Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:10022] 
8.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he have any concerns that sentencing of offenders is presently not meeting public expectations; if not why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The referendum in 1999 showed clearly that the New Zealand public at the time believed that the justice system was not meeting expectations. At that time 92 percent of New Zealanders voted no confidence in 9 years of neglect in terms of the sentencing laws by National Governments and the National – New Zealand First Government. Since then however there have been major changes in sentencing laws parole laws and victims’ rights laws. Recent changes for example have attracted support from even the most strident critics of the sentencing laws. 
Ron Mark 
: How would public expectations be affected when the system allows a person convicted of manslaughter and subsequently placed on home detention to be able to set up a P manufacturing operation use gang members to distribute the product intimidate his neighbours have unlimited visitations from gang and prison associates at all hours of the day and night start a relationship with a known female drug dealer and finally die of a drug overdose; is that the Minister’s idea of a home detention system and a justice system that the public can have faith and confidence in? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As the member knows I cannot comment on a specific judge’s ruling in a particular case. However I can tell that member that the penalty for pushing methamphetamine now that it is a class A drug has become a lifetime sentence. If the prosecution—usually the police—does not believe a sentence is long enough it can appeal the sentence. 
Mita Ririnui 
: What responses has the Minister received from sentencing lobby groups to the changes in the legislation introduced this week? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: A wide-ranging and positive response. For example I received an email from the Sensible Sentencing Trust warmly congratulating the Government on the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill. I also saw comments from the Safe Network which treats sexual offenders and it was also strongly supportive of the proposed new legislation. However I have to say that there has been the usual whingeing and whining from a few Opposition members. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Now that the Minister has heard yet another example of an offender on home detention being completely free to break the law what protection will be provided to New Zealand children by putting an electronic bracelet on a paedophile under his proposed law under the exact same circumstances that this offender has been? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: New technology means that— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Aw! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have not even started the answer and already that member is whingeing and whining. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has asked a question. He will listen to at least a couple of sentences before there is any comment. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Electronic monitoring means that a person can in the first 12 months of supervision be required to stay within his or her home and the authorities are immediately notified if the offender has left home. Additionally with global positioning satellites we will be able to track people wearing electronic bracelets and that will create the near-certainty of conviction for any offending that the offender may do in the future. 
Ron Mark 
: Bearing in mind that that person was on home detention and that it did not need global positioning satellites for people to know he was at home what is the point of having a system of home detention where there is obviously no supervision; and when will the Minister amend the law to ensure that neighbourhood consent is a prerequisite before a residence is approved for home detention purposes bearing in mind that the Minister may have many home detainees who are drug dealers murderers rapists and now paedophiles? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Of course under the law front-end home detention can be offered only to somebody sentenced to less than 2 years’ imprisonment. Under the law as well the judge must first decide that it is appropriate to grant it and further under the law the Parole Board must then agree to it. Under the legislation introduced this week the member will be aware that there is a further tightening of judges’ ability to refer cases for home detention to the Parole Board. Contrary to what the member says—and the member before him—electronic monitoring gives the authorities the absolute ability to know that those persons are within the confines of their homes where they are required to be. 
Stephen Franks 
: Should the public have expected that when the Minister pushed through the Sentencing Act as many as 26 so-called home detainees at a time could be floating around for up to 7 weeks at a time without electronic bracelets but with official approval; and what does he think of the justification offered by his colleague the Minister of Corrections for not warning the neighbours which was that: “The monitoring contractors are trained to monitor offenders and react to any instance of non-compliance. Members of the public are not.”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am not aware of the particular circumstance the member is talking about but if he is talking about a situation where a sentence has been deferred pending the application for home detention to be heard then the new legislation also requires that tight bail provisions be established for those cases. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Further to the Minister’s answers to supplementary questions how exactly will global positioning satellite - monitoring alert authorities that a paedophile is at home molesting a child as has just happened? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: A person who is at the serious end of offending and who under the previous inadequate laws was not given preventive detention can be required to have 24/7 supervision in which case an offender like McIntosh as soon as he picks up the telephone and tries to contact a child—which is contrary to the requirements of his supervision order—can be as he was detected. He was charged and convicted and awaits sentencing. That is how it works. It has been quite effective. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw it to your attention that my question was very specific. Based on the impression of an expert understanding of the global positioning satellite system that the Minister tried to portray earlier in this question I specifically asked him how exactly a global positioning satellite - monitoring system which indicates only where the person is—that is all it can do—will tell authorities when a paedophile is molesting a child at his or her home as has just happened. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ask the Minister to comment further. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What I thought the member would take from that answer is that the requirements relating to supervision under the legislation introduced are that it can be electronic monitoring or it can be 24-hour 7-day-a-week supervision by another individual in that household. The Parole Board will make a decision as to which is more appropriate. [ 
Interruption 
] That question is a bit rich coming from that member when there was no supervision at all after 9 years of a National Government that did absolutely nothing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was far too much interjection and there was far too much comment from the Minister. 
Hon Member 
: He was provoked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not care. The member will be provoked outside in a moment. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave of the House to table a letter received in my office outlining the circumstances described in my question of a person who died at home of a drug overdose whilst on home detention. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the letter. Is there any objection to that? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no objection. When the member said “No” I presume that he meant that there was no objection? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No there is no objection. I hope it is more accurate than the member’s last one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is trifling with me. I asked whether there was any objection. It requires only one person to say “Yes” not everybody to say “No”. There is no objection. The letter will be tabled. 
Document not tabled.