Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19236] 
11.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What evidence did his department have for its assessment as stated by the Hon Phil Goff on 12 January 2005 that halving the supervision of paedophile Lloyd Alexander McIntosh is “appropriate to prevent risk of reoffending at this point”? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Currently this offender has two supervisors with him at all times during the day. However initial advice from the department at the time of the statement was that moving to one supervisor during the day was appropriate. Following further discussions with the provider it has been agreed that it is appropriate to have two supervisors present whenever the offender is in public. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why when in January Mr Goff was insisting that community safety would not be jeopardised by cutting McIntosh’s guards from two to one has the Government quietly shelved the plan Mr Goff so endorsed? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The advice at the time was that that level of coverage was appropriate. However the department went back and had good lengthy discussions with the provider—and I commend it for doing that. On the basis of those discussions it was decided to maintain the current level of supervision. I suggest that the member congratulate the department on that rather than trying to attack it. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What has the Government done to protect the public from high-risk child sex offenders? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Firstly this Government passed the Sentencing Act 2002 which states that a recidivist child sex offender can receive preventive detention and be locked up if necessary for life. Secondly legislation was passed last year that allowed for an extended supervision period of up to 10 years for serious recidivist sex offenders after the completion of their sentences. This Government under the leadership of Phil Goff has done a lot to try to make sure the community is safer. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When Mr Goff endorsed halving Lloyd Alexander McIntosh’s supervision and said that there would be no increased risk to the public was he briefed by his department that the people who knew McIntosh best had warned that those cuts were unsafe and unwise and that staff had grave misgivings about them? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table my statement which is quite different from the misrepresentation that Mr Ryall has made. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. The document will not be tabled. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It has long been a convention of this House—certainly in my short time here—that if a member wishes to table a document in relation to a question it is done at the conclusion of that question not after a supplementary question has been asked by the Opposition and before the Minister has answered it. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I believe that it is very important when a misrepresentation is made by a member that it is corrected immediately. That is why I sought leave at that point. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That may not be the normal process but it has happened in the past. We will now move on to the question. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When Mr Goff in his press release of 12 January that defended the Department of Corrections raised no questions whatsoever in parroting his officials’ advice and telling the public there would be no increased risk to its community safety had the department advised the Minister that it had received advice from the people who supervise Lloyd McIntosh that such cuts were unsafe and unwise and that the staff had grave misgivings about that? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am advised that there was a briefing with the department. There was a lot of discussion about the appropriate level of supervision and as I have said before after further lengthy discussions with the provider towards the end of January—as I understand it—the level of supervision was maintained at two persons. I think that the member should applaud that because the department has been responsive to concerns by listening to relevant information from the provider. 
Ron Mark 
: Is it not a fact that this Government’s ridiculous extended supervision scheme has now created a bizarre situation whereby providers such as the one that has the contract to accommodate and supervise high-risk sex offenders like Lloyd Alexander McIntosh are now able to collude with the paedophiles they have in their charge in order to ratchet up and extort more money out of the Government and out of the Department of Corrections by negotiating and levering them through publicity and through playing on the fears of the public—something that this Government cannot handle—and is this not an example of a new burgeoning industry we will see where we will end up paying people hundreds of millions of dollars to run a scheme that could quite easily be catered for by putting those people in preventive detention immediately? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister confirm that this is the same Lloyd McIntosh who along with Barry Ryder and many others was released in 1993 by the previous National Government of which Tony Ryall was a part with absolutely no control no supervision and no attempt to put legislation in place to provide it? 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How can it be that that Minister has any responsibility for any action alleged or otherwise that occurred under a previous National Government? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We are talking about someone who is the current Minister’s responsibility. All the questioner was trying to do was to establish that it is the same man that Tony Ryall was happy to see go free and attack little boys in the 1990s. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker I ask whether you heard the comments made to the House by Mr Mallard. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I did not. There was too much noise as you may have heard. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well then I think it would be unfair to require you to take action immediately. We asked you last week and the week before to consider a number of things and come back to the House but you obviously have not had time yet to do that. This matter is very serious. I ask you to consider Mr Mallard’s comments which will be in the  
Hansard 
 available after question time and then to decide what action should be taken. There have never been statements made—in my short experience in this House—that are likely to lead to so much future disorder as those just made by Mr Mallard. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am very happy to do that Mr Brownlee. I will also be considering however as I said that I have allowed a fairly free rein of interjections and caterwauling across the House from all sides. The question will be whether that also can continue in the future. When one simply cannot hear the statements that are made there is no opportunity to intervene immediately. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I just make the point that Mr Mallard’s comments were made during a point of order. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a new point of order? 
