anything but rehabilitating. Similarly, the disproportionate number of Māori behind bars points to there being a great many more factors at work in our justice and corrections systems than straightforward criminality. All of the scientific evidence confirms the proposition that criminals are made not born.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer observed to Jack Tame that there were no prisons in pre-colonial Aotearoa. A cheap point, some might say, but one worth following up. Obviously, in the centuries prior to European settlement, Māori who offended against the customs and practices of their tribal and sub-tribal communities were required to atone and/or make recompense for their “crimes”. Explaining to Pakeha how that worked would be a good place for Te Pāti Māori to start in its quest to reform fundamentally this country’s treatment of offenders.
Those Pakeha convinced that Te Pāti Māori’s support for the abolition of prisons confirms it as being “soft on crime” might be very surprised to discover the fate of those who breached the norms of Māori society before the arrival of the Europeans. The concept of “utu” – the making of proper restitution for harms done – was manifested in many ways. “Soft” wasn’t one of them!
A more courageous Labour Party might also feel inspired by Te Pāti Māori’s advocacy for fundamental penal reform to interrogate its own history.
There was a time when Labour leaders were not unacquainted with the interiors of prison cells. When the working-class people whose votes they solicited did not universally consider such familiarity to be a bad thing. On the contrary, it made Labour’s claims to represent them all the more authentic. When Jack Lee wrote The Children of the Poor, he was speaking from bitter personal experience.
There were time, too, when a Labour Shadow Attorney-General, all-too-well-acquainted with the bleak and soulless quality of Her majesty’s prisons, argued that no jail should be escape-proof. The urge to be free, said Dr Martyn Findlay, was what made us human. To render that urge impossible of fulfilment was, accordingly, to make the state complicit in the crushing of the human spirit.
Māori healers recall a time when “words had power”. The words that give substance to ideas, no matter how radical, still do – but only if our representatives rediscover the courage to speak them out loud.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
58 Comments
Can anyone honestly say they wouldn't like to live in a society that had at the very least, little need for prisons.
Let's face it, prisons are full of people who should otherwise have been being treated for mental health issues.
We should, at the very least, be working toward a society that has little use for incarceration, it must surely be a better society..
If Maori are able to turn things around for their own people, I cannot see one single, logical argument against it. Sadly, so much I see is vitriol and an unwillingness to listen and I reckon that is because there are a lot of people in this country who are afraid they might actually succeed!
I watched the Jack Tame interview with an open mind and willingness to listen, and like Chris Trotter thought that such radical ideas had better be explained to the masses to have any hope of political success. The trouble is the masses have only a very basic knowledge of te reo, so found their frequent use of it rendered their argument incomprehensible.
There is much about the entire idea of co-governance that, quite frankly, is not something that can or cannot happen depending on the say-so of the masses. I too understand not a great deal of Maori, but you know what, even at my ever advancing age, it is up to me to get off my rear end and either learn the language or get what I need translated.
It is not up to me or my approval of honouring Te Tiriti that should see it honoured. In the end all I felt I needed to understand, what was the right thing, the rest is not up to me.
As anyone in business will tell you, in a democratic free market, it's up to you as the communicator to present your information to those that you are wanting to 'buy' into your idea/product, in a language that your audience can understand, not the other way around, unless your goal is to force the change onto your audience so who cares about what your audience thinks.
I note when traveling through the likes of Switzerland, as soon as they recognize you can't understand Swiss, they without any frustration or impatience, or a roll of the eyes, immediately start speaking to you in the language you can understand. And they don't have a pidgin mix of Swiss and the other language.
It shows hubris and ignorance to deliberately communicate with your audience in a language you know on the probability that they won't fully understand, knowing that there is a common language that you could communicate to them in.
No. The reason you are given the right to vote is that it also comes with the responsibility to defend that right, should the need arrive. Thus if there is a compulsory draft, then it should be compulsory for all that have the right to vote, in this case, both men and women.
Women should be 'outraged' that they are excluded from this obligation, in effect being treated as second-class citizens.
Maori men, of course, realized this not being treated as equals as their European brothers in arms and demanded the right to be allowed to join the army as front-line troops. And rightly so.
You probably won't see the irony in what you have just said. Even though my comments in English, you haven't understood my point.
If my response was in NZ Sign language, which is also an official language, would that help get the point across? Language is about communication, and knowing more than one language should enable that person to communicate with more people.
The fact they know more than one language, one of which they know is common to both parties but still can't communicate their point, is on them, not the person with whom they are communicating with.
