Patrick Gower: A liberal sheep in wolf's clothing

Two patched gang members made their presence felt in Parliament's Grand Hall recently, with the full blessing of Justice Minister Simon Power.

Black Power's Eugene Ryder and Mongrel Mobster Edge Te Whaiti weren't there to cause crime, but to discuss what causes it, as part of Power's ministerial meeting on the "drivers of crime".

Both gang members have rejected the criminality that usually goes with gang life and are instead using their inside knowledge to work against it.

Just as they can't be judged by their gang exterior, Power is also coming out from behind his hard edge.

Power has just completed a clutch of hardline punitive measures. He's passed laws tightening bail and toughening sentences for crimes against children.

He's made a start on legislation that will keep the worst murderers in jail until the day they die, deny parole to repeat violent offenders, impose a levy on criminals that will go to victims and create new anti-gang laws.

His fingerprints are also on legislation that will expand the court's powers to deal with young offenders.

This was all part of National's "public safety" and tough-on-crime agenda, pushed heavily before the election and a major point of difference from Labour.

But with all those policies introduced in National's first 100 days, Power is now talking up rehabilitation and addressing the causes of crime.

He's looking like a sheep in wolf's clothing: tough on the outside and liberal on the inside.

First came the drivers of crime meeting, with its surprising cross-section of attendees and equally broad discussions about cultural alienation and genetic disposition towards crime. It sounds more like a classic Labour hui.

Then this week came National's tentative support for the Maori Party's initiative of a separate prison for Maori with a focus on healing and where the inmates go flatting - an unthinkable position in the Don Brash days of not all that long ago. This put National so far out on the "do-gooder" side of the crime debate that Labour ended up taking the hard line with the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

National isn't suddenly going soft - it has been that way for a while.

Rehabilitation was party policy, although not emphasised on the election trail where the punitive measures were always going to get the headlines.

National emphasised rehabilitation heavily in the final plans for boot camps for young offenders.

National will also go ahead with plans to double the amount of prisoners on existing rehabilitation programmes and expand the numbers of inmates on work schemes, although its $10.4 million cost estimate shows the investment is small.

The liberal agenda is driven by Power, one of National's liberals in the tradition of Ralph Hanan, the 1960s Justice Minister who crossed the floor to vote against the death penalty for murder. Others include Doug Graham, Power's current mentor.

Power won the arguments with the hang 'em high brigade in National's caucus during their last term in Opposition. So how has a true blue liberal managed to toughen the law but stay true to his beliefs?

A close examination of National's sentencing measures for the worst murderers and repeat violent offenders show that while very hardline, they actually have a very limited application.

The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, as now before the House, would bring in ineligibility for parole only for violent offenders who have crossed the high threshold of twice being sentenced to five years or more. Corrections advised its then-Minister Phil Goff last year that this happens in "relatively few" cases.

The same advice says even fewer murderers have previously committed the five-year sentence needed to trigger the life without release provision.

Corrections said only 40 more prison beds would be needed by 2011 to cover the violent offenders' losing parole. The murderers without release will require 29 beds to be added but over a period stretching out to 2026. This is in stark contrast with National's election trail claims it could add up to 572 offenders by 2011.

Power's aims with this bill are shown in the "Lundy clause", giving judges the discretion to put the worst murderers away for life even if they don't have a violent past.

The truly bad offenders will face heavy and symbolic sentences. This will sate the public's desire for big sentences for the offenders who make the news without sending too much of an extra bulge into the prisons as a broader measure like Act's original "three strikes" would.

The reforms will continue. A workhorse, Power has introduced 18 of the 38 bills on the Government's order paper and shows no sign of stopping.

The work the Ministry of Justice is doing indicates what he might turn his attention to next: the self-defence law, juries being trusted with previous convictions, the right to silence or the way rape trials are conducted.

The court process can be further simplified and Legal Aid is undergoing a fundamental review with the Public Defender's Office waiting in the wings.

Power has to make the most of public goodwill and has the two-year window new governments are afforded before their first re-election campaign to work with.

Labour ended up paralysed on law and order by trying to keep the prison numbers down via community sentencing but defending its policies by showing how they boosted the prison population - all in the face of the inevitable but unpredictable crime dramas.

For now National is betting that its "whatever works" approach will be embraced by the public, eager to see crime drop but accepting that prisons just can't keep on being built.

Power will hammer criminals at the sharp end but look to liberal solutions to address crime overall.

There is danger that this could be seen as playing a double game: a sheep when courting the liberals, a wolf with the hardliners.

Sooner or later, the real test will come when National is struck down by a bailed murderer, paroled rapist or illogical verdict on its watch.

The public outcry will be loud, the problem complicated and Power's plans will come up hard against reality.

The answer might be either liberal or hardline - but it cannot be both.