Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8183] 
1. MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied that the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Parole Act 2002 are working in the best interests of the victims of crime and the safety of the community as a whole? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am satisfied that the Sentencing Act the Parole Act and the Victims’ Rights Act together provide a regime that far better serves the interests of victims of crime and protects the safety of the community. Worst offenders now receive the maximum sentences and those have been up to 30 years before parole can even be considered. The Parole Board may not release offenders sentenced under new legislation where they constitute an undue risk and automatic release at two-thirds has been abolished. However amendments can and will be made to the law over time taking into account how the courts are applying it. 
Marc Alexander 
: How can the Minister be satisfied with the Government’s parole policy when after the families of the victims of a manslaughter and arson case were informed by the Department of Corrections about the impending release of one of the offenders Jeremy Tahi they were invited to a meeting with the Parole Board only to be told by the department before that meeting took place that Tahi would be released anyway? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am not aware of the particular case and probably could not comment on it if I were aware of it but I can assure the member that if any corrections official said there was going to be a decision one way or the other before the Parole Board had even heard the case they would be grossly out of order. I doubt that any corrections official would have said that. If he or she did they were very foolish. 
Richard Worth 
: In face of ongoing criticism about loopholes relating to home detention the changes that have been made to the Sentencing Act in respect of fines defaulters and non-payment of fines the criticism about mitigating factors in sentencing and ongoing criticism of the Parole Board does there not come a point where even a wise Minister would say that it is time to amend this stuff? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am aware that a whole range of people within the justice system—judges and lawyers—have praised the legislation. Let me quote one of the member’s former colleagues a High Court judge who said: “The Sentencing Act in most areas is a huge improvement on the mishmash of law that applied prior to 1 July on sentencing. It greatly assists the court.” That was said by one of the former high officials in the member’s party who is now a High Court judge. 
Tim Barnett 
: What major changes has this Government made to recognise the rights and interests of victims? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Victims’ Rights Act represents a quantum leap forward in the recognition of victims’ rights. It makes victims’ rights no longer simply vague principles but mandatory rights. Victims on the notification list can now attend parole hearings and make submissions. Victims can present their victim impact statements orally in court. These and other changes such as the placement of victims’ advisers in every court are major improvements to the way victims are being treated. 
Ron Mark 
: How appropriate and meaningful does he think his Victims’ Rights Act his Sentencing Act and his Parole Act are to the family of David McNee the murdered television interior designer given that the man charged with his murder Phillip Layton Edwards was released from prison having served only half of his sentence and was known to be a violent offender? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Edwards who is before the court—and I do not want to comment on his personal position—had been mainly convicted of minor offences. He was not regarded as a serious violent offender. That is the information I have received on that particular case. He was released not on parole but because of the length of his sentence after he had served half of that sentence. 
Marc Alexander 
: How can the Minister be satisfied with the operation of the Parole Act when in the case I outlined—that of Jeremy Tahi—it is utterly apparent that the lack of coordination between the Parole Board and the Department of Corrections means that victims are being denied effective involvement in parole decisions? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As the member knows under the Victims’ Rights Act victims have the statutory right to be involved in parole hearings if they are on the notification list. That was never the case under the National Government. Victims can attend and make oral submissions and any victim can make written submissions to the Parole Board. That is written into law. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister not understand that all over New Zealand ordinary people simply look at the case of for example Michael Carroll and the ridiculous decision made by the Parole Board in that case and the subsequent result where the man was lost in Christchurch City—at large for more than 24 hours—and consider that his attitude towards parole has been simply unworkable and not sensible? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As the member knows well the Minister of Justice cannot—and never has been able to—comment on individual decisions by the Parole Board. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why does the Parole Board place the likelihood of reoffending before the need for certainty on the part of the victim that the offender will be put away for a defined period or does that reflect an ethos that parole is more about finding reasons that someone should get out early rather than reasons for keeping him or her there? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Absolutely not. The new Parole Act makes it absolutely clear that the Parole Board must not release any offender who would constitute an undue risk to the safety of the community. What is more the member will be aware that the Parole Board can now defer parole hearings for up to 3 years and has done so in the case of Paul Bailey and Raymond Ratima. That never happened under that Government—it did not give a damn about victims’ rights. 
Ron Mark 
: Noting that answer then can the Minister tell the House what will he do to a Parole Board that makes a decision to release a person who subsequently proves to be a danger and a risk to the community by carrying out an act of violence? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Any Parole Board is made up of human beings and human beings from time to time make errors. If the member looks at the statistics he will note that what is remarkable about the Parole Board is that most of the time it does get it right.