Chris Luxon – ‘absolutely a good thing’

The previous Labour government set a goal to reduce the prison population by 30% – and in March 2022, it dropped to 7,677. Chris Luxon became Prime Minister in 2023. Within a year, the prison muster passed 10,000. In November, 2025 it surged to nearly 11,000.

Luxon described this as “absolutely a good thing,” and was unconcerned about the cost. He said: “I understand… the financial implication of… restoring law and order. The cost will be what the cost will be.”

In 2024, Corrections cost the taxpayer over $2.8 billion. Perhaps Luxon doesn’t care, but when other justice sector agencies such as police and courts are included, the total cost of ‘law and order’ comes to $7.3 billion a year. So he should care.

This is why.

1) First, the lock ‘em up approach he advocates is based on a decidedly dodgy theory known as deterrence – that the fear of being incarcerated, will deter people from committing crime – and having spent time in prison will deter them from further offending.

New Zealand’s recidivism rate provides ample proof this theory doesn’t work – prisons are more like universities for crime. Incarceration takes offenders off the streets temporarily, but just about everyone gets released eventually.

2) Second, very little rehabilitation is available in our prisons. Between 2016 and 2022, the number of prisoners attending rehabilitation programmes declined from over 8,000 to around 2000.

3) Third, these prison programmes are almost totally ineffective. In 2021, Corrections’ Annual Report listed 23 different prison-based interventions intended to reduce recidivism. The average reduction in reoffending was only 2.3%. The best performing programme (prison-based employment) reduced reoffending by 4.3%. In 2024, Corrections offered only eight prison-based interventions. The average reduction in reoffending was 2.6%.

4) Fourth, even though these programmes fail to reduce reoffending, Corrections demands more funding for them every year. In 2016, Corrections was allocated $180 million “to reduce reoffending.” In 2026, the Department was given $420 million. In other words, the cost of rehabilitation has more than doubled in the last ten years while the number of prisoners attending these programmes has dropped by 75%. That’s money down the drain.

Flawed research by Corrections and MOJ

There’s another reason why governments have been so willing to squander taxpayers’ money on prison programmes. Both Corrections and the Ministry of Justice insist on telling whichever Government is in power that it is money well spent. In 2017, Dr Peter Johnston, Director Analysis and Research for Corrections pretended: “Most of what we are doing to reduce re-offending succeeds.” In 2018, he claimed“The Department has been achieving very promising gains though these programmes.” These are gross exaggerations – refuted by the Department’s own research.

In 2022, the Ministry made similarly outrageous claims in its Long Term Insights Briefing on Imprisonment 1960 to 2050. This 120-page document presented to Parliament, said “prison-based rehabilitation programmes have consistently delivered better results than community-based programmes in New Zealand.”

86% reduction in reoffending in the AODTC

The Ministry is well aware this is not true. In 2019, it published an evaluation of the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court (AODTC) in Auckland. The AODTC treats high risk, high needs recidivist defendants whose crimes are driven by addictions. The Ministry found the AODTC reduced the reoffending of graduates by 86% and kept them out of prison – saving a minimum of $200,000 per defendant. This makes the AODTC at least 40 times more effective than Corrections’ prison-based programmes.

It seems the Ministry doesn’t want anyone in Government to know about the effectiveness of the AODTC. The Long Term Briefing has a chapter titled: “What works to keep people out of prison.” Even in this chapter, the Ministry ignored its own research and omitted any mention of the AODTC at turning around the lives of drug addicted criminals, and keeping them out of prison.

Show me the money

Currently, New Zealand has only three drug courts – in Auckland, Waitākere, and Hamilton. Each court costs about $3.5 million a year to operate. To give each defendant sufficient attention, judges work with a maximum of 50 participants at a time. If Luxon took $100 million out of Corrections rehabilitation budget and used it to set up more drug courts, we could have another 25. Alternatively, he could use the $105 million seized by police in 2025 under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act.

If each of the 25 courts kept 50 defendants out of prison, that would reduce the prison population by 1,400 in one year. At $200,000 per prisoner, that’s a potential saving of $280 million. And that’s just the potential savings that would be made by Corrections. There would also be massive savings from reduced costs to victims, reduced police costs, reduced court costs and so on.

