Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13723] 
12.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What rights did he have in mind when he promoted the provisions of the Parole Act 2002 that require the Parole Board to uphold victims’ rights? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 As the member states the Parole Board is required by the Parole Act of 2002 and also by the Victims’ Rights Act of 2002 to uphold victims’ rights. Among the extensive new rights given to victims by the Act are the rights to be notified of parole hearings to make submissions to the Parole Board—written or oral—to receive information relating to the offender in order to make those submissions and to be notified of the board’s decisions. 
Stephen Franks 
: Do victims have a right to expect that a sentence will comply with the Sentencing Act and denounce crime and deter it and ensure accountability so that crime does not pay; if so why is the Parole Board still not permitted to take account of any of those purposes of sentencing and the courts now have to fix a non-parole period to achieve them? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: All of the principles the member has mentioned are of course part of the Sentencing Act and set out quite clearly what the judge must take into account in sentencing the offender. The Parole Board can look at a number of factors but the paramount consideration of the Parole Board as I think everyone in this House would expect must be the safety of the community and whether release of the offender would mean undue risk. Obviously the Parole Board has a job to keep the community safe. That is why that is its paramount consideration. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: To what extent are victims or their representatives taking advantage of the right to make submissions to the Parole Board? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: More and more. In 2002 280 submissions were made by victims or their supporters to the Parole Board. In 2003 there were 441 submissions. In the first 5 months of this year alone the number is already up to 826. I note the comment in today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
by Garth McVicarof the Sensible Sentencing Trust that for the first time the trust has been able to represent a victim in an official capacity before the Parole Board and that this is “the result of growing recognition of victims’ rights”. 
Peter Brown 
: Is it true or false that people are being released on parole who have shown no signs of rehabilitation and have made no genuine attempt to do so; and if that is true what is being done to address that issue? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Let me repeat that the key consideration—the paramount consideration—for the Parole Board must be that release of the inmate creates no undue risk to the community and that safety is the paramount consideration. If the Parole Board were following the guidance given by this House in legislation it would not be releasing such people. 
Stephen Franks 
: I ask my question again: why is the Parole Board still prevented from taking account of the purposes of sentencing including to denounce crime and deter it and to ensure accountability so that crime does not pay—and before the Minister answers I should tell him that I was at the Parole Board hearing mentioned by Mr Garth McVicar and the Parole Board was obliged— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has asked his question. That is extra material. It is not essential to the question that has been asked. 
Stephen Franks 
: I have not asked the second part of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has actually asked a full question. Sometimes I allow people to ask a little bit more but the member was making a statement. He cannot do that. 
Stephen Franks 
: I ask that I be allowed to complete the question. I will not continue the statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can ask a specific second part to the question but there is to be no comment or statement about anything else. 
Stephen Franks 
: —and that the Parole Board admitted that it could not take account of the purposes of sentencing? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I repeat my answer: the Parole Board can take account of a variety of factors but its paramount consideration must be the safety of the community. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the Parole Board is doing such a good job of protecting the public why do half the people it releases end up in prison within 2 years? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I must say that the situation is somewhat better than when that member was the Minister of Justice. But the fact is that when people are released on parole statistically—on the recidivism work done by the Ministry of Justice—it shows that they are half as likely to reoffend as when they are not released on parole. Those figures speak for themselves.