Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19314] 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What did his department mean when it wrote to the people supervising Lloyd Alexander McIntosh on 10 December 2004 that: “It is essential we manage the costs of this contract within the expectations agreed by both parties.” and on 23 December 2004 that: “there is a need to manage this contract within financial expectations.”? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 What the department meant was that it has a responsibility to manage taxpayers’ funds prudently while not compromising public safety. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When the Hon Phil Goff was looking after that portfolio as acting Minister earlier this year did the department advise Mr Goff that the people who know McIntosh best said that any cut in his supervision would be unsafe and unwise and that staff had grave misgivings; and did the acting Minister seek to discuss this directly with those people? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I understand that there were discussions. As I understand it an agreement was reached before Christmas. Then after further discussions with the provider in January it was agreed that the appropriate level of supervision while Mr McIntosh was outside would be two people. That is highly appropriate. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What reports has the Minister seen on sentencing options for serious child sex offenders? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have seen a report that changes by the previous National Government in 1993 allowed sex offenders like Mr McIntosh out into the community despite the warnings from health professionals about the consequences of doing so. I have seen another report from the Minister of Justice that serious child sex offenders can now under the Sentencing Act of 2002 receive preventive detention which means that they can be kept locked up for life. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How does the Minister explain the department’s view issued by his colleague the then acting Minister Mr Goff that halving McIntosh’s supervision was appropriate to prevent him reoffending when McIntosh himself warned that unless he had two supervisors he would be a risk to the community? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Firstly it was because the department had further discussions with the provider—as was the right thing to do. Secondly the comments made by Mr McIntosh had nothing to do with the increase in supervision. Mr McIntosh has been making those comments for many many months and years. 
Ron Mark 
: How much will this high-risk paedophile cost the taxpayer over the next 10 years given that the cost of his extended supervision has already skyrocketed to $350 000—a figure that is four times what the taxpayer would pay to have him locked up in maximum security? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It is hard to know what might happen in the future but the member is right it is a considerable cost. The member’s figure of around $350000 is pretty accurate but this is the cost of keeping someone like Mr McIntosh well supervised. If we compare this with what the previous National Government did it let people like him out into the community under changes to the 1993 Act without taking into account all the things that people were saying which were that it was the wrong thing to do. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it true that the first warning about the recidivist behaviour of Lloyd Alexander McIntosh was given in 1993 by a health professional who worked with him that National Ministers ignored that advice but sacked the health professional who gave the warning and that the result of releasing this man in 1993 without controlling supervision was that he immediately sexually violated a 2-year-old child and can the Minister contrast that lack of control and supervision with what the Government is spending now to make sure Mr McIntosh does not do it again? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I can confirm the facts. The reality is that the previous National Government let this man out against the advice of health professionals. The National Government sacked the person who gave it that advice. As a result Mr McIntosh went on to reoffend. Now we are in a position where to try to keep the community safe we are spending an enormous amount of money using the supervision type of regime. Many of these things would not have had to come before Parliament had the previous National Government listened to the advice that it was given by health professionals. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister advise the House what the agreement was that was reached before Christmas whether Mr Goff who was at the time acting Minister in his stead was advised by the department that the people who knew Lloyd Alexander McIntosh best said that cutting his supervision in half would be unsafe and unwise that staff had grave misgivings about it and that the Minister did not even attempt to telephone those people about those concerns? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As I understand it an agreement was reached before Christmas. There were further discussions right through January until the end of January when there were further discussions with the provider and there was an agreement. I cannot understand what that member is now on about. What has happened is that this offender is now under the supervision of two people when he is out in public places. I thought that was what the member wanted. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The first part of my question asked the Minister to advise what the agreement before Christmas was. I was quite specific in asking that because having got all the official papers I cannot locate any suggestion that there ever was an agreement before Christmas. I am looking for the Minister’s explanation of that because I think it is a matter I might have to pursue further if there was such an agreement. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I advise the member that I have been advised that there was an agreement before Christmas. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: To do what? That’s what I asked. What was the agreement? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Shall we have a little tango across the House shall we? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please continue with his answer. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: My understanding is that there was an arrangement that there would be supervision outside the facility with one person. Further discussions took place with the provider towards the end of January because of the intervening Christmas holidays and there was then a decision made and an agreement reached that there would be two people supervising Mr McIntosh. That is appropriate and I thought it was what the member was after. 
Ron Mark 
: What is this Government doing to ensure that the provider whom I have not named yet in the House is not extorting more money out of the taxpayer by lobbying MPs feeding the media and colluding with McIntosh who has already been reported in the newspaper as having written to the department saying that he wanted to be supervised by two people at all times or that he would go to the media if he did not get his way—because many of us assume Mr McIntosh likes having a butler a footman and a doorman to take him around town and look after his every need? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I would find it extraordinary if members of Parliament colluded with the media to try to put pressure on the Government using public fear. I would find that a strange thing and I cannot imagine that ever happening before. What I can say is that this supervision regime is costly and it is because it is important to ensure public safety as far as this person is concerned.