By keeping all these high risk, high needs offenders out of prison, we might even achieve Labour’s goal of reducing the prison population by 30% – and keep it there. If that saves taxpayers’ money, surely Mr Luxon that would be: “Absolutely a good thing.”

Advice to Mark Mitchell: only drug courts reduce reoffending

On 5 May, Corrections Minster Mark Mitchell said he wanted to get rid of short prison sentences – because prisoners on long sentences have more access to rehabilitation and reoffend at lower rates. Mitchell has already made new funding available for prisoners on remand. At first glance, the logical approach would be to make rehabilitation available to prisoners on short sentences as well. Let’s analyze this superficial logic.

In response to Mitchell’s ridiculous proposal, Otago University criminology lecturer Fairleigh Gilmour said “rehab programmes within prisons helped”, but added that “Corrections wasn’t adequately resourced to offer them, so a lot of prisoners missed out.”

Money down the toilet

On the contrary, Corrections is extremely well resourced and has been spending more on rehabilitation every year. In 2016, rehab in prison cost the taxpayer $176 million. By 2024, that had doubled to $376 million. Despite the taxpayers’ generosity, between 2016 and 2022, the number of prisoners attending rehabilitation programmes declined by two thirds. In effect, Corrections is pouring taxpayers’ money down the toilet.

Labour leader, Chris Hipkins claimed the decline was due to delays in the courts. He suggested offenders spend so much time on remand, that by the time they come up for sentencing, they have already served whatever time the judge intended to impose. So they’re set free – ‘time served’. As such, Hipkins said: “they’re not getting access to the rehabilitation programmes that they should be.”

The courts may be slow, but that’s not the real issue. Neither does it matter that so few prisoners attend rehabilitation programmes. The real problem is that these programmes don’t actually work even for those that do attend. However, politicians have been conned into believing they do – so they keep pouring money into them.

Ministerial misinformation

Let’s look at how successive Ministers have supported this wilful waste of resources. Between 2008 and 2011, and again in 2016, Judith Collins was Corrections Minister under John Key. She said: “this Government is committed to the rehabilitation of prisoners.”

Between 2011 to 2014, Anne Tolley took over. She tried to justify spending millions on new prisons because “modern facilities were necessary to rehabilitate prisoners.”

In 2016, Louise Upston became Minister for 12 months. She said: “my views have changed” and claimed that “a continued focus on the rehabilitation and reintegration needs of prisoners is the best way to turn the tide on the growing prison population.”

Kelvin Davis, Corrections Minister under the Labour government from 2017 to 2023 said “rehabilitation was an incredibly important part of the prison system and essential to giving people the best shot at reintegrating back into society.”

We all know what Mark Mitchell thinks: in addition to wanting longer prison sentences he said “any Government that was serious about public safety would prioritise rehabilitation.”

What doesn’t work

What these Corrections Ministers all fail to understand is that rehabilitation in prison doesn’t work. Their misunderstanding is perpetuated by misinformation put out by Corrections management and other government officials. For instance, Chief executive Jeremy Lightfoot, claims that “supporting prisoners’ rehabilitation, is an important element of public safety in the long term.” He believes this because Dr Peter Johnston, Director Analysis and Research for the Department claims in the Corrections Journal: “The Department has been achieving very promising gains though these programmes.” These blatent mistruths enable the chief executive to advise whoever the Minister is that in the coming 12 months, more taxpayer money will be required to provide rehabilitation programmes than in the previous year (even though less prisoners are attending).

Unfortunately, Corrections has been supported in these curious claims by the former Ombudsman, Peter Boshier, and former parole board chairman, Sir Ron Young. Throughout his tenure, Boshier made repeated recommendations for Corrections to treat prisoners with humanity and provide more rehabilitation. Ron Young recently complained about the lack of rehabilitation available in prison and said prisoners wouldn’t be released until they “proved they have undertaken work to reduce the risk they pose to society… through a treatment programme.”

More humanity is welcome, but none of these recommendations for more rehabilitation are justified. In 1989, the Roper Report pointed out that politicians and the public held unrealistic expectations, believing that prison programmes could rehabilitate offenders. The Report said the evidence contradicted these misguided beliefs. Nothing has changed since then. In 2023, Corrections’ Annual Report (p.202) listed 8 different prison-based interventions. The average reduction in reoffending was only 3.6%. In the 2024 Annual Report (p.196), the average reduction was even less – 2.3%.

