Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13758] 
2.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he think the victims’ rights referred to in the Parole Act 2002 should include a right to expect the Parole Board to ensure a sentence denounces deters and holds a prisoner accountable for his or her crime; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No. It is in law the role of the sentencing judge to take account of the need for denunciation deterrence and accountability when determining the length of the sentence and whether to impose a period above the statutory minimum before parole can be considered. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why does the Minister think it is acceptable for the Parole Board then to undo the work of the judge by letting a prisoner out at one-third of a sentence that was originally calculated to deter denounce and hold the person accountable? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: When a judge sentences an offender the judge has in his or her mind the minimum period of time the offender should spend in jail before parole can be considered. If the judge believes there is a strong need for deterrence denunciation and accountability then it is perfectly within the capability of the judge to ensure that the offender concerned serves at least two-thirds of his or her sentence before even being considered for parole. Then of course the Parole Board makes a decision as to whether there is any risk to the community and must not release if there is risk to the community. 
Moana Mackey 
: What evidence is there that changes made by the Sentencing Act to denounce and to deter people from serious offending have been reflected in sentencing? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is very clear evidence. The Sentencing Act now requires judges to impose the maximum sentence for the worst types of offending in any category and when there are aggravating factors in a murder to set a minimum sentence before parole can even be considered of 17 years. This has resulted for example in the courts requiring a person to spend at least 30 years in jail before parole can even be considered; that was the court’s decision in the William Bell case. It used to be the case that only 7 years was required to be spent in jail before a murderer could be released. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How can this Minister stand in the House and justify a system that means a rapist sentenced to 9 years in jail can be out on parole after only 3 years; and is this the reason why the word “punishment” never features in his legislation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That member as usual has got it quite wrong. What I noticed about the forecast of prison sentencing for example is that it showed that for the 7 years prior to my legislation there was no change in sentencing levels at all and that after the sentencing legislation there was an immediate increase in the length of time for which people were being sentenced for serious crimes and an increase in the percentage of the sentence that they actually served. Whereas that member did nothing this Government has acted. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are too many interjections. 
Dail Jones 
: What faith can the public have in the Parole Board and this minority Labour Government ensuring the legal implementation of the Parole Act and the completion of prison sentences when this minority Labour Government allows a non-member of the board—Dr David Chaplow—to influence the board in its decisions and to contravene all aspects of the Parole Act? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This Labour Government did not allow anything; operational matters are determined by the Parole Board itself and by statute passed in this House I am not allowed and neither is the Minister of Corrections allowed to interfere in that sort of decision making by the Parole Board. 
Stephen Franks 
: Would the Minister consider it inappropriate for the Parole Board to respond to the heartfelt pleas of a victim appearing before it to take account of deterrence denunciation and the need for accountability; or does the Minister think it is OK for the Parole Board to have to tell victims that it is ordered to let people out irrespective of those factors if they are no longer a risk to the safety of the community? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The guidance for the Parole Board is very clearly set out in section 7 of the Parole Act. It states that in every case the safety of the community must be the paramount consideration. I also draw the member’s attention to section 7(2)(d) which states that the Parole Board must take into account in making its decision the rights of victims being upheld. 
Ron Mark 
: What steps does he intend to take to review Parole Board decisions involving Dr David Chaplow as an adviser; if he does not intend to take any steps to review those decisions—bearing in mind that Dr Chaplow is not and was never appointed to the Parole Board by his Government—why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is wrong. In fact David Chaplow was appointed to the Parole Board at one point. However the fact is that he was an adviser to the Parole Board and not a member at the point decisions were being made. He should not have participated in that decision making and that matter is now being addressed before the courts and by the Parole Board. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does it concern the Minister at all that an offender who is due to be deported at the end of his sentence must be released at one-third of the sentence however heinous the crime because by definition the offender can no longer be a risk to the safety of the community on deportation and that accordingly the 20-year sentence recently put into law for trafficking in humans is an absolute nonsense as it means 7 years? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think that with regard to people who are liable to be deported at the end of their sentence most New Zealanders believe that they should serve what part of their sentence they are required to serve then should be kicked out forthwith. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why does punishment not feature in this Minister’s sentencing legislation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member again is quite wrong. In terms of the guidance given under the Sentencing Act it is about holding the offender accountable providing for the interests of the victim providing reparation denouncing the conduct deterring the offender and protecting the community—all of those things that the member would expect to be there. The prison sentence itself—30 years before parole—must be regarded as punishment. 
Dail Jones 
: Why is the Minister refusing to take some action against Dr David Chaplow for acting outside the scope of his powers; why is he refusing to take some action against the Parole Board for allowing Dr Chaplow to be there; and why is he not ensuring that the Parole Board review those 160 cases where people appear to have got off lightly because of his Government’s inaction and Dr Chaplow’s actions on the Parole Board? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is nothing I am aware of that suggests that people got off lightly as the member suggested. It may well have in fact been the opposite. With regard to how the Parole Board will have to deal with that problem the member should just be patient for a couple of days yet.