Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8441] 
1. MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he remain satisfied that the Sentencing Act 2002 is working in the best interests of the victims of crime and protects the safety of the community; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Acting Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am satisfied that the Sentencing Act the Parole Act and the Victims’ Rights Act together provide a regime that better serves the interests of victims of crime and protects the safety of the community than the previous regime. However amendments can and will be made to the law over time taking into account how the courts are applying them. 
Marc Alexander 
: What kind of a signal other than to popularise and normalise the use of a class A drug does the Minister consider the imposition of a mere 8-month jail sentence—to quite possibly be served at home—for convicted P and Ecstasy dealer Darren McDonald sends to the community other dealers and potential users of the drug when the maximum sentence for such offences is 14 years? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The advice I have on that matter was that the individual concerned was determined to have played a small part in the offending. Based on the facts of the case it was determined that 8 months was an appropriate sentence within a possible range of 6 months to 2 years. I am also advised that the main offenders in this case were sentenced to 6½ and 6 years respectively. 
Tim Barnett 
: Has there been any commentary on the Sentencing Act that compares it with the previous legislation? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes. I note that Justice Priestley said in July last year that it was “... a huge improvement on the mishmash of laws which applied to sentencing prior to July 2002. It greatly assists courts.” 
Ron Mark 
: At the time United Future was doggedly negotiating its in-depth confidence and supply agreement with him what concessions if any did the Minister agree to with regard to addressing the flaws that United Future is objecting to in the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I was not involved in negotiating the confidence and supply agreement with the party concerned. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that sentences for drugs offences must reflect the fact that even if a drug is used socially amongst those with money and does not appear to have an impact on others its effects on those who are addicted but of lesser means leads to serious criminal activity and other violent consequences in order for them to sustain their habits—as we have all seen in the case of methamphetamines? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I do believe that and I believe that that is the reason the two main offenders in this case were sentenced to 6½ and 6 years respectively. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Given that the man at question in the principal question was convicted of conspiring to sell methamphetamine and in light of the fact that the Minister of Justice has confirmed that not one dollar has been confiscated from convicted drug dealers this year when will the Government amend the Proceeds of Crime Act so that we can get the money from the gangs that are dealing this dangerous drug—the Minister has promised it for 4 years and there has been nothing? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I do not have the detail in the House but I assume that the member is referring to legislation that he could have amended when he was in Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why has the Minister not seen the lengthy detailed and specific agreement between United Future and the Labour Party and the Jim Anderton - led party given that it is surely her job to uphold its very detailed provisions; or is it the case that there is no reference whatsoever in that document to the matters before this Parliament or in particular to the ambit of the Sentencing Act—and what sort of lapdog agreement is that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are three questions there. The first two can be answered. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to ask you to think about how that can refer to the principal question. The question was to the Minister of Justice and a great assumption is made that the Minister of Justice was somehow involved in supply and confidence agreements. That is the first point I make. Secondly I make the comment that a lot of people in this country find poodles a lot nicer breed of dog than rottweilers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The second comment is irrelevant. I am allowing the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that that member is a new member but he has no right to refer to Lianne Dalziel like that. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Despite the interruption I recall the precise wording of the question. I did not say that I had not seen it; I said that I had not negotiated it. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister think that the fact that convicted criminals may have some sort of celebrity status should make them eligible for home detention simply because they may receive more attention in jail or can she confirm that prisons already have systems in place that protect at-risk inmates? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have advice from the Minister of Corrections to say that that is a matter being addressed within the prison service. But I also say that there was an attempt by the Minister of Justice to have parties agree to make some amendments to the deferral provisions where home-detention applications were being made but the opportunity was declined by the ACT party the New Zealand First Party and the National Party.