What does work

The only intervention in New Zealand which makes a significant difference to reoffending is the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court (AODTC). There are two such courts in Auckland and one in Hamilton. Not only does the AODTC reduce reoffending, it even keeps high risk offenders out of prison, saving millions in court, police, prison and health costs.

A Ministry of Justice evaluation in 2019 found the AODTC reduced reoffending of graduates by 86% (p.44). This result is nearly 40 times better than all prison based rehabilitation programmes combined – at a fraction of the cost. So instead of wasting over $350 million a year on prison programmes that don’t work, Mark Mitchell should put $50 million or so into rolling out drug courts. That would keep New Zealanders a lot safer than anything the Corrections Department does.

Who’s telling the truth – about why so many New Zealanders end up in prison?

Green MP, Tamatha Paul, has been criticized recently over comments she made about prison food, the presence of police officers on the streets and why people are in prison. As a criminologist, I am more concerned about the latter.

Here’s what she said (in a Tik Tok video on 6 March): “the vast majority of people who are in prisons are there for non-violent offences – things that they have had to do as a response to poverty such as stealing food or being dishonest, or they don’t have an address to get community sentencing or bail…”

She added: “Most of the people that are in prison are there because they suffer from traumatic brain injuries, disabilities, foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, undiagnosed autism, undiagnosed ADHD. They’re being punished for being disabled, they’re being punished for being poor, for being Maori, they’re being punished for our system that we have in this country.”

Paul was taken to task by Police and Corrections Minister, Mark Mitchell, who described her comments as “total nonsense” and “an insult” to New Zealanders who have been victimised by those in prison. Mitchell seems to have relied on Corrections Department statistics for December 2024 which state that, out of 10,000 prison inmates, 8.4% of have been convicted of homicide, 20.7% for sexual assault, and 20.5% for acts intended to cause injury. In other words, almost half (49.6%) of those in prison in December 2024, had committed sexual or violent offences.

The problem is that only 6,000 of these prisoners are actually sentenced. The other 4,000 are on remand, waiting for their cases to slowly work their way through the court system. According to VUW lecturer, Christine McCarthy, half those 4,000 defendants will not end up with a prison sentence – because their offending was not serious enough. So they should not be included in Corrections statistics as violent offenders.

Its just a snapshot

There’s an even bigger problem. The statistics that Mark Mitchell has relied on are a snapshot of prisoners in December 2024. Murderers, sexual and violent offenders tend to get long sentences, so they make up the bulk of the 6,000 sentenced prisoners on that day.

However, the prison population is very fluid and altogether, about 20,000 people spend time in prison each year. Most are given a sentence of two years or less and are automatically released halfway through their sentence. Potentially, this means around 14,000 Kiwis who spent time in prison during the year are not in prison on the day the snapshot was taken. They are in and out quickly, so their low-risk offending profiles do not appear in the prison statistics that Mark Mitchell relies on.

What were they thinking?

In 2022, Ian Lambie, the Chief Science Advisor to the Office of Prime Minister published ‘What were they thinking? A discussion paper on brain and behaviour in relation to the justice system in New Zealand.’ Lambie explains in detail that the vast majority of those in prison suffer from brain injuries, mental health disorders, addictions, neurodiversity, and other conditions like undiagnosed foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, autism or ADHD. They make decisions to drink, take drugs, shoplift and steal, driven by poverty and systemic deprivation – and that’s why they end up in prison.

So Tamatha Paul was absolutely correct – the vast majority of those who end up in prison have not committed violent offences. Since she made this statement, Ms Paul has been attacked by Mark Mitchell, after which the NZ Herald said she expressed ‘regret’ about making this claim. Clearly, she was bullied by Mr Mitchell – and by the media. He should be the one apologizing – and I sent him an email telling him so.

Misinformation leads to colossal waste of taxpayers’ money

Rehabilitation in prison: numbers attending drops by 75%, while the cost triples

In 2017, 10,400 offenders attended a rehabilitation programme offered by the Corrections Department (see chart below.) This includes offenders in prison plus offenders on community sentences. The cost to the taxpayer that year was $180 million. That’s $17,307 per offender. In 2023, 5,601 offenders attended rehabilitation at a cost of $346 million. That’s $61,774 per offender.

