Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13922] 
9.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Why did he not include any definition in the Parole Act 2002 of “due weight” in relation to victims’ rights and how much weight does he think should be given to a victim’s wish to see justice done? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Parole Act 2002 for the first time ever requires that victims’ rights are upheld and that due weight is given to their submissions. Those requirements sent a clear message to the board that the victim is a key participant in the process which was never previously the case. That does not require further legislative definition. In making an assessment about the suitability of an offender for release on parole the board has to look at all the evidence put before it in order to ensure that the safety of the community and of the victim is not put at risk. 
Stephen Franks 
: Has he considered whether the Parole Board should be allowed to take into account the despair and rage felt by every taxi-driver and by Mr Les Williamson last month on hearing that the criminal who stabbed him 17 times and left a carving fork embedded in his brain was to get out of prison only 6 months after getting a 4-year sentence; and why has he not brought in an amendment to oblige the board and to permit the board to consider such issues? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are two Acts of Parliament that are relevant in responding to any particular offence and of course I cannot comment—as the member knows—on specific cases. The first the Sentencing Act makes it very clear that justice needs to be done for the victim. It sets it out in three separate places: to hold the offender accountable for the harm done to the victim; to provide for the interests of the victim; and to provide reparation for the harm done. The original sentence sets out the minimum period of the sentence that should be served before parole and the Parole Act requires that the victims be heard—which was never the case under previous Governments—and that their views be taken into account. I am proud of that legislation as the member should be. 
Darren Hughes 
: Can the Minister tell the House of any feedback or comments he might have received from victims’ rights groups on the changes that have been made to legislation around victims’ rights? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes I have had feedback from Victim Support and it is delighted with the greater recognition of victims’ rights. It is also delighted with the fact that for the first time the panel that selects members of the Parole Board includes a representative of the Victim Support organisation. Can I say finally that just last week in a parole case that Stephen Franks was involved in the person that heads the Sensible Sentencing Trust acknowledged that for the first time the trust was able to represent in an official capacity the rights of the victims and it acknowledged that that was a result of the growing recognition of victims’ rights by this Government. 
Richard Worth 
: Will the Minister categorically rule out any changes to the statutory tests in the Parole Act for the remaining period that this Government lingers in office? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This Government plans to linger in office for at least another 9 years and the hard work put in by that member will help ensure that that occurs. I am always willing to look at how we can further enhance victims’ rights. I am looking at the moment at several things that the Parole Board could well be doing to achieve that end. I would be more than happy to consult the select committee on that but I want to point out finally to that member that this Government is the only Government that has ever legislated for victims’ rights. The National Party in many years of Government never did a damn thing. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of the fact that the only explanation the Minister has offered for not ending parole is costs why will he not give greater weight to the costs that are incurred with the suffering of victims? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Every change that we have made in legislation has been designed to improve the situation of victims. What that member has never explained to the House is why his party promotes flat tax as well as promising another $7 billion which would be the cost over 10 years of removing parole. Parole also allows the offender a time to adjust under close supervision to life back in the community and it has been proven to lower the level of reoffending. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does the Minister think that the victims’ rights he mentioned to the House last Thursday and again today—to be notified of hearings to make submissions and to know what courses the prisoner has done—are outweighed by the victims’ interests in seeing justice done and a sentence served; and when he knows that the Parole Board cannot look at the latter interest why has he not brought in an amendment to the Parole Act to allow and require the board to respect the victims’ main interests. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: At the risk of repeating myself the Sentencing Act requires that for the first time in the history of this Parliament the victims’ rights to see justice done are upheld including holding the offender to account for the harm done. The Parole Act that the member is talking about requires again for the first time in legislation passed by this Parliament for the victims to be notified of hearings for their submissions to be heard—in person if they require—and for them to be given due weight and for the safety of the victim to be taken into account in terms of whether the offender should be released on parole. They are all firsts and they are all enormous steps forward for victims’ rights.