Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6471] 
5.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he accept that the release of Michael John Carroll a five-time rapist of whom a judge said there was no alternative to preventive detention because he could not avoid the conclusion that Carroll was likely to offend again is evidence that the Parole Act 2002 is releasing violent predators back into the community; if not what evidence does this Government need? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Offenders who have served the minimum period of time required under law may be considered for parole under the Parole Act as was the case under the previous law. Decisions as to whether to release an offender are made by a properly constituted independent Parole Board which has been given by this House the safety of the community as its paramount consideration. In this case the judge who originally sentenced the offender to preventive detention the judge the member quoted in his question also happens to be the chair of the Parole Board that decided the offender was safe to release. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Can the House take it that the Minister is saying that Michael John Carroll a five-time rapist is now free solely because of section 7 of the Minister’s Parole Act which states that offenders must not be detained any longer than is consistent with the safety of the community; if that is so and if Mr Carroll reoffends will the Minister take responsibility and resign; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No. The member did not quote the key provision of section 7 which I will quote in case the member has not read it: “… the paramount consideration for the Board in every case is the safety of the community.” That is the guiding principle under which the Parole Board operates. It declined on five occasions to release the offender on parole; it decided on the sixth having regard to the evidence put in front of it that it was safe to release the offender. That is the board’s decision and I have no ability under the law passed by this House to influence in any way that decision. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Can an offender sentenced to preventive detention who is subsequently released be recalled to prison; if so on what grounds? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answer to that is yes. Any offender sentenced to preventive detention if released is subject to conditions for the rest of his life and can be recalled to prison at any point not simply for reoffending or for breach of parole but even on the grounds that the Parole Board on advice believes that that offender constitutes an undue risk. 
Richard Worth 
: Does the Minister regard it as a satisfactory outcome under his much-vaunted Parole Act that this five-time rapist Carroll has been freed when even his lawyer describes him as “perhaps New Zealand’s most dangerous predator”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I repeat for the member that the decision to release was made by an independent and properly constituted Parole Board. It made that decision on the advice that was available to it. Interestingly the judge who sentenced this man to preventive detention is the same judge who chairs the Parole Board and he could be assumed to have a good understanding of this man’s character. 
Ron Mark 
: To whom does the Minister believe the greatest consideration should have been given when five-time rapist Michael Carroll’s suitability for release was assessed: the victims of Carroll’s previous rapes and their families; the families in the community into which he was to be secretly released; the Department of Corrections staff who said he was beyond redemption; or the Minister's politically correct Labour Party appointees and stooges on the Parole Board who like this Government appear hell-bent on social experimentation at everyone else’s expense? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member has just gratuitously insulted the Parole Board the membership of which I doubt he even knows. It is led by a former High Court judge— 
Hon Member 
: Who appointed him? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The National Party appointed him. The board comprised a District Court judge who had been on the bench since 1987; New Zealand’s foremost forensic psychologist; a former prison manager; and another person who is eminent in the public service. I do not accept his insult to the members of that board. However the answer to the first question is that the paramount consideration must be the safety of the public and the Parole Board made its decision with that principle in mind. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister consider that media exposure might undermine the evidently successful rehabilitation of Michael Carroll who after 20 years of imprisonment now lives a warped fantasy life masquerading as a soldier or sailor and spends inordinate time at local brothels; and would this not be a prudent time to remove the possibility of parole for serious violent and sexual offenders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Firstly the behaviour of the released offender is a factor that will be taken into account by the Parole Board if it sees fit to recall that individual on the evidence that it has. With regard to the effect of media exposure I quote the Parole Board chairman Justice Ellis’ comments on this. He said that media exposure “may well completely negate the considerable effort that the police the Department of Corrections and Mr Carroll himself had put into his rehabilitation” and that “that could never be in the public interest”. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister read the report on the front page of the  
Dominion Post 
 this morning that states that Michael Carroll has been frequenting massage parlours on a very regular basis that he has spent vast amounts of money at those parlours and that he is delusional and living in a fantasy world; if the Minister has read that report can he tell the House who will be held accountable if this man rapes again—will it be himself the Prime Minister or the Parole Board? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: To answer the first question yes I have read that article. If any of the information in that article is relevant to the Parole Board it will no doubt take it into account but as far as I am concerned wearing a military uniform for example is not an offence—as the member well knows—nor is being in a massage parlour though that matter is to be considered later. Who would be held responsible if this man offended again? First and foremost the individual himself would be but naturally there would be huge concern if he were to reoffend given a judgment by the Parole Board that he no longer presented any undue risk. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Can the Minister assure the House that his officials and Department of Corrections officials did not have anything to do with the finding of accommodation for this individual—accommodation that is surrounded by bush secluded and very close to a commuter railway station? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I can assure the member that the Ministry of Justice had nothing to do with that because it is not an operational department. Generally when a person is released from prison and in particular when a person is released on parole the Department of Corrections will take some responsibility working with other groups in the community to find both accommodation and necessary support mechanisms designed to minimise the chance of that person reoffending. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I invite the Minister to recheck his statement. My understanding of the law is that it is illegal to wear a military uniform and to impersonate a member of the armed forces. The Minister might well have inadvertently misled the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a debating point. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Minister confirm that Michael John Carroll is a five-time convicted rapist has fooled experts before is one of the recipients of the taxpayer Lake Alice Hospital payout and has been spending that money at a massage parlour—it is said that he spent a five-figure sum there—and will the Minister confirm that once this person has spent that money and is again penniless every woman is not safe; if that is the case why has the Minister not applied to the Parole Board for Michael John Carroll to be recalled? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In relation to the member’s first question all of that information is published on the front page of today’s paper so the member can take that as being the case—although that is not always so with the  
Dominion Post 
. In relation to the second question I do not have the role of—in fact I am statutorily forbidden from—interfering in the role of the Parole Board and that is properly so. 
Marc Alexander 
: Will the Minister assure us that the victims of Michael Carroll have been notified of his release; if not will the Minister be prepared to contact them to ask them whether they wish to be placed on the victim notification register despite this person's crimes pre-dating the register; if not why do the needs of innocent victims continue to take second place? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I can confirm that one of his victims was on the notification list and that victim was properly notified and invited to make a submission. If any victim in that position wishes to make a submission he or she has the automatic right to do so. Under the law victims’ submissions must be taken into account by the Parole Board.