Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5305] 
10.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: How many persons serving all or part of their sentence on home detention have reoffended and what number of these have been recalled to prison? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Department of Corrections keeps records of recall and breach actions taken against home detainees. Figures provided to me by the department show that of 1017 new starts between 1 July 2002 when the Sentencing Act came into effect and 28 February of this year the latest period for which we have figures recall or breach action was taken against 10 home detainees as a direct result of reoffending while on home detention—10 out of 1017 represents recall for reoffending of less than 1 percent over that period. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This Minister has had 4 hours to answer two simple questions: how many persons have reoffended and what number of them have been recalled? He gets up gives us a treatise on what the officials have been doing by way of collecting information between dates and then gives us half the answer. Can we now know through the point of order how many persons reoffended? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member had listened I said that 10 out of 1017 persons had been recalled for reoffending. That is less than 1 percent. How much more specific would the member like me to make that answer? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I tell the Minister that there are two questions here. The first question was: how many people reoffended? The second question was: how many were recalled? The member is saying that the people who were recalled were the total number of reoffenders and that cannot be. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Can I repeat for the member what I said in my first answer which was specific: recall or breach action was taken against 10 home detainees as a direct result of reoffending while on home detention. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question and I ruled that he did. He gave a specific answer. 
Ron Mark 
: My point of order could impact on my supplementary. Clearly I am now confused. Has the Minister told the House that only 10 people on home detention have reoffended? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. That is a supplementary question that the member can now deal with in his question. 
Ron Mark 
: What sort of home detention is the Minister running that allows a man to be placed on home detention with a female he met in a mental institution and after beating her running up massive debts in her name and threatening her family with violence then allows him to abandon that woman to her debts and move on to another house to continue his home detention with another woman? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I cannot verify the accuracy of what the member has said. He might like to give that case to me and I can check it out. I can tell the member that before an individual can be considered for front-end home detention that individual firstly has to be given leave by the judge hearing the case who applies statutory criteria to determine his or her suitability for home detention. Secondly the person is then referred to the Parole Board which also has statutory criteria including undue risk to the community or any single person. Two major safeguards are set out under law to prevent misuse of home detention. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How successful is the “Goff sentencing law” where a burglar with a history of aggravated robbery can be sentenced to jail for 9 months one minute but is allowed to walk free straight out of the courthouse the next minute—because of an amendment that Mr Goff pushed through the House—and allowed to disappear into the streets and have the police of south Auckland scouring that city for 3 weeks trying to find the man whom the Minister’s system has given a 2-month pass free from prison? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: During the entire period that that member was Minister of Justice— 
Opposition Members 
: Answer the question! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am doing exactly that. During the entire period that that member was Minister of Justice—and indeed the entire period of the previous legislation—people were able to have their sentences deferred pending a decision by the Parole Board or some other agency. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First of all the Minister was asked how the Goff system operated; he has no responsibility for the previous administration. He has made no attempt whatsoever to address the question asked and he should be asked either to answer it or apologise. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that the member who asked the question specifically said that this was a new system that I was directly responsible for. I pointed out correctly that the court has always been able to defer and release a person into the community before a sentence of imprisonment is imposed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Would offenders sentenced to home detention otherwise be serving prison sentences? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Some of those sentenced to home detention would have been serving short periods of imprisonment for less serious offences. Equally the statistics I have show that a number of people previously sentenced to suspended sentences—that is people commit the crime are put out in the community with the sentence suspended and there is no degree of control over them—are now under the much more severe control of home detention. That is why we abolished suspended sentences—against the opposition of the ACT party. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why did the Minister and his officials oppose the amendment that ACT put forward that would have enabled judges to impose conditions so that that situation would not have arisen—in other words judges could have set conditions that did not mean people being released scot-free while waiting for home detention? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member needs to recall that the judge does not have to release somebody into the community at all pending a decision on home detention. The norm as set out in the law is that unless there are special conditions—members should read section 100—the person will be in prison while that decision is made. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That’s not happening. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes the member is quite right. Judges are interpreting that provision in a more liberal way than I think Parliament intended and I am looking at it for partly that reason. 
Marc Alexander 
: In the light of the fact that one of the key perceived benefits of home detention is the saving in cost to the taxpayer does the Minister agree that the establishment of more private prisons which are demonstrably more cost-effective than State-run institutions would provide a better solution for the sentencing of recidivist offenders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The short answer to the second part of the question is no. The comment I need to make on the first part of the question is that cost saving is not the predominant reason for home detention but I think every member of this House would applaud the fact that people who are judged not to constitute a risk to the community will keep working paying their taxes and supporting their families rather than their families—and them in prison—being a burden on the long-suffering taxpayer. 
Ron Mark 
: What representations has the Hon Margaret Wilson made to him in response to the letter she received from the parents of the woman involved and what has he done to tidy up a nonsense whereby a man can name a woman as his guardian and her residence as the place where he will be held on home detention and then go about beating and abusing her and apparently—by the statistics the Minister has just quoted—it is not even recorded as an offence? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am not familiar with the letter the member has in his hand. He might like to give me a copy of it at the end of question time. But I want to tell him that before home detention is ordered by the Parole Board one of the factors that is taken into account is whether it is safe for people to have a detainee detained in the home environment. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister explain to the House how despite serious objections by her family that this person should not be placed in home detention with their daughter and the obvious concerns expressed to the family by the police—who shared the same concerns—as to the true nature of this man he ended up on home detention with her and in one case went out and bought a $23000 four-wheel drive vehicle in her name— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question was far too long. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the facts are as the member describes them that would most clearly be in breach of section 35 of the Parole Act which states that the Parole Board has to take into account under subsection (4)—which I will quote for the member—“the safety and welfare of the occupants of the residence where the offender is to be detained.” The member appears to have taken that issue up with the Acting Minister of Corrections but has not told me about it. I presume the Acting Minister of Corrections will be following it up with her department.