In other words, between 2017 and 2023, the number of offenders attending rehabilitation has halved while the cost per offender has more than trebled.

Number of offenders attending rehabilitation programs each year (and the cost)

Year	Number of prisoners	Number of offenders in the community	Cost (Millions) from Annual Reports
2017	7,200	3,200 (p.98)	$180.8 (p.99)
2018	6,766	2,798 (p.94)	$215.7 (p.98)
2019	4,806	4,094 (p. 52)	$243.1 (p.87)
2020	3,738	3,199 (p.62)	$266.3 (p. 99)
2021	3,687	4,064 (p. 72)	$296.8 (p.99)
2022	2,086	2,271 (p. 70)	$322.2 (p.113)
2023	2,631	2,970 (p.79)	$346.5 (p.198)
2024	Not published	Not published	$376.1 (p.182)

The number of prisoners (excluding community based offenders) attending rehabilitation programs has dropped by an even greater margin – to one quarter of the number attending in 2016. See chart below (Corrections figures published by NZ Herald.)

Corrections rehabilitation programs almost totally ineffective

**Corrections Minister, Mark Mitchell says Corrections do an outstanding job – and allocated an extra $1.9 billion.**

Making matters worse, these programmes have become increasingly ineffective. Every year, Corrections publishes a report describing the extent to which each of its rehabilitation programs reduce reoffending – based on results in the first 12 months after participating prisoners are released.

In 2017, the Department’s Annual Report listed 13 different prison-based interventions. The average reduction in reoffending across all 13 programmes was only 3.9%. The best performing programme (for Violent Offending) reduced reoffending by 10.4% in the following 12 months. However, very few inmates are referred to this program.

The Annual Report for 2024, shows that Corrections offered only eight programmes in prison. The average reduction in reoffending almost halved to 2.3%. Three of those programs target offenders with addictions – in Drug Treatment Programs (DTP). Rather than reducing reoffending, in 2024 the DTP actually led to an increase (Annual Report, p. 196).

Misinformation published by the Corrections Department

Corrections has a history of publishing grossly exaggerated statements about the effectiveness of its rehabilitation programs in order to persuade whichever Government is in power at the time to continue funding them. For example:

“Most of what we are doing to reduce re-offending succeeds.” Dr Peter Johnston Director Analysis and Research, Department of Corrections. The New Zealand Corrections Journal, July 2017.

“The Department has been achieving very promising gains though these programmes.” Dr Peter Johnston Director Analysis and Research, Department of Corrections. The New Zealand Corrections Journal, November 2018.

“New Zealand remains the only country in the world that routinely measures and reports on the outcomes of the full suite of its rehabilitative interventions. The process has major benefits in enabling us to direct, and re-direct, resources to where we get best effects, to improve effectiveness, and to avoid wasted effort.” Dr Peter Johnston Director Analysis and Research, Department of Corrections. The New Zealand Corrections Journal, July 2017.

None of these statements published by the Corrections Department are true.

Rehabilitation in the AODTC

The only intervention available in New Zealand which makes a significant difference is the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court (AODTC). Not only does it reduce reoffending, it even keeps high risk offenders out of prison, saving millions in court, police, prison and health costs.

There are two such courts in Auckland and one in Hamilton. Between 2012 and 2018, the AODTC was evaluated more extensively than any other justice related intervention in New Zealand history. The Ministry of Justice found it reduced reoffending of graduates by 86% more than a matched group of offenders. This result is 86 times better than drug treatment in prison in 2024. Those are the facts.

**Andrew Little – misled by the MOJ about the true effectiveness of the AODTC**

Andrew Little was a member of Parliament when these evaluations were being conducted. In 2017, he became Minister of Justice and was so impressed with the early results, he said drug courts would be “rolled out across New Zealand in 2018”. Each court costs about $3 million a year to operate. But since the drug court was established in Hamilton, no funding has been made available to roll them out anywhere else. Why? Because the Ministry of Justice misled Andrew Little and Cabinet about the remarkable effectiveness of the AODTC, and has consistently lied to Cabinet about the benefits of rehabilitation in prison.