Hon Annette King 
: It relates to this: today you have ruled that on several occasions I interjected during a point of order. I just want to say that that has to apply also to those who make the complaints and that the chief Opposition whip interjected during a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I note that point. It has gone on on both sides of the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think you may have unwittingly been put in some difficulty by Mr Brownlee in that I think you responded to his question in relation to something other than what you thought he was referring to. Apparently in his point of order he was referring to the statement made by Mr Mallard in speaking to the point of order which obviously you did hear since there was no large amount of noise in the House at that time. I think what Mr Brownlee was seeking from you was advice as to whether Mr Mallard’s comment in relation to Mr Ryall being happy to see somebody released into the community to attack little boys was out of order. I actually think Mr Mallard should withdraw that comment. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will ask the Minister to withdraw that comment. I did not actually hear it but I will ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. New Zealand First has noted that you have noted the behaviour of members on both sides of the House. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that my colleagues’ behaviour in New Zealand First— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Their behaviour is exemplary. I have noted that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You should point out to Mr Brown that it is inappropriate to talk about the absence of members from the House. We all noticed that Mr Peters was not here. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In response to Mr Goff’s question yes I can confirm that it is the same Lloyd McIntosh. That is why I think it is absolutely disgraceful that National wants to play politics on that issue when it let the sex offender out into the community in the first place. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wish to refer to two particular statements you made during this question time. A couple of times you referred to the fact that there have been general interjections almost as a way of justifying behaviour on the part of the Government which was clearly out of order. There is some behaviour in this Chamber that is in order and some such as interjecting during a point of order that is quite out of order. The Opposition is going to find it a bit difficult if you go down that path whereby actions that are clearly out of order are justified by you because Opposition members were making a noise during the answer to a question. We are moving to a new plane where answers are going to be treated much more broadly and certainly that will incite disorder. Personal abuse has always been here and you are permitting it so it will continue to incite disorder on a pretty regular basis. Our response to that should not be treated by you as a way of justifying a Minister’s interjecting on a point of order. All I am asking is that you treat issues that are out of order on their own merits. The fact that the House is noisy sometimes does not justify the Government being out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is talking to the same point of order which has been dealt with. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the member makes a very fair point. But what we have seen today also are a number of points of order that if I am to take them seriously from the members opposite and because of the noise from their own side they did not actually hear the answers being given or at least took exactly the wrong impression out of it. For example I cannot see how referring to Dr Hutchison as a gynaecologist is an abusive statement. It seems to be no more abusive than calling me a historian. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will certainly take on board all those points. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was trying to raise this a little earlier but we have obviously been preoccupied with other points of order. I am not sure about the answer the Minister gave to the House. He gave a very short answer to my question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Does the member wish to ask a supplementary question? 
Ron Mark 
: I am seeking clarification as to whether the Minister said that money is not being extorted from him by the people who are looking after Mr McIntosh or that he agrees the scheme does not work. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The problem there was that Mr Mark followed his usual custom of asking an extremely long question which had so many subparts within it that the Minister could have answered “No” to any particular part and the member is then in the difficulty of not knowing to which part the answer was given. The solution is to ask shorter and more precise questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have noted that the practice has developed of the questions being longer than most of the answers. Often there is more than one question involved within the supplementary question and we all know what the Standing Orders say about that. But we do in fact apply them reasonably liberally. So I ask members to just consider that issue when they are asking questions. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why did this Minister’s office deny receiving correspondence from McIntosh’s supervisors warning of an increased risk to community safety when an Official Information Act request shows that his office and his department did have this letter in their possession? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It was because it was copied to me as a member of Parliament in Upper Hutt not as the Minister of Corrections. As soon as I became aware of that I advised the media accordingly. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table papers that show that when the Labour Government cut the level of supervision of Barry Allan Ryder within days he had gone on to reoffend. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be objection. 
Marc Alexander 
: What gives the Minister confidence that any amount of supervision for Lloyd McIntosh will be effective given he has already sexually violated an intellectually disabled woman while being supervised and has admitted both an intention to manipulate his supervisors and to reoffend and would it not be more effective to put the $350000 tax bill for 1 year’s supervision towards securing him in a psychiatric facility for the obviously chronic nature of his medical condition or is this no longer possible since Labour has closed these options down? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: May I intervene at this point and note the point that was pointed out by the senior Opposition whip. If in fact members want to table documents that should be done at the end of the supplementary questions. I think this is a good example of that. Could the member please repeat the question to the Minister who obviously thought that it was over. 
Simon Power 
: We thought it was all over. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Exactly because of a departure from the normal practice. 
Marc Alexander 
: What gives the Minister confidence that any amount of supervision for Lloyd McIntosh will be effective given he has already sexually violated an intellectually disabled woman while being supervised has admitted an intention to manipulate his supervisors and to reoffend and would it not be more effective to put the $350000 tax bill for 1 year’s supervision towards securing him in a psychiatric facility for the obviously chronic nature of his mental condition or is this no longer possible since Labour has closed down these options? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I think the incident the member raises was the one in Palmerston North. I think the point about that was that primarily the supervision was not as adequate as it should have been. What we now know is that the provider who is providing the supervision now will be trained and skilled and the level of supervision now has been agreed between the provider and the department as being appropriate.