Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4132] 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: In light of his comments in 1995 that “Those Ministers through their failure to act when warned about Mr Ryder ... must bear responsibility for the appalling sequence of events that led to Mr Barry Ryder’s conviction ...”; what action if any did he take to ensure the public’s protection when he became aware that Mr Ryder was soon to be paroled? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Barry Ryder was released in the early 1990s as a direct result of a political decision—the passing of the Mental Health Act—without transitional provisions for dangerous offenders let out by the changes. Two National Ministers were directly warned of the consequences of this by Neil Pugmire and did nothing. In 2002 Ryder was released because he had a finite sentence and the Parole Board decided that a period of controlled supervision in the community was needed. That was not a political decision. Indeed as a former Minister of Justice the member knows better than most that he was and now I am prohibited from interfering in any way with the Parole Board decision. Indeed I was not even notified of the decision. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: In the light of the fact that in August 2000 the Minister knew that Barry Allan Ryder was up for parole and would be shortly released why did he despite all the years of hand-wringing and vein-popping speeches take no action whatsoever to satisfy himself that appropriate supervision arrangements were being put in place for Barry Allan Ryder—there was not one action? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member apparently did not listen to my initial answer. In the 1990s Barry Ryder was released directly as the result of a political decision. In 2002 the nature of his release by the Parole Board was such that I was statutorily prevented from intervening. Indeed I was not even told about it. If the member wants an answer he should listen instead of talking all the way through the answer. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What changes have been made to legislation that would have made a difference had those changes been in place when Ryder was sentenced in 1995? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The key change is in relation to preventive detention. In 1995 the judge said that Ryder should have got preventive detention under the then existing law which Tony Ryall did nothing about. He was not able to do so. The law has now been changed so that if the same circumstance arose again Mr Ryder would find himself indefinitely imprisoned and under the Parole Act would never be released because of the risk he constitutes to the wider public. National failed to do that for 9 years; I have done it. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that in similar cases such as Lloyd McIntosh who never stood trial after raping his 6-year-old sister he ought never to have been released after mysteriously regaining his mental capacity without going to court so that he could not go on to rape a 23-month-old girl 3 months after his release? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes there are unfortunately parallels between Lloyd McIntosh and Barry Ryder. The difficulty we confront is that both—after having been released by the National Government because it changed the Mental Health Act—subsequently reoffended and were then given finite sentences. There is no way that I as Minister or this House can extend a finite sentence. I should mention that under the new Sentencing Act offenders would on a finite sentence of course serve up to the very last day of their sentence and then be given 6 months’ parole beyond that date. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: In the light of all the Minister’s warnings to the Parliament and the people of New Zealand in 1994 and his comment that because Ministers knew of Ryder’s release and took no action they are responsible for the consequences why knowing of his public statements did he take not one action to satisfy himself that the Department of Corrections was acting to protect Ryder and the New Zealand public and why did he not even pick up the phone and call an official into his office when he knew that his parole was only months away? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The reason those Ministers and indeed that member and the whole of the discredited ex - National Government are responsible was that those members— 
Hon Bill English 
: Answer the question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am answering the question and as a former Minister of Health Mr English is responsible. Those members did not ensure that there were transitional provisions available so that dangerous people were not released into the community because of a change in the Mental Health Act. Those guilty people are still sitting on those benches but now in Opposition and safe in that capacity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is a point of order and there will not be a sound. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek the leave of the House to table documentary evidence that proves the Minister Mr Goff was advised in August 2000 that Barry Allan Ryder was up for parole. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to shock Mr Mark Peck but you asked for order and there was not to be a noise made during the point or order. Mr Mark Peck called out very loudly and very forcefully—I am sure you would have heard it—that what Mr Ryall was saying was not actually true. That cannot be allowed to go unchecked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear those exact words at all. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table two documents: one is the warning to Mr Bill Birch the Minister of Health by Mr Pugmire in the first instance and the other is to Mr Goff in the second instance. They are both guilty.