Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5461] 
4.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: How many of the 1017 persons who have served all or part of their sentences on home detention since 1 July 2002 have reoffended during the period they were supposed to be on home detention? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Any individual known to reoffend while on home detention will face breach or recall to prison action by the Department of Corrections. I am advised by the department that its records show that of the 1017 who started home detention between 1 July 2002 and 28 February 2003 action was taken against 10 home detainees for reoffending. 
Stephen Franks 
: In view of the length of that question I ask whether the Minister will guarantee that the answer says that only 10 of the 1017 persons were known to have reoffended when the figure of 10 percent was established for New Zealand for detainees of lower risk during the pilot period the figure for Britain is 24 percent and the indication in the year 2000 of the anticipated figure for New Zealand was 15 percent? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Those figures the member gave the House would suggest that having run the pilot programme the Department of Corrections learnt how to do it better and got better results. They also suggest that if the figures quoted by the member for the United Kingdom are right we are doing a heck of a lot better but I suspect that those figures are for people who were on home detention and who subsequently reoffended. The member might like to check out that point. 
Darren Hughes 
: How does the known rate of reoffending for those on home detention compare with the reoffending rates for those on the old system of suspended sentences which home detention has partly replaced? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The 1 percent reoffending rate suggested by the Department of Corrections figures for those on home detention compares with a reoffending rate of 50 percent for those subject to the old system of suspended sentences which were abolished by the Sentencing Act. The House may therefore find it curious that Mr Franks is so concerned about home detention when he was so firmly in favour of the wet - bus ticket approach of suspended sentences where reoffending under that sentence could only be described as rife. 
Ron Mark 
: How does the Minister know that the figures he has quoted are accurate and that only 10 people on home detention have committed crimes against the occupiers of the home they were being detained in or against members of the public when out on one of the many approved outings such as trips to the movies supermarkets and the local gym; how does he know that crimes are not being committed by those people? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member needs to understand that under home detention the detainee works through four phases. A lot of what the member has just talked about is simply not possible. The detainee is allowed to go to work in the morning and to come home at night within a set time frame. The person is under strict electronic monitoring by security guards with regular reporting to the probation service. All I can quote to the member is the figures given to me by the Department of Corrections as the figures available to it from monitoring the programme. Of course I cannot quote figures for unknown reoffending. That cannot be done for any form of sentence. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: In the light of the fact that the average probation officer has about 4½ hours a month—that is an hour a week—to monitor someone on home detention and that under the Goff sentencing law 55 offenders a month are having free time on deferral pending home detention can the Minister confirm to the House that his ministry has absolutely no idea of the level of offending by those 55 offenders a month who have had their sentences deferred. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has a growing habit of using inappropriate phrases during his questions. I certainly heard him misdescribe a law in New Zealand and he should be required to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the member talk about the Goff law. Strictly speaking that is out of order. However I heard the question through and now I will ask the Minister to reply. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am happy for it to be called that. I am proud of the achievement. The answer— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take it that that will now become a ruling—that no one in the House should refer to any law or any reform or anything else by the name of a Minister who is responsible for moving that on behalf of the Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is not and I did not make it one then. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How then can you rule that Mr Ryall is out of order in making the comment he did and suggesting that it was unparliamentary when we listen day after day to Government Ministers using similar epithets in their answers? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is out of order to refer to a member just by his or her surname. Members are usually referred to as honourable members or by their Christian name and surname. That was the part that was out of order. I regarded that as minor. Therefore I call on the Minister to reply. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are two aspects to that question. The first is that this Government under my colleague Margaret Wilson has moved to remedy the longstanding shortage of probation officers which is something that member neglected to do in his entire term as Minister. Secondly with regard to conditions imposed when a sentence is deferred there has never been a statutory requirement for judges to do that. I plan to remedy it and I look forward to the member’s cooperation in passing that as part of the Statutes Amendment Bill this year. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very clear as the  
Hansard 
 will show. I asked the Minister to confirm that his ministry has absolutely no idea of what the 55 offenders a month are doing in terms of their offending and he did not address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The fact that people can have their sentence deferred and not be under supervision has been the case for the last 20 years. I intend to remedy it so that people do know exactly what offenders are doing and that they are under strict control. I look forward to that member’s cooperation in the amendment that I will make to the legislation—something he failed to do as Minister. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister point to any evidence from any country in the world that suggests that the “lock-’em-up” approach which is driving the primary question and most of the supplementary questions is at all effective at reducing the offending compared with a rehabilitative approach? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I guess we will never solve crime if it is only a “lock-’em up” approach. We have to address the causes of crime and that is ultimately the way in which we will make society a safer place. But I equally have to say there are some people in our system for whom there are no other options if we are to emphasise the safety of the community than to have them locked away and for a long time. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister assure the House that the figure of 10 reoffenders that he has continually quoted to the House as being accurate is a figure he arrived at after checking court records and police records and after gaining absolute assurances from corrections staff that no home detainees have been prosecuted for offences and/or breaches of their home detention conditions other than the 10 he consistently speaks of? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The figure of 10 is the figure provided by the Department of Corrections which has responsibility in this area. Therefore it is the department best placed to provide that information. That is the best information it can give me. 
Stephen Franks 
: In view of the Minister’s repeated warning that he is relying on figures provided by the Department of Corrections how can we know he is not adopting knowingly or unknowingly the befuddled strategy of his Associate Minister of Justice Mr Rick Barker on home detention when he repeatedly told Radio New Zealand last week that offenders on home detention had served their sentences and the detention was part of their parole when in fact that is not the case for anyone? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have had a look at the transcript of that radio interview. There are clearly two forms of home detention. There is front-end home detention which people are eligible for if they have a sentence of 2 years or less and they meet the requirement as to safety. The second form of home detention is back-end home detention which people get in the last 12 weeks of their sentence before they have to be released. Both are valid forms of home detention and both have proven effective.