Tanczos Nandor: Urgent Debates — Corrections Department—Reports on Graeme Burton 
Tanczos Nandor: Urgent Debates — Corrections Department—Reports on Graeme Burton 
[Volume:637;Page:7894] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I think this House really has to look at two different but related issues in this case. The first relates to what accountability Government departments have when events like this happen and the second to how we can ensure they do not happen again. When it comes to accountability I have to agree with Dr Cullen that the primary responsibility in this case does lie with Burton. He is the man who did the killing. Nevertheless that does not absolve Government departments from their share of the responsibility in contributing to the circumstances. 
That is one of the reasons the Green Party has long advocated for a rigorous and reliable independent complaints and investigations system when it comes to the Department of Corrections. It seems to me that when we have these kinds of cases—and we have seen a number of cases within the Department of Corrections—we cannot rely on internal investigations to get to the bottom of them and to hold people accountable. We cannot rely on the Department of Corrections to investigate itself then advocate who is to be held accountable or what the solutions should be. We need an independent prison inspectorate system in this country that has the ability to independently investigate problems complaints or incidents. It also needs to have the ability to proactively fulfil an inspectorate function which would investigate both in prisons and in the parole system look at what systems are in place and at how they might fall down and identify pre-emptively where the problems are so that we can avoid these kinds of tragedies from happening in the first place. 
I hope very much that the National Party will support the position of the Green Party on that. We are having discussions with the Government working through as per an agreement we have with it for an independent prison inspectorate. I think that is something there is broad agreement on—around the country as well as in the House. 
The other issue I would like to come to is what we do about the matter in the future. I think the greatest tragedy when it comes to criminal justice policy is the politics around it that we often play in this House. I do not believe that anyone in the Government in the parole system or in the Department of Corrections does not care that someone has died. I do not believe there is anyone who does not care and I think it is unhelpful to hear those allegations being made. We need to ask how we can solve these problems. If we follow the Finnish example and start working together on evidence-based policy rather than having reactive knee-jerk responses then we might actually get somewhere in reducing or even preventing some of these kinds of tragedies. Unfortunately emotions become an easy button to push when it comes to tragedies of this kind and I think we have to restrain ourselves in order to get to the right outcomes because it is really about how to reduce or prevent offending and reoffending. 
Parole in particular is one of these areas. I think we all understand the hurt of victims and their families but we as legislators must focus on how to reduce these incidents. I think that the attacks on the parole system as a whole are misconceived—for example the idea that life means life. I am pleased to see that the National Party has backed away from that position. There are very real problems in the parole system in the way it is administered but we also know there is very good evidence that parole does reduce reoffending. The Department of Corrections’ Recidivism Index demonstrates that clearly as does international evidence. There are huge benefits in having proper reintegrative programmes for people coming out of prison. Parole has to be a part of that reintegrative measure but it has to be properly administered and all of that simply highlights the incredible failings in this particular case. 
I am dubious about the Government’s announcement of policy changes to make sure that the law allows the Parole Board the ability to hear unsworn evidence and to call witnesses. As the Prime Minister confirmed today the Law Commission’s report clearly confirms that the Parole Board can already hear evidence whether it is sworn or unsworn. If we look at the Act itself we see it is clear that decisions must be made on the basis of all the relevant information that is available to the board at the time and there was evidence presented about unproven allegations in Burton’s case. The board has the ability to determine for itself who it will hear and under what circumstances. And again it has been confirmed that the Parole Board has very broad powers to hear the evidence it needs to hear. There are difficulties in making decisions on unproven allegations but the board has the discretionary power to determine what it will or will not take account of. 
The Government also says it will give the Parole Board the power to call witnesses. Well on reading the Parole Act I think that that power already exists as well. The problem I think is not the legislation; it is the legalistic and timid approach that the Parole Board has taken to its job and that is actually where we need to start to focus if we are to do something about it. One thing is very clear: in these kinds of things we cannot rely on a legalistic and bureaucratic approach. It is not going to cut it. We have to get back to the principal thing which when it comes to the Parole Board is that the board’s primary issue has to be the safety of the community. That is supposed to be the paramount consideration for the board. 
Even more important than the issues around release on parole I think though are the issues around monitoring and enforcement. Graeme Burton himself—and I realise he is not a disinterested party—said: “It is not my initial release that the community should be worried about but the lack of support and monitoring once I was out that led to such a tragedy.” As I say he is not disinterested but we would be stupid to ignore his comments—we would be stupid to take no account of the comments of the man at the centre of this. It is very clear that monitoring enforcement and support are sadly lacking. That is something I have been saying since 2004 and we are still not seeing the matter sorted out. 
The issues are the same across a whole bunch of areas of the criminal justice system. In family group conferencing—which comes under some criticism—the issues are the same. In restorative justice the issues are the same—the lack of monitoring and the lack of enforcement of the conditions and agreed outcomes of those processes. We are seeing—and this particular case highlights it—that breaches of those conditions were not being picked up. No action was taken when they were picked up for far too long and there was a lack of continuity in the monitoring—and that I think is at the heart of the tragedy. We know that if people on parole can breach their conditions with impunity why would they not do so? 
It is absolutely critical that we get this right. It is the same when it comes to crime. What affects people’s decision making when it comes to offending and crime—and there is very good evidence to support this—is not so much the length of sentence when they get caught but the likelihood of being caught. This is the same thing. We have to make sure that when people breach their parole conditions they will be caught and action will be taken. If we do not get that right the fine words we say in this House will not matter; we will not get to the heart of the problem.