Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16796] 
7.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What evidence has he received that the Sentencing Act 2002 is resulting in tougher sentences for serious and recidivist offenders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The annual sentencing and conviction statistics produced by the Ministry of Justice for the first full calendar year since the Sentencing Act came into effect show that the sentencing regime is now comprehensively tougher for the worst offenders. Together with an inmate population that is around 1000 higher than was estimated a year ago those statistics show that this Government very clearly heard the message delivered by the public in the 1999 referendum and that the judiciary in turn has taken note of the intent of the new sentencing legislation. 
Moana Mackey 
: In what areas do the sentencing and conviction statistics show that the legislation is now much tougher? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Perhaps the clearest example is that the average non-parole period imposed with a life sentence in 2003 was 3 years longer than in the previous year before the Sentencing Act came into effect. The overall length of sentences was up the number imprisoned was the highest ever as was the percentage of violent offenders and burglars imprisoned and the number of those sentenced to preventive detention was the highest in this country’s history. The number of remand prisoners was double the level of 9 years ago because of the passage of the Bail Act which is tougher on recidivist offenders who continue to offend while on bail. That shows a comprehensively tougher regime. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why does the Minister continue to support a policy whereby a rapist sentenced to 9 years in jail can apply for parole after only 3 years? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member has continually misled people with that statistic. When that member was the Minister of Justice in the previous National Government a rapist would have been automatically released after serving two-thirds of a sentence which would be 6 years. Now a rapist who is a risk to the community can serve up to the last day of the sentence. What is more it is possible for a judge in cases where he or she believes it is necessary to sentence not only rapists and other violent offenders but all offenders to serve a minimum of two-thirds of their sentence before parole can be considered. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked whether it was possible for a person who had been sentenced to 9 years to be out in 3. He has given a long diatribe about everything but that. However that was the question he was asked and he has shown no signs of answering it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought that the Minister did start to address that. Could the Minister perhaps give a direct answer. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What that member Mr Peters— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said that the Minister could give— 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am coming to his question. It was always the case in this country that for offences other than violent offences people could be released after serving one-third of their sentence. Previously violent offenders— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Answer the question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member would shut his mouth for a moment he could listen to the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will stand withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When a member asks a Minister to answer a question is it appropriate for that member or for a group of members to interject continually during the answer to that question which would indicate that they do not really want to know the answer at all? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There can be interjections but they have to be rare. I just ask members to be calm. The member who asked the question was interjecting too frequently. The Minister should have a fair and reasonable chance to answer the question the member asked. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect the Minister has had two chances to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am making him do that now. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He was into his second sentence and he still had not answered the very simple question of whether that was possible—yes or no. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The judge can set a minimum non-parole period of either one-third of a sentence or of above that level depending on the risk posed by the offender. Judges frequently impose a minimum period of more than one-third. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why does he gloat over longer headline sentences for headline crime when it is early parole that sets the actual sentence and what is his explanation for the 33 percent increase in violent youth crime disclosed in the same report representing at least a thousand more bashings bullyings and stabbings last year while his policy saw in that same year the lowest-ever proportion of young convicted criminals sent to prison? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are a number of factors in that question. Firstly in terms of parole the figures out from the Parole Board—which are not part of the report that I referred to—show that in a much higher percentage of cases parole is now being denied. Secondly the figures in relation to youth offending are not for the level of crime but for the level of apprehensions. That member knows as the rest of the House will know that the police have become far more effective at apprehending and convicting offenders because they are better resourced and there are more of them than ever before. 
Ron Mark 
: Is that the same report that states that prosecutions for violent offences are the least likely to result in conviction that the number of discharges without conviction has increased by 70 percent and that the number of convictions for kidnapping or abduction for 2003 at 178 was the highest-ever number on this nation’s record; and can the Minister confirm that this month a number of people will go before the Parole Board who have been convicted of beating their wives and who are only a third of their way through their sentence—and indeed at the time they apply for home detention will be 6 months short of that one-third mark—and how can that possibly mean longer sentences? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is enough in terms of the question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No but I can confirm that a greater percentage of violent offenders are being convicted than ever before a greater percentage are being imprisoned than ever before and a greater percentage are serving longer sentences than ever before. That should be good enough for the member. I note that the member who frequently supports the Sensible Sentencing Trust may have noticed that trust saying how well the Government has been doing and congratulating it on a job well done.