The Swiss are successful because they go out of their way to make communication easy, not hide behind some sense of false superiority about being able to speak more languages than someone else.
Everyone in Switzerland will be able to speak Swiss German, which I understand to be their 'first' language. Just because we've neglected to see to it that we all have at least a basic understanding of the first language here is not an excuse anymore.
Yeah, I know what you mean, it's I don't think you know what you mean, tbh
You need to read up a bit more, it doesn't take much, maybe even before you have a basic understanding of Maori.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Switzerland
And if TMP is happy to only be talking to their hand, well that's up to them, but then they shouldn't be surprised that most people don't see the view they are promoting as a universal view.
To be fair, the pidgin mix is probably the best way to keep the language alive. It's not suited for modern usage with the lack of many 'essential' words, with a great many of them already transliterated.
It is a bit annoying with government ads throwing in random ones you don't know such as 'hohipera and that other one in that vaccine ad on Youtube and TV etc...
Since Labour came to power in 2017 they proudly reduced the prison population by 30% - while violent crime has increased 37%. They are now getting rid of the 3 strikes rule. Join the dots.
It's not a coincidence that some of the lowest crime rates in NZ were the decades after each of the 2 World Wars when a large proportion of the adult male population were trained & experienced in lethal force, many also armed.
Here's a radical idea for consideration: a "Castle Law" for NZ which permits all home occupiers as of right to defend their home & family from unauthorised entry up to deadly force.
After that we could look at a "Stand your ground" law so civic minded law abiding people can go about their lives without facing menacing intimidation on the streets from those who choose to be outlaws amongst us.
kiwikidsnz,
Right on. Every child's first birthday present should be a gun-and not just a little pistol, but something serious but tasteful-blue for the boys and pink for the girls. Compulsory military training for age 5 would allow them to graduate to a rapid fire model and then at say 10, a heavy machine gun. Am i on the right lines here?
It should be become a matter for of pride for NZ to overtake the US in the shootings per head of population stakes asap. I have several others suggestions you might like.
Source for that claim?
It looks like you may be spreading disinformation: https://theconversation.com/despite-claims-nzs-policing-is-too-woke-cri…
If you didn't have prisons you may have to make society a prison or even your own mind a prison. We have come a long way and prisons are now our most punitive punishment with alternatives such as home detention available. Perhaps work on making prisons more humane. Study Scandinavian prisons and implement similar systems if they are shown to have superior outcomes.
The difficult problem to solve is eliminating the stigma that often destroys the futures of those that have committed crimes. How do we break the career criminal cycle? We can never eliminate crime entirely without developing a police state so we have to accept a certain level of criminality and the measures used to suppress it.
Happy for prisons to be scrapped. At a saving of $1.3B to the tax payer.
However we will form team Viper Squad Elite, a crack team of 50 (5 squads of ten mercenaries) elite trained assassins. They will operate out of 5 top secret bases (3 in Nth Island, 2 in Sth Island), using ex. US military Chinook helicopters (painted black for night operations), they will be able to reach any square meter of NZ and its realms within 1-2 hours.
They will be equipped with sniper rifles, night vision goggles, RPG's, poison darts, Uzi's, switch blade drones & the latest kevlar personnel armor.
They will operate under total secrecy with the goal of 100% stealth elimination of any violent or illegal threat deemed a danger to everyday Kiwis and their families.
This force will cost approx. $500M p.a. to operate. With the $800M p.a. savings to go towards education.
'Te Pāti Māori’s support for the abolition of prisons confirms it as being “soft on crime” might be very surprised to discover the fate of those who breached the norms of Māori society before the arrival of the Europeans. The concept of “utu” – the making of proper restitution for harms done – was manifested in many ways. “Soft” wasn’t one of them!
It's not about being 'soft on crime,' it's about not being 'stupid.'
Chris seems to be saying that the solution, for Maori, is to return to the traditional 'Utu' concepts. So yes, let's hear about what this new system would involve, and I mean the whole system.
It's worth noting, as Thomas Sowell points out, that all the stats., for all ethnic groups up until the early 1960s were on the improve, until certain groups decided it wasn't happening fast enough so made changes, and from that point on the changes they made, made this worse.
Also as a policy statement and goal setting with a measurable and achievable target, to say you want to abolish prisons to about as useful as saying zero road deaths. It's a complete cop-out and shows are leaders have no real 'real world' aspirations.
