Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13841] 
1. STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: When he promoted the Parole Act 2002 what level of risk to their safety did he think the community should be obliged to accept before the Parole Board could decline parole under section 7 of that Act and what does he believe is a level of risk that is “undue”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 By making safety of the community the paramount consideration in any Parole Board decision the legislation clearly directs the board to ensure that any decision to release a person should be a low-risk decision. Assessing the level of risk of course cannot be done through legislation. It must be a matter of judgment by the Parole Board in looking at the individual case considering all the evidence before it as to whether reoffending is likely and the possible nature and seriousness of such reoffending. 
Stephen Franks 
: When the likelihood of reoffending within 2 years by a medium-risk prisoner is at 70 percent does the Minister think the level of risk of harm to the community is undue when a medium-risk prisoner is released? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Parole Act sets out clearly that in making the decision the Parole Board needs to look at the likelihood of reoffending and it has particular assessments such as the Static-99 that it works to on that basis. It must look at the nature and seriousness of any likely reoffending. It makes that decision on that basis. If there was a high risk of reoffending or even a low risk of serious reoffending I would expect a conservative approach to be taken by the Parole Board. 
Tim Barnett 
: How does the level of guidance on the safety of the community contained in the Parole Act compare with the level of guidance in the legislation it replaced—namely the Criminal Justice Act? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Parole Act is far more explicit in terms of the guidance it gives the Parole Board particularly in relation to the safety of the community and the question of undue risk. The safety of particular individuals in particular should not be compromised and the board is required to assess the likelihood of reoffending and the nature and seriousness of it. In contrast section 97 of the old Criminal Justice Act simply states that if “the Parole Board is of the opinion that the offender should be released on parole it may direct that the offender be released on parole accordingly”. There is absolutely no question about which law better protects the community. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER: 
 The member had not started asking his question. I am very grateful for the sake of another member that that is the case. That is the one warning. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister explain how parole prevents reoffending considering the Law and Order Committee heard this morning that for most people on parole it amounts to monthly contact with their parole officer? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Parole can set out special conditions as to where people live who they associate with where they work and particular requirements as to contact with the Community Probation Service. Very shortly of course there will be the ability over a longer term to subject a person to electronic monitoring. None of those things absolutely prevents reoffending but obviously they create the circumstances in which reoffending is less likely. 
Dail Jones 
: What responsibility does this labour Minister intend to take for an Act passed by the Labour Government that has obviously got it wrong again and again as in say the Isherwood and the Bell cases and what new legislation will he introduce to try to prevent these continuing Labour Party mistakes from taking place? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I draw to the member’s attention that in the many years that he was a member of the National Party and now a member of the New Zealand First Party the law under the Government of which he was a member was of course much less adequate than it is now. The law as it stands is much tougher. As the Justice and Electoral Committee heard this morning more people are going to jail and more people are going for longer. In the Bell case mentioned by the member that man has 30 years before parole can be considered—30 years in which he will never reoffend. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: With regard to parole does the Minister agree that keeping people in prison until the end of their sentence as advocated by the original questioner would reduce opportunities for managed reintegration into the community and therefore increase the likelihood of reoffending and does he have any estimate of how many prisons we would have to build in order to do that? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes I do have an estimate of what the policy promoted by the ACT party and perhaps the New Zealand First Party—and one never knows with the National Party—would cost. It would mean a trebling of the number of inmates we have in prison and a trebling of the cost. We would be talking over 10 years about a cost of up to $7 billion in extra costs in imprisonment. The ACT party is promising to do that on a low tax rate which would mean having to slash health and education to pay for more prisons which in itself would be counterproductive. 
Dail Jones 
: Has the Minister ever heard of the expression: “If you are going to do the crime you had better be ready to do the time.”; and is he saying the Labour Party does not support that type of principle? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member needs to understand that this country already has the second highest per capita rate of imprisonment in the Western World—the highest being the United States. This Government has not hesitated to be tougher when people needed to be kept in until the very end of their sentence. The “do nothing” National Party had 9 years to get it right but it did absolutely nothing. This Government has acted. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not mind the odd interjection but I have heard five in the second person from one member. That is a reference to me. The member had better get it correct next time. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why will the Minister not indicate what level of risk he considers “undue” when it is that level that determines how many more people will be beaten burgled robbed or raped and does he not realise that he has just told us that it could be a 10 20 or even 70 percent level of risk because he would rather spend money on yacht races than on prisons? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That last comment is obviously impossible to sustain. This latest Budget puts $1 billion into justice over the next 4 years. Nobody in this House wants anybody to be robbed beaten burgled or any of those other things. That is why I am proud to be part of a Government that has seen the crime rate come down by 13.8 percent since 1997 predominantly under this Government.