Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13967] 
4.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Will he ensure that the announced review of the Parole Board considers whether punishment should be part of the Parole Board’s consideration when deciding on parole and did he expect that punishment would be taken into account when he promoted the Parole Act 2002? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No. The amount of punishment a crime warrants is determined by the sentencing judge. It is reflected in the overall sentence length and the minimum non-parole period a judge may impose under section 86 of the Sentencing Act if he or she believes the statutory minimum will represent insufficient punishment. It is not the job of the Parole Board to re-sentence offenders. 
Stephen Franks 
: Now that the chairman of the Parole Board has confirmed that punishment is no part of the Parole Board’s role will the Minister support my Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that parole decisions do not turn the Sentencing Act criteria into an elaborate charade? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No for the reasons I gave in replying to the member’s primary question. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: What guidance is given to the sentencing judge in respect of how long the sentence should be and whether a longer period beyond the statutory minimum should be set before parole can be considered? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Section 7 of the Sentencing Act sets out guidance as to the things a judge must consider in determining the severity of a sentence and punishment. They include denouncing the conduct deterring the offender protecting the community and providing for the interests of the victim. Section 86 allows the court to order that up to two-thirds of the sentence must be served as a minimum to achieve greater punishment greater denunciation and greater deterrence. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: What legislative provision is there to ensure that early consideration for parole is not given in the case of the worst offences such as murder especially those where there are aggravating factors? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Sentencing Act provides that those guilty of murder will not be considered for parole before a standard 10-year period but where there are aggravating factors the minimum period must begin at 17 years. Just a few years ago the standard non-parole period for all murders was 7 years which contrasts with the non-parole periods now being given of up to 28 and 30 years. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does the Minister think the chairman of the Parole Board is right to say that the board does not and should not give any weight to victims’ views on whether a court-ordered sentence should be cut short; if not will he urgently change the law to allow the board to have regard to the thing that most concerns victims—that is that a fair punishment is served? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Of course the member has not characterised accurately what the judge said yesterday. I can table in the House what the judge said yesterday for members’ benefit and in order to avoid going through all the detail but he did say for example that in some instances a considerable amount of weight is given to the victim’s statement to the Parole Board—for example when indicating there is no contrition on the part of the offender which would automatically make that offender an undue risk. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why did this Minister change the law so that a rapist sentenced to 9 years in jail can apply for parole at only one-third of the sentence? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I changed the law first of all because under the member’s previous law any rapist was automatically released at two-thirds of the sentence regardless of risk. Yes that was the case—regardless of risk. Under the current law the judge can determine that the minimum period before parole can even be considered for anybody committing that offence be two-thirds of the sentence. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Minister recall that New Zealand First opposed this Minister’s change to the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act in 2002 on the grounds that this Minister’s law is soft on law and order and allows people to get out of jail a lot earlier than New Zealand First would require which would be at a time much closer to the end of their sentence? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What I do recall is that inmates now can be kept in prison to the very last day of their sentence. That was never the case. I do recall that New Zealand First did not oppose automatic release at two-thirds of a sentence. That has been changed. If the law is so damn soft why is it that prison figures are to rise by 20 percent by 2010 when the crime rate is down by 13.8 percent? Those are independent police figures. There is a 13.8 percent reduction in the crime rate since 1997. 
Simon Power 
: Crime is going up. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Members may baybut they cannot deny the facts put out by the police.