How about a simple first step eg to stop 12-year-olds, now, ie in real-time, from ram-raiding.
Meanwhile, just a few hundred years ago, an English king was publicly beheaded. Come on, name me one society that has not gone through gruesome history (It's likely to be found somewhere in the ever decreasing rainforest somewhere).
I've had arguments like yours up to the gills
Again, the point was missed, so you're arguing with your own inability to comprehend more than anything else.
Read some Thomas Sowell, he has it there, book, chapter and verse.
It's not about the past, that is the point, Things were on the improve, for all groups, but since the late 1960's on, almost every stat. we measure a successful society on, it has gone backward, for almost all groups, because of changes that were made then, not because of something that happened a hundred years or more before that.
For TMP to say there were no prisons back in the day in Maori society, end of quote and story, is pretty lame.
Correct, there were no prisons in pre-colonial times. (I can't say "in Aotearoa", because it was not known as such by the people who lived here, and they didn't even have a name for their own ethnic group.) But transgressing social mores, such as touching something that was tapu, was met with swift and often violent retribution that typically ended in slaughter, slavery or ritual cannibalism. This is well established and anyone who has read King, Moon (This Horrid Practice) or McNab (Murihiku) would know this. Is it an uncomfortable fact? Of course. But it's fact, and claiming that the pre-colonial period was some kind of utopian society is just absurd.
I suspect it won't be too long before the repeat victims have had enough and we end up with another poor little Pihema Cameron or Kaoss Price all over the news.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/1399650/Emery-jailed-for-killing-tagger
https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/128405465/kaoss-price-always-a-bigger…
They are quite right that there were no prisons in New Zealand prior to the arrival of the British. They had capital punishment, beatings and slavery instead. Death by clubbing and forced labour camps. I'm sure their cuzzies would love that. No more holidays at home with an ankle bracelet.
You have that all wrong. Prior to the arrival of the British, New Zealand was occupied solely by a peaceful indigenous people mind their own business. The wicked white man came along and committed abhorrent acts such as introducing laws and trading land for blankets. 50 million acres of land was ripped from the hands of the peaceful indigenous peoples.
Good article thanks. I'd have liked you to go further on the application of utu in pre-European society though. I agree that there are concepts that are worth recovering, but fair, compassionate and redemptive it was not. Proposing a return to tradional Maori without explanation of what could apply, and what the Maori community needs to leave in a brutal past, is definitely flakey.
Feel free to correct my understanding but my understanding is the failure of pre-Treaty inter hapu/iwi justice was one of the motivations for signing the treaty. It was agreed in the Treaty the crown would handle law and order except for possibly problems contained inside a hapu.
To me, this look more like trying to import more northern hemisphere politics created in western universities. The Democrat activists in the US are trying something that sounds like this.
Or Cowboy hats!
TPM do have a point though. I do think there are too many people in prison and a lot of them are Maori. Re-offending rates are high and prisons are a good training and recruitment ground for gangs. But there needs to be a way of keeping society safe from truly dangerous individuals. It is a good conversation to be having.
About as pointless as the NZTA Road to Zero initiative - you can't regulate or wish away the human endocrine system. I'd look at reforming drug prohibition to stem the thug life attitudes of many on the edges. I'd suggest violence and property crime is directly proportional to the profits from the meth trade and vice in general. Remove vice - remove profits.
There were actually prisons of a sort in pre European times. I watched a program where a Maori guy was having a house built by a beach. He pointed out to a small offshore island and said that local tribes (I believe his ancestors) used to take the captured prisoners from other tribes to the island, break their legs so they couldn't swim away and leave them there. When meat was needed they would go to the island and kill a couple of their slaves.
From where I'm from there are plenty of similar stories from times past.
There are also many stories of settlers who would not have survived in the bush or on their new farms without the help of local 'friendly' Maori.
Most New Zealanders are well aware that Maoris aren't saints. They are also aware that their European ancestors weren't saints either.
I've been to the Tower of London and seen the holes in the ground with grates on them where they used to put the condemned prisoners. Some of my Scots ancestors were hung drawn and quartered on the orders of my other Scots ancestors. It is what it is but I'm not going to pretend it didn't happen.
Making up stories to whitewash one set of ancestors' actions and pretending that the part of your own dna you do acknowledge is the only one that is worthwhile is a recipe for self hatred.
As one commenter said look at the Scandinavian prison model if you want to humanise the prisons. But don't let the rest of us be at the mercy of more thugs, bullies and killers whether they are white or brown than we already are.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.