Pretending to be tough on crime

Politicians of all persuasions like to tout their credentials for being tough on crime. The current coalition government is no exception: they’ve brought back three strikes, revamped boot camps, cracked down on gangs, funded 500 more police officers, and spent a fortune increasing prison capacity. In 2024, the prison population passed 10,000 and in mid-November, 2025 surged to nearly 11,000. Chris Luxon described this as a “good thing,” indicating he was totally unconcerned about the cost.

If governments really want to be tough on crime, instead of locking more people up, they should invest in interventions that reduce reoffending. In other words, they should address the ‘drivers of crime’ as Simon Power, a former National Party Justice Minister opined in 2009.

The drivers are all socio-economic: poverty, systemic deprivation, dropping out of school, unemployment, cultural alienation, parental violence, child neglect, sexual abuse, poor mental health – usually exacerbated by copious quantities of alcohol and drugs. Dealing with these is truly tough – borne out by the sorry statistics describing the prevalence of every one of these problems in New Zealand.

The one thing that works

There is one intervention that does work – alcohol and other drug treatment courts (AODTC). New Zealand has three – in Auckland, Waitakere and Hamilton. Only high-risk, high-needs offenders with addictions are eligible; and they must be facing up to three years in prison. If they agree to participate, and if they graduate at the end of an 18-month programme, they’re sentenced to supervision and avoid going to prison.

How tough is that?

Is that an easy option? No way! The AODTC involves mandatory drug testing two or three times a week, intensive drug treatment (usually residential), anger management, parenting courses, job training, mental health support and up to 180 hours of voluntary work in the community. The magic mustard that makes this work is a judge – one who has been trained in addiction treatment. Participants have to make weekly appearances in court and the judge monitors the offender’s progress every step of the way. Drug court judges let the defendant describe their progress and their difficulties, and offer lots of encouragement. But if offenders misbehave or return positive drug tests, they will be sanctioned and may spend a few days in prison.

In December 2025, a conference was held in Auckland on the future of drug courts in New Zealand. Graduates were invited to speak – all had struggled with serious addictions and all had been to prison on multiple occasions. Many said that serving time in prison, doing next to nothing all day was a far easier option; participating in the AODTC was the toughest thing they had ever done in their lives. For those who succeed, the results are transformational; they reconnect with family, get back to work and stay out prison.

Remarkable reductions in reoffending

So how effective is the AODTC? The Ministry of Justice has evaluated its success rate. At the conference in December, it was announced that almost half complete the programme, and a year later, those who do are 50% less likely to reoffend than comparable high-risk offenders in the District Court. An earlier evaluation in 2019 found the AODTC reduced reoffending of graduates by 86%. Despite this remarkable success, the Ministry told Cabinet the AODTC need ‘further refinement for it to deliver better outcomes.’

That’s absolutely absurd. Let’s compare the AODTC with the effectiveness of addiction treatment in prison. In 2024, Corrections’ Annual Report listed eight different prison-based interventions intended to reduce recidivism. The average reduction in reoffending was 2.6%. The three drug treatment programmes actually increased reoffending rather than reducing it. In other words, the AODTC is at least twenty times more effective than prison-based treatment.

Comparing costs

Let’s compare costs. Each drug court costs about $3 million a year. There are only three. But in 2019, the Ministry also told Cabinet that “the AODT court model is expensive to operate.” No additional funding has been allocated to roll drug courts out anywhere else. And yet, in 2024, Corrections was given $376 million to rehabilitate offenders. It spends this on programmes that make almost no difference.

The conclusion is obvious. Politicians should stop pretending to be tough on crime. Instead, they should get really tough – and allocate taxpayer funding to an intervention that actually reduces reoffending – and which, according to participants, is much tougher than prison.

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.

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.