Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3004] 
5.  
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he agree that it is desirable to introduce the provision requiring prisoners to serve two-thirds of their sentence before being eligible for parole as opposed to the current one-third; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Justice) 
: It is not desirable in the short term because the first priority of this Government regarding parole eligibility is to pass the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill which targets the worst repeat violent offenders. I am advised that the latest data indicate that prisoners serving determinate sentences are already serving 70 to 75 percent of their sentences on average. 
David Garrett 
: Has the Minister seen any reports from his colleague the Minister of Corrections or her department on when there will be sufficient resources in terms of both prison beds and human resources to allow for the requirement that two-thirds of a sentence be served before a prisoner is eligible for parole? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The two-thirds parole policy has to be seen in the context of the previous administration’s agenda to reduce the prison population. Labour wanted to increase the minimum non-parole period to two-thirds of a sentence only if it were coupled with a Sentencing Council which through the provision of sentencing guidelines would have reduced average sentences by 25 percent. 
Hon Annette King 
: Not necessarily; it might have made them standard across New Zealand actually. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: This Government considers that parole policy should put public safety first and that is our primary consideration—unlike the previous Minister of Justice who was interjecting; her primary concern was to pass the disgusting Electoral Finance Act in order to snuff out the freedom of expression of New Zealanders. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why does the Minister not implement the provision in the Labour Government’s Parole Amendment Act 2007 that would require offenders to serve at least two-thirds of their sentences before parole which as he knows he could do through Order in Council? Why does he instead continue with the Government’s Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill which various experts including the New Zealand Law Society—and I assume the Minister is still a member of it—slammed in the select committee yesterday calling it “a blunt instrument which could be counter-productive create unintended consequences and possibly increase serious crime as has happened under similar laws”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes the Minister is still a member of the Law Society and yes there have been a lot of submissions on that bill—over 1000—and the final shape of the bill will be determined after the select committee process. But I would also say in answer to the first part of the member’s question that as I said in answer to the primary question the concern of this Government is to deal with the worst violent offenders and then we will go from there. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why does the Minister not implement the provision in the Parole Amendment Act 2007 for parole on serving two-thirds of a sentence when he claims to be part of a Government that puts victims first and when experts such as Victim Support—a venerable organisation—came out strongly in support of Labour’s provision for parole on serving two-thirds of a sentence saying: “Victim Support welcomes the change of non-parole period to become two-thirds of a long-term sentence. This amendment will provide a greater level of comfort and certainty for victims and is closer to truth in sentencing.”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Let us try again—it is almost like a litany. The Government’s priority is the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. The previous Government of which that member was a Minister wanted to increase non-parole periods to two-thirds of a sentence only if it was coupled with a Sentencing Council which by providing sentencing guidelines would have reduced average sentences by 25 percent. It was an unconstitutional Sentencing Council and it has been dispatched to the trash heap just like his Government. Labour members spent 9 years being— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will take his seat. The Minister had given quite a lengthy answer and that last addition was totally gratuitous. I do not appreciate the House being treated in that manner. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You stood up to sit the Minister down which was completely appropriate. At the same time there was orchestrated applause from the Government benches at the back and that was a direct challenge to your authority when you are on your feet. You should not put up with it. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That is an extraordinary contribution from the Hon David Parker. The backbench of the Government as you know holds you in very high regard Mr Speaker. It should be no surprise that those members cheered when you got to your feet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not take it as being insulting but I think it is something we have to watch. Where an answer is quite long we do not need a gratuitous attack on the other side of the House. Where a question is highly politically loaded every member knows that there will be a political answer but I think the Minister had given quite a lengthy answer and we did not need a gratuitous attack at the end. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It seems somewhat inconsistent to me that we have a complete prohibition on needless applause from people sitting in the gallery yet the Speaker is willing to put up with it from members of the Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the member’s concern but I do not think members will carry on doing it. They saw my concern at what happened and I trust members will respect that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I respectfully submit to you that exactly the opposite happened; it happened on a second occasion while you were ruling. You say that you now trust members to behave themselves but you had not made it clear that that behaviour was unacceptable. You are neutral and members on both sides—especially members in a group like that—cannot comment on your rulings in that way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member. I made it very clear that I was concerned about the behaviour in the House; members saw that. I do not think we need to take this matter any further.