Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3560] 
6.  
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What are the longest non-parole terms which have been imposed on offenders in New Zealand sentenced to life imprisonment for murder? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The longest non-parole period imposed by a court in New Zealand’s legal history is a life sentence with 33 years before parole can even be considered. That was imposed last week by the High Court in the case of William Bell. The next-longest non-parole period is 28 years which was imposed late last year by the High Court on Bruce Howse. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the Government’s intent in passing the Sentencing Act last year has made a difference in sentencing by the courts? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. The key goal of the Sentencing Act was to impose tougher penalties on those who commit the worst offences. In both the Bell and Howse cases the court has clearly shown that it has taken on board the intent of Parliament and it has also reflected public concerns in this area. The Parole Act—the other part of that reform—will also serve to ensure that when a person is finally eligible for parole safety of the community and any undue risk posed by the offender is the paramount consideration in making decisions as to whether such offenders are ever released. 
Richard Worth 
: When the Minister gave his answer to the primary question why did he not also say that under his flagship parole legislation the Parole Board may overrule a judge’s determination and release an offender prior to his or her parole eligibility date allowing for the good work of the judges to be completely undone by the Parole Board? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The provision that the member refers to which was used in the Gay Oakes case has been a longstanding aspect of the law. It is used only very rarely in exceptional cases. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister tell the House what the public should make of the fact that his Government chose to release an absolutely appalling report on the probation system which showed that it was an abysmal failure and which was 5 months old on precisely the same day that the judgment was handed out to William Bell—can the public not rightly feel that that was done to hide the appalling statistics and probation report that it had a right to see 5 months earlier? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In relation to the last point made by the member there was legal advice from Crown Law telling the Acting Minister of Corrections not to release that material until sentencing had taken place. Perhaps if the member is advocating that a Minister should ignore the advice to her from the Crown Law Office she might have done it differently but she did what she was told was legally appropriate to do. In relation to the report itself the Minister released the whole report. That report shows both that the specific problems in the Mangere office have been dealt with and that there is now a new system in place that will more effectively deal with those people on probation regarded as high risk. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why does the Minister gloat over a new top murder tariff of 11 years per life snuffed out when no case could better deserve life meaning life; and does he draw any warning from the way people are now quoting the non-parole periods as the real sentences since his Sentencing Act locked in our “lies in sentencing” policy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I should first remind that member that he told a panel of people just a few months ago that this legislation was a real advance on what went before it. Secondly I can tell the member— 
Stephen Franks 
: That life means life. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes the member remembers making the comment I referred to. I can tell the member that the 33 years before Bell can even be considered for parole compares with the 7 years minimum that had to be imposed on Jules Mikus because that was what was under the legislation tolerated by the National Government for all of its term. 
Murray Smith 
: Does he consider that the 33 years handed down to William Bell might just be long enough for the probation service to get its act together so that it can actually supervise him when he eventually comes up for parole? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I remind that member that it is a life sentence and that it will be 33 years before that individual can even be considered for parole. Further the estimation of the Crown prosecutor was that he would never be released. 
Ron Mark 
: Reflecting on the Minister’s answer to my supplementary question I ask whether he will tell the House—and table whatever documents are necessary as evidence of what he has said—on what day advice was given by the Crown Law Office to withhold the probation report whether it was given in writing or orally or was it simply just very convenient to hold it over for 5 months until he had some good news that he could slip it out under? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes that advice was in writing. If the member wants the document and the date on which it was provided to her he should apply to the Minister for that. However I repeat this to the member: it would be a very foolish Minister who ignored the clear advice of Crown Law in these matters.