Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7144] 
9.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: In each year since December 1999 how many convictions for murder rape robbery and aggravated assault have there been for offences committed while on parole? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Ministry of Justice does not hold statistics relating to offending while on parole; however— 
Opposition Members 
: Why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The reason is that past Governments have never put the measures in place. But if the member takes a moment to listen to the answer I will tell him what we are doing now. However the justice data warehouse—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister responded to interjections which he does not have to do but then there was far too much noise. I want to hear the answer now without very much interjection at all. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The justice data warehouse project in the Ministry of Justice will for the first time allow the statistics of offending on parole to be analysed. Relevant data will become available when the new courts management system is implemented nationwide towards the end of the year. The Department of Corrections has limited data for the year to June 2001. This shows that 1.4 percent of those released before the end of their sentences—including those automatically released under the old law after serving two-thirds of their sentences regardless of the risk they posed—were convicted of a robbery sexual violation or murder offence. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is it not the case that there have been literally hundreds of violent offences committed by people on parole including those in such high-profile cases as William Bell a triple murderer in 2002; Taffy Hotene who murdered Kylie Jones; Nicholas Reekie a multiple rapist; and this year Nigel Robert Gately who raped in February 2002; given those cases why is the Minister sitting around waiting for a data project when everyone can see that parole in New Zealand does not work? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Rather than sitting around this Government has introduced legislation that to use one of the member’s examples William Bell has put that person away for a minimum period of 33 years before he can even be considered for parole. If past Governments had thought about doing that some of those offenders that the member mentioned would not have been out and would not have reoffended. 
Tim Barnett 
: What changes were made to parole with the passage of the Parole Act 2002? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Major changes have been made to parole under that Act including the direction to the Parole Board that public safety must always be the board’s paramount consideration in its decisions. That is where the balance must lie. We have also of course abolished the nonsense of automatic release after serving two-thirds of a sentence regardless of the risk of that offender reoffending in the community. That is something that previous Governments also should have considered and should have acted upon. This Government has acted. 
Richard Worth 
: Why is it that the Government moved decisively and quickly to tighten the dog legislation in respect of dangerous breeds but is not prepared to tighten the parole legislation with the consequence that offenders on parole continue to commit horrific crimes? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member had listened to my last two answers he would have heard some of the examples of how we have toughened the legislation considerably to deal with those people. Let me say that in 1987 the maximum period before parole could be considered for aggravated murder was 7 years; now the sentencing must start at 17 years and has gone to as long as 33 years. That is an example of how this Government has put effective measures in place to stop that sort of reoffending. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister tell the families from the Sensible Sentencing Trust who came here to Parliament today whether he will agree to the one thing they have requested of this Government which is the abolition of parole for all violent offenders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Considerable research has been done in New Zealand and internationally in regard to parole. In New Zealand the recidivist index showed that where people were released without parole their rate of offending was twice the level of those who were released on parole. In the interests of the safety of the community parole obviously has a major impact on reducing reoffending. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: After that extraordinary statement I ask whether the Minister is aware of his own ministry’s study which shows that of 6520 prisoners released after serving sentences for violence 49 percent were reconvicted within a year and that 1400 violent offenders are up for parole in the next 3 years and that under that rate 1102 will reoffend and can he explain to the House why every single one of those prisoners is not doing the full court-imposed sentence? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The figures I have from the latest Department of Corrections annual report—which are reliable figures—demonstrate that overall offending including minor offending amongst those released on discretionary parole was 10 percent. When they were released without parole the offending rate was 20 percent after 24 months. It is clear from those statistics and from international research—which shows why countries have parole in just about every case—that when a person is released on parole the risk to the community of reoffending is reduced and public safety is therefore improved.